Talk:Swiftboating

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Swiftboating. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Swiftboating at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (2005–2008) Archive 2 (2010– )

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

The notion that the ads against Kerry have been, according to this entry, "discredited", is total garbage. The claims dealing with whether Kerry actually earned his medals ended up being secondary to the attacks on his anti-war activities after his three month tour in Vietnam. That Kerry threw away his medals at a war protest, compared American soldiers to Genghis Khan and asserted US troops were routinely committing war crimes are actions that are a matter of public record and are absolutely indisputable. Kerry's political career arose from these anti-war activities. None of the Swiftboat claims regarding these activities have been "discredited" and simply making a blanket statement that all the ads are untrue, which is what is being done in this entry, is pure bullshit. This entry is insanely one-sided nonsense. 74.134.145.218 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would have to agree with that assessment. This article could be much improved. Plot Spoiler (talk)

It's not even close to an objective fact that the campaign of SBVT was 'discredited' as the article claims. (McQ. "REDEFINING "SWIFTBOATING"". quando.net. http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=8366. Retrieved 18 June 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)) This shows the pervasive leftist bias of many articles dealing with contentious issues in American politics. There is not a good faith effort to present the controversy (or term) with NPV, rather there is a concerted effort to shape the article into a pointed attack on the conservative viewpoint. This article is an example of that, as is the article on "Death Panels". Attempts to rectify these results in leftists using their institutional power at Wikipedia to fix the debate into support of leftist orthodoxy.

It is unfortunate because it makes Wikipedia much less useful, that it can not even permit discussion of one side of a huge debate. According to Wiki editor "death panels" are a myth, an "swift boating" is discredited. No alternate views will be permitted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The political view taken by the left is pushed forward in the article, that is clear to see, but that is the point of view taken by the preponderance of the media. To present an alternative you would have to have reliable sources that could be used to defend such a position. Some exist, (for example the LA Times) and some effort has been previously made to include them, but the group of editors that tend to control the page dismissed them. Even sources used in the article to defend a position they approve, such as the BBC Glossary of US Political Terms, is rejected when it is pointed out the same source also asserts a point of which they do not approve. The problem with the editors being inflexible is that the article itself is reduced to a political tract, and the credibility of wikipedia as a whole is called into question. I don't like the phrasing in the article as it distorts the reality and totally mis-characterizes the veterans involved, but the bottom line is in order to change the article you would have to find a number of "reliable sources" supporting the SBVT position from a media which itself is partisan and which went out of its way to attempt to marginalize the Swifties and the POWs. It's a tall order. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is labeled 'Controversial' the Origin section of the article really needs a reference to what allegations were made and how they were discredited.
I'm no Wikipedia contributor, but it seems to me that this article does not live up to the usual standard of not making assertions without specific references.
(e.g. "many people think that A is unfounded". What people? And how do they think it's unfounded?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.28.149.164 (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. This article is about the word: Swiftboating. If you want detailed information about the group that made the allegations, what allegations were made, and the controversy generated when their claims were debunked and the members revealed as political hacks, then you'll need to click on the links to those articles for that information. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Walz is undergoing a swiftboating campaign. Do we want to add it here now or wait? [1][2][3] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A number of Vietnam veterans who had served on Swift Boats formed a 527 organization called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth with the intent of discrediting his military record and attacking his subsequent antiwar activities as a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War

There doesn't appear to be any evidence that veterans formed this group. The group was formed by Republican operatives with money from pro-Bush Republicans. Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News Radio host John Gibson published the 2009 book How the Left Swiftboated America, where he defines swiftboating as "the political trick of claiming to expose truth while in fact lying". Great example of fringe disinformation that does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]