I don't have too much problem with the article, it just reads like the back of the box the video is on. I wonder if you can find any critical analysis of the video as well. --kizzle 03:18, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

This is still new. Not much about this out there yet. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 03:57, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have reverted the deletion of the content of this article and the substitution of a redirect. For an article on a video titled Stolen Honor, the correct article title is Stolen Honor -- not Stolen Honor Documentary or Stolen Honor Smear Job or any other POV title that an editor might want to give it. JamesMLane 01:12, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JML, now I am absolutely convinced that the "M" in your name stands for "mendacity". You are 100% fully aware that the video is indeed a documentary. Please read the link: http://www.stolenhonor.com/documentary/index.asp

And frankly, if this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_911 were not a well known movie, the link for that would better inform if the word "documentary" was in it. However, since the pro-Kerry media gave Michael Moore so much free publicity everyone what already knows what "fahrenheit 911" means. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 04:17, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You mean "Farenheit_911_Quasi_Documentary". And maybe the American public knows what "farenheit 911" means is because the movie grossed $118 million at the box office. just a thought. --kizzle 23:20, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

the pulitzer site does not list him as a winner or finalist. http://www.pulitzer.org/Archive/archive.html

also i saw where Bill O'Reilly said he won a Peabody. can't verify that either at the peabody site. http://www.peabody.uga.edu/archives/search.html

can somebody give a link where these awards are documented? thanks Wolfman 04:26, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

O'Reilly never won a Peabody. Al Frankin called him on this lie and that was the source of that dustup they had at the ABA convention which you may have heard of. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 04:31, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Read this link please [1] see section which says: "1980 Gannett News Service, for a series by Carlton Sherwood, John Hanchette and William Schmick on a fund-raising scandal involving the Pauline Fathers, and the Vatican's role in covering it up." Being the lead writer of a group Pulitzer, does indeed make one a prize winner. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 04:39, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

thanks. Wolfman 20:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the Media Matters link because it is only about Sherwood personally and would not belong anywhere except on his personal article - and then not even there as "media matters" is nothing more than a ogranized hit piece site run by democrats. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:27, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ok, goes to sherwood article. actually i agree somewhat with you about media matters. but, i also feel the same way about human events, national review, newsmax, frontpagemag, etc. but those get linked in as notable sources, so why not media matters? Wolfman 20:50, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, but MM is the least thinly veiled and most utterly singular in it's mission to attack. In fact, most of those others are bona-fide quality news sites (newsmax.com being the quality laggard). But MM by it's own self description, is a partisan "rebuttal" site, not a news site. By linking to it, you are inviting me to start linking to Powerline blog, CaptainsQuarters and LittleGreenFootballs. I urge you to reconsider. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:54, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What fun! Then we'll go to dailykos, buzzflash, democraticunderground, atrios, bartcop. Partisan point scoring, a party in a box. let's face it, of all the sites mentioned so far in this section _only_ mediamatters makes factchecking their primary mission. yes, they factcheck for conservative errors, but at least it's factchecking. the rest are 90% opinion. Fishboy 22:09, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agenda driven "fact checking". It's about as valid as John Blutarski doing an underware check of coeds in Animal House. Yes he has a mission, but how legitimate is it? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 22:11, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Facts are facts, having an agenda can't change them. Fishboy 22:28, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Facts are only accepted as being prima-facially true if un-rebutted (1st rule of evidence). If you insist on inserting POV "facts", you will force me to rebut them. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 22:42, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How does your description of the first rule of evidence apply to censoring Media Matters link? --kizzle 23:16, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Rex, as I understand it, your position is that we should include external links to several sites attacking Kerry and championing the video, and we should even include quotations from a few of them, but we must not include even one link, like MediaMatters, that raises any doubt about the video? This is obvious and unacceptable bias. JamesMLane 03:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Media Matters link refers only to Sherwood presonally. JML, at TfT you established a doctrine of exactness when it comes to links. We must now adhere to that doctrine here. The MM link is only accetpable at Sherwoord personal article, not at Stolen Honor. If you put it here, I will take that as a declaration by you of open editorial warfare. Also, please note hat Wolfman agrees about the MM link and where it should go (see above) [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 03:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article on Texans for Truth takes care (at Rex's insistence) to note its founder's ties to the Democratic Party. In fact, in checking the article just now to confirm my recollection on that point, I found that the information is duplicated. I'll delete one of them, but I'll leave one in, because I agree that people wanting to know about TfT can legitimately consider the underlying political orientation. The same is true here, though. Sherwood is no independent journalist, setting out to uncover the facts and let the chips fall where they may. He's a partisan. His ties to the Bush administration are as relevant to this article as Glenn Smith's ties to the Democratic Party are to the TfT article, so I'm restoring that deleted information. JamesMLane 03:24, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)1

now that's parity :) --kizzle 03:42, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

I was the one who originally put some of the background info about Sherwood in. Wolfman(?) moved it to Sherwood's personal article. I think it's validd for both, in it's current form. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 03:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The reference to "Swift Boat Veterans for Bush" has spawned some minor editing squabbles. Because it's obvious that Nevins was referring to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, one change that's been made (I think by two different people) has been to wikilink the term to the SBVT article. Rex has angrily reverted such links, saying, e.g.: 'There is no such group as "Swift Boat Veterans for Bush" for an editor to make that link is grossly POV!'

Now, trying to put the reader in the picture without appearing to lend Wikipedia's imprimatur to Nevins's partisan slam at SBVT by linking, I added an explanation of what he meant, noting that it was a "derisive reference". Rex has deleted that sentence with the comment, "JML - you are speculating - You have no proof other than you own opinion of that!"

So, Rex is now asserting that there is no such group as Swift Boat Veterans for Bush, but he thinks it's just my opinion that Nevins meant SBVT. Well, Rex, if there is no SBVB, then what did he mean? His meaning is completely obvious (not just my opinion) to those of us who know about SBVT. Not all readers will have that background, though. Frankly, I thought I was going out of my way to accommodate your POV and provide a link to your beloved SBVT article, but if you don't want it, so be it. Odds are that other editors will come along and, upon seeing the unlinked term "Swift Boat Veterans for Bush", will want to link it to something. My edit is a clear improvement on the current text but it's yet another minor point where you'll get your way by virtue of your demonstrated willingness to engage in endless reverts and denunciations. JamesMLane 03:52, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)