Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:41, 22 January 2005

Inspector General report

Logically, shouldn't the most recent material be at the end of the article? -khaosworks 03:24, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

don't know that it's a matter of logic. obviously, if a forward chronology is your desire, it should go last. to me, it seemed most useful to the reader to put the InspGen report up top. i mean, we go make them wade through a lengthy discussion of the intricacies of who said what. and then, at the end, we let them in on the secret that the InspGen has made a ruling on the matter. so to me, the question is what order of presentation is most helpful to the reader. i viewed the most recent information as being of very considerable relevance to a reader wanting a quick overview. i might note that the various allegations are not presented in a chronology, either.

i'm not digging in my heels here, though. why do you think the original order was better, if you do? Wolfman 04:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Few reasons, really. Not a huge thing, but...

1. Normally, when I scan an article or a book, I expect the end to hold the conclusion or the "state of the art". The body of the piece may jump all over the place chronologically, but the end should hold either the conclusion of the thesis or the most current status.
2. Structurally, the article starts by saying that Kerry's critics have made all these statements - the next thing I would expect is not the conclusion of an investigation but an elaboration of those critical statements followed by analysis of same. Then we hit a conclusion.
3. To see that InspGen paragraph up there before we understand what the allegations are exactly that need investigating is a little jarring. Imagine if someone had no prior knowledge of the controversy - the InspGen paragraph makes a lot more sense if you understand why the approval process needed to be looked into.

-khaosworks 09:42, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fair points all. I believe both our points could be accomodated by briefly mentioning the findings of the IG's report in the introductory paragraph, and then by moving the section to the end. Feel free to make that change, if you like. Wolfman 13:55, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed and done. -khaosworks 16:22, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't the appeal to the IG decision be the last thing mentioned? The result of the appeal will follow. -SEWilco 06:10, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Statements to the media

I'm not convinced these block quotations are appropriate, but if the statements are being quoted or even summarized, we should provide links to the sources if such are available. JamesMLane 05:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

SEWilco has links, I think. A summary of media statements here might be fine, with a link to wikiquote for full text. Wolfman 05:44, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are various copies around in various formats. SEWilco 07:02, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cavett: http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=KerryONeill

Washington Star: (page 79 of PDF) http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/fbifiles/100-HQ-448092/Sub%20A%20Section%2001/Sub%20A%20Section%2001.pdf

Meet the Press: http://hnn.us/articles/printfriendly/3552.html
Various quotes in text form: http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Quotes

I don't think relying on the freepers is a good idea unless there's no alternative. I've added the History News Network citation, and I'll try to find more reliable sources for the others (too tired to look right now). Other points on quotations: There's no reason to italicize an indented block quotation. I also replaced the vague reference to "controversial" with an attempt at a terse NPOV summary of each side.

Wolfman, your edit summary suggested that you had listened to an audio of the Meet the Press appearance. On that assumption, I left in the emphasis, without appending "(emphasis added)" as I normally would if adding such formatting to a text source. If I misunderstood you, then the passage should be changed. JamesMLane 08:46, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I listened to an audio link that SEWilco provided a while back. Kerry very intentionally and distinctly emphasized the words "in that", so I think some visual cue of his own emphasis is necessary to provide a fair sense of his statement. Wolfman 14:13, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The WinterSoldier.com text quotes are merely convenient to find. Google on fragments of the quotes for other sources. I haven't tried to get video copies with suitable permissions for Wikisource. SEWilco 18:11, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Missing Military Records

Does the fact need to be mentioned that the Kerry campaign refuses to sign the form to release all his military records which would clear up questions about the purple heart injuries?

Reporting by the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs points out that although the Kerry campaign insists that it has released Kerry's full military records, the Post was only able to get six pages of records under its Freedom of Information Act request out of the "at least a hundred pages" a Naval Personnel Office spokesman called the "full file."Plot thickens after checking records

well, it's covered in SBVT. this article got spawned out of that one last month, and the Form 180 business was in a different part of that article. personally, i think this article should be about what is known of his actions in Vietnam. whether he chooses to sign a form releasing private records may be criticized (and SBVT has done so), but it's not part of the controversy about his Vietnam service per se. Wolfman 04:24, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New Nightline Story

Fascinating. They interviewed Vietnamese witnesses to the Silver Star event; pretty well establishes there was an intense firefight. Wolfman 15:52, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It pretty well establishes that whomever the translator was, and whomever the people who were interviewed, in front of the representatives of the Vietnam government they said there was a lot of shooting. There is plenty of discussion elsewhere about discrepancies which ABC News chose to not mention. I'm glad that with all that warfare and chemical usage that the villagers still have memories of that skirmish; the human mind is a wonderful thing. -- SEWilco 06:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I forget, which witness to events disputes the Silver Star account? And if this person exists, why is his memory less impaired than everyone else's? Rood, Rood's crew, Kerry, Kerry's crew, and the VietCong. I imagine this "skirmish" loomed pretty large in the lives of all those involved, considering they were almost killed. Wolfman 06:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Navy investigation - October

What is the source for: "The Navy denied the appeal, citing the statutory authority of the Inspector General in this matter."? Is this a reference to England supporting the pre-appeal IG statement? Or is someone confused by page 3 in the October 5 FOIA reply, where the statutory authority is given in reply to the FOIA request about the basis of the original review? The first 5 pages of the FOIA document seem to only be replies to document inquiries, with no reference to the appeal. Is there a reply to the appeal? -- SEWilco 12:31, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1. August 18 and September 8, 2004: Judicial Watch files requests for review.
   1. September 17, reply from IG Route.
2. September 23, Judicial Watch appealed (with mention of an FOIA request)
   1. October 5, Secretary England deferred to the Inspector General's decision and did not initiate a separate review of the first IG reply.
   2. As of October 22, IG has not replied to the October 5 appeal.
3. Judicial Watch also filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents used in review.
   1. October 5, Navy Inspector General's office replied to September 23 FOIA with documents about the September review.

Revise Introduction?

I'm new to Wiki and would be interested in discussing a proposed change to the introduction which currently, IMHO, is decidedly POV. As there doesn't appear to be a means of editing the introduction, is there a procedure by which that might be effected? JakeInJoisey 21:41, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)