Talk:Stolen Honor: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:12, 27 September 2004 editAlistairMcMillan (talk \| contribs)Administrators33,791 edits →Sherwood information on Stolen Honor article ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:05, 10 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,879,760 editsm blpo=yes + blp=no/null → blp=other; cleanupTag: AWB
(439 intermediate revisions by 36 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|blp=other\|class=Start\|1=
	]
			{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}}
			{{WikiProject Vietnam\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Film\|American-task-force=yes\|War-task-force=yes\|Documentary=yes}}
			}}
			{{Archives\|auto=long\|search=yes\|index=/Archive index}}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=/Archive index
			\|mask=/Archive <#>
			\|leading_zeros=0
			\|indexhere=yes}}

	== ~~additional~~ ~~material~~ ~~deleted~~ ==		== Kizzle's tag-team revert ? ==

			Kizzle's tag-team revert just now has the appearance of bad faith, to me. By his own admission he stated that only 80% bothered him, but he reverted 100%. That and the way he conveniently RV'd after Gamaliel max'd out for today is not mertious, in my view. ] <sup><b> ] </sup></b> 21:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
	I removed this material just now with edit summary which explains reason for removal: "remove additional sherwood personal material - please repost this on sherwood personal article - Stolen Honor is article is not about Sherwood, per se but other article is". ] ] ]] 17:34, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

			:I don't see where I have three reverts today, but that's besides the point. If Kizzle disagrees with your edits and agrees with mine, why should he not revert you? ] 21:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
	:While Sherwood shared in a group Pulitzer for investigation of a fund-raising scandal involving a ] cover-up, the neutrality of his reportage has been questioned. In ] the ] program ] examined Sherwood's book ''Inquisition'', which claimed to be an independent investigation of the Reverend ]. During that investigation, a letter surfaced in which James Gavin, an aide to Reverend Moon, stated that he had reviewed the book before publication, and suggested revisions that Sherwood had promised he would incorporate before the final manuscript went to the publisher. Sherwood had previously worked for the ], owned by Moon and the ].

			==Sherwood's credentials==
	:: I don't have too much of a problem, except what is the criteria for removing content of a central figure on another page, i.e. Glenn Smith on TfT and John O'Neill on SBVT?? I would suggest looking at either or both criteria to set policy rather than on a case-by-case basis:

			Cut from article:
	::# Person has a significant amount of information that would go beyond a mere stub.
	::# Person is known for any significant reason beyond founding the group.

			:], the producer of ''Stolen Honor'' is an acclaimed journalist and ] veteran. He is currently a private military corporation executive. In 1980, Mr Sherwood was awarded a ] for his contributions as part of the ] team.
	:: Just a thought. --] 17:40, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

			This should be in the Sherwood article. Does not need repetition here. ] 20:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
	:::::: Feel free to make John O'Neill and Glenn Smith pages. This in fact, is the right way to go. Also, the infor which should go in on the personal pages ias all the personal flaws and foibles. They '''must''' go there so that any tit-for-tat edits and rebutals do not glog up related pages. This is the rule that was intsituted at TfT and which get rebuttals off that page: TfT argumwents are about issues relating to GWBMSC and for that reason are shunted there. Same thing here. Sherwood persomnal issues are about Sherwood himself. Glogging SH is POV edits such as Gamaliel is demanding is farcical. ] ] ]] 17:57, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

			:Well, actually, yes it does. The fact that he shared in a Pulitzer Prize for his journalistic activities is relevant to any ventures he engages in thereafter which are or which purport to be journalistic, just as the fact that he conducted what purported to be an independent investigation while he was actually giving the subject access to and influence in it is relevant to any other purported "independent investigations".
	If this stuff on Sherwood goes, all of the info on Sherwood should go, including the "decorated Vietnam veteran" and "pulitzer prize winner", as none of that relates to SH either. You can't keep the good Sherwood info and then ship off the Moonie stuff to another article. ]]] 17:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

			:I'm sure you have only the good of Misplaced Pages in mind, Ed, but some people are not so honorable. They wouldn't see that you're merely trying to keep the article free of clutter by cutting out what you see as redundant elaboration of Sherwood's credentials -- which are, as ''credentials'' suggests, part of the reason people might give ''credence'' to Sherwood's claims. Instead, they would simply see it as a free license to rip out any reference to the reasons why someone might be skeptical of Sherwood's claims. I'm sure you agree that it isn't NPOV -- not furthering the goal of representing all sides fairly -- to let one side say "Well, if my side elects not to present any reasoning ''why'' we believe Sherwood is telling the complete and whole truth, that means we get to remove anything the other side says about why they believe his work must be approached with caution." So I'm sure you'll understand why I'm restoring the information about Sherwood's credentials to the article; we don't want to put temptation in anyone's way. -- ] 23:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
	:Gamaliel, you are totally off base '''again'''. A limited about of personal detail is fine as it helps segue the atricle flow in a rational manner. You are simply trying to inject "moonie" accusations here to discredit Stolen Honor itself. Frankly, the more you edit, the more it;s clear that your '''bias''' is the soruce of conflict. ] ] ]] 17:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

			::Okay, but merely repeating information is not the best way to do this. We should explain in the article that people question Sherwood's objectivity. We might also point out that the people questioning his objectivity disagree with his conclusions - with opens up the possibility that they are (A) "attacking him" '''because of his conclusions''' - as opposed to (B) questioning his conclusion because they gasp suddenly discovered something fishy about his credentials.
	::No matter how many '''words''' you put in '''bold''' it won't '''change''' the '''fact''' that you are '''sugarcoating''' Sherwood's '''background''' by including only '''positive''' things about him like his '''pulitzer''' and his '''Vietnam''' service and excluding '''negative''' things about him like his '''moonie''' connections. ]]] 17:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

			::It's the old ]. Which came first?
	The "Tom Ridge" connection is included at JML's insistance - as it tends to show Republican connections - a valid point to raise in a partisan race. The "moonie" accusation is a more generalized slur and belongs only on personal page -if anywhere. Also please note for the record that Gamaliel (see above) expressly calls the "moonie" connection a '''negative'''. This is precisely what I have said Gamaliel is up to: trying to insert POV material to drag down Sherwood and with him, the validity of the documentary itself. POV bias laid bare! ] ] ]] 18:00, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

			::Also, I have yet to verify that Frontline's '''claim''' is a '''fact''', let alone that the claim if true proves their point.
	:Way to go Perry Mason. ]]] 18:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

			::Is it a general principle that when investigating one's former employer, a journalist NEVER communicates with them in a non-hostile mode? I mean, is Sherwood some kind of idiot who would spend a year or more researching something, only to throw away the scoop of the century by violating ] by tipping his hand to "the enemy"?
	: By saying to exclude all the Information, Gamaliel is attempting to INCLUDE POV stuff? ] 18:17, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

			::Remember, we're talking about high-stakes politics here. This was the same campaign where ] tried to pull on ] to discredit Kerry's opponent - a bit of ].
	::I thought the key point of the passage about Sherwood's book was not that he had ties to the Unification Church, but rather that, while purporting to produce an independent investigation, he was actually giving the subject of the investigation prior review of the text, and even making changes requested by the subject. This violation of normal journalistic procedure is relevant to his credibility. ] 18:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

			::Anyway, the question you and I are discussing is not "Is Sherwood's anti-Kerry video accurate" but "How can we represent the controversy over its accuracy, in an unbiased way?" ] 15:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
	JML, if (and only if) you can make a rational case for journalistic flaws, provided that there is a genuine - and reported on - issue there, then it would be enough to detail that issue on the personal page and have a one or two sentence pointer link to that page. Personal problems belong on the personal page. I am simply amazed at how you are disregarding the very principles you've previously insisted on regarding segregation of material. Frankly, you are simply trying to muck things up here. This is the lowest you have ever stooped. ] ] ]] 18:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

			:::"Repeating information is not the best way to do this" -- I disagree. Placing information where it is relevant and gives context is a good thing and as we have seen, it is relevant here. What seems irrelevant here is speculation on the possibility that 100% of people who doubt Sherwood's claims did so before they found out anything about his credentials. Most people who give any thought to the chicken-and-egg problem aren't trying to argue that eggs should be mentioned ''only'' in the chicken article and not in any other chicken-related article.
	I would like to share the following information which Rex just left on my ]:

			:::What is ''also'' irrelevant is the speculation that Frontline's investigation was flawed -- since it's submitted with absolutely no evidence that this was the case, only with an argument that ''if'' Frontline's investigation was flawed, ''then'' it would support the conclusion that some people would prefer to believe. The way you phrase your rhetorical question, Ed, makes one wonder whether you've looked into Frontline's report at all, let alone looked into it enough to have any basis for suggesting that they got it wrong.
	:''If you restore that text again, I am going to file an RfA against you. Rex071404 19:16, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)''

			:::You ask "Is it a general principle that when investigating one's former employer, a journalist NEVER communicates with them in a non-hostile mode?" Well, that's a straw man. ''No one'' ever said "Oh! We caught Sherwood communicating with the subject of his review in a non-hostile manner! His investigation is proven non-independent!" What they ''did'' turn up is written evidence that Sherwood sent the manuscript to the subject of his investigation and they said "we want this changed and this changed." If Sherwood's response had been "I'll investigate whether those 'corrections' are in fact correct and publish them if my research corroborates," there'd be much less controversy. It's the fact that Sherwood said "okay, I'll make the changes you told me to make" which led to so many questions about whether the investigation fulfilled ''Sherwood's claims for it'' as fully independent.
	He is, of course, referring to the text discussed here, which he has currently reverted five times in about 2-3 hours. I assume that, if it comes to the RfA he threatens, I will have witnesses that the issue had not been "already been debated and resolved", as he claimed? -- ] 19:37, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

			:::Yes, the question ''is'' "How can we represent the controversy over ''Stolen Honor''<nowiki>'s</nowiki> accuracy, in an unbiased way?" Jumping to the conclusion that Sherwood is a journalist beyond reproach who would never violate journalistic ethics and that only partisan opponents could possibly believe otherwise is not the answer. -- ] 17:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
	:Rex just makes it up as he goes along. Let him file, there's already two open RfAs against him. It'll just save us the trouble of filing the third. ]]] 19:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

			::Agreed: Misplaced Pages should not draw that conclusion. Let's try to nail down what the various parties have said about Sherwood. Oh, and while we are at it, let's try to nail down what various parties have said about Kerry. This looks like an intricate example of two sides calling each other liars. ] 22:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
	== Sherwood information on Stolen Honor article ==
	As the prior talk page (see archive ) and my edit summaries have made clear, the personal information for Sherwood belongs on his personal article, not in the Stolen Honor article. ] ] ]] 20:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

			== TDC's edits ==
	:The article is about the documentary. The documentarian in question has been praised for past efforts, and he has also been criticized for violations of journalistic integrity. That is relevant to the documentary. The information which is ''personal'', rather than ''professional'', is the information you keep putting in about the documentarian being an executive vice-president of the WVC3 group and the like.

			re: stopping the article dead for a big laundry list of every single individual interviewed in the movie so as to drive away the maximum number of readers before disclosing that one of those individuals happened to be ] -- already discussed. Nunh-uh. The official website will do a much better job than we can of going into that exhaustive level of detail; after all, that's where the list is copied from. As for changing the language to imply that the only ones whose actions put pressure on Sinclair were "Large Democrat union pension funds", that is not supported by either the old article or the new one. -- ] 03:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
	:No matter how much you claim that "the prior talk page" and "my edit summaries" "made it clear", as much as you claim the issue "has already been debated and resolved", these claims are not true. Continuing to make false claims simply establishes further that you have either no intention or no capability to participate in Misplaced Pages in good faith. -- ] 21:00, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
			:Agreed, we don't need every individual in the movie. Also agree that one wasn't causal to another, both the advertisers and democrat union funds withdrew independently as far to my knowledge. --] 03:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
			:: So let me get this strait, you are both arguing that factual information about people who were in the movie deserves less space than partisan bullshit? Secondly, the information about union pension funds is documented, un;ess you have another source. ] 04:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

			:::No, but we know that Staples pulled out because of customer complaints, not because of the Democratic-leaning pension funds. --] 06:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
	::Feldspar, your bad faith is evidenced by the title change you made ] ] ]] 21:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
			I tend to agree with AF and kizzle. I'm not adamantly opposed to the list, but if we do include it, a chunk of raw data like that belongs in its own section towards the end, not dropped in the middle of a section near the beginning. ] 05:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

			:I agree about the list of names -- it's not lead section material. As for the "information" about union pension funds, what's "documented" according to TDC's citation is that one anonymous source has asserted that "ig institutions, including some unions and pension funds, pressured their fund managers to dump Sinclair's stock ...." Even if we take the anonymous source as totally reliable, he or she says only that there was pressure to sell. It appears that the pressure was not exclusively from union pension funds. Whether the pressure resulted in any actual sales is not stated. Finally, there is no such thing as a "Democrat union". As a minor item of usage, I pointed out to TDC last August that the use of "Democrat" as an adjective is a right-wing solecism. (See more extensive discussion ].) Beyond that, the description would have to be much more nuanced (are these unions allegedly affiliated with the Democratic Party, or simply more likely to conclude that Democratic candidates are the ones who'll best further the interests of the under-$100,000-per-year crowd?) Also, the very next sentence in the ''Newsweek'' article reports similar financial concerns among many other Wall Street types, who tend to be Republicans. Picking and choosing some facts to convey an impression of a vast left-wing conspiracy is not NPOV. ] 08:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
	::You are coming late to this dialog. This core group of editors has already discussed this and as evidenced by the treatment of a number of articles - not just this one - the apporpriate place for the additional material is the personal article page for Sherwood himself. Frankly, I am beginning to think you hate "moonies" or something and are hoping to slander Sherwood by association. ] ] ]] 21:18, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

			Including a list of people in the film is valid for a documentary. ] 05:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
	:::Either that, or you were acting in bad faith to call it "personal" information in the first place. I have changed it again, to something more accurate.

	:::Yes, I am coming late to this dialog. This is presumably why you believed that if you falsely asserted that the issue had "already been discussed and resolved", that I would not know better. Now you are asserting that the "core group of editors" has already resolved that the place for "the additional material" is the personal article page for Sherwood.

			== This article does not meet any meaningful scholastic standards ==
	:::Firstly, given your unwillingness or inability to represent others accurately, I feel no reason to accept your representation that the "core group" has settled the issue for all articles. Secondly, by grouping it all together as "the additional material", you are obscuring the fact that some of the material (mostly that which you yourself added) is purely about Sherwood the person, and some of the material (including everything that I have added) is about Sherwood's record as a documentarian. Falsely describing it all as "personal" information that should go in the personal article does not resolve the question.

			This article is really little more than a political debate between two sides of the political spectrum using standard web debating tactics, while failing any basic test for scholastic merit. As it is now, much of the article resembles an ad hominem attack on Sherwood---suggesting the possibility of a bias and calling into question his journalistic skills, while exploring nothing from the movie that was relevant. Details of Sherwood's life not relevant to this article, really belong in the Wiki entry on Sherwood, and are largely irrelevant to the stated topic of this article.
	:::Finally, your accusation that I "hate 'moonies'" is laughable. Do you have any evidence for this? Any particular reason you're ignoring the very logical reasons I've presented why the quality of a documentarian's work is relevant to a documentary, in favor of your unsupported theory of a prejudice against "moonies"? It doesn't matter if it's the Unification Church, the Roman Catholic Church, Citibank, the Oddfellows, the ACLU or the Flat Earth Society. If a journalist says he's doing an "independent investigation" and then it turns out that the topmost levels of the organization he's "investigating" had access to and any amount of editorial veto power over that "independent investigation", then it says something about that documentarian's work that is relevant to any future "independent investigations".

			I believe that the main thrust of the article should have been a review of the contents of the movie, and an examination of which aspects are one-sided or inaccurate. -- ] 16:44, 10 Sep 2006 (UTC)
	:::::: You saying this '''"given your unwillingness or inability to represent others accurately"''' shows that you are off base here. The article is about the documentary. There is no "others" (as in person) at issue in this article. ] ] ]] 22:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

			==Lead section overly long==
	:::Oh, and Rex? There's a thing called the ]. Please abide by it. -- ] 22:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
			The lead section of this article is overly long. Please help integrate some parts of it in sections. For helpful hints see ]. With proper scructuring the article can become class start. ] <small>]</small> 08:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	Does not apply when reverting overt vandalism, which is what your repeated injection of inappropriate content is. ] ] ]] 22:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	: Just out of curiosity, could you cite the exact text that states that more than three reverts are allowed to revert overt vandalism. ] 23:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

			I have just modified 4 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051201234746/http://www.stolenhonor.com/documentary/index.asp to http://www.stolenhonor.com/documentary/index.asp
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051201234351/http://stolenhonor.com/contact.asp to http://stolenhonor.com/contact.asp
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020616210309/http://www.mediachannel.org/originals/moontranscript2.shtml to http://www.mediachannel.org/originals/moontranscript2.shtml
			*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/12820237.htm

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 22:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,

			I have just modified 5 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060409165834/http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2004-09-09/news.html to http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2004-09-09/news.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828130017/http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/campaigns/charlie_gerow.asp to http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/campaigns/charlie_gerow.asp
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050505174626/http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1675&dept_id=18171&newsid=12894483&PAG=461&rfi=9 to http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1675&dept_id=18171&newsid=12894483&PAG=461&rfi=9
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040926042611/http://www.modbee.com/24hour/opinions/story/1679939p-9444706c.html to http://www.modbee.com/24hour/opinions/story/1679939p-9444706c.html
			*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/12820237.htm

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 16:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:05, 10 November 2024

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Vietnam Low‑importance

	Vietnam portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: Documentary / War / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the War films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

Kizzle's tag-team revert ?

Kizzle's tag-team revert just now has the appearance of bad faith, to me. By his own admission he stated that only 80% bothered him, but he reverted 100%. That and the way he conveniently RV'd after Gamaliel max'd out for today is not mertious, in my view. Rex071404 21:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where I have three reverts today, but that's besides the point. If Kizzle disagrees with your edits and agrees with mine, why should he not revert you? Gamaliel 21:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Sherwood's credentials

Cut from article:

Carlton Sherwood, the producer of Stolen Honor is an acclaimed journalist and Vietnam War veteran. He is currently a private military corporation executive. In 1980, Mr Sherwood was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for his contributions as part of the Gannett News Service team.

This should be in the Sherwood article. Does not need repetition here. Uncle Ed 20:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually, yes it does. The fact that he shared in a Pulitzer Prize for his journalistic activities is relevant to any ventures he engages in thereafter which are or which purport to be journalistic, just as the fact that he conducted what purported to be an independent investigation while he was actually giving the subject access to and influence in it is relevant to any other purported "independent investigations".

I'm sure you have only the good of Misplaced Pages in mind, Ed, but some people are not so honorable. They wouldn't see that you're merely trying to keep the article free of clutter by cutting out what you see as redundant elaboration of Sherwood's credentials -- which are, as credentials suggests, part of the reason people might give credence to Sherwood's claims. Instead, they would simply see it as a free license to rip out any reference to the reasons why someone might be skeptical of Sherwood's claims. I'm sure you agree that it isn't NPOV -- not furthering the goal of representing all sides fairly -- to let one side say "Well, if my side elects not to present any reasoning why we believe Sherwood is telling the complete and whole truth, that means we get to remove anything the other side says about why they believe his work must be approached with caution." So I'm sure you'll understand why I'm restoring the information about Sherwood's credentials to the article; we don't want to put temptation in anyone's way. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but merely repeating information is not the best way to do this. We should explain in the article that people question Sherwood's objectivity. We might also point out that the people questioning his objectivity disagree with his conclusions - with opens up the possibility that they are (A) "attacking him" because of his conclusions - as opposed to (B) questioning his conclusion because they *gasp* suddenly discovered something fishy about his credentials.

It's the old chicken and egg problem. Which came first?

Also, I have yet to verify that Frontline's claim is a fact, let alone that the claim if true proves their point.

Is it a general principle that when investigating one's former employer, a journalist NEVER communicates with them in a non-hostile mode? I mean, is Sherwood some kind of idiot who would spend a year or more researching something, only to throw away the scoop of the century by violating journalistic ethics by tipping his hand to "the enemy"?

Remember, we're talking about high-stakes politics here. This was the same campaign where CBS tried to pull on October surprise to discredit Kerry's opponent - a bit of advocacy journalism.

Anyway, the question you and I are discussing is not "Is Sherwood's anti-Kerry video accurate" but "How can we represent the controversy over its accuracy, in an unbiased way?" Uncle Ed 15:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"Repeating information is not the best way to do this" -- I disagree. Placing information where it is relevant and gives context is a good thing and as we have seen, it is relevant here. What seems irrelevant here is speculation on the possibility that 100% of people who doubt Sherwood's claims did so before they found out anything about his credentials. Most people who give any thought to the chicken-and-egg problem aren't trying to argue that eggs should be mentioned only in the chicken article and not in any other chicken-related article.

What is also irrelevant is the speculation that Frontline's investigation was flawed -- since it's submitted with absolutely no evidence that this was the case, only with an argument that if Frontline's investigation was flawed, then it would support the conclusion that some people would prefer to believe. The way you phrase your rhetorical question, Ed, makes one wonder whether you've looked into Frontline's report at all, let alone looked into it enough to have any basis for suggesting that they got it wrong.

You ask "Is it a general principle that when investigating one's former employer, a journalist NEVER communicates with them in a non-hostile mode?" Well, that's a straw man. No one ever said "Oh! We caught Sherwood communicating with the subject of his review in a non-hostile manner! His investigation is proven non-independent!" What they did turn up is written evidence that Sherwood sent the manuscript to the subject of his investigation and they said "we want this changed and this changed." If Sherwood's response had been "I'll investigate whether those 'corrections' are in fact correct and publish them if my research corroborates," there'd be much less controversy. It's the fact that Sherwood said "okay, I'll make the changes you told me to make" which led to so many questions about whether the investigation fulfilled Sherwood's claims for it as fully independent.

Yes, the question is "How can we represent the controversy over Stolen Honor's accuracy, in an unbiased way?" Jumping to the conclusion that Sherwood is a journalist beyond reproach who would never violate journalistic ethics and that only partisan opponents could possibly believe otherwise is not the answer. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed: Misplaced Pages should not draw that conclusion. Let's try to nail down what the various parties have said about Sherwood. Oh, and while we are at it, let's try to nail down what various parties have said about Kerry. This looks like an intricate example of two sides calling each other liars. Uncle Ed 22:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

TDC's edits

re: stopping the article dead for a big laundry list of every single individual interviewed in the movie so as to drive away the maximum number of readers before disclosing that one of those individuals happened to be Kenneth Cordier -- already discussed. Nunh-uh. The official website will do a much better job than we can of going into that exhaustive level of detail; after all, that's where the list is copied from. As for changing the language to imply that the only ones whose actions put pressure on Sinclair were "Large Democrat union pension funds", that is not supported by either the old article or the new one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, we don't need every individual in the movie. Also agree that one wasn't causal to another, both the advertisers and democrat union funds withdrew independently as far to my knowledge. --kizzle 03:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this strait, you are both arguing that factual information about people who were in the movie deserves less space than partisan bullshit? Secondly, the information about union pension funds is documented, un;ess you have another source. DTC 04:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No, but we know that Staples pulled out because of customer complaints, not because of the Democratic-leaning pension funds. --kizzle 06:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with AF and kizzle. I'm not adamantly opposed to the list, but if we do include it, a chunk of raw data like that belongs in its own section towards the end, not dropped in the middle of a section near the beginning. Gamaliel 05:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the list of names -- it's not lead section material. As for the "information" about union pension funds, what's "documented" according to TDC's citation is that one anonymous source has asserted that "ig institutions, including some unions and pension funds, pressured their fund managers to dump Sinclair's stock ...." Even if we take the anonymous source as totally reliable, he or she says only that there was pressure to sell. It appears that the pressure was not exclusively from union pension funds. Whether the pressure resulted in any actual sales is not stated. Finally, there is no such thing as a "Democrat union". As a minor item of usage, I pointed out to TDC last August that the use of "Democrat" as an adjective is a right-wing solecism. (See more extensive discussion here.) Beyond that, the description would have to be much more nuanced (are these unions allegedly affiliated with the Democratic Party, or simply more likely to conclude that Democratic candidates are the ones who'll best further the interests of the under-$100,000-per-year crowd?) Also, the very next sentence in the Newsweek article reports similar financial concerns among many other Wall Street types, who tend to be Republicans. Picking and choosing some facts to convey an impression of a vast left-wing conspiracy is not NPOV. JamesMLane 08:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Including a list of people in the film is valid for a documentary. 70.85.195.229 05:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This article does not meet any meaningful scholastic standards

This article is really little more than a political debate between two sides of the political spectrum using standard web debating tactics, while failing any basic test for scholastic merit. As it is now, much of the article resembles an ad hominem attack on Sherwood---suggesting the possibility of a bias and calling into question his journalistic skills, while exploring nothing from the movie that was relevant. Details of Sherwood's life not relevant to this article, really belong in the Wiki entry on Sherwood, and are largely irrelevant to the stated topic of this article.

I believe that the main thrust of the article should have been a review of the contents of the movie, and an examination of which aspects are one-sided or inaccurate. -- clt510 16:44, 10 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Lead section overly long

The lead section of this article is overly long. Please help integrate some parts of it in sections. For helpful hints see WP:LEAD. With proper scructuring the article can become class start. Hoverfish Talk 08:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Stolen Honor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051201234746/http://www.stolenhonor.com/documentary/index.asp to http://www.stolenhonor.com/documentary/index.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051201234351/http://stolenhonor.com/contact.asp to http://stolenhonor.com/contact.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020616210309/http://www.mediachannel.org/originals/moontranscript2.shtml to http://www.mediachannel.org/originals/moontranscript2.shtml
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/12820237.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Stolen Honor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Categories: