Talk:Fulbright Hearings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rex071404 (talk | contribs) at 06:41, 26 September 2004 (→Ambi revert). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Help please

Please help flesh out the article - see Google Search [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:06, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kerry quote

What happened to the Kerry quote and other content? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:44, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This text:

It was at this hearing, during his testimony that John Kerry asked his now famous rhetorical question "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

More recently, during the 2004 United States presidental campaign, certain critics of Senator Kerry have focused current media attention on this long past Senate hearing and have alleged that various comments by Kerry in his testimony were inaccurate and portrayed American war veterans of that era in an unduly harsh light.

appears to have been inadvertantly lost in the earliy edits. I have restored it as it is central to the historical significance of the article. Even so, I am very keen to hear from others, if they have concerns about this. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:51, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It now appears that while this article is being groomed by Neutrality, the above text is on the bench waiting to be re-inserted again in a few minutes. I hope this is the case and I will check back later on that. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:53, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a "rhetorical question". I think he would've been happy to get an answer. In any event, giving the text of the question is enough to let the reader decide whether it was rhetorical, or outright grandstanding, or a vivid and effective way to make his point. With that change, if there's to be an article on this event, I have no objection to the inclusion of the first paragraph. The second paragraph shouldn't be included unless we make clear the basis of Kerry's testimony, as we do in the John Kerry article ("Kerry summarized the statements of participants who said they had seen such acts, but he did not claim to have seen them himself"). My bigger question is whether a single hearing merits an article. It's of interest now only because Kerry is running for President. The information relevant to that aspect of it is given elsewhere. Having a separate article to impart such additional details as the starting time of the hearing seems very dubious to me. JamesMLane 06:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Most of this was written by Neutrality who jumped right in with both feet - he must have found the article himself right after i started it. Personally, I like this much earlier version better. I agree that the Kerry "disclaimer" you want is fair. My goal with this page is to have an available link to point to in case editors are still stuck on the 1971 date inclusion. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 08:02, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to restore the wiki links section which Neutrality deleted as redundant. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 21:23, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User Neutrality has again deleted the Wiki links for an edit summary stated reason of "redundant". I don't see that andd have commented twice now about these to him here [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:34, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

context

I think this hearing needs a little bit of context. Are hearings of a single witness common? Why did they hold this one? Kerry mentions that he didn't have much time to prepare. Was the question of whether or not to hear him a controversial one? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 21:41, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This question which Gamaliel asks is a very difficult one. Here is what I know: Senator Fulbright was a long time poltical patron of many up and coming Democrats from Arkansas. He was in fact, a major help to Bill Clinton several times many years ago. Senator Fulbright was also a long time poltical patron of many well connected Democrats and their supporters.

What I understand to be the case is that Senator Fulbright agreed to hold this hearing at the request of various VVAW supportive Democrats. Concurrent with this hearing, various VVAW leaders as well as their retinue of supporters, were in DC for the "medal-tossing" event and other prostests as John Kerry VVAW controversy makes clear.

As to why only Kerry was called? Most certainly it was because he was the most presentable and articulate of the VVAW leaders who was available for this session.

Suffice it to say, the hearing itself was pretty much a media circus (one of the 1st of that era) and more than likely was organized and held with the intent of impacting American public opinion against the war.

I speculate that this is precisly why the SBVT people such as O'Neil are so oppossed to Kerry. They blame him for the adverse rap vets got for Kerry's testimony. It seems that SBVT does not feel that Kerry's disclaimers of only "I would simply like to speak in very general terms. I apologize if my statement is general because I received notification yesterday you would hear me and I am afraid because of the injunction I was up most of the night and haven't had a great deal of chance to prepare" and "They told the stories at times they had personally" did not justify Kerry repeating allegations which in large measure SBVT claims were false.

Even so, for better or worse - that hearing was the event which launched Kerry's poltical career and national notice. What remains for us to make sure of is that we should have a fair, balanced and accurate presentation about it.

Personally, I do not think the article will benefit if we start digging into the background, etc., of Senator Fulbright - too much potential to open cans of worms:

"Former President Bill Clinton, throughout his eight years in office, repeatedly made reference to his mentor, personally and politically, and that's J. William Fulbright, a longtime senator from Arkansas who was, of course, a segregationist. Who signed the southern manifesto in 1956 attacking Brown versus Board of Education, the Supreme Court decision that allowed black children go to school with white children." [1]

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 22:32, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not interested in Fulbright's background, that's what the Fulbright article is for. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 22:35, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But when you ask why the hearing was held, since Fulbright was the chairman and he controlled whether or not there would be meetings, we have to look to him, yes? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 22:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course. But not back at what he did in 1956 or what his relationship with Clinton. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 22:57, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, but we are not mind-readers, unless there is a reliable record which indicates the rationale for the hearing, we have to presume it's because Fulbright's intentions was to work his role as committed Deomcrat aimed at advancing anti-war sentiment. Even so, none of this needs to go in the article. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 23:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"See alsos"

(moved here from Rex071404 talk page)

The wikilinks are already in the article, therefore they are redundant. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 05:38, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would rather the links be "redundantly" included at the bottom of the page, rather than having to introduce the topics of VVAW and "Medal Toss" in the body of the article. I am hoping, along the lines of what's on this page that you might agree to accomodate my viewpoint on this and drop you opposition to them being listed "redundantly" at the bottom. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, thise article is quite fair to JK - it makes no sense to force me to find "unique" web links over which we Wiki editors have no control, simply to achieve my aim of "salient point re-cap" links at the bottom. L & N, I urge you to both reconsider; the Wiki links I want are utlimately going to be much better from your perspective than forcing me to go to the web. I'd rather not go get SVBT page links or stolenhonor.com or any of that stuff. Please reconsider. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:03, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex. One, why are you making a THREAT? Just because we are editing trying to work on style does not mean we are editing for a pro-kerry bias, and I REALLY object to your constant use of "don't make me go and bring more links,etc" that you seem to fall back on. Secondly, the example you cite is different, in that both of the "see Alsos" are not linked to in the article. John Kerry, Winter War, and VVAW are already in the article, and already have wikilinks in the article. SVBT is not- I'm unsure of the logic of having a see also with SVBT there, but that I don't object to. The other three- there is NO reason to have them in a seperate section. Heck, it's just normal wikistyle not to wikilink to something twice in the same article normally. Creating an entire section for the purpose of double linking? Silly. Lyellin 06:05, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

L, you are way off there. Please check with N. Things are going smoothly here and there is no conflict. You are making presumptions based on previous bad interactions. Also, I'd prefer you not typify my interests as "silly". I feel that the three links I want in refer to three of the more salient points in the article. By assenting to my wish of including them you are collegially (jointly problem solving) so as to eliminate my need to see another route to my end. I feel, from an editorial standpoint, that those three links have the effect of pointing out again key points in the article without talking about them much - and that is what I am aiming at. The whole reason why I started this page and then willingly stood back while Neutrality built up a page framework that he's comfortable with, was to make sure there was a Wiki page that the JK/GWB sides could both live with and which could be linked to when referring to Kerry's 1971 testimony. This page is needed as a link-to solution to another editorial problem at SBVT. And since it's also a nice page in and of itself, the Wiki is that much the better. Don't you see what's up here? I am standing back and not fighting those such as N., who want much content control here. Beside a few sentences in the text, all I ask is that here is that the "salient point re-cap" be allowed so as to be more certain that someone who may follow a link to here might then be more likely to read through all the associated ones. If you are concerned about readers being led by the nose, let's duke it out at SBVT or elsewhere, not here. On this article we have a real chance to have a page we all can like. Won't you consider bending to my request here, even if it is "silly" to you? Please? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:24, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ps: the section heading of "see alsos" is Neutrality's wording, copied here from my talk page. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:28, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, you do always ask people to bend to your requests. But considering I did the same revert that Neutrality did that you objected to... why am I now the bad guy, and Neutrality is fine? I'm not arguing about the page, about the need for the page, about it's worth as a page oto prevent conflict, or anything else. I'm saying, just like Neutrality said in his two edits you objected to, that that section is redundant, against normal wiki style, and not needed. I don't see why you want to make EXTRA nonsense in an article (or if not nonsense, extra wording that is not needed), when you could be worrying about policing all of us to make sure everything else is peachy clean.Lyellin 06:30, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

L.; My request is based on the principles elucidated here "Consensus decision-making is a decision process that not only seeks the agreement of a majority of participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision". I am asking you to please reconsider this request of mine, which is: Please allow the inclusion of those three links. On this issue here, I feel that my concerns, even though I am in the minority, could be resolved if you would yield on this point. Please explain how the article and/or your editorial standards are would be irretrievably harmed, if you yielded. And please focus on this request itself, not things you think I "always" do. Thanks. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:03, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd ask you to do the same? what do you gain by adding the links in a second time? Concerns I have? 1- Unnessecary highlighting of something that is already linked. 2- Unnessecary double linking of something, in general does not promote proper wikistyle. I like to keep to style as much as I can. 3- It creates another section, further lenghtening the article when that does not need to be done. 4- It does not add anything to the article in terms of information, or any other item. So rex, why, in your consensus ways, do you want to add these, instead of working on the actual article content? There is of course an advantage to working to help the concerns of the minority- but not when it costs integrity of articles, standards of style, and reader time. Not that any or all of those apply, but that's my general belief. Lyellin 07:08, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Rex, why do you waste your time and everyone elses with tangental issues such as this one? You argue repeately for the inclusion of redundant links while everyone else has to spend time patiently explaining to you that it is simply not the way things work here. One look at your user page indicates that you simply do not understand the proper use of links on wikipedia. I suggest you read the relevant faq and help pages so you understand the technical and stylistic aspects of link usage. Some useful reading includes the following:

[[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 07:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please answer

Gamaliel, per your comments above, please answer yes or no, to this:

Do you accept this statement to be valid and an accurate description of how we should interact: "Consensus decision-making is a decision process that not only seeks the agreement of a majority of participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision" [2].

I await your reply. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 08:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you have a point to make, please let us dispense with the questioning and just go ahead and state it. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 08:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am not trying to make a point. Rather, I am attemtpting to gain understanding as to what you consider "consensus" in regards to editing. If I am able to determine that, I will have less misunderstandings in regards to my expectations in dealing with you. I would consider it the utmost courtesy if you would please answer that above question, as posed, yes or no. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 09:08, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes. That thought, does not mean that because something or someone is in the minority, we have to do something because they want to. Gamaliel and I have both explained why that extra section is not needed. Now, if we were debating something in the article, at least your quote would have a point. Randomly finding articles and then trying to use them to support your point, while at the same time threatening to hijack the article, does not work towards consensus on your part either. We are not the only people that must make this "consensu". I seek your argreement- I just hope it will come with proper wiki style, as opposed to a non-needed section. Lyellin 14:56, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
I must confess I've only skimmed the foregoing discussion about links. I was going to go hunt up the policy about not duplicating links, but I saw that Gamaliel had already found it, given the link, and quoted the relevant passage. That's that. Invocation of the ideal of "consensus" doesn't mean that everybody else has to spend time re-inventing the wheel. JamesMLane 15:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My dilemma is this: From an editorial standpoint, I am interested to be sure that a certain few particularly salient points are attenuated in such a way that the reader's attention is slightly more drawn to them than the remainder of the article. Certainly, if done discretely, as I hope to do it, this emphasis will not be overdone, yet will still be such that the likely hood that certain links are read, is increased. So then, since this is my objective and it is not, of itself, problematic, I seek the consensus interaction of the other editors to brain-storm up a solution which they too would be willing to accept. So far the count is:

  • Redundant links - majority = No!
  • More links from web - I'd rather not go that route.
  • How about this? Make the respectively correlating imbedded links (to my three deleted links) appear in boldface? Would that be acceptable? How wold it appear? Would it be sufficiently noticable?
  • Any other ideas?

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The purpose is not to increase the likelihood that the reader will read the links that you or any other editor particularly likes. The purpose is to make the information available in a clear and accessible manner. Someone seeing a link to Vietnam Veterans Against the War would naturally assume that it's an article about that organization and its activities. People who want such information will go there, and people who don't won't. Boldfacing it serves no NPOV purpose. JamesMLane 17:51, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, you're not just seeking changes in the content of one article, you are seeking changes in the way articles are presented. If you feel that wikistyle is inadequate in some way, then the way to change that is not to create changes in one or two articles which then differ from all other articles on wikipedia, but to seek changes in wikistyle. Perhaps a discussion on Village Pump or the mailing list would be a starting point, but this article is clearly not the place for innovations in or major deviations from wikistyle. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:10, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Apparently, the fact that I am sufficiently interested in a fair presentation of information to have initiated this article in the 1st place, is not perusasive to the other editors here. Suffice it to say, the Wiki style link which Gamaliel directed me to, does mention boldfacing links as an option. Frankly, I feel hemmed in here and I do not feel any supprot from the others here to jointly help me reach my aim of highlighting various salient points. I will wait a few more days while this group further considers my beesechment for "boldface" as an option. During that time, I will see if I can come up with any other ideas also. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 21:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are correct, it does mention boldface as an option, but I can't imagine that they were suggesting that we sprinkle an article with boldface links. How many wikipedia articles do that? I think a good example of proper boldface usage is the opening paragraph of John Kerry and I suppose we could compromise if you wanted to bold one or two things in the opening paragraph. However, personally, I don't think boldface links within an article are a good idea, from the standpoint of aesthetics, NPOV, etc. I can't imagine how ugly and stupid this place would look if every article looked something like Pablo Picasso, a cubist painter from Spain... Give the reader some credit for intelligence, Rex. They'll figure out on their own how to get to other articles that have the information they want. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 21:31, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC))

the fact that you initiated this article is completely unrelated to whether or not the links should be in the article. I commend you on trying to present more information in a fair manner, rex. But I must ask why you want to highlight specific articles in such a manner, that is completely against wikistyle. Just because you are the minority in an attempt to build consensus, does not mean it will happen, or should happen. Lyellin 21:35, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

The link that Rex has inserted and re-inserted ([3]) doesn't directly relate to the hearing but rather to the Winter Soldier Investigation. The case for inclusion here is that the Winter Soldier Investigation was the basis for Kerry's testimony. The case against inclusion is that all the information and links about the Winter Soldier Investigation could arguably be repeated here on the same rationale, and that the better way to do is to simply note the relationship and link to Winter Soldier Investigation, a link already included. In addition, it gets into the area of comments in 2004 about the 1971 hearing. We can correct the one-sidedness of the passage by including recent comments in support of Kerry's position, but this whole path seems to be leading toward turning this article into yet another he-said-she-said type battleground. Perhaps it makes more sense to confine it to recounting the events of 1971? The campaign-related controversies are addressed elsewhere. JamesMLane 06:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JML's comments reflect my view. I would like to point out that this particular Wiki Article would appear to be misnamed. The Fulbright Hearings were 11 days of testimony and discussion regarding proposals to end U.S. Participation in the Vietnam conflict. There were a couple dozen "witnesses" of which Kerry was only one. H. Rainwater (Commander in Chief) of the Veterans of Foreign Wars also spoke. Representatives of Students & Youth spoke. The CEO of Hunt & Wesson (of Tomato Paste and Vegetable Oil fame) spoke. As did several Congressmen. It appears the originator of this topic wanted a disection arena for Kerry's testimony (a worthy topic in its own right), but instead chose a name that implies the Fulbright Hearings would be discribed - all 22 of them, not just the 8th (Kerry's) hearing. This makes the FoxNews linked story even more irrelevant for this entry. In addition, nothing reflected in the FoxNews article subject, Pitkin, related to the Fulbright Hearings - none of his testimony was referenced by Kerry. Finally, the content of the FoxNews article is already present in the Winter Soldier Investigation page. -Rob

There is nothing wrong with that (1) Fox News link. It does not detract from the story, nor does it clutter it. Rather, it informs the reader that part of the basis of Kerry's tertimony was founded on lies - and that's an important fact. If you keep fighting me on this one, I'd be inclined to go get others that your complaints don't cover - you can decide if you want that.
"...it informs the reader that part of the basis of Kerry's tertimony was founded on lies," actually, it does not. In that article, Pitkin alleges he was pressured to speak about atrocities of which he had no first-hand knowledge - however, he ultimately did not speak about atrocities at all. None of what he testified to is false, nor is it even significant. That is one strike against your argument. Next, while Kerry does repeat certain sensational specifics from Winter Soldier testimony, he does not repeat a single word of testimony from Pitkin. That is a second strike against your argument. Lastly, since the date of that FoxNews article, Pitkin has admitted errors in recollection, and has subsequently retracted his affidavit and re-submitted a revised one wherein he changes his discharge date, changes his recollections of whom he travelled with to Winter Soldier, changes his recollection of how he joined VVAW ... the guy appears to be a flake with a political agenda (and memory problems). Strike three. The article is out. -Rob
Kerry makes clear that he's referring to other veterans' statements at the Winter Soldier Investigation, but he doesn't link specific charges to specific speakers. His testimony was necessarily a summary. Given that fact, is it possible to establish that Pitkin's statements weren't reflected in the testimony? If Pitkin was one of several people who addressed a particular point, it seems likely that Kerry's testimony would have been exactly the same even if Pitkin had never said anything, but one couldn't establish that with certainty. JamesMLane 23:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also, the full name of Stolen Honor Documentary is a perfectly valid Wiki link. I do not agree that the short name of Stolen Honor is as informative to the readers in regards to telling tham what the link actually goes to. I did not agree to the "redirect" which the other party imposed in creating the new short name and I'd rather not get in any battles to revert that. Instead, where appropriate, I am going to simply use the longer name. This is one fo those appropriate occassions. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 15:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I shortened for no other reason than the title of the article is Stolen Honor and policy enourages us to link directly to articles instead of redirects when possible. The title of that film is Stolen Honor, not Stolen Honor Documentary. To me, linking to Stolen Honor Documentary makes as much sense as linking to Unfit for Command Book or Romeo and Juliet Play. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 18:39, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree and I plan to make sure the link stays the way it is Stolen Honor Documentary. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 21:49, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In other words, Rex, we will have consensus editing, and we will have full dialog about all changes -- both being principles to which you pay incessant lip service -- but all of this fine process, along with the opinions of everyone other than you, and along with whatever logical arguments anyone else might make, will all be irrelevant, because you plan to make sure the link stays the way you want it. Thank you for an unusually clear example of your philosophy of collaborative editing.
My own opinion is that Gamaliel's arguments are absolutely correct. When we're not being distracted by Rex's unilateralism, the question of limiting this article to 1971, not 2004, should be considered, but if we are to link to the article at all, we should link to its correct title. The gratuitous insertion of the word "documentary" serves no purpose except to advance one POV, by attempting to lend the credibility of objectivity to a partisan smear job. JamesMLane 22:54, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The full name of Stolen Honor Documentary is a perfectly valid Wiki link. I do not agree that the short name of Stolen Honor is as informative to the readers in regards to telling tham what the link actually goes to. I did not agree to the "redirect" which the other party imposed in creating the new short name and I'd rather not get in any battles to revert that. Instead, where appropriate, I am going to simply use the longer name. This is one fo those appropriate occassions. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 15:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stolen Honor vs. Stolen Honor Documentary

Frankly, I am amazed at the bottom feeding habits of both JamesMLane and Gamaliel in their efforts to once again try to sidetrack reasonable editing efforts of mine.

Think about this:

  1. I started 1971 Fulbright Senate Vietnam war hearing as an article
  2. Neutrality quickly came behind me a redirected it to Fulbright Hearing
  3. Neutrality basically hijacked the initial editing of Fulbright and was making so many fast and furious chnages that I stepped back to avoid edit war and edit conflicts
  4. I stood patiently by, waiting to see what editing would occur here.
  5. Some time went by with Gamaliel and JamesMLane, basically not nosing in yet.
  6. Then, all of a sudden, after I make a few measly edits to this article which I started, then Gamaliel and JML start rushing in to inject their domineering brand of choking control. "No Links! Bah!" "Use our verbiage choices only!"
  7. Suffice it to say, after seeing what Neutrality did in hijacking Fulbright, when I started Stolen Honor Documentary, I was ready for the jackals who swoop in.
  8. This time I picked a more concise name (Stolen Honor Documentary is a fine name)
  9. And this time, I wrote the article in toto, prior to posting it.
  10. So, what are the anti-Rex jackals left with?
  11. Making a fight about "redirects" and attacking my FoxNews link!
  12. Hey Gamaliel and JamesMLane, since the two of you are such geniuses, why don't you come up with some new page ideas yourselves, instead of stalking mine and making trouble?!
  13. As far as I am concerned, both Stolen Honor and Stolen Honor Documentary are acceptable names. But, if Gamaliel and JML demand no-redirects, then I am happy to reverse the original redirect which turned Stolen Honor Documentary into Stolen Honor.
  14. In any case, I am not going to just sit back and let those two editors keep following me around this Wiki starting trouble. I am going to defend my edits from the single minded pro-Kerry bias which they keep attempting to inject into each and every Election 2004, Kerry or Bush related article I edit.

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 00:25, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, your having started the article gives you zero special privileges. Zilch. Nada. I've reverted your conversion of the Stolen Honor article into a redirect. As a side issue, your "moving" it by doing a cut-and-paste job would have obscured the edit history from anyone reading the article who didn't know where to go look for it. That's a disservice to the reader and a problem under the GFDL. JamesMLane 01:32, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Why don't you come up with some new page ideas yourselves"? I've created about four or five times as many articles as you have. Even if I hadn't, it does not matter. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, and who "creates" an article does not matter, as it is a collective effort. As JML noted, you get "no special privileges" for "creating" an article.

It's really sad that you've chosen, once again, to make this personal. Your refusal to abide by or inability to understand Wikipedia policies and conventions is the reason for these conflicts, but instead of realizing this and reading up on the appropriate policies, you've chosen to repeatedly imagine yourself at the victim of a vast pro-Kerry conspiracy and attempt to argue your way into policy exceptions.

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (movies): Where a movie or book title is unique or virtually unique, let the title of the article be the same as the title of the movie. Thus it's abundantly clear to everyone but you that the proper title for that article is Stolen Honor. Instead of admitting that, you imagine malice on our parts and argue that it should be Stolen Honor Documentary, for apparently no other reason than you like the title that way and we do not. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 02:03, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Blah Blah Blah, both JML and Gamaliel are indeed edit stalkers. They follow me around the Wiki and interfere with my edits wherever they can. FYI: The phrase "Stolen Honor" when entered into Google returns 7,500 hits. Basically all which refer to this "documentary" do indeed call it the "Stolen Honor Documentary". You pro-Kerry editors have no shame. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 03:29, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have edited the link in question to read as Stolen Honor Documentary (do a mouse-over or view the source to see what I have actually done - it looks the same but is not). If JML and Gamaliel won't accept this, then it's clear they are nothing but trouble makers. And if they do accept it, then it's clear they either were incapable or unwilling to offer this solution which I have provided. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 04:02, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I know you like [[Stolen Honor|Stolen Honor Documentary]], a POV link trying to give the video a patina of objectivity. My own POV would call for something like [[Stolen Honor|Stolen Honor attack video]] or something else derogatory. Because there is no reason that either POV should be reflected here, I'm returning the link to its obvious, natural, NPOV form. JamesMLane 04:08, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is a documentary. It refers to itself as a documentary and JML, I am going to link to it that way whether you like it or not. The Stolen Honor Documentary people do refer to their project as the Stolen Honor Documentary and editors on this Wiki ought to be able to as well. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 04:31, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, they do not. According to their website, they call the film Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 04:40, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

wikisource

two-thirds of this article is somewhat selective quotes from kerry from the hearings on day 3. the entire text of those hearings is on wikisource (linked at bottom of page). kerry's initial statement is not particularly long anyway, so why is it being repeated in such detail here? why not just link to the full text? Wolfman 03:44, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Because right after I created this article, Neutrality hijacked it from me with his own massive amounts of edits which kept deleting and overwriting mine - while I was in the middle of editing. Considering how he reverts me wherever possible, I begged off from an edit war so as to come back to it later, which I am now trying to do. Look at the edit history and talk history if you want confirmation of that. The redundant, verbose quotes of Kerry are from Neutrality . Early on, I had the page looking like this [4]. I only inserted the FoxNews link for balance after the Neutrality hijacking. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 03:47, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ok, then. I like the style of your version better, though I'm sure some useful tweaks have been made to the wording in the meantime. Such a large portion of his testimony has been quoted, that it seems better to me to direct the reader to the wikisource for that section. Significant things like the "how do you ask a man" quote should be mentioned here. But this article is not really in line with policy relegating original sources to wikisource. Wolfman 04:02, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, check this out Fulbright Hearing/sb and tell me what you think. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:05, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My opinion is that the quotations could usefully be pruned but there's no reason to drop the background information about the hearing. I'll try to make some edits to the larger version, but I don't support the drastic rewrite that Rex implemented two minutes after asking Wolfman's opinion of it. JamesMLane 05:18, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JML, you are free to add the the improved leaner verion, but don't delete it again or I am filing an RfA against you - you are being an edit stalker and a trouble maker. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:20, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, just to set the record straight, you deleted considerable information from the article. The only discussion here was about pruning the quotations, and even that wasn't a general consensus (though I happen to agree with it). You posted a sandbox version (improperly making the sandbox in the article namespace rather than in your user page, by the way). Two minutes later you implemented your proposal in the article itself. Your edit summary stated that I should "please fool around with the sandbox verison [sic]". Tell me, Rex, why is that your unilateral preference must immediately become the article text, while everyone else is relegated to modifying the sandbox? How about if we do it the other way around -- that proposed changes are discussed here, possibly with the aid of reference to a sandbox, but that meanwhile the article stays in substantially the form it's been in? Why is it that you consider yourself perfectly free to delete my inserts before any consensus on the point has been reached here, when you're so vocal in condemning much smaller deletions by other editors? In short, when will you decide that being in a minority politically, and constantly whining about a cabal, doesn't give you the right to run roughshod over everyone else? JamesMLane 06:05, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It was not "unilateral". Wolfman had already viewed my link to the prior version which new trimmed down verison is based on - and agreed to it in principle. Now it appears you agree too. That makes (3). Certainly that's enough support to build on. Just add in the material you want to carry over. Stop hand-wringing over what amounts to nothing. Haven't you seen that the world did not end at TfT - even after I secured it's un-protection for your benfit from Mirv? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:27, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ambi revert

Ambi, I really wish you had not nosed in with that revert. There is actual dialog going on, on the talk page. By putting your thumb on the scale in JamesMLane's favor, you take the pressure off him and he now has no real need to dialog with me. You ought to pay more attention to the fact that he is overtly hostile to me and avoid taking sides. JamesMLane has a real problem taking my comments at face value. Please don't make it any easier for him to ignore me [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:31, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your version itself is fine. The problem is that you're removing a significant amount of legitimate content, for (as far as I can see), no reason. I'm fine with leaving the quotes out, as I don't think they add much to the article, but what Kerry said at least should be summarised, and there's no reason to get rid of the list of committee members. Ambi 06:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have expressly invited JML to put them back in. And the way to get there is to start with the concise version and quickly add the additional content. Are you saying JML has done that? I saw no differnce in his big version vs the other big version, did you? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fulbright_Hearings&oldid=6159596"