Talk:John Kerry

---

Click here to read previous talk pages in the ARCHIVE

---

"A fair and well-documented biography of John F. Kerry" [1] — BushCountry.org (August 2, 2004).

Closeness of result

There've been some edits back and forth about calling the result "close". According to my quick eyeballing of past numbers, subject to correction upon exact calculation, Bush's margin (percentage edge over his highest-ranking challenger) was the smallest of any victorious incumbent since Woodrow Wilson in 1916. (Wilson's margin was 3.2%; I don't know whether Bush will end up a little above or a little below that.) Clinton's margin in 1996 was about 8.5%. Reagan, Nixon, LBJ and Eisenhower were all well into the double digits. Even the beleaguered Truman in 1948 seems to have beaten Dewey by about 4%. FDR's smallest edge, in 1944, was about 7.5%. Coolidge in 1924 hit about 25%. Here, or perhaps in the article on the election, we should note that Bush's winning margin was the lowest of any incumbent's in almost a century. JamesMLane 07:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bush was also the first president since his father to actually win a majority of the votes cast. Either way, none of it belongs in the intro on John Kerry, it belongs in a later section about his presidential bid as well as in the U.S. presidential election, 2004 or whatever it's called. Jewbacca

If you're going to note that Bush's margin is smaller than other Presidents, you should also note that he got an absolute majority of the total votes of about 2.5 million, including a weak third-party candidacy. Only a limited number of Presidents have managed that. Only three Democrats in the 20th century managed that: FDR, LBJ and Carter, and ironically, the last two turned out so bad they didn't get a second term. Wilson (2x), Truman, JFK and Clinton (2x) never managed a majority. My point is, if people are fishing for ways to make Bush look bad, there are ways to go the other way as well. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:00, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about the statement: "George W. Bush. Bush had also won by the largest popular vote ever recorded in US history." I think we'd ought to be looking at percentages here, not absolute numbers. Else, as the population of the USA increases, subsequent presidents have a huge chance of receiving the larges popular vote (even if by then it's not a majority of votes). I'd propose that we change "largest popular vote" to "first popular vote victory in 12 years" or something along those lines, and reflect the percentages of win/loss rather than sheer numbers. --ABQCat 10:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

George W. Bush received more votes than any other candidate in history. He also had more people vote against him than any other candidate in history. Should we include both facts? Or simply note that he won, and that overall turn-out at the polls was large? Wolfman 16:27, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He actually didn't win by the largest popular vote in history just the largest since 1988. Plus population increase makes the whole argument null.

"What was the proportion of popular votes for Bush compared to other historical proportions?"

To discuss the question any other way (than the above) is to spout right-wing propaganda and I'm pretty sure that isn't what we're about.

I don't care what statistics we use as long as they make my candidate look good. 24.176.6.165

protect it?

This page is constantly vandalized by Bush haters. The Bush page is protected, so why not this? Bart133 21:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Most of the vandalism to this page is from Kerry haters, actually. The most recent example was the addition of the statement that he likes "comunism" (sic). My personal opinion is that this page should not be protected, though I agree with you about treating them the same -- the Bush page should be unprotected. JamesMLane 21:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Main article picture

Repeated reversions of the "Kerry-victory" picture: File:Kerry victory.jpg led me to recall a discussion on the talk page in which it was decided to use Kerry's official senate portrait (available on his senate office website) - File:John kerry.jpg. I object to replacing the portrait without discussion (as Randy Johnston and Rebroad have done). In support of keeping the official campaign picture I have three points.

1. Kerry's article should be written such that it represents his entire biography and career. I think the "victory" picture would be better placed on his presidential campaign page.
2. Kerry didn't actually win the presidential election, and a victorious picture conveys incorrect information to casual readers unfamiliar with John Kerry (think if Wikipedia were to be printed and the next generation is reading the article).
3. On the basis of consistency, the official portrait should be used. The articles for senators (e.g. John McCain, Pete_V._Domenici, Bill_Frist), and even for George W. Bush use official portraits, rather than campaign snapshots.

(forgive the formatting of the pictures) --ABQCat 23:51, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If there is a case to be made for changing the lead picture, please make it here before changing it so we can avoid a revert war over this issue. Gamaliel 00:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with using the official portrait as the lead image. The campaign photo could be included in John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004, in addition to or instead of the several campaign photos already there. This main article already has two campaign photos; what would really add to it would be a good public-domain image of Kerry and Bush debating. JamesMLane 00:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, sorry guys. I preferred the image over the "official" one and didn't know it would cause a problem. --Randy Johnston 00:13, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I agree. It is best to have an official photo as the lead one. For instance, look at the new Gore photo I have put up there. It looks better than the older one and is an offical photo from the White House. If you can find a better looking photo that is offical of Kerry, you may then use it. However, we need to follow procedure in this situation. ChrisDJackson

• There is no longer any source for official Kerry photos, as his website removed its photo gallery. Therefore, I took the liberty of the more recent photo back up. My feeling is that a picture from 2003m is a more accurate representation of the man than one from 1985. --craverguy

• I agree with new photo!--Sina 08:53, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • The photo from Kerry's Senate website is what we've been using, and it seems perfectly fine to me. JamesMLane 04:22, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I put this image, Image:John F. Kerry.jpg, from Kerry's senate website up because it looks more like Kerry, circa 2004, than the other image did. It's not a snapshot or campaign photo either, so maybe everybody will be happy with it.

• When I first looked at the image, I thought it was vandalised. That proved not to be the case. It's really odd though - why would Kerry have an official picture on which it looks like he's wearing make-up? I mean, look at those lips! It's his official picture, so I don't suppose there's anything wrong with having it here... (This is not intended as a smear against Kerry; I'm not even American. It just struck me as really weird). Junes 09:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Kerry Marriages

I made a couple of corrections in the marriage box. They might be self-evident, but I'll elaborate anyway.

(1) For Kerry's first marriage, his status is "divorced." I took out the notation "divorced in civil law, annulled in RC canon law." In the U.S., as person's marriage status in his/her religious faith is of no legal consequence whatever. Religious powers can marry only by the power vested in them by the state in which the marriage takes place. Take the opposite case: if the church refused Kerry an annulment (it has happened) it would not be appropriate to say, in the main factbox "Kerry was divorced in civil law, but is a bigamist in church law," or "Kerry is married to Julia Thorne in religious law, and to Teresa Heinz in civil law." His marriage status according to his religious faith should appear in his personal life section, if anywhere.

(2) Kerry's second marriage is to Teresa Heinz, her accepted name at the time of marriage, not Teresa Heinz Kerry. This is not just an academic or stylistic point: Franklin D. Roosevelt did marry Eleanor Roosevelt, his cousin. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:04, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kerry and the war

Hello everyone. I had found out these articles awhile back but was just reading John kerrys entry and the entry on john kerrys military service, and service controversy but was unable to find this mentioned. Crimson Herald followed John Kerry campaigned for Congress for the first time. Author of the article Samuel Z. Goldhaber mentioned...

Quoted from the second link bellow:

"At Yale, Kerry was chairman of the Political Union and later, as Commencement speaker, urged the United States to withdraw from Vietnam and to scale down foreign military operations. And this was way back in 1966.

When he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, the draft board refused and Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy. END OF QUOTE.

The first link is a current article looking back at the second Link's article that was written in 1970. The man who wrote the article Goldhaber says Kerry has never contanted him or the newspaper to say that it was false. And nowadays when the Telegraph paper writing the current article tried to contact kerrys people they never denyed the article. I was wondering if this should be mentioned somewhere or if this is crediable or not?

ARTICLE: Revealed: how 'war hero' Kerry tried to put off Vietnam military duty 07/03/2004 LINK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/07/wkerr07.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/03/07/ixnewstop.html

ARTICLE: John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress Wednesday, February 18, 1970 LINK: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=352185

The information about Kerry's speech at the Yale commencement is in the article already: "Because of his public speaking skills, he was chosen to give the class oration at graduation. The speech was hastily rewritten at the last moment, and was a broad criticism of American foreign policy, including the war." As for his having requested a one-year deferral of his military service so that he could study in Europe, I thought it was also included. I confirmed my recollection that it was in the article at one point (see this version). Does anyone remember why it was removed? Did we perhaps move it to some other article? JamesMLane 11:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Hastily written" doesn't seem very NPOV. TIMBO (T A L K) 15:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To say that a speech was rewritten in a short time or just before its delivery is a fact about it, not opinion, but I've amplified to note that the prior text had already been published. JamesMLane 17:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, no worries. TIMBO (T A L K) 20:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He Is A Senator // Neutrality

Kerry is a senator now... while he may be a laywer too, he is mainly a senator.

This piece seems to have a pro-Kerry spin in some areas.

• His current occupation is senator. His profession is lawyer. The disputes regarding his military service are mentioned adequately in John Kerry#Criticism of military service and awards. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:11, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

--I re-added his current office to the caption underneath his portrait. I think his occupation as a Senator should be mentioned in the caption, because it also lists his profession as a lawyer. While he has some sort of legal background, does anybody know the last time he took the "Bar" (or whatever certification exam it is)? Another rhetorical question: when was the last time he represented somebody in Judicial court or the last time he prepared legal documents for private parties in return for a fee?Raazer 17:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)--

• He probably hasn't been practicing since the early '80s, when he became Lt Governor of MA. His license to practice in MA is inactive, and has been since at least the mid-90s. I wonder -- how many politicians with law degrees keep their credentials up to date? At any rate, he wasn't much of a lawyer -- he always had political ambitions -- but it is his profession, lapsed as his credentials might be. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel and JML

Looks like those two are teaming up to get revert happy again. 216.153.214.94 19:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wonder Twin powers activate! Gamaliel 03:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are we twins? I thought we were "more than just friends". I'd ask Antaeus Feldspar to clarify it, but apparently he's just my sockpuppet. Or I'm his sockpuppet. Or something. It gets so confusing around here sometimes.... JamesMLane 03:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Form 180

The non-signed Form 180 needs to be mentioned. [2]216.153.214.94 03:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's see. I have trouble believing that the Nader or Green campaigns wouldn't have used this against him too, frankly, and a search for kerry form 180 turns up tons of hits - one of eighty, say, being from a site that isn't right/far-right. Nothing cached on votenader.org, etc., either. I don't doubt that the issue came up (haven't checked debate transcripts yet, and I may well see it there), but I'm not convinced that it was important or that the issue if raised wouldn't have hit certain others square in the back also. If you can find a reputable and mainstream source; if you can explain what a Form 180 is; that gets closer, though then this, yes. I don't think those are impossible or merely personal and idiosyncratic requests for an encyclopedia. Schissel : bowl listen 03:37, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

This is a minor detail about the John Kerry military service controversy. The article on George W. Bush omits mention of about 95% of the similar points raised against Bush, because, as with Kerry, the whole issue is addressed in a separate article. This kind of stuff doesn't belong in the main article about either one of them. JamesMLane 03:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of my edits

My edits today on a miscellany of points:

• Calling the injury "minor" has been discussed to death here, see archived talk. It's POV. The John Kerry military service controversy article gives all the facts about the injury.
• Put reference to 2004 campaign in past tense, not present perfect.
• Put reference to Forbes survey in past tense, not present.
• Remove reference to bio of John J. Pershing, too tangential. JamesMLane 17:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Frozen "as-is"?

Will those editors who keep immediately reverting all my edits here kindly exlplain why they think they are entitled to keep John Kerry 100% frozen "as-is"? Thank you. 216.153.214.94 00:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not one of the people who reverted, but to answer your question, if you make two reasonable changes and several POV or ungrammatical changes all in one edit, people are going to revert the entire edit. The site doesn't allow people to seperate the two reasonable minor changes from the rest of the stuff with any level of ease when making a revert, hence "all" of your edit will likely be reverted. If you don't add POV stuff alongside or immediately before grammar fixes and the like, people will not revert. --Dhbr

Revert to remove a direct quote and then protect

This is unreasonalbe - there is no reason the full quote should not be included. We should use facts and direct quotes instead of summaries for contenious issues since a summary is more likely to push a particular POV. Symes 03:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Meet the Press

Why is "he made this admission in the context of criticism of free-fire zones and other alleged violations of the Geneva Convention." less POV than quoting his full text - it is only one extra line and doesn't soften his admission - he clarifies clearly what he means - that by participating in free-fire zones and toher things he was like thousands of other soldires committing war crimes. Symes

I completely agree with Symes. Someone gives a REASON for why John Kerry said what he said instead of just stating the quote and you prefer that version? Someone ASSUMES Kerry's reasoning for his statements and that ISNT POV!? Instead the whole releveant part of the quote somehow IS POV!? Ha! This whole website is run by liberals who hate to see the dark side of their candidates. Here is what i wrote to the administrator who protected the document:

Hello, i have inserted this quote and your whole website seems to be somehow against it. This is a terrible stain on your reputation. If your website cannot tolerate some of Mr. Kerry's most important words and one of the main factors in his presidential bid, then the bias of Wikipedia will only add to the reasons people already dismiss it as an unreliable source.

On NBC's Meet The Press in 1971, Kerry admitted to having committed war crimes by saying: "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire... I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions"

This information is completely correct even by your own editors' admission. Trying to remove the quote because it makes John Kerry look particularly guilty would be like trying to remove the holocaust references from Hitler's page because that makes him look particularly guilty. The facts are always neutral and Kerry's quote is his own. The edit is relevant and you should understand that.

As for this website's bias, it is almost completely clear to me. The George Bush page has a warning that information on it is in dispute. However, the John Kerry page does not have such a warning. When i find comments like "George Bush enjoys gay porn in his free time" on the Bush page and i remove it, i am scolded by your editors. This is hilarious. How do you expect to be taken seriously? Anyway, since i can switch my IP address a million times, you should probably unban the other one as it will now be taken by an innocent user who will no longer be able to use your site. I hope you conquer your bias. Have a nice day.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mirv" 128.95.133.162 04:06, 13 Apr 2005

Please stop maintaining that your edit to George W. Bush was benign. It can be viewed here: [3] You deleted relevant information, not "George Bush enjoys gay porn in his free time." --Feitclub 04:11, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Wrong buddy. This was my edit. Although i don't recall changing the part about his alleged service violation. I thought i highlighted it to copy it to another article of mine. It's possible i did CTRL-X instead of CTRL-C. If that's the case, i apologize. But i removed the gay porn quote as can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=0&oldid=12235843 OK. It appears you editors have edited the history to somehow prove a point. I commend you at your absolute corruption. My actual edit involved removing a line that said George W. Bush enjoys gay porn in his free time.

Can someone address the substance of my request above - this anonymous user seems to be doing more distraction than good - isn't a user talk page the appropriate place for such discussions? - I ask again - why is a full quote not preferable. Symes 04:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Calm down, please give people a few minutes to read your comments. I'm against large quotes in articles. I'd much rather if we described Kerry's admission. The quote from the anon user was actually trimmed surreptitiously anyway, you should look up the full quote for reference. Also, Kerry admitted to atrocities, not war crimes. I oppose including the large quote for stylistic reasons, and I'm disappointed that the anonymous user felt it was time to have a revert war and accuse everyone of "liberal bias". Rhobite 04:16, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Please. Your bias is apparent to everyone. You think you have the right to detail WHY people say what they say instead of just to show what they said and give the reader the chance to develop their own interpretation. It is you who is guilty of POV editing. You're corrupt buddy. I mean, you're AGAINST a certain quote that was one of the biggest issues for John Kerry and his presidency. I think that is kind of important. I dont deem you capable of paraphrasing his quote and explaining it just like you don't deem me capable of doing so. So let's be fair and sacrafice 'aesthetics' and just put the quote in.

LOL - ok - I'll leave for tonight - I agree on long quotes - but this quote is nominally longer than the summary. I agree re the anon - I was just amusing myself watching it get changed back and forth and then when I went to edit I got a conflict and then couldn't because it was protected - which was frustrating Symes 04:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pro-Kerry bias 04.14.05

Form 180

I agree with the above editor that there is a pro-Kerry bias at John Kerry. Even so, I am hoping that through dialog, this can be rectified. Here are some things which concern me about the John Kerry article at this time:

• 1) There is no mention that Kerry recently (on January, 30th 2005)[4] once again promised to sign a "Form 180" which would release all his military records. To date, he still has not done so and I feel this should be made clear - especially since Kerry has tried to make so much news of his veteran status during various elections.

This is a very minor and recent issue. I don't think it belongs into an encyclopedic article at all, and certainly not yet. --Stephan Schulz 16:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be said to be minor, given all the conservatives that have been criticizing Kerry for not doing it over the years and all the liberals who have made similar criticism of Bush whenever he failed to be 100% open about his military record. This is a significant issue or people would not spend so much time arguing over it.

With Kerry, as with Bush, most of the detail about the military service controversy has been moved to a daughter article. Form 180 can be addressed in John Kerry military service controversy. If we include this level of detail in the main article, then there's plenty of comparable stuff that should go in the main George W. Bush article. JamesMLane 20:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry's minor wound

• 2) It is inarguably true and not POV to use the word "minor" regarding Kerry's 1st Purple Heart garnering "wound". In almost a year of trying, I have never been able to get that word into this article for more than a few hours, without being reverted. I feel those who oppose the word "minor" ought to justify that here.

"Minor" is a relative term. At the time, the US was apparently giving out Purple Hearts for all kinds of wounds. If you change it here, will you change it in all articles? If not, why single this out? The wound is described in some detail. --Stephan Schulz 16:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When in doubt, quote. If there is a disagreement between the charaterization of his wound, try and find a reputable source (NOT SBVT), like his actual award text, and directly quote from it. That should solve a lot of problems in our divergent attempts to characterize his wound. --kizzle 18:17, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

So Kizzle are you saying that if we pulled up a link to a valid medical page which makes distinctions betweens degrees of wounds/injuries and which also refers to insignificant scrapes such as Kerry's 1st wound as "minor", you would support the inclusion of the word "minor" in at the location where I have been trying to get in in for the past year? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 18:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mmmm... I'm not so sure about it Rex, because that would be a secondary source. If I understand you correctly, this would simply be a medical reference page. Why don't we find an official page detailing John Kerry's specific wound or any other primary source? For instance, if you were to find in his official award text or from the Navy General's findings, or anywhere that details John Kerry's actual wounds as being "minor" rather than a generic medical handbook, I would be for including the wound as "minor". My only problem with your suggestion of any medical definition of this is that it leaves way too much open for us wikipedians to interpret as we see fit, and a guaranteed argument between editors... If we can quote an official source that describes John Kerry's wound, it would be a lot less open to debate than a generic definition, which is ripe for interpretation and thus debate. Does that make sense? --kizzle 23:14, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, are you saying that "secondary sources" can never be used? Also, especially if all the available "primary" soruces are silent on a topic, would quality secondary sources be problematic? I think not. Also, what is there to "interept" about this sentence: "The shrapnel was removed and the wound was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged."? Surely, if it said "Kerry's leg was amputated after being shot to a bloody stump by an AK47", we wouldn't hesiitate to call that a "serious" wound, would we? Frankly, I think you struggle needlessly with adjectives, fearing somehow that consensus can not be reached. Putting aside for a minute if you want the word "minor" in the article or not, on a simple rationale test basis, going on the information we already have in the article, you are not seriously suggesting that the 1st injury, as described by us now, was more than minor, are you? If so, where is your sense of proportion? If a bacitracin scratch is not minor, what is? Finally, perhaps if Kerry would simply sign the Form 180 (see above) we would have the primary souces you are pining for. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About secondary sources, not at all Rex, just that they are preferable. I just find it hard to believe that there is not a single primary source that depicts the wound in question, but I will take your word for it. I completely agree with you that secondary sources should be used if no primary source can be found. As for the wound, my whole point is that interpretation can render it either way. If one simply states that his wound was merely treated with bacitracin and he was let go, then we definetely should consider this minor. On the other hand, the very fact that a piece of shrapnel was lodged in his arm makes it possible to consider otherwise. However, this does not at all mean either you or I are wrong, it merely demonstrates what I described before, that such circumstances along with trying to apply a relative adjective ("minor" as opposed to "major" when everyone's scale of what constitutes either is different), leaves a lot of room for interpretation: thus, when in doubt, quote.--kizzle 02:51, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Your approach leaves too much room for professional "doubting thomases" to come to ridiculous conclusions. There is nothing in the record which indicates that Kerry even got one stitch (as in "stitches"). No person who has any familiarity with wartime injuries would think this is anything other than minor. However, we write articles to inform. Less knowledgable readers do need to benchmarks to get their bearings. The wound was minor. There is no other rationale way to look at it. It ought to be described as such. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 03:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No person who has any familiarity with wartime injuries would think this is anything other than minor. I'd say it is a matter of context. It's certainly less serious than many other wounds suffered in wartime. However, the wound is described in some detail in the article - why not let people make up their own mind? The would was not unusually minor compared to others for which a Purple Heart was awarded (as far as I can tell, the US at that time was shovelling the troops with medals to improve morale). The adjective adds nothing but a debatable POV and, given the description of the wound, is redundant. --Stephan Schulz 13:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well Rex, I must respectfully disagree with you, not in your belief that the wound was minor, but that there is one clear-cut way to look at it. I think if we adopt a convention of quoting professional sources despite the real possibility of "doubting thomases" as you say, we will find ourselves in less trouble if we, mere wikipedia editors, interpret it ourselves. As it stands, I would prefer to have some sort of quotation reference in describing the wound. If you can find that shrapnel wounds are considered minor in some sort of relevent authorative medical page, then I think you should call it minor, and source it. This line is a heavy point of contention between those who support and those who oppose Bush, we must be extra delicate in creating neutral text. But its good to have some real quality dialog with you, it's been a while :) --kizzle 05:04, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Sticking my nose in -- Disclaimer: I'm a Kerry supporter (since the '70s.) (a) Having shrapnel sticking in you is a wound. Probably hurt like a sumbitch, regardless of how deep it was. Lucky for him it was his arm and not his face or his nuts. (b) Purple heart rules don't care how major or minor. (c) It was a minor wound. Nothing wrong with that. Not life-threatening, given the availability of bacitricin. Don't worry about it, guys -- yes, the people slandering John Kerry can be very sneaky, very nasty, and very annoying, but in this particular case, yeah, it was a minor wound. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Nose number two. The words that come to my mind are like generous and forebearing. The election is over and it is time to heal major wounds. I, a Bush supporter, appreciate Jpgordon's generosity, and I add that equally the Bush supporters can drop the issue and let the soldier have his Purple Heart without mocking him. Either solution ought to be acceptable to generous people on both sides. But sadly, I guess exceptions are many. Therefore, I have to support Kizzle's proposal as a good way to fix the article so it isn't continuously a bone of contention. Tom Haws 18:04, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Rex's incessant attempts to insert the characterization "minor" were discussed ad nauseam over the summer. The key point is that calling the wound "minor" is an inference that Rex draws from the facts, and the article states the relevant facts: that the treatment consisted solely of slapping on some antibiotic and a bandage, and that Kerry didn't lose any time from active duty. A reader who wants to join Rex in calling the wound "minor" has been given all the factual information. Adding "minor" to our description serves only to promote one POV, not to inform the reader of any fact that would otherwise be omitted. JamesMLane 20:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With liberals protecting this article, no doubt a wound in which Kerry broke his nail while picking his nose would be considered by them to be a major wound.--MONGO 03:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep doing that and you'll get hair on your palms. I don't think anyone has characterized the wound in question as "major". But ascribing opinions to liberals that they don't actually hold is as I described above: sneaky, nasty, and annoying. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This discussion was had with an anonymous editor some weeks back; giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you are not that person, please go to history, follow that discussion and move this to the associated article on the controversy, not here. Schissel : bowl listen 03:36, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I stick by my comment...don't get your knickers in a bind, I have no intention of editing the article...I am sure anything I added that took Kerry off the pedestal this article puts him on will be quickly reverted.--MONGO 04:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, characterizing this as a problem of liberals guarding the article is not helping, and isn't accurate as far as I can see. I am a life-long Republican and a current Bush supporter. Wikipedia policies lean toward letting all articles speak highly of their subjects. That is simply good taste. Even articles on Hitler and Saddam Hussein are intentionally devoid of attacks. We let the facts speak for themselves. As a fellow Republican and a Wikipedia system administrator, perhaps I can help you to phrase your contributions in a way that is acceptably within the ideals and policies of Wikipedia. Feel free to e-mail me or see me at my talk page. Tom Haws 23:11, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Going Upriver and Stolen Honor

• 3) In the article, there is a link to a documentary called Going Upriver. A casual review of that page makes it clear that "Going Upriver" is a pro-Kerry documentary. I have tried to balance the POV of that link by including a link on John Kerry to Stolen Honor. "Stolen Honor" is a documentary by Pulitzer Prize winner and it has interviews with Vietnam vets who are harshly critical of Kerry. The fact that this link gets deleted every time I edit it in, says to me that pro-Kerry POV is afoot here.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 07:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This to me is the most blantant ommision. If the article is going to have links to pro-Kerry documentaries then it should not be prohibitted from have anti-Kerry ones.

Define "pro-Kerry". Can you point out any serious omissions or incorrectness? AFAIK (I have not seen "Going Upriver", and only snips of "Stolen Honor"), "Going Upriver" is a friendly but realistic documentary, and needs no balancing. "Stolen Honor" is republican-financed propaganda crap. One of the producers was a past member of a team that won the Pulitzer price. That said, I have no objection to it's inclusion, if it is described properly. --Stephan Schulz 16:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the links to the two documentaries, I want them to both appear in the "See also" section, thusly:

• Going Upriver, a documentary film about Kerry's Vietnam war and anti-war activities based on Douglas Brinkley's biography Tour of Duty.

• Stolen Honor, a documentary film about accusations made against Kerry due to his anti-Vietnam War activities.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 21:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree, John Kerry article is very one-sided in his favor. I encourage you to persist against the liberal fanatics that dominate wikipedia. You'll have my support. Arlenthespecter 07:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Note: This is the first edit by this user, the users second edit was vandalism aginst a user page.--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have left a message for Arlenthespecter on his user page, inviting him to talk and also encouraging him to not make trouble. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 07:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you guys help me, from what I can see the users involved in the pro-Kerry on 4.14 Gmaxwell Cvaneg Rhobite Szyslak refuse to engage in substantive discussion since the page was protected, and I am accused of being an anon because I happened upon this page about 4 edits before it was locked and couldn't get an edit to succeed. I agree with the points by Rex - this page is nothing like the pages for Bush and Reagan - there isn't good balance. Symes 11:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) - sorry meant to delete Rhobite - when I did the copy and paste from the history page. Symes 00:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When John Kerry becomes unprotected, be careful to dialog and avoid too many reverts. I have been banned from this article in the past. The entrenched editors will go to great lengths to keep the Liberal pro-Kerry bias deeply imbedded. If you repeatedly insert edits they object to, they will get you banned via an "arbitration" process. Please list some specific objections on this page as I have done. If we can get a few more editors who agree, we'll be able to get some edits to stay in without revert. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 13:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also please keep in mind (I am not a Kerry supporter) that it is most magnanimous to seek to use a sympathetic and positive tone regarding the subject of the article. Even in articles on Sadaam Hussein and Hitler, we do best when we allow the facts to speak for themselves. Please do not read me to say you are staying away from facts. I know that, for example, you wanted to insert the direct quote of Kerry's about the way all the American soldiers, including himself, committed war crimes. Just be patient, try to see Kerry as a good man, a brother, an honorable person with honest ideals that you happen to disagree with. The folks you are disagreeing with on this page will agree with you much more easily if they can perhaps believe that you don't want to lump Kerry in with Hitler, demonize him, make him an offender for a word because of what he said about war crimes. If that fails, perhaps I can understand your concerns and try to suggest edits that will address them. Tom Haws 16:35, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Tom - I will back away for another day or so - and try to come at this new. Other than the few comments below. Symes 01:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely rediculous. My commentary on WHY i posted a quote should have nothing to do with how the editors keep the article. I post the article because i take John Kerry at his words that he is a war criminal. But, the posting of the quote should have no harm. It is a very controversial quote that was a huge issue in the biggest campaign of John Kerry's life. The Pro-Kerry liberal nuts who run Wikipedia are somehow against putting this quote in. Instead, they would rather have one of their editors put in a small part of the quote and then EXPLAIN WHY Kerry said it. I'm sorry, but it seems just a little biased to assume you have the authority to explain why Kerry said what he did. Instead, why don't we truly keep it neutral and just put the quote in? Also, its quite funny that the Bush article has a warning about the neutrality of the article but the Kerry article doesn't. Wikipedia has lost a lot of respect and i can see now why people take it as an illegitimate source. If the editors are against putting in a famous quote that makes Kerry look bad, then there is an obvious bias. This is sad. I'm glad other people recognize this bias and the editors who upkeep it. Sorry boys, but your game of controlling information to make the liberals look good isn't fooling anybody.

--The original editor who entered the Kerry quote and was banned for doing so.

You weren't blocked for putting the quote in, you were blocked for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, a policy that applies to everyone on Wikipedia, regardless of their political views. If I reverted this article three times, I'd be blocked too. The reason your edit was reverted is because it is the consensus of a large majority of people that your edit didn't belong in the article. At Wikipedia, decisions are made based on consensus. I, along with a lot of other editors, reverted your edits because they went against consensus as I understood it. Obviously you're a new editor. It always takes some time to adjust to the way things work on Wikipedia, so I assume no bad faith on your part. However, it doesn't help your cause when you aggressively try to force the article into your preferred version. Next time you want to make a controversial edit to an article on a controversial topic, it's a good idea to discuss your concerns on the talk page, as we're doing right now. I truly hope you can get past your bad initial experience with Wikipedia and join our community. We welcome contributors with varying viewpoints as long as they're willing to follow our policies and respect community consensus. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 21:36, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for those kind words, Sz. I echo them sincerely. As a lifelong registered and voting Republican, but in this forum foremost a Wikipedia system administrator who cares about the quality of the project, I uphold the explanation and invitation given. Hang in there, Original. Things aren't as bad as they seem now, though finding the best solution is most certainly more challenging than you may have thought only a few days ago. Tom Haws 22:05, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: Why don't you consider joining the Harmonious editing club? I'm a member, and we'd welcome you there. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 21:36, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me Symes? The extent of my involvement here was to summarize Kerry's admission that he took part in atrocities. I guess according to you, that makes me a pro-Kerry tree-hugging liberal. Don't accuse people and perhaps you'll be taken more seriously. You act as if we are all constantly reloading this page, waiting to answer the latest request from the almighty Symes. Please show me a comment I posted where I "refuse to engage in substantive discussion" about this article. You can't, because I never refused it. You're being dishonest. As for the quote, as I mentioned a couple days ago it was selectively edited by the Young Republican from the University of Washington - certain words were removed and it was truncated at a very interesting point. Furthermore he made no effort to engage in discussion, instead preferring to revert the article endlessly and vandalize articles. The same user posted a 3 megabyte article in an effort to "overload" Wikipedia's servers. I won't have discussions with mere vandals. If Washington's finest can drop the personal attacks and cease his vandalism, then I'll listen to what he has to say. Rhobite 22:27, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I have apologized on Rhobite's page - I meant to delete him when I did the copy and paste from the History page - my mistake. Symes 01:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Symes, for your soft words. Tom Haws 04:58, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

This is again unacceptable. Rhobite also reverted the article more than three times. He should also have been banned. There was no "consensus" about whether the quote should be in or not. In fact, if we took a national poll i can assure you that people would say the quote SHOULD be in the article. After all, it was a major point in the 2004 election. Any calm way of claiming that the quote is somehow not important is a mere slip-of-the-hand tactic to avoid putting in a damaging quote about a self-admitted war criminal. It is okay to have voted for him. It is also okay to still support him. But limiting the knowledge of other people about him by leaving out some hugely contested quotes is rediculous. Spare me the insulting reasoning that you editors somehow questioned the Wikipedia audience and found that they did not want the quote in. I thought Wikipedia was about information. Since a quote by itself cannot be biased, having the quote is simply showing more infomation. This particular quote was important enough to people to be a huge topic in the 2004 election. This is a major point about John Kerry's life and leaving it out is like leaving out information about Hitler's war crimes. At not point should wikipedia limit information that was crucial to 51.5% of the voters and perhaps more in the 2004 election. Don't question my intelligence. This is balatant limiting of information on the editors of Wikipedia. I will not be satisfied until the quote is put in. I ask you all, what is wrong in having the quote in? What policy does the quote violate? Why would you want to leave out a quote that has had huge implications for John Kerry's political carrer?

Also, please don't justify someone's reasoning by falsely claiming you are a Republican and still against the quote being in. This was one of Plato's greatest tactics at argument and is the most shady and immoral of them all. It's like me claiming i am a jew whose family was burned in the holocaust but i do not want the articles about Hitler to have the holocaust in them. You guys are really corrupt.

One last thing in response to Rhobite's claims. I never vandalized any articles. I never tried to overload the wikipedia servers. Lastly, i am not from Washington, i am from Montana. Your lies are laughable and reflect the sad paradigm of wikipedia editors. Also, your 3 reversions of the article indicate that you should be banned. If you are not above the law, then i suggest you ban yourself, or get an administrator to do so. Of course, you will not ban yourself so your whole attempt at being some sort of law-abiding virtuous editor is a joke. If this is a society where the rules don't apply to you, then it is a corrupt society. Period.

-The Original Editor of the Kerry article

New Archive Talk:John_Kerry/041405.archive created

I've archived all pre-election 2004 items (in sequential order) to this new link Talk:John_Kerry/041405.archive. Let's concentrate on this current (3) items above, then we can see about other issues too, perhaps even some past unresolved ones. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delegation tempate

When the article becomes unprotected, could someone please insert the Template:MA-FedRep into the article. --Harro5 04:16, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting

Anyone else feel like unprotecting this article? It's been protected for 12 days.. the dispute over the atrocities quote was pretty silly, it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that should cause a prominent page to be protected for almsot 2 weeks. If people feel that our use of the atrocity quote is currently not neutral, let's work on it. Thanks. Also, Rex has been banned so that should make it easier to edit this article. Rhobite 20:10, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree Symes 13:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll go ahead an unprotect. Let me know if there are any problems, and I will keep this on my watchlist. Tom Haws 15:39, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

War crimes quote

Hawstom, your edit is fair. It leaves the quote in and even ads information that is useful to a reader. Thank you for not being biased and not being against information. If people think i have selectively edited the quote, i invite them to include the full quote. I only added the parts relevant to the war crimes admission. Wikipedia needs some serious balance. You seem to be a rare, balanced editor.

Thank you very much. You are very kind. I was trying to frame the following information in a manner I thought would be suitable for the article, but I find I don't understand the issues well enough to do what I wanted to do. Here's what I left: "Kerry said.... In the 2004 United States presidential campaign, Kerry's critics often cited this statement." I wanted to explain why Kerry's detractors used that statement, but I ended up unsure, or at least at a loss of NPOV words to explain. Is there a quote or an explanation that tells why this quote was so important to Kerry's critics in the election? It would be very nice to have such an important matter properly described. Thanks. (p.s. I didn't vote for Uncle Bush (nor Kerry) the second time around, but bush was my man, and I was glad he won.) Tom Haws 20:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

There are many reasons why people thought the quote was important in their opinion about John Kerry. Certainly him stating that he and others committed war crimes in Vietnam served to lose him respect among many vietnam veterans. It also emphasized the long-standing belief that John Kerry was somewhat of a traitor and/or unpatriotic. For me, however, it was important because someone admitting to war crimes should never be a head of state. Certainly burning down villages and interdiction/harassment fire isn't moral in a lot of peoples' opinions. Instead of writing all of this, though, i want to stay NPOV. That is why i entered the quote and the parts relevant to his admission to war crimes.

Thanks for the explanation. You are probably right that it was probably best for me to be at a loss for explanation and leave the quote as is, simply saying it was used by his critics in the campaign. From my simplistic way of hearing things unfold during the campaign, I assumed that the "a war criminal shouldn't be pres of USA" intent was there. The other intents are all more complicated. I don't want to risk animosity by inserting any more than we have already done. But if folks feel additional explanation is in order, we will look again for solutions. Thanks for talking about this and helping me to understand the issues better. And especially, thank you for being understanding about my edits. Tom Haws 21:33, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm disappointed about adding such a large quote to the article but it appears to be the best solution for right now. It's important to have the whole quote, including the part where Kerry explains that he blames the military leadership. Rhobite 23:18, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

You're right: having the full quote completely changes the meaning of the quote. it changes an impression of kerry as unabashedly unethical to fearlessly ethical and consciensus (sp?). completely changes, as i think anyone can see. it makes one wonder what reasons a person could have for removing the formerly missing part of the quote, and whether its acceptable or not acceptable to do. Kevin Baas^talk 23:23, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this further by adding more of the quote. Tom Haws 14:15, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Election controversy

I agree with Cecropia - it's nonsense to say that the election results were "marred" by controversy. Outside of a group of activists (unfortunately including a few Wikipedia editors) armed with junk statistics and conjecture, there wasn't much real controversy. Similar attempts to cram the election controversy article into Bush's lead section were reverted. Rhobite 19:53, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

If it's "nonsense" then you would have to explain away the bizarre statistical exit polling anomalies in Ohio and Florida, which you can't, except by dismissing it out of hand and abusing your power as an editor to censor the link to the opposing information.

The edit I tried to make was intended to make the lead paragraph more neutral by presenting both sides, as opposed to the Bush-perverted position that takes the definite stance that "Bush won and Kerry lost" and leaves no room for anyone to think differently or read any opinion different from your own. I consider this to be abuse of power for political purposes which is an obvious disqualification for editing what is supposed to be a factual, neutral resource and why you should step down or be discharged from the position you abuse.

But I did explain the statistical nonsense put forth by the election conspiracy theorists. See my comments in Talk:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. In short, the exit poll differences were all within the margin of error when using a 99.5% confidence level. Furthermore, discrepancies are explained by sampling problems including Democrats' higher willingness to answer exit polls. I'm not willing to explain this all again, you should read that talk page where I explain it in excruciating statistical detail. Also see the Mystery Pollster: [5]. Please don't call me a "Bushie", see above where I'm attacked as a mouth frothing Kerry supporter. You guys can't have it both ways. Bush did win, and Kerry did lose. Aside from a few armchair statisticians there was little controversy.. Please "move on". Rhobite 20:36, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

And by the way, I never reverted your changes, although I wouldn't hesitate to revert them if you continue to insert inaccurate statements and POV language ("marred"). I'm simply responding to your points. Rhobite 20:58, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well in that case, I think you've missed my points. Edison/Mitofsky themselves stated that despite grate efforts to improve the accuracy of their exit polls, including doubling the sampling rate, the exit poll - vote count discrepancies were much greater than they've ever been. They see this as a problem. They came up with their reluctant voter hypothesis, and have yet to substantiate it. They released a report which suggests that that hypothesis was actually in the wrong direction - that after taking into account rejection rates, there is actually a wider gap to be explained. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 04:02, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Regarding "arm chair statisticians": ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies, and in this case they are way out-of-bounds. The statisticians you speak of are accredited professors with Ph. D.'s in statistics, and they do not do statistics on-the-side, from the comfort of their "armchair", it is their profession and they are experts, and it is completely egrarious of you to dismiss their scientific analysis outright by mischaracterizing them as the exact opposite. If you want to argue their claims, go ahead and check their work. You can read the depositions in Moss v. Bush, they're public record. But first, get a degree comparable to theirs. Then we'll talk. In the meantime, try to avoid any egrarious logical fallacy. Thank you. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 04:02, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

And to throw another 2 cents in - it is factually incorrect to say this election was disputed "Like the 2000 election" - there was no formal contesting of the results like there was in 2000, and unlike in 2000 the Democratic challenger conceded for good. On another note, in the "you have to explain away the bizarre statistical exit polling anomalies" department, Dr. Ed Felten recently mentioned one of the later developments in the area on his blog[6] - while the study suggests that there are irregularites, it also discusses potential reasons for those effects. I haven't seen an academic truly concerned about foul play since before the election - and Felten, along with a number of others, were watching closely [7]. Sirmob 21:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

(to both of you) You are absolutely wrong, and if you would actually read the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities article and related pages, you would have your facts straight. (which is exactly why it should be mentioned here in the first place: so that people have the facts straight.) The exit polls-vote count discrepancies were well outside of the margin of error when using even a 90% confidence level. The discrepancies can be, and have been analyzed in the aggregate and to the contrary present a 99.9% chance that there was something seriously wrong. Also, on the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls article you can read about the hypothesis and see that the publicly available data actually supports the opposite conclusion. And you can verify this for yourself if you like. You tell people to read the talk pages. You should read the articles. There was formal contest both in Court and in Congress. If you haven't seen academic studies truly concerned about foul play, then you haven't seen any academic studies, because any study that does not consider both possibilities to a two-sided issue is not academic. There are academic studies, like the ones released by the non-partisian "US Count Votes" organization, which you would be aware of had you read the articles; had you taken the time learn about the subject before talking about it. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:18, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

I love it Kevin! I'm the one who should read the article? Do you think I argued with you for days over the exit poll section without actually reading the article? You're the one who claimed to be a "statistician" but your comment above is evidence enough that you've never set foot in an intro stats class. Kevin, as the confidence level goes up, the margin of error increases. Of COURSE the discrepancy was outside the margin of error when using a 90% confidence level.. a 90% confidence level is close to useless. No more teaching you stats, no more listening to you whining that I should read the article. I read the damn thing, I think it's filled with nonsense and it's a gaping sore on Wikipedia's reputation. I read the Mitofsky report, the US Count Votes report, and the Freeman report. You tried to pitch your conspiracy article in George W. Bush, and everyone disagreed. Now you're doing the exact same thing here. Give up. I'm sorry to be so harsh about the statistics but it's irritating to see someone mouthing off without a clue about what they're talking about. Rhobite 20:58, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

A 99.5% confidence level includes the possibility that Kerry won those states by a landslide. And yeah, I can't deny the statistics when they say that, if we want to make a statement that we can be 99.5% confident in, we have to say that "there's a very real possibility that Kerry is the legitimate winner of the 2004 election". I can't deny that, and apparently you don't deny it either. I find that rather surprising, but it's good that we've cleared that up. You see, I was trying to give the hypothesis that Bush won legitimately the benefit of the doubt, by saying that that we can be 90% confident, on a state-by-state basis, that Bush won legitimately, but I couldn't do so with statistics. (even if I could, it appears that you would be unconvinced, as you say that "a 90% confidence level is close to useless.") I see that you're right: when we take more possibilities into consideration, we can be more confident in our opinion. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 04:25, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

From your post I know you've read Mystery Pollster's explanation of states' exit poll results being within an expanded margin of error, however, if it were so simple, then why didn't Mitofsky simply come out and say this in his Jan 19 report? As for Bush nonresponder theory, it doesn't exactly have the best support from his own document. Finally, your complete dismissal of any fraud is a little premature, the debate over the meaning of these exit polls still wage on, and even Mystery Pollster say that exit polls do not conclusively prove anything either way, because they are too "blunt" of an instrument. Fraud could have happened on a much smaller scale, say just in a few tabulating counties in ohio by a few triad employees, and this wouldn't have shown up.

There are two certainties to the last election that I know to be true:

1. There is no direct, conclusive evidence of fraud being perpetrated in the 2004 election, including exit polls.
2. You cannot assure me that every vote was counted either (not in an absolute sense, but even in a working sense), due to non-random recounts, triad shenanigans, partisan interests in both the voting companies who count the votes (most of whom are owned by foreign business interests) and the secretary of state who "recounts" them, convicted felons (of fraud, nonetheless) who are responsible for writing the counting software.

So from #1, while you may be right in saying there's no evidence, from #2, don't fucking tell me to move on and just accept that i live in a country where 30% of all votes are counted by Republican-donating felon-employing corporations on unauditable, insecure, and dubiously certified machines, who is then recounted and certified by the co-chairman of one of the candidate's campaigns. i don't know why this wouldn't make you upset. --kizzle 01:45, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

It would be NPOV compliant to say that the results were disputed if the dispute was significant. It sounds like it was. Further explanation somewhere with a link would be in order. I might suggest wording such as adding words to the paragraph. "...losing (though disputed by some) to incumbent...." But this begs the question of whether there was ever an undisputed election. Tom Haws 16:09, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

The result was disputed ("contested", to be precise) in court and in congress. This statement has nothing to do with POV; this statement is fact. With regards to significance, if both court and congress are "insignificant" to you, then I fail to see how this article would be significant enough to you for you to put your opinion here. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Significance, if it is at all to an objective measure, which it must, because we hold wikipedia to such standards, must be a measure of the significance of empirical events. There were numerous irregularities of all shapes and sizes, including unexplained anomalious in ohio canvass reports, anomalous distributions of voting machines, tens of thousands of absentee ballots being "lost in the mail", voter registrations being thrown or not processed, voting machines consistently registering votes for one candidate as votes for another candidate, votes being altered by government officials in Florida, and voter intimidation. These "irregularities" are significant. There is a book on some of them titled "Election 2004: What went wrong in Ohio". The existence of such a book is significant. There were numerous reports published by various sources such as the ones mentioned above. There was tons of information being exchanged on the internet, as reported by many news sources. There were very emotional editorials in newspapers of every bias, arguing different POV's. There were multiple, crowded public hearings. Congressmen and Ohio state officials made public statements on national television. George W. Bush was subpoened. Each and every one of these events is significant enough in itself. I could go on, but why? You obviously don't care. I'm assuming you already know all of this because you certainly presume to know everything. If you think you already know, then why would you listen? By all reason, I can't expect to be listened to, but it is only reasonable to assume good faith. I assume you are listening, hence I am telling you this. What do all of these words mean to you? What is all this that fills so much space? Is it nothing? Is it really there? Or is it fact? What are the facts? Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 03:30, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Military service controversy

We had a lot of information about this issue and it was really getting to clutter the main article. That's why we set up the daughter article with the wikilink, leaving just a summary here. The paragraph added by Johntex about Form 180 is part of that larger controversy, so I've moved it to John Kerry military service controversy, and added the source from Johntex's edit summary. JamesMLane 07:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks James - that looks like a good move. Johntex 16:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Kerry V. Lincoln (height)

The "Kerry would have been taller than Lincoln" line that was just added as the second graph got me checking. Some time ago that same line was modified to "Kerry would have been the same height as Lincoln." At that time I checked it against the Lincoln article, which said that Lincoln was 6' 4", not 6' 3.75", which is what the Lincoln article now says. I'm pretty certain that that fact should appear where it does and not as the second graph, but we should try to have the correct fact, eh? Anyone know where the two really do "stack up?" - I'm not going to lie, I'm suprised that Lincoln would have been so definitively measured to a quarter of an inch... Sirmob 03:48, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln himself once said he was "nearly 6' 4"

Nearly 6' 4" != 6' 3.75" - also, I'd like to see a cite. Sirmob 03:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Kerry's grades

Stating Kerry's grades is at least information about Kerry, though most of our biographical articles don't go into such detail about the subject's academic career. Comparing his grades to someone else's, though, is getting way too far afield. The article isn't about the 2004 election; it's about John Kerry, and John Kerry is not defined by his comparison with his opponent in one particular race. This factoid has been in and out of this article and the Bush article, because it was just recently reported. Now that the "excitement" has died down, though, it should come out. I don't see how it matters that it wasn't removed at one point. Wikipedia articles are always subject to improvement. JamesMLane 29 June 2005 05:33 (UTC)

Kerry's Grades- Moreover

Bush supporters are coming out and making a big deal of Kerry's grades being worse than Bush's. But all of them will have to agree with me when I say Cheney is smarter than Bush. How did Cheney do at Yale? Well, while he lasted there, he got F's and flunked out of the college. He then had to go to University of Wyoming to graduate. Now, Bush depends on Cheney to get anyhting done. Cheney basically "won" the election for Bush. And Kerry participated in many sports and clubs. If Bush is smarter than Kerry, why was he knocked out of each and every head-to-head debate? Those grades are not where it's all at

Kerry's Height

During the DNC convention didn't his daughters say he is 6-foot-6? I believe that is his height.

Absolutely everything I've ever seen that cared to mention it, including those New York Times pieces with his medical particulars, had him at 6' 4", and he seems it. Then again, I'm no better judge of stature than the next person. 6' 6¾", though? Where are the exacting measurements coming from? Biffy 12:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't 6'6" place him at about Lincoln's height? (at least physically). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 14:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

AAH! Reading above on talk pages would help. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 14:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• True, but only a little, and rereading my earlier comments made me realize Kerry had grown somewhat substantially. Does anyone have sources on Kerry's height? I've fiddled around with this little height thing in the past, but because his height has fluctuated by as much as three inches, I think the value of having his height is offset by the possibility that we have an verifiable mistake in Wikipedia. And no, I don't consider the height his daughters report to be a definitive report on his height. Therefore I'm taking out his height, which honestly is a little bit bizarrely placed in "Home Life And Interests" as it is. Sirmob 16:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

It's quite clear that he's unusually tall. I think this fact played at least a small role in influencing people's perceptions of him and is therefore worth a mention. If we don't have certainty as to the exact figure, we could say: "Kerry is well over six feet tall (reports of his exact height vary from 6'4" to 6'6" [or 6'7" or whatever]." Would that be accurate? JamesMLane 05:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

A little dissapointing for its nonspecificiy, but accurate. The fact is Kerry does have a single height, and we don't know what it is here. The New York Times article mentioned somewhere above detailing his "medical particulars" would be a decent source, for instance. Sirmob 12:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I had a trawl through the NY Times' archives and this seems to be it, if memory serves: On Kerry's Journey to Health, Stops for Shrapnel and Cancer (relevant paragraph on the third page) It's not a direct quote, unfortunately, but since the entire thing draws firsthand from his doctors, it might be fair to assume they confirmed his height as well. Biffy 18:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I've heard Kerry is 6' 9" (and a half). Any truth to this? He did look taller than Bush in the debates.

But not that much taller. Kerry seems positively leviathan from some angles, but I don't doubt that's perspective. Besides, everyone's heard something different. What's needed, as Sirmob said, is a direct source, from someone who might actually know for certain -- like his doctor, or his military records, perhaps? Kerry's Enlistment Contract I assume this is genuine. 75"... bang on 6'4". Is this authoritative enough? Biffy 17:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Biffy! While I still am not convinced that the fact is well placed in the article, I've gone ahead and put the 6'4" height, which does seem to be most prevalent, in the article, and because many have obviously tried to change the height in the past, attached your source to it. Sirmob 19:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

75" is 6' 3".

Abuse

There, it's fixed. Whoever wrote "John FAgoot Motherfucking Forbes Kerry" and the other phrase at the beginning should be banned.

Rodriguez and Rodriguez

Neutrality has removed, as unsourced, TDC's addition about Kerry's supposed accusation against CIA operative and Iran-Contra figure Felix Rodriguez. What I've confirmed so far is: Kerry's subcommittee heard testimony from a convicted money launderer named Ramon Milian Rodriguez, apparently no relation to Felix Rodriguez. Here's what the committee report says: "Milian Rodriguez testified that in a meeting arranged by Miami private detective Raoul Diaz with Felix Rodriguez, he (Milian) offered to provide drug money to the Contras. Milian Rodriguez stated that Felix accepted the offer and $10 million in such assistance was subsequently provided the Contras through a system of secret couriers." It goes on to state: "Felix Rodriguez strenuously denied Milian Rodriguez's version of the meeting, stating that he reported Milian's offer to a number of U.S. government agencies, including the FBI and CIA." Given this conflict between the two accounts of what happened, Kerry, as the subcommittee chair, arranged for Ramon Milian Rodriguez to be given a lie-detector test. He flunked it. The next month, when Felix Rodriguez gave his public testimony before the subcommittee, "Senator Kerry stated that he did not believe Ramon Milian Rodriguez' version of the meeting was truthful." I'm guessing that's the part that's referred to as an apology.

I find no basis for the charge that Kerry made such an accusation against Felix Rodriguez. It's apparently undisputed that there was a meeting between Ramon Milian Rodriguez and Felix Rodriguez. Kerry's subcommittee heard sworn testimony from one of the participants in this meeting that implicated Felix Rodriguez in involvement in drug trafficking. Felix Rodriguez was a CIA agent (or former CIA agent) who played a key role in the illegal supply of arms to the Contras. When a Congressional subcommittee hears sworn testimony that someone with that kind of connection to the U.S. government has been involved in drug trafficking, what are they supposed to do, ignore it?

Incidentally, there are also allegations that Felix Rodriguez played a role in the "War on Terrorism" -- his role was allegedly to help Luis Posada Carriles escape from a Venezuelan prison. Carriles, another anti-Castro operative trained by the CIA, was doing time for his role in the bombing of a Cuban jetliner, in which 73 people were killed. This aid to the terrorist cause is part of the resume that entitles Felix Rodriguez to a White House Christmas card from George W. Bush every year. [8] I haven't yet had the chance to track down the details of that little episode, though. JamesMLane 00:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You forgot a few relevant details in your rant.You missed a few things in your little tirade. The Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, headed up by that time Kerry, had a mysterious leak from an "unnamed Congressional sources.". According to Rodriguez: "whether by design or coincidence, allegations about me and drug smuggling and Vice president Bush kept popping up in the press right up until election day 1988." Kerry also, curiously enough, grilled Rodriguez for quite some time about his involvement in the death of Che Guevara, would not allow Rodriguez to testify in open session (at Rodriguez’s request) and only allowed him to do so after Senator Mitch McConnell raised hell.

My source for all this: Shadow Warrior: The CIA Hero of a Hundred Unknown Battles, John Weisman

The book is quite detailed about the Congressional Hearings, which ironically sparked Rodriguez to team up with Weisman a year later. TDC 01:28, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

In my comment, I summarized some important facts, from sources that I cited and linked to so that other people could check them. The original addition to the article did not do so. As far as I know I stuck to what the sources said. The result was that my summary was characterized as a "rant" and a "tirade". It's always such a joy to be editing an article when TDC decides to contribute to it, or at to least participate in it.

Turning to the specifics, I haven't read Shadow Warrior, but I've seen it described as Rodriguez's own account, prepared with the help of a ghostwriter. If that's accurate, then any assertion in the article that's based on that book should make clear to the reader that it's coming from Rodriguez, a fact that many readers would certainly want to know in assessing the credibility.

I'll begin editing the passage to conform to the public record. I have no objection per se to the addition of Rodriguez's version of events, properly attributed to him, although of course there's a limit to how much detail about this incident it makes sense to put in the John Kerry article. The article on Felix Rodriguez should certainly explore his terrorist connections, though. JamesMLane 05:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

So then, is this what really happened? I have to admit, I thought you were a more serious contributor than to go trolling sites like that, what next, citations from the DU forum?

But you go explore Rodriguez's "terrorist connections", I am sure that what really happened will be a valuable tool for you.

I didn't say it was "what really happened". (If I knew what really happened, and told you, then I'd probably have to kill you.) I said it was what emerged from the cited and publicly available sources, which I found through Yahoo! searches. Most of the information comes from whatreallyhappened.com; that site is certainly not unbiased, but it's used only for its reproduction of Kerry's subcommittee's report. I was about to write "as I stated in the text" or some such, but, double-checking before writing that, I found that I'd omitted that aspect of the attribution. I've now included it. JamesMLane 14:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Kerry in Paris

When exactly was Kerry in Paris to meet with his communist overlords? It seems that there is abit of a myster as to how many times he went and the dates. TDC 21:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

you are so far from trying to edit in good faith its ridiculous. or was that conclusion original research?. --kizzle 22:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me if I find that this article reads like it was written by Michael Kranish. And big deal, so you are re writing the guidelines on OR, and using your new interpretation of the policy to bludgeon me over the head. Am I supposed to feel embarrassed about this?

Yes. --kizzle 04:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Turning away from your trolling expedition ……. back to the matter at hand, there seems to be a discrepancy on how many times and when Kerry went to Paris to meet with the North Vietnams. TDC 02:33, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but asking about his "communist overlords" makes you look like a jackass who only cares about smearing Kerry rather than building a neutral article. --kizzle 04:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well, to bad for Lurch I get to do both. TDC 12:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Relationship to George W. Bush

There seems to be some dispute in the references mentioned in regards to John Kerry's exact relationship to George W. Bush. An MSNBC article from Feb. 17, 2004 mentions the relationship as 16th cousins, three times removed. Yet, a reference from Family Forest CD-ROM from August 8, 2004, indicates the relationship as ninth cousins, twice removed. Both articles were referenced in the wikipedia article, which could cause some confusion. Perhaps both are related at two difference points in their lineages? Or possible there is some error here?

Dr. Cash 19:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

All of us have ancestors who married their 3rd cousins or something. Otherwise if you go back, doubling every generation, you would get trillions of ancestors. Aside from the validity of the information about Bush and Kerry, they are probably related through several paths. We all are. Shoaler 19:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anyway, we all come from Adam and Eve

In reply to Dr. Cash's question, yes, their family trees are connected at at least two points. older≠wiser 02:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

ba

Issues and Voting record

I have made a few fact-based changes to the page. If you have an issue with them please discuss here before reverting. Thanks.

• Well, let's see. We can start with the fact-based "50-member Senate". Check again. As regards the rest of your edit, talk first, edit later -- it's better than editing, then challenging others to talk before they revert. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Purple Heart Controversey

During the 2004 election, Mark Hyman, the host of the Point Comentary, made a claim that one of John Kerry's Purple Hearts was awarded for a minor scratch. He said that it was treated by antiseptic and a band-aid. Was that a reference to John Kerry's first Purple Heart?

Navy Discharge

John Kerry's discharge from the Navy deserves more discussing and correcting. He was technically discharged from the Navy on February 16, 1978. John Kerry's own website reveals he was in the Navy Reserves from 1970 until 1978.

This means Kerrys anti-war activities, protest, and negotiations with foreign powers in foreign states took place while he was an officer of the United States military. The affects of this action is very serious and one cannot deny these facts.

• And who has? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry, Jewish American?

I respectfully submit that unless John Kerry identifies himself as a Jewish American, then he not be categorized as a Jewish American. John Kerry's grandparents were Jewish converts to Catholicism; I presume that after their conversion they no longer identified themselves as Jewish. That means his most recent Jewish ancestors were three generations back.

By that standard, I myself am an "ethnic" "German American," since my great-grandfather came from Germany. Hopefully anyone who knows me agrees that is nonsense. I'm an all-American mutt.

Even by most standards of Judaism Kerry would not be Jewish since this is on his paternal line.

IMO, this has only been inserted by someone trying to make trouble and stir up the idea that the whole world is run by Jews or some such nonsense. No sense humoring it; just revert.

I take all of this back if Kerry actually identifies himself as Jewish.

Jdavidb 23:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Look at the description of the category: Americans of Jewish ethnic descent. Kerry certainly qualifies; his great-uncle Otto Löwe died in Theresienstadt; his great-aunt Jenni Löwe died at Treblinka. - Nunh-huh 00:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

If that's the scope of the category per its description, then the category should be renamed. Most people who see "Jewish Americans" among the numerous categories at the top of this article won't click through to read the description. They'll assume it has its natural meaning -- that the person is Jewish, in the normal sense of the term, the sense in which Sammy Davis, Jr. was Jewish and Kerry isn't. Kerry could go into a category for "Americans of ethnic Jewish descent" if one were set up (though I'm not recommending that because I don't see much value to it). Unless and until that happens, though, putting "Jewish Americans" on this article is misleading and a disservice to the reader. The body of the article already include Kerry's paternal grandparents' Judaism and conversion, and his great-aunt's and great-uncle's deaths in the extermination camps. JamesMLane

We need to create some more distinctive categories. It is a mistake to include people who practice Judaism and people who are of ethnic Jewish descent into one category. Their religous belief system and hether they are descended from ethnic Jews are two different things (which often, but not always go hand in hand). One category should not be so broad as to fit John Kerry (who has Jewish ancestry but considers himself Catholic) and Madonna (entertainer) (who was born into a Catholic family, but who now is embracing Kabbalah) and Sean Penn (who was born Catholic for formally converted ti Judaism). Johntex\^talk 02:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The category "Jewish Americans" says exactly that - "people of ethnic Jewish descent". I find it silly to keep Kerry under "English Americans" but not "Jewish Americans". Both are ethnic backgrounds that he shares equally. Madonna would not be listed since she has no ethnic Jewish descent, and she never formally converted to Judaism. You made a mistake about Sean Penn (check his Wiki entry). His father was Jewish and his mother Irish/Italian (Catholic). He was raised secularly, and he does not practice any religion. He never converted into Judaism and was never raised Catholic (you can see the "Jewish Americans" and "irish-Italian Americans" categories on Penn's page. Madonna is not included under "Jewish Americans", only under Italian and French Americans, par her ethnic heritage. As for "Jewish" meaning "Jewish mother", that is a Jewish RELIGIOUS law and we would be taking a religious Jewish POV in following it, rather than a non-POV ethnic-based view.

It would be one sided to list Kerry under "Jewish Americans" ONLY. BUT! He is also listed under "English Americans", meaning his ethnic heritage is mixed, which is the case. In a country as multi-cultural as America there are plenty of people who can fall under a large number of ethnic-based categories. As long as all of them are listed I don't see a problem. He is Catholic by religion, and Jewish and English (with mebbe a little Scottish and Irish) by ethnicity. Seems pretty simple, doesn't seem like there's a need to exclude any category, especially since he is 50/50 when it comes to his ethnicities. A reader can obviously see the whole thing explained under his "Family Background" paragraphs. -User 24...something...something

"English" and "Jewish" are both ethnic heritages. The difference is that "Jewish" is also a religion. Many readers (probably most readers, but certainly a substantial number) would take the category "Jewish Americans" to refer to the subject's current religious beliefs or practices. You didn't address the example I gave: Sammy Davis, Jr. is included in Category:Jewish American actors, a subcategory of Category:Jewish Americans, even though he has no ethnic Jewish ancestry. He's included because he converted.

If there were two categories, "Ethnically Jewish Americans" and "Religiously Jewish Americans" or some such, then Kerry could be included in the former (only), Davis in the latter (only), and most American Jews in both. As the category is now named, though, it's a disservice to the reader for us to include Kerry in that category. JamesMLane 07:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur with JML. Gamaliel 07:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes JamesMLane, and it's an annoying difference, isn't it? And yes, I agree on who would be included if we split the categories. Makes perfect sense to me. I think they should be split. Where do we go and who do we talk to about splitting them? (thought I think you missed one of my points, which was at the moment the "Jewish Americans" category described itself as being ethnicity based, even if people glancing over the name wouldn't necessarily notice) At the moment, I have removed him from "English Americans" (heck, I was the one who added that one in the first place, in my attempt to increase the English Americans category and give it some legitimacy). It's a disservice to list him under one ethnicity but not the other. But yeah, I think good names for the categories would be "Ethnic Jews" and "Religious Jews". We also have "Jewish American actors" hanging about (not to mention "Jewish film directors"). There used to be an "Ashkenazi Jews" category, maybe we should use that name for ethnic Jews? "Ashkenazi" signifies ethnicity, since it is a major ethnic difference but not really a religious difference. Whaddya think? -User 24...something...something

"People with Ashkenazi heritage" and "People with ethically Jewish heritage" are not equivalent categories. - Nunh-huh 07:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I know they're not. But frankly 80% of the world's Jewish population is Ashkenazi (according to Wikipedia's Ashkenazi page). It would make it a more interesting split if we made two Jewish ethnicity based categories (Ashkenazi and Sephardic). -User 24...something...something

I didn't miss your point about the definition. I rejected the argument because my primary perspective is informing the readers. Here, large numbers of readers would form a false impression from looking at the article and wouldn't click on each of more than a dozen categories to make sure they weren't being blindsided. To take an extreme case, if there were a category for Americans who've visited Israel, it couldn't be called "Jewish Americans" or "well-traveled Americans" or anything along those lines, regardless of how carefully the criteria for inclusion were spelled out on the category page. Readers would be misinformed; as far as I'm concerned, that ends the argument. As to where to discuss splitting the category, a discussion has begun at Category talk:Jewish Americans, which seems like the right place for it. On the current state of the categories, I think Kerry should be included in "English Americans" but not in "Jewish Americans". Still, as long as the misleading "Jewish Americans" isn't on there, I'll hold off restoring the English one in the hope that something will come of the category talk discussion. JamesMLane 08:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

This Edit War, Lame?

I think so. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 07:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not even the lamest we've had on this page. Although we described the wound that led to Kerry's first Purple Heart, we spent many kb dealing with one editor who kept re-inserting his opinion that the wound was minor. By contrast, there is at least some substance to the different interpretations of "Jewish". JamesMLane 07:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, I remember that guy. He perfected the art of edit warring, with his "requirement to discuss before reverting him" and his "baseline version". Ah, memories... sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 08:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

You wouldn't believe some of the arguments I've been in. In and out of Wikipedia, that is. -User 24...something...something

The 1st wound was minor

According to this [9] JamesMLane thinks that calling a minor wound minor is editorializing. If so, then we can't call Katrina a large or powerful hurricane. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 05:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

We dealt with this a year ago. Let it go. Gamaliel 05:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is editorializing. It's an opinion, not a fact. How many more arbitration cases do we need? sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 05:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The severity of a wound can be gauged by the objective evidence. The undisputed evidence supports describing this wound as minor. Are you saying the severity of the wound is unknown? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 05:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

What Gamaliel said. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 06:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Prior discussion on this "issue" can be found on the talk page referenced in my edit summary. The specific section is Talk:John Kerry/August 2004 archive 1#Characterizing the injuries. I don't recall whether there are any other sections with such talk; I didn't search the whole archive. Having reread that particular thread, I'm of the same opinion now as I was then. JamesMLane 09:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Wiki link to wound should be restored

Merovingian removed [10] a wiki link to the word wound. I do not agree that his rationale as posited in his edit summary suffices for that unilateral, non-discussed deletion. I am asking for group comment about that here. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 07:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

My comments:

Substance. I have no strong opinion about whether to link the word.

Procedure. Rex chastises Merovingian for a "unilateral, non-discussed deletion". Rex himself added this link, unilaterally, without having discussed it on the talk page. His edit summary read: "→First Purple Heart - add wiki link to wound". Merovingian, in removing the link, gave this edit summary: "I don't think it's really necessary to link to wound, as it really doesn't need an explanation." Thus, Rex's ES merely said what he was doing, while Merovingian's gave some explanation of his reasoning. Despite this, Rex returns to his old pattern of demanding that everyone else be held to a standard that he's free to ignore. He can unilaterally add a link, without discussion, and then, in his mind, for anyone else to remove it is somehow objectionable. This particular change -- Rex's linking, and Merovingian's unlinking -- doesn't seem to me to call for prior discussion, but if the deletion does then the addition does. JamesMLane 08:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion James. As you know, I have asked you a question regarding this issue about a dozen times over the previous year, and each and every time, you have (as I see it) either not answered me or given an answer which was non-responsive to the question. That being the case, I am going to ask you again, this time with extra precision: Please answer yes or no: Do you concede that there is enough undisputed factual evidence in the public record regarding this so-called "wound" that we as editors can correctly refer to it as being "minor"? And if not, are you saying the "wound" was more severe than "minor"? And if so, would the term "moderate" satisfy you? And if not, are you saying that John Kerry was "severly" wounded? In any case, yould you at least concede that John Kerry's "wound" was less severe than Robert Dole's? I await your response. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 17:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex, you are yet again misrepresenting a prior discussion. I and other editors have spent hours upon hours trying to discuss this subject with you, and it appears that we might as well have been talking to the wall. Go back and read the 2004 discussion that I linked to in the thread about "minor". The short answer is that, if the facts about the wound would lead to the indisputable conclusion that the wound was "minor", then we can simply state the facts without drawing the conclusion for the reader. If, on the other hand, there is a dispute, we shouldn't take a position. I have asked you what fact about the wound is missing from the article. You've never supplied one. The medic slapped on some Bacitracin and a bandage and Kerry continued his regular duties, going out on patrol the next day. Those are facts. Calling the wound "minor" is editorializing on your part. It adds nothing to the information given to the reader; it serves only as an attempt to highlight a point that you want emphasized because it suits your POV. Therefore, the answer to your question, as I have made abundantly clear in prior discussion, is no. Also, I warn you that, during your enforced sabbatical, I've come to the conclusion that I was wasting too much time trying to explain such points to people who weren't genuinely interested in improving the encyclopedia. Please don't expect me to respond to every misconception you voice (about this article or any other), and please don't take my silence about anything as agreement with you. JamesMLane 18:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

James, are you saying that the wound is more severe than a "minor" wound or are you saying that based on the available facts, you are unable to conclude how severe (or minor) the wound was? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

wound dialog - copied from talk pages of Merovingian and Rex071404

John Kerry's 1st wound

I object to your removal of the wiki link to the word wound which I had only recently added to the John Kerry article. Furthermore, I feel it's unfair of you to act unilaterally the way you did. I ask that you restore that wiki link, review the talk page for that article and better explain your action there (Talk:John Kerry). Thanks. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 07:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I don't think it was necessary to link to wound because the average reader is not necessarily going to wonder what a wound is. On the contrary, most already know, and a link may be superfluous. Wikilinks are primarily used to link to something that is too complex to explain in an article that is only somewhat related. As a counterexample, one would not link to son on the article about George W. Bush, even though he is the son of George H. W. Bush. An overabundance of links is just that. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 07:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree with your justification [11] as to why you removed the wiki link from John Kerry. You have left out of your calculation the very real edititorial disagreements at that page over how much attention to draw to the minor nature of Mr. Kerry's 1st wound. My view is that readers DO benefit from a wiki link which informs them about wounds, especially since many critics of Mr. Kerry have many times very publicly criticized him for "puffing" in regards to his wounds. If it's not a big deal to you, I ask you to please restore that wiki link. I think it's important and I think it makes the article better, not worse. Also, if you notice, in the Kerry article, the word shrapnel which immediately precedes the instance of the word wound from which you removed the wiki link, links to a page which talks in very broad terms about shrapnel. By including the 1st link, but not the 2nd, the editorial result is to confuse rather than clarify, expecially since the shrapnel page closes the section on World War 1 with "Shrapnel can cause light or heavy wounds (or damage)". I see no reason why John Kerry should link to shrapnel which then links to Physical trauma (though the link is named "wounds"), if John Kerry is not going to link to wound. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 07:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

While there is an editorial debate over the exact nature of the wounds, there is not a debate over the definition of a wound. "Wound" is very straightforward; it means "injury". There is no need to link to wound because it is absolute. "Shrapnel", on the other hand, may be difficult to understand for a person who has little knowledge of such military terminology. As for the linking of "wound" at shrapnel, that is most likely because wounds are directly relevant to shrapnel, and much less to John Kerry. In other words, this is an issue of context. What a wound is is much more well-known than what shrapnel is. The question I asked myself when reading the paragraph was "Why is a link to wound necessary when the definition of them is already known?" The answer is: "It isn't." --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 08:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your conclusion (regarding this particular article) that there is agreement on the proper usage of the word "wound" . Rather, if you were to read the full history of the talk page for that article, you will find that the exact opposite is true - there is great disagreement as to whether or not Kerry was actually "wounded" at all by whatever it is he claimed was the rationale for his 1st purple heart. In fact, there is much in the public record by many who did not support Kerry to suggest that he was NOT in fact "wounded" at that time. On the other hand, those who support Kerry, want this issue swept under the rug. By expunging the wiki link to wound you are taking sides in a long running editorial debate and putting your finger on the scale in a mannner which results in pro-Kerry POV. Truely, there are many opportunities on the wiki where you could remove wiki links without causing turmoil, but this is not one of them. Simply put, your rationale does not hold water and unless you can come up with something more convincing, I am not persuaded by your reasoning. By selectively including the unannotated mention of a "shrapnel wound", without the more acurate qualifier of the word "minor" or at the very least, a wiki link to the wound page, the entrenched editors of the John Kerry page are in fact putting out hagiographic material, not biographic material. This is the crux of the long standing editoral issue on that page and you have injected yourself squarely into the middle of it. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 17:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not he was wounded, and regardless of the nature of the wounds, the link to wound is unnecessary in this context. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 18:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that it's "unnecessary". In fact, I assert that in the context of what is clearly a hagiographic article, some perspective is sorely needed. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex, isn't there an official document that we can quote than leave it up to our individual interpretations? Clearly either side is going to accuse the other of POV. Isn't there an official documentation accompanying the award that describes the wound that we can just simply quote verbatim and put this issue to rest? --kizzle 18:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I contend that without some clarification regarding Kerry's 1st "wound" we are publishing hagiographic material, not biographic material. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 18:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you want to respond to my above point? --kizzle 18:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

My response is: "I contend that without some clarification regarding Kerry's 1st "wound" we are publishing hagiographic material, not biographic material." Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"Clarification"?? The article describes in detail his wound and its treatment. Frankly, I think we've indulged you enough here. This was settled last August and you haven't added anything new to the discussion. Move on to something else. Gamaliel 18:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

(After an edit conflict) I respectfully disagree, Rex. The requirements for receiving a Purple Heart are that the recipient is wounded, a wound defined for this purpose as an injury to any part of the body caused by an outside force or agent; the degree of the wound is immaterial so long as it required treatment by a medical officer. He was wounded by shrapnel; he was treated; he was entitled to a Purple Heart. Adding "minor" to this, though accurate, is also POV; it implies somehow he was not deserving or not very deserving of the award. (I also know that freepers and other POV warriors will try their best to put negative spin on any aspect of Kerry's life. Get over it; he lost.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The issue at hand is that the entire article is too hagiographic and ought to be toned down considerably. Adding a wiki link to the word wound is a good place to start. As is adding the clarifying term "minor" in front of "wound". As to a reader thinking something is deserved or not, the Purple Heart page has ample details to make clear that even minor wounds can qualify. The simple fact is that by omitting detail, we are distorting history in a pro-Kerry fashion. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• No, that's your simple opinion. My simple opinion is that by including unnecessary detail, we are distorting history in an anti-Kerry fashion. It's only Kerry-haters that want to make a big deal about his wound being "minor"; most other editors understand that a neutral point of view requires no modifier whatsoever to "wound", since all that's being stated in the article is that he got enough of a wound to get a Purple Heart. Anyway, as was said above, this issue has been hashed out to death here; if you have something new to add to the discussion (other than repeating "hagiographic" three times, as if we're too stupid to either know what it means or to follow the link the first couple of times you included it), please do so.--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Sigh... Rex are you ignoring me or something? I've posted several comments to your talk page and here without a reply. I'll repeat:

Rex, isn't there an official document that we can quote than leave it up to our individual interpretations? Clearly either side is going to accuse the other of POV. Isn't there an official documentation accompanying the award that describes the wound that we can just simply quote verbatim and put this issue to rest? --kizzle 18:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that I have answered you both. In fact I know I have, so I will repeat: the entire article is too hagiographic. As to Kizzle specifically, that's not my concern. My concern is that "minor" is truthful, fair and accurate, which is the standard for journalism and it's no less a valid standard to reach NPOV, which this article currently does not. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, I see! You've mistaken Wikipedia for journalism! (That makes four times you've linked that? Five? Oh my gosh, it's seven! Any particular reason?) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If I were to say that in many business environments (not just banking), the concept behind the Prudent man rule is a valid approach to things, it would not mean that I am "mistaking" one of those other businesses for banking. Likewise, saying that a rule which is good for reporters can also be good for encylopedia editors does not mean I have "mistaken" that distinction either. Now, as for why I keep saying this "the entire article is too hagiographic", it's because it's true, it's the Elephant in the room and none of the pro-Kerry editors here will admit it. Furthermore, that refusal to admit this, is part and parcel to the opposition to all my edits here, no matter how minor. They've even edited out the wiki linking of their "preferred" text!. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 20:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah. The rhetoric of repetition; say it often enough and somehow you'll convince people that you are correct. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Correct in what regard? Are you saying that the John Kerry article is not less harsh on Kerry than the George W. Bush article is on Bush? If that's what you are saying, give me until later tonight to post a comparison of some salient elements of both for your perusing. On the other hand, if there is (and there is) an un-evenhanded approach between those articles, that must not be allowed to stand. Now then, regarding Kerry, you might not agee that the entire article is too hagiographic, but I do. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 20:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see how you could possibly justify using your own interpretation of Kerry's wound over an official report of the wound. Thus, it should be your concern Rex. Clearly in a case where two different editors viewpoints conflict, we should find an official document so that its not up for interpretation, and I do believe there are official sources we can quote to describe the wound. James, Derex, Rex, anyone know of such a source? --kizzle 22:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, your reasoning in this matter skips over the available facts. Here again for you, are the available facts: #1) Kerry received no stitches. #2) Kerry lost no duty time. Do you deny that these are true facts?

In my view, the use of an adjective to summarize the available facts, is not in and of itself POV, provided the word choice is not over the top. In this case, in the context of injuries incurred while in military armed conflict, a small abrasion which required nothing more than bacitracin, surely is a minor wound. Also, this guide here makes clear that the type of wound reported in Kerry's records, was minor. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt either of those two facts, what I was saying is that given a conflict between two editors interpretations of kerry's wounds, we should find an official source so that it is no longer left up to our individual interpretations. And yes, a single adjective can insert POV quite effectively. As for that guide, they don't mention shrapnel wounds. --kizzle 23:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Huh? - please go re-read the wound treatment guide. Specifically, re-read the section which is titled "TREATMENT FOR YOUR MINOR WOUNDS". Any plain reading of that section, when correlated to the known facts about Kerry's 1st wound, makes clear that the 1st wound can be accurately and fairly described as "minor" and that this can be done without "opinion" or "editorializing".

Also, if adjectives are so bad, then why is it that as of 10.19.05, the Kerry article tells us "he became deeply interested in politics.", we are also told that "Kerry and several other officers had an unusual meeting in Saigon with Admiral Elmo Zumwalt", that he had an "important role" (in VVAW). Also, we are told that Kerry "won convictions in both a high-profile rape case...", that "He won a narrow victory" and Kerry himself is quoted as saying the people of Massachusetts "emphatically reject the politics of selfishness..." and that "Kerry is also known as an avid cyclist". Finally, we are also told that he was "successfully treated for prostate cancer". Could it be that each of the adjectives which are currently in the article (as shown above) have a hagiographic effect? I contend that they do. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think any of those were disputed before, why don't you bring up if any of those should be changed? As for the current example, I still affirm that we should use an official source to describe the wound precisely so we don't have to repeat this argument of interpretation ad nauseum. --kizzle 00:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, if anyone wants to be part of the newly formed Liberal Editors Cabal, simply disagree with Rex on this or any other talk page and he'll add you to the group here: User talk:Rex071404/Liberal Editors Cabal. --kizzle 00:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)