Talk:John Kerry/Archive 26

Factual error?

It appears that the article has a factual error that I can cite a reference to. It statees that John Kerry was promoted to Full Lieutenant after Vietnam. This is incorrect. He was givena temporary promottion to Full Lieutenant as the Admiral's aide. He reverted back to LT JG after he left active duty. I cite as the source the relevant documentation posted on John Kerry's own website, which has the temporary promotion document on it.

On a more controversial subject, John Kerry appears to have lied about his Naval Service. He stated that he was in the service until 1978, at the rank of LTJG. This would ahve violated Navy policy, as those years included the "up or out" policy in promotion. After getting passed over for Full Lieutenant 3 years in a row (1972-1974), he would have been discharged, which should have occurred by 1975. Thus, he could not have been in the reserves until 1978, as his own website attests. Again the cite is in reading his own records, on his website, and also knowing Naval regulations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycroft 514 (talk • contribs) 09:21, August 23, 2006

Yet there are documents addressed to "Lt. John Forbes Kerry" and "Lt. John F. Kerry, USNR" in 1972 and 1978. [1] [2][3]

And by the way, it was impossible for Kerry to get "passed over" for anything, as inactive standby reserve officers cannot be promoted. [4]--EECEE 09:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Specific cites (urls)?

I looked at both www.johnkerry.com and kerry.senate.gov and do not see the claims you mention. Could you please provide a link to these items? While you are about it, can you provide a reference that documents what you say about the promotion policies in effect at the time? --MoxRox 01:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

He used to have a bunch of selected military documents on his web site. I just went back and they have all been pulled down. Probably because people like me can read between the lines from the documents. One of them was the temporary promotion to LT as an aide to the Admiral. I remember my father talking about the policy of "up or out" in the 1970's. Obviously it was documented somewhere, and this is just one piece of the strange discharge paper he had dated 1978. Well, that and the Navy performance reviews he had up during his campaign. Proper reading of them indicated an officer classified mediocre, at best.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycroft 514 (talk • contribs) August 25, 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, because they just knew that it wouldn't occur to anyone to copy and paste the stuff into their own files, or even print it out and save it. Slick. Of course Wikipedia has been linking to sources that have had some of this stuff online since 2004. Just a few examples:

http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004/docs.html

http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/kerry_medals/index.html

http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/kerry_medals/part1.html

Then of course there's the SBVT's own site: :http://www.swiftboatarchives.com/docfile/JohnKerryMilitaryRecords.pdf

http://www.swiftboatarchives.com/default.tpl?PageID=51&cart=1164016241114472&PageName=Archives%20List&sec_id=51&sec_status=main

And yes, when you find some documentation about an "up or out" policy for reserve officers in effect in the '70s, please be sure to post it. --EECEE 09:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of "Reserve" status and "up or out poicy"

Documents in the Internet Archive from johnkerry.com show an official document indicating he was transferred to "Standby Reserve - Inactive" in 1972. That is still "in the reserves" but would not be subject to the up-or-out policy. I would have to see the "in the service until 1978" claim to assess whether it was stated problematically - need that link. Meanwhile, Kerry's sites clearly indicate what he was doing between 1972 and 1978 (going to law school then practicing as a prosecutor), so it seems unlikely any misdirection was intended, or occurred.--MoxRox 02:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

ALL Naval officers are subject to that policy. The claim of 1978 used to be up on his website, during the campaign - US Navy - 1966-1978.

Please provide documentation showing that ALL Naval officers are subject to the up or out policy. From everything I can see, those on inactive standby reserve cannot be promoted, and I don't see that it was any different in the '70s.

http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292317-267174.php --EECEE 23:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Further, his discharge paper was up there too, which is not like a normal discharge from the Navy, being signed at a much different level.

What "different level" is that exactly? Be specific, please. --EECEE 23:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Further, his discharge paper was up there too, which is not like a normal discharge from the Navy, being signed at a much different level. It appears to give credence to him being discharged earlier and having the status changed in 1978. This is similar in occurance to my having 2 discharge statuses. The first was an honorable for medical, then a modification by the VA changing the status to service connected disability.

Then Kerry covered it with the revised date. As for misdirected intended. If no misdirection was intended, he would release his entire military record, even now, and dispel this set of occurances. He won't, I would put money on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycroft 514 (talk • contribs) August 25, 2006 (UTC)

Kerry certainly did release his military records, whereas many public figures have not, who probably have claims about their military service in Wikipedia. (There is no adequate chain-of-custody process for release of a living person's complete service record with certification of authenticity. So there is no possibility of satisfying a smear merchant who claims to want someone else's record released to him. Release to an independent third party is the best that can be done, and it was done in Kerry's case - to the Boston Globe and LA Times, who vouched that there was nothing substantive new except for the Yale grades.)

Mycroft 514, you have not substantiated a single claim with any links to references, and the claims you make have been debunked (and discussed ad nauseum) in plenty of more appropriate places on the internet. I also noticed that the Talk Page rules posted above state, "Please do not use {the talk page} as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." I have tried to keep my responses brief, but I feel that unsubstantiated allegations should not be allowed to stand. (Any veteran wikipedians want to weigh in on how to handle this?) --MoxRox 23:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the www.johnkerry.com website has seen fit to remove all this stuff, I had to go learn how to use the wayback machine, and suffer thru its glacial slow response time. So here you are:

Links:

Naval documents in the wayback machine for June 30, 2004 for website www.JOHNKERRY.com

http://web.archive.org/web/20040707083924/www.johnkerry.com/about/military_records.html

PDF with page 4 appointing John Kerry to TEMPORARY rank of full LT. Note the word TEMPORARY in the orders.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040426002850/www.johnkerry.com/about/Temporary_Orders_and_Ranks.pdf

DD214 transfering LTJG John Kerry from active duty to reserves in 1972. (page 2). (Thus having the temporary rank STRIPPED from him)

http://web.archive.org/web/20040614025903/www.johnkerry.com/about/DD214.pdf

At this point the wayback machine went down for maintenance. I will try for the second set after it comes back up. Mycroft_514 And logging in because I forgot to.

I changed the reference to his promotion to LT to reflect that it was a temporary promotion and cited the given source. Good call. --ElKevbo 16:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a little more research should go into this before drawing that conclusion. After all, a DD214 simply reflects the rank the individual had on the date of discharge from active service. [5] A DD214 is not the transfer to reserves, by the way.--EECEE 10:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

On the discharge, I finally found what was going on. The particular record needed is conviently hidden behind a "robots.txt" entry on the wayback machine. Galling, because it was there, but effectively removing the proof of what I was saying. Of course, why would Kerry hide it if it wasn't damaging to his case? Specifially just the final discharge papers, not all the rest of the "selected" records he had posted. Oh well, I can't prove what I have said until someday when Kerry releases ALL his records.

So, as of now, this subsection of the discussion can be removed by the moderators / administrators. Of course, MoxRox might apologize for her comments, since her comment that Kerry released all his records is wrong, and I certainly proven my assertation of the factual error.

Where it this robots.txt on the John Kerry pages? I've looked at the wayback machine and I couldn't find it at any of their archives of the JK site. The current JK site only denies access to Googlebot to the pressreleases Nil Einne 22:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Curious Redirect

I noticed "Sore Loser" redirects to this article. I'll leave that statement hanging in the air for those who are better aquainted with the degree of style to be applied in the Wikipedia to act upon as they see fit. --Mickel 09:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Is fixed. Kuru ^talk 18:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Swift Vets giving their first person accounts

Why is that an unreliable source? It is a primary source for actions they were a part of. As long as they talk about facts and not draw conclusions I see no reason why they can't be used as a primary source. Blog entries by the authors can be used as primary sources. --Tbeatty 23:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Your checkuser was officially declined on the grounds that you play nice, that doesn't mean you can just ignore a previous arbcom ruling, or it might be unignored should it be determined that your interactions on this page are disruptive--172.128.175.65 00:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't make any requests for a checkuser. What are you talking about?--Tbeatty 01:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"Swiftvets are an unreliable and partisan source." -- Gamaliel in edit summary

• Wasn't John Kerry a Swiftvet?--Tbeatty 06:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You know that I was referring to SBVFT. Cut the crap. Gamaliel 16:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Lighten up, Francis. It was funny.--Tbeatty 16:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Human Events is a reliable source with credible journalists and journalism standards. You might not like it's editorial board but it has journalism standards. This was an interview of persons who were there. They disagree with John Kerry's account and how it was described on his citation. It is a point of view that requires telling. --Tbeatty 15:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The arbitration committee directed in 2004 that the "telling" take place primarily in the John Kerry military service controversy article (and SBVFT), which was created per the arbitrators' ruling on the matter. A mention of the SBVFT view here is appropriate. A rehashing is not. Derex 05:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

First, the question I asked below is an attempt to ascertain whether or not these "alternate viewpoints" or whatever they are labeled are actually connected with SBVFT or some other folks. I think it would make a difference (primarily in their motivation) if these folks were unconnected with SBVFT. I think it unlikely that there is not a connection but one has to ask, right?

Second, how were we supposed to know there has previously been an ArbCom ruling related to this article? Can't they throw a template or something at the top of articles to alert editors of previous rulings? We can't seriously be expected to search through the ArbCom archives before editing every article, right? --ElKevbo 06:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. I was unware of the arbcom ruling as well. Where is the ArbCom ruling? I think a summary of the alternate accounts (SBVFT and others) is appropriate. It should be mentioned in the article (along with the link) in the sections that give the official version or the Kerry version whichever is the most appropriate. I don't think it is okay to have a separate isolated section that simply mentions the controversy with a single link. It should flow with the narrative of the article. --Tbeatty 06:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

'Alternate viewpoints' is SBVFT. There is no template, because the arbitration was over editor behavior. However, that was centered on this article, so they addressed it. I'm not sure that was within their proper mandate (as a content matter), but it was excellent advice anyway and has served us well.

It was the first Rex case, remedies 1 & 1.5. Note that the case was perfunctorily closed when Rex "left", though the remedy had been voted on and passed. I don't recall what the subtle distinction was on remedy 1 between the for and against votes, but all except Raul indicated that they wanted the controversy details gone from the main article and placed in a linked article. At any rate, based on that finding and personal discussions with the arbitrators, we created the John Kerry military service controversy article, created the John Kerry VVAW controversy, & greatly expanded the SBVFT. The arbitrators & everyone else (except Rex) found this satisfactory during the election, and for the past two years. Shortly afterwards, we handled the George W. Bush military service controversy using the exact same approach, again resolving some serious conflicts. I believe Clinton has been dealt with similarly, again to great improvement in both the article and civility.

It is a very bad idea to try to rehash these sort of controversies in main articles. A summary of the dispute should of course be presented. But there was a pretty good & stable consensus summary in place for a couple years now. I'm not sure when it got changed, and thus re-emerged as an issue of contention. I'll just say this. We had something that worked as a consensus _during_ the final part of the election. That speaks well for it, and I'd recommend not re-opening that stale can of worms. Go back a ways and dig up the good neutral summary, and leave it at that. Derex 07:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. It seems the arbcom perception is that the article should be broad overview and not "blow by blow". I only saw that sourced material was being removed as a WP:RS claim which seemed absurd since the SBVT version of events was a major part of the election. I don't mind if it goes in a sub article that is referenced in the relevant section. --Tbeatty 09:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of Kerry's crewmates are either dead, or they have denounced him, due to his poor leadership and skill. Even worse is that fact that three of his Purple Hearts were self-inflicted wounds.

This claim is meaningless without being reliably sourced.PStrait 10:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's also wrong on ALL counts. See, for example, the Swift Boat Vets and POWS for Truth or John Kerry Military Service Controversy articles. --EECEE 23:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a section on SBVFT? This is ridiculous. It's a republican smear group. This is what wikipedia has come to, is it? -Anon

To Gamaliel

Unlike you, the swift boat veterans were actually there, what makes you think that you make a better source than they do?--—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 12:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Are the people whom we are discussing the same group of people whose claims to have been present have been debunked (primarily those who came out of the woodwork during the 2004 presidential campaign) or a different group whose claims are more reliable? --ElKevbo 16:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

How have their claims been debunked? As far as I know, they are simply eyewitness accounts that they have been telling since Kerry's Vietnam War Protester days.

Actually that's not true. Not a single "eyewitness" spoke up until the 2004 election. Wait, I take that back. Kerry's crewmates and commanding officers spoke up on his behalf when someone tried to smear him as a war criminal during his 1996 Senate election. They and plenty of others also spoke up when interviewed by Douglas Brinkley in 2003 for his book, "Tour of Duty," and by the Boston Globe for a series of articles that later became a book. Not a one of them disputed Kerry's courage or honesty.

The only Swift Boat veteran speaking up against Kerry in his protester days was John O'Neill, who only arrived in Vietnam after Kerry had left, and did not attempt to give any sort of "eyewitness account" of anything Kerry did when there. --EECEE 03:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There are Dick Cavett debates between the two principles from the 1970's. There are multiple versions of the events but I haven't seen where one version is more accurate than another. This is valid POV and it should be covered. So should Kerry's. NPOV requires that it be covered expecially since it was such a big part of the election. Kerry's version is the official citation version and it should be given appropriate weight. The other eyewitnesses should also have their version told. --Tbeatty 16:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As has been done extensively in the SBVT and John Kerry Military Service Controversy articles. --EECEE 03:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if these particular person's claims have been debunked. That's why I was asking who they are which is really a very roundabout way of asking if these are the same folks from SBVFT. --ElKevbo 17:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

1.1 The neutral point of view

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

It's significant as it arguably changed the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. It's published in both news and book formats.

--Tbeatty 16:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Assuming we know of no good reason to dismiss their accounts, I agree with Tbeatty that NPOV demands they be represented in a manner consistent with their due weight. --ElKevbo 17:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Their accounts can be rebutted but not dismissed. They have their version of events. If they are wrong it should be straight forward to rebut them with reliable sources. Certainly the official citation on Kerry's award is very strong rebuttal. --Tbeatty 17:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Their accounts could be dismissed but I agree that it's highly unlikely to occur. There would have to be some really strong grounds for doing so. But I'm just being pendantic at this point - I think we're in agreement on the major points. --ElKevbo 17:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also not particularly attached to this version of "Military Honours". It can be rewritten as long as the major different major versions of events are maintained. I think the primary version should be the official version on Kerry's citation with the swift vets version as an alternate version. My only contribution was sourcing the claims with reliable sources. --Tbeatty 18:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a smear group. Jush mentioning them advances their cause. At the most, have a link at the bottom with the rest, but leave out the section. Imagine if you put in every single group that had an opinion on someone? Imagine what the Chavez page would look like? What relevance do they have with anything anyways? Isn't this article long enough? This section should be the first to go. It has nothing to do with NPOV because it's a non-issue. -Anon

In 2004, the controversies over the major-party candidates' military records attracted considerable attention from Wikipedia editors. The result, in the George Bush and John Kerry articles, was that the section on that issue grew and grew and became disproportionate. The solution in both cases was to spin off a daughter article about the "military service controversy" and leave only a summary in the main article. Kerry's Vietnam experience is an important part of his bio but the major points about it are undisputed. He was there, he was wounded, he was decorated, he shot and killed at least one enemy, and he came to believe that the military effort was futile. The attacks from political opponents concern details that aren't of equal importance with these major points. The attacks can be mentioned in brief summary, with development left to the daughter article. JamesMLane t c 07:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --EECEE 04:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

First sentence in the article. Change it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.110.23 (talk • contribs) 19:23, September 26, 2006

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --ElKevbo 01:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Fulbright hearing

Kerry was not under oath when he "testified" about USA atrocities? If that's true, this is very interesting to hear. See this link: http://www.vvlf.org/default.php?page_id=77

38.119.52.98 07:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that he wasn't under oath? --ElKevbo 07:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, just read the article - it's right there:

Our chance came earlier this year when Kenneth Campbell was deposed. Among the first thing he disclosed was that this was the first time he had actually been put under oath in over 35 years of "testifying" about Vietnam "war crimes." Neither he nor any of his fellow "war criminals" – Kerry included – had ever been sworn in at any hearings, not before the Senate, the House of Representatives, or anywhere.

38.119.52.98 05:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Er Kenneth Campbell? In any case, how would someone else know for sure whether Kerry had ever been under oath? Finally I don't think Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation is a Wikipedia:Reliable sources Nil Einne 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Way too long

I agree with the 'Too long' tag on this article (of a defeated US presidential candidate). Hubert Humphrey & Walter Mondale (former US Vice Presidents) articles aren't this long. GoodDay 18:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by that.

If you mean the amount of total information in Wikipedia about those men: then those articles should be this long, and they would be if those men served today. There are fewer editors knowledgeable or interested in politicians who served when they were children or not even born, and certainly fewer on-line resources to provide sourcing for an article.

If you mean this article by itself, I'd agree partially. Some parts of this could be spun into daughter articles, with briefer summaries here. However, that's just an organizational issue. Derex 20:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I mean the article by itself, I've no complaints about the information in it. Your're right, this article could have parts of it seperated into related articles. GoodDay 00:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Spin off

In response to the complaints about length, I'd like to nominate the "speculation about 2008" section. To me, that's a good candidate to put in a sub article, because it's speculation (though sourced). It's only going to get longer as we approach 2008, too. Derex 23:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Tbeatty 23:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments regarding those serving in Iraq

Added only the facts and stuck to neutral with sources.

I don't know who added this statement

"Kerry caused much criticism and embarrassment for himself in late October of 2006 when he insinuated during a speech that U.S. troops in Iraq are “stuck” there because they did not do well in school." but it sounds pretty biased

It's a news article, I didn't write it. Are you saying now contributers are't nuetral because a news agency reporting it uses bias tones? Whole point of this project is to take news and filter to just the facts. Heres what was written:

Comments regarding those serving in Iraq

During a speech on October 30, 2006 Kerry spoke to students at Pasadena City College in California. At one point during the speech he said "You know, education -- if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well". The comment has drawn fire from both parties and maybe veterans groups such as the American Legion and the VFW. [6] [7] [8].

While Kerry at first said he would refuse to apologize he later said it was a botched joke. [9]

Its purely stating facts with verifiable sources (such as abcnews), and even says BOTH parties are heated over it. If you don't like the source then change to one you do but stop reverting content for whatever party you think this helps or hurts. If you want NPOV then read with a NPOV.

"Neutrality questioned"

I'm definitely not pro-administration, and I think it's unfortunate that Kerry has given some fuel for the GOP to make the most of. I would love to see the incident ignored. But in fact the incident has received a fair amount of press lately, and it would be a lie to say that it is not currently prominent in the national discussion. (Even if much of that discussion is driven by pro-GOP news parties.) I cannot imagine seeing that incident reported and discussed in a more neutral and fair way than is currently how it's discussed in the article.

It is entirely possible that after some time has passed, like so many news items that are hot for a short while, this too may seem utterly trivial and unmemorable. Should that be more or less a consensus, then it may be appropriate to delete this incident from the article as simply being not worthy of mention.

Kerry's botched joke

I'm surprised to see that an edit I made to this discussion page was removed. This is not the article. Questions should not be deleted. I wanted to know if the theory that Skull and Bones ordered Kerry to help the republicans had been discussed anywhere. I can think of no other reason why a sophisticated politician would stick his foot so deeply into his own mouth by insulting servicemen. Moreover, he is handling the fallout really badly. I just can't believe he is acting so foolishly out of anger and bad feelings. Politicians at his level don't make these kinds of mistakes.

71.206.241.28 23:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is one week before the election and all news outlets are reporting on this as a major part of the 2006 campaign. This is a remark which Senator Kerry states was a misinterpreted joke aimed at the Bush administration and what the Republicans are claiming to be an attack on troops serving. Feelings on both sides of the aisle are becoming high and this at least needs to be mentioned in the article. Before I inadvertently kickoff an ultimately pointless revert war, what's everyone else's opinion?--Folksong 06:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's news. This is an encyclopedia. If we added a section each time politicians sniping made the news, this article would be a book. Can you even imagine what the Bush article would look like? If it has lingering notable impact, then add it. This happened two days ago, and Kerry's not even running for anything. Derex 06:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Um - yeah, and if it were George Bush, George Allen, Dick Cheney or Tom DeLay making the comment, I'm sure everyone would want to ignore it as well... right.Dubc0724 13:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's one week before election day and Kerry is still a prominent figure for the Democratic Party, being the second most mentioned potential Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, following Hillary Clinton. I agree that if it was only Bush and Kerry jabbing at each other during their presidential race, or Kerry and Weld during their senate race, it wouldn't deserve any notice, but this is a situation where it's making such waves in both parties and getting strong reactions from people. Many people will be coming to this page to get a NPOV redux of the controversy. Not speaking about it does nothing in terms of usefulness or factuality for the Wikipedia --Folksong 07:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The odds of us actually getting an NPOV section on that, and keeping it NPOV, within days is virtually zero exactly because it's so hot. That's one reason it's best not to try to lead the news cycle. This is a long-term project, and we shouldn't be adding & then deleting sections by what's in the news this week. I won't revert you again though, others can make the judgement on this. Derex 07:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. A brief, one-line NPOV mention followed by a Wikinews link might serve us well. --ElKevbo 07:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. Encyclopedias should be a later draft of history, not the first. Wikinews is the appropriate location for this material, with a mention here. -Will Beback 08:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Folksong; this concerns more than two politicians, and Kerry is still a prominent figure. It's commentary like his that can sway elections. --PeanutCheeseBar 12:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If's its the view to not quote political blunders then we need to do the same for politicans on both sides. Otherwise its not neutral. As such I'm adding the comment back as its news and newsworthy. If you look at other running senators such as Rick Santorum, a close race, 90% of his entry is quote related. Hell democrats are putting up entries such as this comparing a running candidate to fecal matter, using bots to keep it up! [10] Be neutral, not neutral for parties, peoples and subjects you relate to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.130.174 (talk • contribs) 08:28, November 1, 200

It has nothing to do with "not quoting political blunders" but that it's too soon and too heated for us to even come close to giving this event due weight. I think nearly any event, quote, blunder, etc. made by any politician this close to an election is blown completely out of proportion and that makes our job that much more difficult. --ElKevbo 14:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Derex et al, especailly on the "undue weight" part. If you look, the section that is there now for this fiasco is longer than the section discussing his voting record/issues, as well as the one dealing with his stance on the Iraq war- and those sections actually are pretty important. Why does this gaff demand more attention than those things? For all we know, in two weeks nobody will even remember Kerry saying this. Now if Kerry winds up resigning (not saying he should), or something major like that comes of it, then by all means, it should have a section. --DarthBinky 14:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Resigning is the best thing I have heard all day. I believe the section should stay. The comments he made have already made changes to history because Democrats are cancelling appearances. Jbarker2 19:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The above statement constitutes original research and a prediction. When the articles and books are written that evaluate the 2006 mid-term elections, the impact of Kerry's remark will certainly be considered, and we will then have verifiable information about its importance. Until then, we don't know if it is a gnat or an elephant and it is impossible to write about it in an NPOV manner. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I am disappointed at the length of the section, especially compared to such important sections as Kerry's voting record, as stated above. But, unfortunately, the cat's out the bag. Perhaps after the election, when hopefully, everything will simmer down, we can trim up the section, But, it would be a great disservice to our readers not to discuss this in the article, as they trust Wikipedia to be a neutral recollection of the facts and I believe it's imperative to have all viewpoints in the section, especially Kerry's explanations, because it is a serious claim that his opponents are making, questioning his patriotism and his support for the troops. FWIW, I attended the speech and those claims are totally out of context, he even spoke about supporting the troops in the beginning of his speech.--Folksong 18:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Folksong that it should be kept; partly because there are so many people adding it back in, there is really no practical way to keep it out. And part of the problem has been that when it is put back in, it is often a POV version. We should just make sure that it remains balanced, and that is the reason why it is going to be longer than this subject warrants. As for Folksong's final sentence, I also agree, and I think this whole thing is just political opportunism. When I heard what Kerry actually said, I knew what he meant -- and that was before I even heard his explanation. He was taking a jab at the President, not at the troops. 6SJ7 18:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that the length of the section explaining (spinning?) Kerry's response & non-apology to the controversy is much longer than the part explaining the actual comment and its criticism. Dubc0724 19:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's pretty much a lost cause to insist on keeping this section short right now. We can keep it in check and really clean it up in a week or two when the controversy has died down and we have the benefit of hindsight to give it proper weight. --ElKevbo 19:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

All I put there was Kerry's response to what are seriously grave accusations against his character. Conservatives would ask the same if this was happening to George Allen or Donald Rumsfeld. At Wikipedia, it's either we write with NPOV about subjects that we might disagree with or might not like, or we don't write at all.--Folksong 20:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Right on, Dubc0724. I also agree that the section could be revised after the election. Let's wait and see what affect the comment (If any) has on the election.Jbarker2 19:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we must keep it, could it be moved to someplace that makes more sense? Where it is now, it interrupts the flow of the article- it talks about his service in the Senate, then talks about this current situation, then goes back to the Senate and then his 2004 bid. I would say give it its own section, maybe just before the 2008 section. addition- the Vietnam Vet campaign theme immediately following seems out of place too- should be included in 2004 section, I think. --DarthBinky 19:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to be bold and move those two sections. --DarthBinky 19:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea.--Folksong 20:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good idea, let's bury any negative aspect of Kerry in a separate article where nobody will see it... Dubc0724 14:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Take your conspiracy theories somewhere else. We're here to contribute to an encyclopedia and not sling mud at one another. --ElKevbo 15:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? It's not a conspiracy theory; it's a criticism of the way this is being handled, especially when compared to other political scandals. I look forward to your apology for referring to me as a "troll". Dubc0724 16:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't "bury" it in a "separate article where nobody will see it". I moved it further down the page to a place where it made more sense- like I said, the flow of the article was screwed up having it where it was. If you don't believe me, look at the article's history. Of course, since I moved it, someone has moved it again... but that wasn't me. I don't appreciate being accused of being party to some sort of partisan agenda (which is what you strongly implied by suggesting I was trying to "bury any negative aspect of Kerry") when all I did was made a simple fix. --DarthBinky 16:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Even among those of us who have disagreed this was a very civil and productive discussion until you made an unsupported accusation of political bias. I'm sure that most of us here do have political biases of one sort or another but to accuse other Wikipedia editors of "burying any negative aspect" without evidence is completely out of line and unwelcome. --ElKevbo 16:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've already apologized to Darth on his userpage. I'm now here to apologize to everyone else... I initially misread the discussion above and thought sections were being moved to subarticles rather than to other sections of this article. I did not do a good job of assuming good faith, in part due to bad faith edits I've seen elsewhere lately. I have no problem with the article as it stands; I simply misunderstood what was taking place and reacted too quickly and uncoolly. Again, my apologies. Dubc0724 16:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Well played! My faith in humanity and Wikipedia editors is restored. :) --ElKevbo 16:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Made a small removal quoted unverified sources at ABC. Anyone can quote unnamed sources, but that doesn't make it newsworthy. If you can directly quote someone directly connected to the discussion thats understandable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheepdog tx (talk • contribs) 12:59, November 1, 2006

According to the current article, this one comment by Kerry, and the three handful of days' news coverage it has received so far, is 3 times more important to his biography than the entire 2004 Presidential race, and more important than all stances on issues and votes in the Senate that he has ever had. I think that the "Botched Joke" section is embarrassingly long, and I would trim it down myself to one paragraph with a small smattering of quotes (none from Harold Ford, John Murtha, or anyone except Kerry and the White House) if I didn't think that it would get me in such trouble. --Mullibok 15:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC response

Considering that this took place in the final days before an election and it's in all the newspapers, it belongs in the article. Per WP:NPOV it doesn't deserve undue weight or space. Durova 21:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding more to the Remarks Section

I believe that more should be added to the recent remarks section of this article. There should be more about the reaction from soldiers and soldiers families. Also, this could hurt many democrats for reelection in the 2006 election. One day, although it might not be, we could look back on this and think that this could have been why the republicans kept Congress.

Bcody 22:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Bcody, done. Added image from DrudgeReport.com that the troops in Iraq made. The image was also displayed on the MSNBC show "Tucker". Jbarker2 00:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You're giving this issue undue weight. Bcody, you can't TRY to effect an election or a readers favorable or unfavorable view of either Democrats, or John Kerry, which is what you admit to doing. I reported your actions for what I consider to be blatant electioneering. Sorry. I am going to trim this section way down. Please see Let The Dust Settle. and you might want to read the BLP on Larry Craig. Although in that instance it was an unconfiirmed rumor, most of your Conservative bretheren argued 'let the dust settle', as well. Barker, you can't just take a pic from the Drudge Report or wherever you like and post it here, plus this isn't relevent to the Biography of John Kerry. I'm removing the pic which not only isn't relevent, but has no copyright info. F.A.A.F.A 03:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the other pic as well. You can't just take a pic from "© 2006 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved. [4] © MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved." -especially as it is not illustrating a particular point. If you were criticizing Kerry for being a windsurfer, you might be able to get away with using a copyrighted pic of him windsurfing to illustrate that particular point under fair use - but a pic of Kerry in front of a podium, even if it is at the event in question, is not NEEDED to descibe his 'botched joke' thus can't qaulify under fair use. F.A.A.F.A 04:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with FAAFA and think the picture should go, especially lacking a copyright status. I want to further point out that copyright pictures should not be used on Wikipedia at all, if anythnig it may squeak by in an article about Windsurfing as fair use, but not as a critique or demonstration of KErry windsurfing. --NuclearZer0 12:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This got brought to my attention at my user page. Per WP:NPOV, any attempt to influence the outcome of an election is well outside Wikipedia's mission. Write to your newspaper or start a blog instead. Durova 04:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

My camera misformatted my memory card during Kerry's speech, so I had to reset and reformat. Though, if anyone would like me to post a self-taken, GNU-licensed picture in this section of Kerry at the rally (not speaking, but in the building), I'd be pleased to.--Folksong 05:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I came here looking for what kerry actually said. So, I think it is good to include what he said. But I find it that the section on the joke is way too long. A lot of it is not relevant to a bio note, so perhaps we should just create a current events article for the joke where all that was sparked by it can be discussed. Brusegadi 16:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I never did understand how they tried to play it off as a joke... 16:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

link not working

This link isn't working and its used as a reference in the controversy section.--Kross^Talk 23:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Troops holding sign mocking Kerry comment

This is not pertinent to Kerry's statements in the controversy, and it isn't representative of soldiers' opinions of the senator as a whole. The picture, and paragraph accomodating it should be removed.

The picture and the comment at least represent the thoughts of these eight service men. Also, the statement with the picture does not indicate "all" soldier's. The statement and picture should stay. Jbarker2 03:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't even necessarily represent their opinions. It's possibly they were just making fun of him, not that they were actually offended by it. Koweja 03:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The soldiers in the picture are from the Minnesota National Guard 34th Infantry division I believe.--CWY2190 04:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to get some consensus here. Without a statement, who knows what those service men intended? If they come up with a press release or written response, let's put it in, if not, the picture should go. I'm not going to delete the picture until or if we get consensus, but I just want to get others' opinion. --Folksong 04:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be about John Kerry, and a HISTORICAL article. Articles are not current event blogs, The botched joke deserves a short mention. The REACTION to it is not germaine to the article. If it doesn't die down (it actually already has) you can write an article on The John Kerry Botched Joke Controversy of 06. Wiki is NOT a newspaper where we update articles in a daily basis - unless it involves major news. That's why people say Let The Dust Settle. - F.A.A.F.A 05:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The responses to Kerry's botched joke is considered significant. I understand removing the two pics with questionable licenses, but not half of the section. Omission is also considered POV.
The only problem is probably the undue weight rule, but the info fits criteria #1 and #2 as set forth by Jimbo. I'll remove the part regarding the US soldier's response as not significant enough yet, but the rest should stay. ^_^ Jumping cheese ^Contact 06:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The pictures should definatly go, a brief mentino if anything should stay. I find this quite disturbing that anyone would attempt to keep this picture in the article as its clearly biased and made to insult the person, we do have BLP standards, writing that they made a statement is one thing, but no point in including the picture. --NuclearZer0 12:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a blog. If there is significant long term fallout from Kerry's misstatement, include it. If it blows over, on the other hand, it has no place here. Mobrienil 14:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Botched joke section too large

I agree it should be covered but it's about as large as the "Personal Life" section. That's way too much text. *Sparkhead 16:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Someone else mentioned stripping it down to the actual comment, the criticism of it, and Kerry's response/apology/whatever-you-call-it. I'd say that'd be better than it is now. Dubc0724 16:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm - at first I thought I agreed, but then I checked two similar career-altering episodes, Dean's scream, and Lott's Strum Thurmond meltdown, and I'm not so sure now. Ronnotel 20:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

We need to summarize and we can leave out the block quotes from every single US politician. A seperate article on this minor incident is not needed. An instructive comparison is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Chris Wallace interview of Bill Clinton, which was deleted. Gamaliel 20:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose a new page at this point. If in two weeks, this is still seen as notable, then a new page would be fine. Notable would mean something like pundits think, or polls show, that it had a notable effect on the elections. "Dean Scream" unquestionably fit that, and so did "Strom". There is no evidence at all of that happening here. If anything, it seems to be causing a mild backlash against Bush.

We could equally have an article on the furor over Bush calling the war "just a comma", and I think that would be equally ridiculous. Someone just needs to have the balls to edit this thing to the proper size. I kept it in check for a while, see #Kerry's botched joke, but didn't want to edit war and would be hitting 3RR anyway. Derex 20:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of us having balls to edit it; we need a little bit of cooperation from those who keep putting everything that everyone said about the controversy in this article. In my view, it should have 3 parts:

1. What Kerry said
2. How/Why it was criticized
3. How Kerry attempted to explain it away

We don't need to talk about Harold Ford or Bob Casey or Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or Ted Kennedy. Obviously we don't all agree on whether it was a "botched joke about Bush" (it wasn't, IMO) but we can present the material in a concise, NPOV way. Dubc0724 21:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, except that we do need point 4 (or 3a): The response to Kerry's explanation, just enough for the reader to understand that the explanation wasn't universally accepted, and why. Zsero 23:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There must be a full moon out, or a severe shortge of 'tin' foil. Kerry's written 'script' WITH the joke was shown to reporters. The line right before the botched joke was also about bush. One flubbed line can't be described 'comments of Iraq and education'. Maybe the conspiracists here can work some more 'Skull and Bones' claims into the article too! Thank God WE'RE not so desperate that when Bush misspoke and said he was always thinking of new ways to hurt the troops, we claimed that he meant it. Most blogs, including the one the wacky claim came from, aren't acceptable sources. F.A.A.F.A 02:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Many reasonable people do not believe Kerry's explanation. The reference is to one example of such a reaction, in the person of Ann Althouse, a well-known commentator and certainly no partisan Republican, explaining why she finds his explanation incredible. It's cited for the opinion expressed, not for any facts contained therein.

The Kerry quote from 1972 is trimmed down to the relevant sentence. The rest of the quote isn't relevant to the current topic, which is whether Kerry was likely to have meant that people who don't do well at school end up in the army. That sentence is relevant to his state of mind back then, and therefore perhaps to his current state of mind; the rest of the quote simply isn't relevant to that question. We're trying to keep it short here - see the discussion above, which quite correctly complains that the section is way too long for its importance.

Zsero 08:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

State of mind back then and current state of mind? Please drop the POV before editing. And as for keeping it short, that doesn't mean keeping out of context.--Folksong 08:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not think any reasonable person would think a vietnam veteran would call soldiers stupid, especially since he wears his service on his arm like a badge of honor, but politics isnt about being reasonable, hence all the drama over Ford and the super bowl. --NuclearZer0 12:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The botched joke section shouldn't be a huge gigantic portion of this page its hilarious and ridiculous how big it is.-MrHistory84

Error

In the "Electoral history" section, it states that Kerry received 252 Electoral votes, when in reality, he received only 251. If a registered Wikipedian would please fix, it would be appreciated. Thanks. --198.185.18.207 21:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

He actually was supposed to get 252- a faithless elector in Minnesota accidentally voted for Edwards instead. Cheers --DarthBinky 22:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, but he actually received 251. There is a difference. --198.185.18.207 22:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Change made :-) Jbarker2 23:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Two points.

1. We need a source for whoever said that critics claim that Kerry has a record of insulting troops. Remember, one's personal opinion does not count here, but if a columnist or other published source said it, then it's fine to include it and attribute it in the article.

2. Deleting the second part of the quote which starts off that: "We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'" The second part takes Kerry's quote into context, and it's deceitful to readers by withholding part of the truth. What is wrong with letting readers decide their reaction to the quote instead of stacking the cards against Kerry? Also, a personal interpretation of Kerry's statement by deleting part of it is potentially libelous. --Folksong 08:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Folksong, I agree with you. The entire quote should remain for the reasons of NPOV. Jbarker2 15:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Context of 'botched joke' is important

I feel for historical purposes that the context of the botched joke must be fully realized. My recommendation would be to add a larger portion of the kerry speech so that it is in proper context and that future people who look to wikipedia as a respectable reference to this incident will not perpetuate something that was taken out of context. too many times are words and speeches taken out of context by the mass media to create controversy and we should not record the history of some person in the media who wants to creat controversy but keep accurate historical record.

Agreed for NPOV reasons. Perhaps someone could provide a URL which contains the "full" text of the speech. Jbarker2 15:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well, though Derex keeps making revisions that seem to implicate that only Republicans criticized Kerry, is removing the apology entirely, and is entirely throwing off the balance of NPOV. --PeanutCheeseBar 23:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The condemnations made by Democrats are not the same condemnations made by Republicans. Republicans implied that Kerry intentionally bashed the troops from the upstart, while some Democrats merely stated his comments were inappropriate. Bob Casey and Harold Ford also came to Kerry's defense after his apology. There is a difference, which needs to be pointed out It's also disingenuous to state that Ford and Casey criticized his remarks without also showing that both accepted his apology and defended his explanation afterwards.--Folksong 00:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I hope we can find a way to tighten and shorten this soon as it's very much out of balance in comparison to the rest of the article. But it's important that it not appear that all condemnation came from Republicans as that doesn't match what I understand of this event. Certainly most of the condemnation, including the most vocal and vicious criticism, came from Republicans. But the "Oh my God, did he really say that? Idiot..." reaction was a bipartisan reaction. :) --ElKevbo 01:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much what ElKevbo said sums it up; both sides were critical of Kerry's remark, but Republicans moreso than Democrats. However, in reference to Kerry's apology, I only added that Kerry apologized; I don't think it's relevant whether or not it was accepted (be it by Democrats or Republicans), as the media will only occasionally continue to cover stories or people that don't accept such apologies. After that, it usually only ends up as a footnote in some other news story, or comes up again if the individual should repeat his or her mistake. Regardless, I'm glad to see we came to some kind of consensus. --PeanutCheeseBar 01:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Prepared remarks

At present, the text asserts as factual Kerry's claims regarding the prepared remarks. There remains controversy on this point ( see [11], [12]) - I believe the statement should be qualified, e.g. According to Kerry's staff, . . . Ronnotel 21:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What controversy? The New York Times reported as fact a quote from his prepared remarks. Neither source you provide contradicts that or even addresses it at all. And, the first source is an opinion piece anyway, not a factual reference. Derex 21:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, the timeline should be clarified. Had they been released before the speech, there would be no controversy. As far as I can tell - they weren't. And, by the way, the NY Times was forced to issue a correction regarding their characterization of Kerry's prepared remarks vs. what he said. I wouldn't necessarily rely on them as being objective in this case. Ronnotel 22:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't take this as sarcasm, but when was the last time a politician (or anyone) released their prepared remarks before a speech, or at all? No Wikipedian can instigate a controversy no matter how we feel about a subject, we can only report if there is a controversy from other people or another source. And may we see where the NY Times was forced to issue a correction?--Folksong 22:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The correction is here, third item. Clearly, the uncorrected text is skewed in favor of Kerry's POV. I think we should find a different article to reference, one that hasn't had to be corrected for blatant bias. Ronnotel 15:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of his prepared remarks, he obviously didn't realize he botched it or that it would be offensive. He may have "botched a joke", but he didn't know he botched it at the time. I think that's more interesting (and telling). Imagine if he had told a joke about immigration and used a slur and didn't realize it or apologize immediately. Does anybody think that an excuse of "it was not supposed to be a slur in my written prepared statement and I botched it" would fly? The fact that he didn't realize immediately that saying people with less education end up in the military would be offensive is a problem with his outlook. But this whole thing doesn't deserve more than three lines in what is by any measure an extraordinary life. --Tbeatty 03:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Ronnotel that the main reason this developed into a controversy that ate up two days is because of Kerry's weird delay in releasing his written prepared remarks. I'm still scratching my head over it. Here, for example, is an article reporting interviews with officials in the Massachusetts Democratic party, and they don't seem to understand it any better than I do. http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061103/NEWS/611030663/1008/NEWS02 For the section, I would go back to what many people have suggested: the comments, the criticism, the answer, and save it on any more editorializing. A while from now it may seem right to trim it down even more or delete it entirely, but at the moment I think that's really all you need. Eupolis 03:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep our eye on the ball here. Is this of any notability past the week? This Reuters article says that the consensus among pollsters is essentially neglible impact. T, the problem is that he did not utterly flub it, his statement was open to interpretation. He knew he was being intentionally misinterpreted, as Dick Armey said, "It's pretty standard-fare political discourse. You misconstrue what somebody said. You isolate a statement, you lend your interpretation to it, and then you feign moral outrage." Derex 07:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what significance it has for this current election, but apparently the word around Washington is that this incident has killed Kerry's chances at getting the presidential nomination in 2008. Newsweek has come out with a long article about it and the money quote is probably this one: “There is not a Democrat in Washington who thinks John Kerry is a viable presidential candidate after last week,” says a longtime Democratic strategist (who isn’t working for one of Kerry’s potential rivals). [13] Eupolis 15:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Current edit war

I don't know what folks are thinking but there has been a lot of talk in recent revert summaries but virtually no discussion here on the Talk page. One person has already been blocked for violating the 3 Revert Rule and several others appear to either be on the verge of violating it or already in violation. C'mon folks - talk it out here and work this out instead of continuing to make snide comments in the edit summary as you revert one another. I'm trying to keep an eye on the history of the article and as I am very disappointed with the conduct of several experienced editors who should know better than to edit war I'll report any violations of the 3RR that I see. How about a cease fire on this section while ya'll work on it in a sandbox or propose changes here? --ElKevbo 01:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to encourage Derex to participate in these discussions both in the comments of edits I've made and on his talk page. However, he (along with another user I suspect to be a sockpuppet) has been making the article very one-sided and NPOV by removing Democratic criticisms of Kerry, removing references to or undermining the importance of Kerry's apology, and overall detract attention away from what Kerry said, all in an article ABOUT Kerry. The article is not the place to have such discussions, but other users have to want to participate; you just can't make them. From this point, if I see him do it again, I'll just opt to step back, and hope he is punished. --PeanutCheeseBar 01:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Peanut, this is simply not an accurate portrayal. You can add anything you like, and I will not object. You have repeatedly deleted

• Pollster's predictions that it won't matter
• Ford's and Casey's acceptance of explanation
• Armey's opinion.
• Kerry's initial non-apology.

All of these were properly cited and on-topic. Early consensus was that this section should not even belong in the article, at best a cite to wikinews. You have persisted in trying to expand it, despite the efforts of several people to keep it in scope. As it stands it without doubt violates the undue weight provision of NPOV. It is apparently impossible to keep the thing to a reasonable length, because of you adding details furthering your POV. The only recourse then to keep this thing in some semblance of neutrality is to add a fuller range of facts, such as those which you find inconvenient above and so delete. Though I don't think it makes a good article, I won't object to any further details you add. However, at the same time, you need to stop deleting well-source on-point facts that you may not like. Let me be very clear, I have not recently and will not in the future delete any sourced fact. Let me also be clear that this whole section deserves at most 3 lines, as Tbeatty said, and probably nothing at all since pollster consensus is no election impact and thus no notability. Someone else will have to fight that now, because I got tired of holding the line. Derex 02:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Several times other authors and myself have tried to add statements to balance those of you and other authors, only to have you and them delete them and re-interpret them; you even made pithy comments such as how you should "stop censoring the Republicans". Though I agree with you that the section will likely be trimmed in the future as time progresses and the general public forgets, it won't likely "go quietly"; every time you or someone else has indicated that Republicans criticized Kerry, I add a Democrat or two. I only want balance in the article, as lack of balance only serves to broaden the political gap between both readers and authors of both parties; without this, more edit wars will start, and the credibility of the article will be at stake. If you have to indicate that Democrats forgave Kerry, you need to do the same with Republicans as well. Just as with your Dick Armey quote, where another author pointed out that not everyone accepted Kerry's apology.

Your complaint, in sum, is that I have not added something or other that you think ought to be in there. Fine, add it. It's not my job to do your editing for you. My problem is with you cutting well-sourced on-topic facts. Unless, that is, we're going to do the right thing and actually trim this beast back to the 3 sentences max it deserves. Derex 03:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Derex, I really think you may be underestimating the impact of this controversy. Can you ever imagine Kerry giving a speech to a military audience now? Recent polling indicates as much as 18% of independents citing the isssue as a factor in their vote on Tuesday. It may not swing the election, but I suspect any talk of a massive Dem pickup is off the table now. Time will tell, but this definitely isn't going to blow over. Ronnotel 03:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If a fairly obvious botched joke by someone who isn't even running has a major impact on the election, but the posting by the administration of basic plans for a nuclear bomb, in Arabic no less, on the internet as a political stunt during a war with Arabic terrorists does not.[14] ... Then the American people are too stupid to breathe. Against all evidence, I refuse to believe that my countrymen are that rock dumb. Derex 12:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think you're demonstrating exactly the same type of condescension that got Kerry into so much trouble. And why many are not ready to take his explanation at face value. ;) Ronnotel 13:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was giving people credit, by refusing to believe that level of idiocy. Looks like my faith was well placed, as there's a bit more than talk of a massive Dem pickup now. It's fairly obvious this had no substantive impact on the elections, and should have remained cut as early consensus dictated because we are not wikinews. Just garden-variety political sniping with no lasting notability in the end. Derex 11:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not want to speculate too much about what a big group of independents say. Generally, people who say they are independent are still likely to lean conservative or liberal and vote that way as a general rule. While Democrats do enjoy greater favor among independents this year than usual, it is a very good bet more than 18% of them were dead set on voting for the Republican before this, and it's not hard to imagine them saying on a poll that this reinforces their already held views. Also, this poll is by far the most favorable one for the Republicans taken in the last day or two, with three others showing a substantially greater lead for Democrats in the generic poll question than this one does. So, I would still tend to trust polling experts like Rothenberg on this question, and at the very least, it will be virtually impossible to point to any specific race on Tuesday and blame a Democrat losing on Kerry. Mullibok 04:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right, however if history is a guide, I imagine there will be a few Democrats who happened to lose (for whatever reason) doing their best to blame it on Kerry. Ronnotel 04:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Tendencies to blame election-year losses are prevalent in both major political parties; the Democrats who lose may happen to blame Kerry's coment, but I'm sure the same can't be said of those who win. You might even have some Republicans blame their losses on the Mark Foley scandal... PeanutCheeseBar 04:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just some comments. Since Derex listed his points, I will use them. This whole thing should only be about three lines. Wikipeida is not a crystal ball and this is a very small quote in, by any measure, an extraordinary life. When the election is over, I am sure there will be an article on the election where the impact of the quote can be explored fully. But here, it's just pure speculation beyond the basic facts.

• Pollster's predictions that it won't matter
  • Totally irrelevant to the quote. WP is not a crystal ball and this should extend to publishing other peoples predictions especially since it is impossible to verify. If Democrats win, Kerry is irrelevant even if the margin is small it's not knowable how much Kerry influenced it. Same thing if Dems lose. No way to assess impact of Kerry's comments. For example, Kerry mentioned Chenecy's daughters' sexual orientation. What was the impact of that? Not measurable. Therefore only the facts are relevant.
• Ford's and Casey's acceptance of explanation
  • So what? It's my opinion (see "assholes" comment below for an assessment of the importance of my opinion) that their criticism isn't particularly relevant. Kerry was roundly criticised by a large majority. Their criticism is therefore not notable and their acceptance is not surprsing as almost all Democrats accepted it.
• Armey's opinion.
  • And this is relevant how? Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Why is Armey's opinion about this topic relevant?
• Kerry's initial non-apology.
  • The noise in the first two days is entirely forgettable. The historically notable facts are: Controversial statement. Apology. Maybe in the future a comment on it's impact to Kerry's presidential bid in 2008. Probably as an epitaph comment or in an article on the 2008 democratic field and Kerry's absence.

This should be about three lines. 1) What Kerry said. 2) A neutral description of why it's controversial and 3) his apology and explanation. No need for quotes from Republican or Democrat leaders. No need for supporting and exculpatory quotes and explanations. No need for comparison to previous controversial statements. --Tbeatty 05:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. There is way to much chaff in the article as it stands, most likely because of a ping pong game with people of somewhat different political persuasions being of the honest opinion that X or Y must be included to either give more context to the section, or balancing the section out with yet another comment someone else said. The reality is that none of that is necessary, especially after Tuesday when our lives will go back to being a bit more normal. Mullibok 05:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Pollsters predictions -- goes to notability. if it affects elections, it's important. otherwise, this is just some standard political sniping, which it is.
• Ford and Casey -- if you're going to present their opinion, you need to present their opinion, not just a tiny misleading part of it.
• Armey's opinion -- every bit as relevant as McCain's. How do you pick and choose which opinions by notable Republicans broadcast on national TV to include?
• Kerry's non-apology seems about as important as his apology, after all that's what kept this in the news.

All that said, I absolutely agree with your three line punch line. My position on the rest is that if we're going to go with details, then let's not simply choose those unfavorable to Kerry. Derex 05:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

sect-pov

cheesepeanutbar, please explain the source of this tag, per the guidelines. what specific elements are pov? note that i happen to agree with the tag, because the section is a gross violation of the undue weight provision of npov policy. i suspect your reasons are different though. Derex 02:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Certain authors have repeatedly eliminated statements made by other authors meant to restore the NPOV perspective of the article, and there seems to be an underlying bias as the basis for doing so. --PeanutCheeseBar 03:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What statements? What sourced facts are needed to make this page NPOV that are not presently there? Saying someone else's past edits were biased has no bearing on whether the article itself is presently biased. Derex 03:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sourced facts such as the White House and the Republican leaders named in the section forgiving Kerry would be required, not just Democrats; you can't list a group of people from both parties who are critical of Kerry's remark, and then only state that members of his own party accepted his apology, while leaving the other party unspoken for. Though Dick Armey's comment would explain WHY people got upset over the comment, it does not serve as blanket apology for everyone from his party, which you originally intended it to represent. Thankfully, Ronnotel has been insightful enough to indicate that Kerry's apology did not cut it with everyone in the Democratic party, and has brought balance by pointing that out. --PeanutCheeseBar 04:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Without casting aspersions, I would ask that we all try to remember our obligation to assume good faith on the part of all participants. Let's please try to avoid accusations wherever possible. Ronnotel 03:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• The Kerry campaign denies all the accusations about him.

--65.54.98.105 04:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• • This one's for the ages.--Folksong 07:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Plagarism

An anonymous editor has recently added a paragraph about Kerry to the plagarism article. I'm not a political junkie and this is the first time I've heard of this. Can those knowledgable about Kerry and his history please take a look at this to make sure it's legit? The paragraph has some citations but it's definitely strange. It almost reads like the reporter who wrote the article cited in the paragraph wrote the paragraph itself as it has some strange details such as the identity of the reporter's wife and a citation of an award he received for unrelated work. --ElKevbo 17:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Mob-Buster?

Kerry is in a category called "Mob-Busters". I don't seen anything in the article and have not heard anything about him being involved in taking down the Mob. Can anyone clarify this? If Kerry was involved in "busting the mob" we need a source to verify it. --Geoffrey Gibson 01:52 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, aside from prosecuting a couple of well-known gangsters, he also created organized-crime, political corruption, and arson task forces while he was a Middlesex County prosecutor. [15]

In addition, he conducted investigations into the Noreiga and Contra drug connections, and the BCCI scandal, as a fairly new Senator back in the '80s. [16]

He also wrote a book about global crime organizations. [17]

Hope this helps. --EECEE 02:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Image

I'm sorry for not realizing in my initial edit summary that the image of John Kerry taken at PCC was deleted by another editor, and not because of the ongoing clamor between people who hate Kerry, love Kerry and have no personal involvement. First of all, the image is not "redundant," it is a photo of Kerry at the event in question (and not featured anywhere else in the article), and it was even used on an external website to illustrate the event.--Folksong 11:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You left out the people who are lukewarm to Kerry but who choose not to stand by idly and let the far-right attempts to 'Swift-boat' Kerry over a 'slip of the tongue' go unchallenged. Wiki is not Newsmax or Worldnetdaily. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits in "botched joke" section

To avoid an edit war, maybe we can discuss proposed edits here first.

What is now the second para of the section, just following Kerry's explanation, used to say something like "Others disagreed." Then it mentioned the demands for apologies for "insulting the troops." I corrected it for sense - the demands weren't a disagreement with the explanation. But it seems to me the para still needs a qualifier of some sort because the fact is that even though Kerry offered an explanation these guys were still insisting he was insulting the troops. That is the only context in which makes sense, and has nothing to do with whether an explanation "should have stopped" the demands or anything else. --EECEE 05:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Why not let the reader make the connection themselves? The sequence of events doesn't require the qualifier; one reader might conclude that the "questioners" did not feel that Kerry's explanation was sufficient; another might conclude that the questioners were taking political advantage of an obvious slip of the tongue. "Despite Kerry's explanation" does imply that logically (or something) Kerry's explanation should have sufficed, and that there was no reason for the continued demands. I happen to agree with that conclusion, but that's just my personal POV. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the original language wasn't mine, and I was trying not to change things too drastically in my edits. I do think there is some sort of context needed for the demands - the reader is otherwise left to imagine that the intended insults to GWB were insulting the troops. And the fact is that the demands for apologies pretty much came before the explanation was known. Maybe something like, "some believed Kerry intended to insult the troops and demanded an apology... ." I dunno, something like that. --EECEE 06:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Some on the right claim that Kerry did intend to insult the troops, and the 'botched joke' explanation was devised the next day, after the criticisim started. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

They claim it despite the explanation, then. By the way, McCain's call for an apology (cited in the article) acknowledged that Kerry had said it was a joke [18]. And Kerry's explanation was given the same day the criticism started - October 31 - and in fact was ignored by GWB in a speech later the same day [19] --EECEE 07:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

But that is hardly unusual. When either the right or left does something that requires explanation, the other side ALWAYS claims the explanation is bogus. Just state the facts and smart readers will understand it. Dumb ones we cant help anyway :) Dman727 07:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it needs a qualifier. We just need to state the facts. Qualifiers like "Nonetheless" are a form of stealth pov and imply that the critics of Kerrys remark are wrong. Now maybe that critism is wrong, or maybe is not, but thats up to the reader and his individual politics. Dman727 07:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs context. Otherwise it doesn't make sense. --EECEE 07:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Shrug. I think the context is there. After all the para's ARE right next to each other. If you want the qualifier in, thats cool I won't fight anyone on it. But I do think it is stealth pov. Dman727 07:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It'd be interesting to hear from someone who put some of the original language in, and get their take. --EECEE 00:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, hunt through the history and figure it out! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Political Views of John Kerry

For John McCain we have an extensive list of political views, and for Hillary Clinton we have Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton. But we don't have something similar for John Kerry. Simesa 00:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

kproxy.com problems

Apparently, all the links to kproxy.com that are being used as reference are dead. Someone should update/remove them, as they are not useful right now. -- ReyBrujo 01:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think they were just plain vanalism again, and so i reverted them. Extremely sexy 15:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)