Talk:John Kerry/Archive 20

New section re: "Religious beliefs and practices"

I have added this section to thee article today and placed it 1st in the article. I have modeled it on George W. Bush. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 07:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

== Religious beliefs and practices ==

According to those who know him, Kerry is a religious man. A practicing Roman Catholic he is said to carry a rosary, a prayer book, and a St. Christopher medal (the patron saint of travelers) when he campaigns. [1] "I thought of being a priest," Kerry recalled. "I was very religious while at school in Switzerland. I was an altar boy and prayed all the time. I was very centered around the Mass and the church."

According to Christianity Today:

"I'm a Catholic and I practice, but at the same time I have an open-mindedness to many other expressions of spirituality that come through different religions. … I've spent some time reading and thinking about [religion] and trying to study it, and I've arrived at not so much a sense of the differences, but a sense of the similarities in so many ways; the value-system roots and linkages between the Torah, the Qur'an, and the Bible and the fundamental story that runs through all of this, that … really connects all of us." [2]

Edits to military service, lieutenant governorship

I’ve made edits to two sections. Military service: restore language re wound as per talk; details re SBVT (such as plugging their book) are for that article, not Kerry’s. Lt. Gov.: There’s no evidence that Kerry had any particular involvement with the furlough program, so no reason to mention it; NPOV the nuclear planning issue by giving Kerry’s explanation of his position. JamesMLane 17:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Notice how James shifts the goal posts on edits he wants to block. In this instance, he says the standard is "evidence [of] particular involvement with ". Hmmm..., let's see: As Michael Dukakis’ Lieutenant Governor from 1983-1985, Kerry supported a furlough program for hundreds of Massachusetts’ inmates...". Uh, since when is the fact that Kerry defended a furlough program that resulted in major controversy (see Willie Horton), not notable enough to mention? Why must the standard be one of particular involvement with the program itself? Because JML wants to sanitize facts unfavorable to Kerry - and/or exclude them? Here is CNN acknowledging that proof has been "dug up" regarding Kerry's support of the furlough program: "Republican National Committee researchers have already dug up Kerry's 1988 defense of the Dukakis furlough program..." Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 18:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

"As Michael Dukakis' Lieutenant Governor, Kerry supported the furlough program that turned Willie Horton loose on two more victims." This is the sort of appalingly NPOV sentence that I'd expect from a new user, not from someone who has been here for over a year. Obviously you're ignoring Ed's advice to "write for the enemy". Either you don't understand NPOV at all or you are deliberately skewing your contributions rightward to attempt to drag the whole article in general rightward, which also means you don't understand NPOV at all. Either way, you haven't demonstrated what this has to do with Kerry at all and haven't shown anything besides him being just an office holder whose boss did something controversial. Gamaliel 18:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, will you please pay attention before shooting off snide comments? JML's rationale for removing it said nothing about POV and JML was free to soften my language by using a truncated version of the same quote "Kerry supported the furlough program" (a 100% factual statement), coupled with some other verbiage. Instead, he removed the edit and link on grounds which I consider specious, that being lack of "proof" of "particular involvement" by Kerry in the program per se. Please read the ongoing dialog before insulting me yet again. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't care less what JML's rationale was in the matter of this POV statement you have inserted into this article. These are my comments and my objections. Gamaliel 19:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

So you are saying that you object to JML's failure to make the offending text a quote extract and fix the POV that way, rather than what he did, which was delete it altogether? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I refer you to the earlier comments of the erudite James M. Lane: "I think your tendency to try to put words in other editors' mouths is extremely unhelpful to the editing process. My experience is that your paraphrases of or inferences from my comments, and those of other editors, are frequently off-target, and generate unnecessary animosity. I suggest that things would go more smoothly if you would try to curb that habit." Gamaliel 22:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, but I thought you just told me your feelings about referring to JML's statements, which is "I couldn't care less what JML's rationale was". Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I have clarified my earlier statement to avoid confusion among those who are insufficiently erudite. Gamaliel 23:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, although I'm very appreciative of this new nickname "the erudite James M. Lane", I suggest that you use the word with a piped link to Erudition. Not everyone is sufficiently erudite to know the meaning of "erudite". The erudite James M. Lane, 23:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

James, excellent suggestion, we can follow that with The minor 1st wound of John Kerry.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Kerry's 1st injury was a "minor shrapnel wound"

Regarding this longstanding bone of contention, in addition to the wiki link to wound at which one finds the medical technical term of "minor wound" (minor wound), I have provided two links [3] [4], which taken together, make it perfectly clear that we as editors have an accuracy obligation to use the word "minor". Absent that, we must use "superficial" and "small". Quoting Dr. Letson [5]:

"[That] seemed to fit the injury which I treated.

What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about 1 cm. in length and was about 2 or 3 mm in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle.

I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps. I doubt that it penetrated more than 3 or 4 mm. It did not require probing to find it, did not require any anesthesia to remove it, and did not require any sutures to close the wound.

Quoting the "Wound Care Guide" [6]:

TREATMENT FOR YOUR MINOR WOUNDS - The basics of wound care for small scratches, cuts and abrasions can be divided into three steps: cleansing the wound, cleansing the skin around the wound, and protecting the wound from further contamination.'

Suffice it to say, I have offered facts and proof that the wound was minor and ought to be described as such.

In rebuttal, I have been told that Letson is "biased", etc. Such rebuttals are not themselves facts which pertain to the wound, but instead are arguments of other facts which pertain to Letson's credibility, not the severity of the wound itself.

As such, the others argue a distinct set of facts -that Letson is not to be believed for various reasons they cite, but they do not offer any alternative proof or facts regarding what those opposed to "minor shrapnel wound" contend the wound actually was.

Regarding Kerry's wound, there are only three possible variables: The wound was a) minor, b) something else, or c) impossible to know based on available facts.

I have offered facts as proof that "a)" is correct. JamesMLane (and others) have argued that the source of one of my facts, Dr. Letson is not sufficiently valid as a source to use, but they have offered no facts themsleves to support "b)" or "c)".

Also regarding the wound care guide which I offered as additional proof - so far, no one has opposed the validity, accuracy or germaness of that guide as it pertains to clarifying the medical technical term known as "minor wound".

Indeed, from a medical technical standpoint, the term "minor wound" is not the same as the generic term "wound".

The editors which oppose me here have provided ZERO proof as to why the generic term ought to be used, rather than the specific, technical medical term which I am using and supporting with proof. My most recent Edit Summary makes my point here very clear: ("rv - in this instance, "wound" is a technical term as it has medical specificity which varies due to severity "Technical terms should be linked unless they are fully defined in the article.") [7]

Unless and until James, et al can provide facts to support "b)" or "c)" - which they have not done so far, the preponderance of the facts support my edit and it ought to remain unmolested by further reverts. Merely because James, et al want to argue against it is not a sufficient basis for reverting ths edit without factual proof.

Argument is all well and good, but facts are required too and JamesMLane, et al, do not offer any.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 09:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

This is like criticizing the article as inaccurate for stating that Kerry is a Senator, on the basis that he's actually a Class II Senator (referring to when his term expires). By the definition in the wound article that you keep linking to, what Kerry suffered was a wound. That description is accurate. The reader isn't being deprived of any facts except for the details of the SBVT controversy, which are readily available through the hyperlink. JamesMLane 17:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, I will reiterate, I have provided proof that the wound is minor, James has provided no proof that it's anything else. Also, the fact that James says that the phrase "minor shrapnel wound" is equal to "details of the SBVT controversy", is funny considering that the link in the paragraph regarding the 1st puple heart goes to John Kerry military service controversy, not SBVT, per se. This Fruedian Slip by James, makes clear that he has the issue regarding Kerry's wound framed thusly: Any injury related facts which shine less than flattering light on Kerry are automatically deemed "SBVT" related and hence, must be shunted away.

Suffice it to say, James is unable to accept that Kerry's minor wound is a true fact and also a medically related technical term, which exists independantly of the John Kerry military service controversy. And Kerry received that minor shrapnel wound" prior to there being any "controversy".

The simple truth here is that I have presented facts which support "minor wound", but James has presented no facts which rebut this. Further, James is doing nothing but trying to enforce an unsupportable "freeze" on any edits to this section of text. I object most strenuously to the removal of "minor shrapnel wound]" from the text.

Also, please note that the "Class II Senator" diversion is a straw dog. It does not relate to wound severity and does not speak to the issue I am raising which is: The generic term "wound" in and of itself, as used in the James varriant of this text, simply does not fully inform the readers of an extremely germane fact, that being "what was the severity of the injury?".

By forcing the reader to click to John Kerry military service controversy to find the word "minor", James is able to see to it that the undisputed true fact that the wound was minor gets morphed to "[t]hey assert that the injury was too minor to merit a citation". This is interesting, because as I left it, there is NOTHING the section under dispute...

During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating in and around a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began to run. When the men refused to obey an order to stop running, Kerry and his crew of two enlisted men opened fire, destroyed the sampans, and took off. During this encounter, Kerry suffered a minor shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow. The shrapnel was removed and the injury was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged. Kerry returned to duty the next day on a regular Swift boat patrol. Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this injury. This medal award was one of those criticized by Kerry's detractors in the 2004 election; for more detail, see John Kerry military service controversy.

... which says ANYTHING about the wound NOT MERITING a citation.

Rather, what the edit I made does, is state the known facts about the severity of the wound and points out that the medal arising from it "was one of those criticized by Kerry's detractors in the 2004 election", which is also true.

There is no argument at John Kerry regarding "merit" of award.

Plain and simply, James is basically trying to make us acccept that telling the true facts regarding wound severity, is equivalent to criticizing Kerry as in, "too minor to merit a citation".

My edit does not do what James is inferring it does. James is, I feel, blocking progress here and I ask him to yield.

The wound is proven to be "minor". "Minor wound" is a medically related technical term and deserves to be linked . "Minor shrapnel wound" is a highly accurate and proper NPOV edit.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 18:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The whole thing is just stupid. The only reason for mentioning the wound is that it resulted in one of Kerry's three Purple Hearts. The only requirement for a Purple Heart is a wound. Not a major wound, not a significant wound -- just a wound (generally one, such as this one, resulting from enemy action). Every other characterization of it exists solely as an attempt to belittle Kerry, and at this point it's sore winners proud of their well-filled salt shakers. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

According to the logic arguments arrayed against me here, "His right arm was also injured so badly that it was unrecognizable" should be excised from Bob Dole? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 18:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The reader is presented with all the facts, thus they can come to the conclusion whether it was minor or not. The only reason why you're so stubbornly trying to include "minor" into the description is to insinuate that he didn't deserve the medal. I don't know how many more times we can go over this, as I sure as hell do not want to be talking about this come next october. After extensive dialogue (which is probably the understatement of the year), you simply do not have concensus on this matter and no "capital" owed to you to include your change. We have come to two fundamental differing positions that we keep repeating over and over again. I'm sorry, but you're going to have to let this one go.--kizzle 18:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The readers ARE NOT "presented with all the facts". It is a proven "fact" that the injury was minor. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 18:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Where was it proven? From Letson, who doesn't show up on the medical records of Kerry's treatment? Or from the Naval review or initial award documentation that doesn't say his injury was "minor"? Or from your medical website that doesn't cover shrapnel wounds? --kizzle 19:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow. I come here to see why people are removing useful information, only to find it's a lame edit war. Get a life. When I see that the wound was nothing more than a pinprick, rather than something threatening amputation, then the epithet minor seems warranted. Noisy | Talk 18:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. But consensus was reached over a year ago, and shown repeatedly, that the characterization itself is POV. There are dozens of references to Purple Heart recipients on Wikipedia; how many of them have their combat injuries belittled by political opponents? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

If it is noneknown that those wounds were minor, then by all means the information can safely be added to those articles as well. I'm sure we can find example articles where wounds have been categorized as major or minor or life-threatening, etc. We should give the readers more information. Johntex\^talk 19:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Johntex, I think you weren't around for the first fourteen months or so of this discussion, so let me bring you up to speed. What is known is what's in the article already, about the treatment of the wound. During the 2000 campaign, a doctor named Letson, who was opposed to Kerry's candidacy, came forward and asserted that he had been the one who treated the wound, even though someone else's name appeared on the Navy medical record. Letson said that the wound was small but that, despite the unimportance of the incident, he remembered it more than 30 years later -- remembered it well enough to give a detailed description, which just so happened to minimize an injury received by a candidate he disliked. Letson's claim to have treated Kerry has not been corroborated (as far as I know) by any other person or by any documentary evidence. Letson also charged that, given the circumstances of how Kerry received the injury, it did not qualify for the Purple Heart. He admitted, however, that he hadn't seen the incident, and was basing his statement on what someone else had told him.

Letson's statement, like other disputed aspects of Kerry's Vietnam awards, is addressed in John Kerry military service controversy. I agree with you about giving the readers more information. The problem, however, is that we simply can't give the readers all the information about Kerry's experience in Vietnam by cramming it all into this main bio article. We moved much of the detail into a daughter article last year, for the same reason as the earlier such move of information from the George W. Bush article.JamesMLane 03:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi James, I just saw that you had addressed a reply to me. Thank you for the sumarry. I have been aware in a general sense of the controversy, though I have not followed the discussion here closely until now. I agree with you that every fact can't make it into the main article. However, Letson's statement is consistent with other facts. For example, no one has claimed Kerry's first would was "major". No one has claimed Kerry suffered a disability, or was hospitalized. No one who served with Kerry debunked Letson's claim, nor did Kerry himself. It seems likely the Keery campaign would have produced someone to dispute the claim if they thought it was erroneous. So, we have a widely quoted source saying it was minor, and no evidence to say it was anything else. Besides, even a minor wounds is eligible for the Purple Heart if it is received under the right circumstances. Therefore, it takes nothing away from Kerry anyway. Finally, we are only talking about adding one word here, so article bloat is certainly not a problem. I think on balance it should be included. Johntex\^talk 17:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Rhetorical questions regarding "dozens of references to Purple Heart recipients" are irrelevant to the discussion at hand and prove nothing about the crux of the matter, which is:

I have provided proof of the level of the severity of the wound, but no other editor has. All anti-"minor" arguments being made on this page are unsupported by any facts regarding wound severity.

The editors who keep out-voting me here have more votes, but not more facts - only arguments. Arguments are not evidence, they are not determinative and do not go into wiki articles. Only facts go in. I have offered a fact set. The others are trying to keep my fact set out, but offer no wound-related fact set themselves. Plain and simply, this is bad-faith on their part and is not Wikipedia:Negotiation. Also, I have never conceded to the supposed consensus from a year ago and contend it was not reached via Consensus decision-making

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with RedRex - the adjective "minor" or similar term should be put in. Johntex\^talk 19:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Lame Edit War, Part Deux

Suggested reading: User page:What should I avoid?. Especially this line: Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia. I added this page to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars everCuinnDubh 13:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it to the main article, which has been the battlefield for the war with its multiple reverts. Simply yakking on the talk page isn't, per se, an edit war. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I just read this on Yahoo: "In August, Germany's Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper quoted Wales as saying that "controls" could be tightened to protect potentially sensitive pages of Wikipedia. Reuters picked up the report and, in translating sections of it, said some pages could be "frozen" in perpetuity.

"The idea that we are going to tighten our editorial 'rules' is completely not correct (and) the articles would not be frozen in perpetuity," Wales said. He said he had been misinterpreted and mistranslated.

"Wales said new software would be deployed from the end of the year that would allow changes to very active pages which might be prone to vandalism to appear on the site with a time delay, so members of the community could review them. (emphasis added)

"Enthusiasts had also been discussing whether to create "stable" versions of certain pages that would stand as the most recent reliable entry on a given topic. These would be available behind the latest contributed version and would also be updated as necessary, Wales said. " And it can't happen soon enough! CuinnDubh 19:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The operative phrase is "available behind". Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• I added Kerry to "Category:Recipients of the Purple Heart medal|Kerry, John". There are only a handful of people listed there though, surely we have more Purple Heart medal recipients on Wikipedia than is indicated by that page. Johntex\^talk 19:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• This is quite a discussison around a single word! Obviously, it is important to a lot of people that we get this one word right. I think there are three things to consider:

1. Is there good factual basis for the claim? From what I have read above, the answer is Yes.
2. Does the fact add to the article? Wounds vary greatly in severtiy. If the word "wound" is used by itself, the reader could eaisily make an incorrect assumption about how bad the injury was. In this case, one word adds a lot of value, so the answer is Yes.
3. Is it NPOV to include the fact? I think a reasonable arguement can be made that it is POV not to include this adjective. Since the reader could easily picture a more severe wound than actually occured, leaving out the qualifier could be seen as elevating Kerry on a pedastal due to his combat wounds. Now, of course it would be POV for the article to say something like "Kerry's camp claims he received war wounds, but in actual fact he just got a bo-bo and wanted a medal". I don't think anyone is trying to add in a negative statement about the wound. Rex seems to be trying to stick to the facts. If the facts are presented in a careful, balanced way, then they aren't POV. Therefore, I think the answer to this is also Yes.

In conclusion, I support the inclusion of some qualifying adjective such as "minor" or "small" in front of the word "wound". Johntex\^talk 17:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

For your #1 regarding a factual basis for the claim, you do realize that:

• Letson doesn't appear anywhere on the official record of the injury
• Letson has no corroborating witnesses
• He somehow remembered a "minor" wound from the tens of thousands he treated 30 years ago, and just happened to recount it during a heated election
• He's a part of Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, who aren't exactly the most truth-telling bunch

So why do you believe there is a factual basis? --kizzle 17:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Kizzle, thanks for the quesiton. It would be great if we had corroborating evidence to support Letson. Since we don't, I think we have to look at whether there is anything to contradict him. No one who served with Kerry debunked Letson's claim, nor did Kerry himself. It seems likely the Keery campaign would have produced someone to dispute the characterization of the wound as "minor" if they thought it was anything else. No one has shown any evidence Kerry's first would was not minor. No one has claimed Kerry suffered a disability, or was hospitalized, or had to miss any duties. So, we have a widely quoted source saying it was minor, and no evidence to say it was anything else. I think on balance, the evidence (while not perfect) substantiates the claim that it was a minor wound. Johntex\^talk 18:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Johntex. I believe your perception of where the burden of proof lies is incorrect. Letson has absolutely no documentary evidence nor witnesses to back up his claim, just his word that he remembered an extremely minor incident 30 years ago in the heat of the campaign. We don't call Libby a "perjurer" in the official verbiage of his article, but rather report that there is an allegation against him. Thus, in this artiicle, we report it as what it is, an allegation, but don't include it into the official tone of the article. --kizzle 18:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• The burden of proof for something like this lies not with one side or the other - it lies right down the middle. There is evidence to support the word "minor" and none to refute it. So, it is the word of one person to none. There is also lots of other things we can look at, such as whether there is any record or claim of hospitalization or missed duties, or permenant damage. Since none of that exists, Letson's claim seems reasonable. It is certainly reasonable to thing that the very minorness of the injury may be what caused him to remember it after all that time. Also, I think the comparison to Libby is not a good one. For one thing Libby has denied the charges. I don't know of any denial Kerry has made concerning Letson's claims. For another thing, no one is accusing Kerry of anything. A minor wound would still qualify for a Purple Heart. The preponderance of the evidence is that the wound was minor, so that is what we should go with. Johntex\^talk 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• The absence of opposing evidence does not in itself strengthen one's account, especially one with no documentary or corroborating evidence. The criteria you set forth explicitly violates NPOV because you allow the tone of the article to adopt a highly unverifiable claim into the official tone of the article, and thus "take sides" with one viewpoint. If people claim aliens landed in Roswell, the government simply denies it but provides no contrary evidence, should we state in the Roswell article that aliens did, in fact, land, because there is no contrary evidence to these people's highly unverifiable claims? I'm not saying we excise all info from Letson, but quote, cite, and only adopt into the tone what we know to be true, of which Letson's account is sorely lacking in due to the lack of verifiability in either documentary evidence or corroborating witnesses. --kizzle 18:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Johntex, you're correct when you say, "No one has claimed Kerry suffered a disability, or was hospitalized, or had to miss any duties." The point I've been making all along is that the undisputed facts about the wound are already in the article. We state that the treatment consisted of slapping on some antibiotics and bandaging the wound. We state that Kerry carried out his next regular patrol (the next day). I would think that those passages make clear that he wasn't hospitalized, but if you think we need to spell that out, his non-hospitalization is at least an objective fact -- as opposed to Rex's beloved "minor", which is an inference/characterization/opinion.

Rex is all for informing the readers when it comes to an anti-Kerry statement, such as Letson's. When it comes to undeniable facts that tend to favor Kerry, however, then Rex suddenly becomes a devotee of moving information to a daughter article. The result is that he wants the main bio article to be written as if Letson's account were known beyond doubt to be completely accurate. What about the additional undisputed and relevant facts that there are official Navy records of the wound, that those records show Carreon as giving the treatment, and that Letson's name doesn't appear in those records? Those facts, of course, are the ones that Rex doesn't want presented here. You suggest including the word "minor" because "on balance, the evidence (while not perfect) substantiates the claim . . . ." We shouldn't be drawing conclusions for the readers, though. If it's a matter of balancing evidence, both sides should be presented.

More than a year ago, someone pointed out on this page that no reader would conclude from our text that Kerry went out on patrol the next day with a bleeding stump. The facts we give provide a clear picture of the nature and severity of the wound. I don't see what facts are added by inserting the characterization "minor". All that's added is the opinion of a Kerry opponent. That's relevant, but just not important enough to include here, and (with the necessary presentation of the other side) it would take up too much space. That's why I think we should stick with the approach of putting all this stuff in the daughter article.

By the way, the title of this thread is inaccurate. By now we must be up to Lame Edit War, Part Cinq at least, and more likely Lame Edit War, Part Dix. JamesMLane 18:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the title closer to my favorite movie: The Neverending Lame Edit War. --kizzle 19:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• (after edit conflict with James) Hi Kizzle, I don't think the absence of opposing evidence is the same as the presence of corroborating evidence, but it is a data point in determining how much wieght to give the original claim. In the example you give about Roswell, if the govt makes a denial with no supporting evidence, that would be notable in itself in countering an affirmative statement that was made with no evidence. Let's assume instead the govt made no statement at all. If the normal government policy is to not make statements about such matters, then it would not mean much that the government issued no denial. On the contrary, politicians and their handlers issue denials all the time. Therefore, the absence of such a denial leads some credence to the claim. Johntex\^talk 19:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Hi James, I don't know Rex's history on the page, so I can't comment about his other behaviours. I am viewing this as an outside observer who is miniminally aware of the controversy and trying to give the reader the best information. I am going to take a step back from this discussion for a bit. When I come back, maybe I will have some new thoughts. Best, Johntex\^talk 19:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• True, but we must be extra careful in selecting which "data points" the actual text of the article (as opposed to quotations) uses. Read James's comment that "minor" is not a fact, but an inference/opinion/characterization made by a political opponent of Kerry's. Do we really want to include such a subjective characterization into the official tone itself, especially given its lack of evidence and our (better) option to simply quote and attribute such characterization to Letson? --kizzle 19:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I think this new section is a great idea, even if I disagree about where exactly to place it in the article. Gamaliel 10:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Too bad you won't admit that about other edits I've made here. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 10:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you can't even accept a simple compliment without being obnoxious about it. Gamaliel 10:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry's military service spin-off article started

John Kerry has become too unwieldy. I have started a spin-off article (John Kerry's military service) and moved the associated content there and linking to it. Please help me fix the loose ends. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 07:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

This change is utterly unwarranted. Kerry's stint in Vietnam was immensely important to his development as a person and to his political career. I am restoring this section. In doing so, I'll begin to make some of the fixes necessitated by Rex's prior POV edits of the section. JamesMLane 09:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

There is consensus that John Kerry is too long. Stop being so unilateral please. The spin-off to John Kerry's military service is valid. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 09:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You remove an entire long section that's been worked on by many, many editors over more than a year -- and one which, if memory serves me, was suggested for spinoff a while back, a suggestion that met with overwhelming disapproval -- and then you accuse me of being unilateral? Okay, Rex, think what you like. There is no consensus that this article is too long. Even if there were, wholesale amputation of this sort would not be the way to shorten it. If you put more detail in the spinoff article, then I wouldn't object to a link here, but as of now the link to the controversy article is adequate. JamesMLane 09:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

James, you have already stated yourself that the article is too long. Also, you are the one complaining about putting too much detail in. The solution to that is to spin off John Kerry's military service as I have done. James, you've always stated that readers are free to follow links for more information. They have that option here. Neither the readers or the article suffers. Rather, the John Kerry article becomes more encyclopedic and less like the hagiogrphic litany of extreme boorish detail that it has previously been. James, you really make me laugh - all of a sudden we can't dare spin anything off. Off course, if the spun off stuff has the effect of moving out material you want moved - that's ok. And what about the fact there was no "Religious beliefs and practices" section for Kerry? Kerry himself says "I'm a Catholic and I practice", but you, in your editors zeal, seem to think omitting that was ok. After all, you never put anything in about that, did you? The spin-of is valid and your complaints on this do not hold water.

Uh, if anyone cares to see it, at this diff [8], James elsewhere makes clear that article size is a bona fide editorial concern and that excess size is a problem to be addressed head on. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 09:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there really a consensus that the article is too large? I don't think it is too large, personally. Regardless, I disagree with the removal of so much key information. Gamaliel 10:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

In previous discussions relating to article size and management, JamesMLane has said:

• "[i]s moved to a new page..." [9],

• "[w]arning notice about excessive length..." [10],

• "I'm still against keeping it in the Kerry article..." [11],

• "We have to make judgments about what goes into this article, what's in a separate article (not a "sub-page", a separate article), and what's omitted entirely" [12]

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 10:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

So you're saying JML decides what consensus is? Gamaliel 11:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

No, (but now that you ask, I feel that he thinks he does). Also am saying that JML is inconsistant regarding spin-offs. I may add more diffs to show this point. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 11:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Please don't. Your beef with JML doesn't belong on this page, and showing that one particular editor among many is allegedly inconsistent doesn't get us any closer to consensus on the page length matter. Gamaliel 11:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, so you agree that JML is inconsistant regarding spin-offs? What about you, are you? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 11:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with this and I have modified my previous statement (by adding the word allegedly) to more accurately reflect my stance on this matter. I don't take a position on whether or not JML is inconsistent because I don't care. My stance is one of total indifference. He could eat babies for all I care. No one cares but you. None of this has anything to do with what the consensus is on the length of this article. Gamaliel 11:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Au contraire - prior determinations made about spin offs as they relate to John Kerry have a precedent setting effect against those who made the determinations. You two have lobbied for spin offs here before and that undercuts your premise for opposing this one. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 11:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Partial responses to Rex's latest (why do I bother?):

• You write, "James, you have already stated yourself that the article is too long." I don't remember saying that. Might you provide a diff? I remember moving out some of the genealogical detail by creating the article on Margaret Tyndal Winthrop, and I remember suggesting other specific trims, some of which met with general approval and some of which didn't. Anyway, even someone else who believes the article is too long isn't thereby logically required to support any ill-advised deletion that an editor might propose (or might implement without prior discussion).
• You write that, with your excisions, "the John Kerry article becomes more encyclopedic . . . ." This is typical of your generalizations. I specifically noted the importance in Kerry's life of his Vietnam service. You don't respond to that, but instead, in the name of trimming the article, you would give Kerry's entire military career less space than one of your pet topics, the alleged break-in at an opponent's campaign office in 1972. The POV of your deletion couldn't be more blatant.
• Religious beliefs: There are many Wikipedia articles that I know of that need additions, and many stubs that need expansion, and many subjects that need articles but don't even have stubs yet. I have a lengthy to-do list, as do many of us whose concern is building a good encyclopedia. On what possible basis can you infer, from my not having written something, that I think Wikipedia shouldn't have it? I've never deleted any valid material about Kerry's religious beliefs. As to the specific section you wrote, I've been too busy with other things to even look at it. The general subject is appropriate for this article, so I'll see whether your version is properly encyclopedic (NPOV, sourced, not too detailed, etc.).
• Consensus: No, I don't think I decide consensus, and your thinly veiled personal attack on me is completely without support.
• The Fitzmas diff: Wow, I guess I'm busted -- you caught me admitting that article size is a bona fide editorial concern. Apparently, that means I have to go along with any hare-brained deletion that anyone proposes to any article longer than 32 kb. Is that your thesis, Rex? My view is to look at specific edits. You draw a comparison between the term "Fitzmas" as an aspect of the Plame affair, on the one hand, and Kerry's military service as an aspect of his life, on the other. My response is that, for the reasons I've stated, Kerry's military service is much, much more important in his life than "Fitzmas" is to alleged criminal conduct in the White House. Do you see them as equally important?
• Other "consistency" points: Your collection of diffs doesn't come close to establishing inconsistency on my part. Please read the statement that you yourself quoted: "We have to make judgments about what goes into this article, what's in a separate article (not a 'sub-page', a separate article), and what's omitted entirely." Do you agree with that? I ask because you seem to have trouble with the concept of editorial judgment. In the "Fitzmas" example, you're conflating the merits of including Passage A in Article 1 with the merits of including a completely unrelated Passage B in a completely unrelated Article 2. On other occasions you've acted as if it's inconsistent for someone to favor including Link A in Article 1 while removing Link B from Article 2. Comparisons of this sort are pretty much useless.

Incidentally, you should reflect on Gamaliel's response to your comment about my alleged inconsistency. I think your tendency to try to put words in other editors' mouths is extremely unhelpful to the editing process. My experience is that your paraphrases of or inferences from my comments, and those of other editors, are frequently off-target, and generate unnecessary animosity. I suggest that things would go more smoothly if you would try to curb that habit. JamesMLane 11:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

No James, you are wrong. And, what will make our dealings here go smoother is not yours and Gamaliel's often erudite repartees (yours more than his, in the erudite). Rather, things will go smoother here (if I understand you right about smooth), when the two of you (and perhaps Kizzle, if he reappears here) concede the truth that John Kerry is too hagiographic.

There are only three ways to change that: 1) add text (and photos, etc.) 2) remove text (and photos, etc.) and 3) modify text (and photos, etc.). I have endeavored from time to time at trying all three - focused on my aim of making this article less hagiographic and hence, more proper as it ought to read.

Kerry is not so hot as you guys make him out to be. He's a mediocre Senator with influential friends, a rich wife and excellent speaking skills. He's not Audie Murphy, he's not Rambo, he's not Harry Truman (Truman was once a very dogged investigator in an offical role) and he is not a crusading avatar ferreting out the Bush Sr/GWB threads of scandal/Iraq misdeads. When this article stops presenting him as such, we'll probably go own own ways. But before then, who knows? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 11:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I admit that comments about eating babies are seldom erudite. Regardless of that, once again this argument has drifted - as arguments with Rex always to - to his contention that we like Kerry too much and he just really sucks. It's an idle fantasy, I know, but for once I wish you'd stay on topic. The topic started out being the length of this page. You claim that there is a consensus for reducing the length of this page. When asked about that you produced a series of links allegedly demonstrating that one particular editor was inconsistent about article length. So what? Even if you triumph in your quest to "prove" JML or myself or whoever is inconsistent, this has nothing to do with what the consensus is about the length of this page. Another idle fantasy, but I wish you would confine your personal quests to vanquish us to user talk pages and try to stop wasting everyone's time and stay on topic on article talk pages. Gamaliel 18:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, it would seem that Gamaliel simply will not acknowledge my over-arching topic, which is, the article is too hagiographic. For that reason, I will add a new section title to this page, so he can't miss it. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

No it isn't. --kizzle 00:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry as an article is too hagiographic

I have been contending for some time that "the article is [too] hagiographic". Beginning later today, I will start listing specifics in a bullet list format in this section. This will require my copying here some previous talk comments, please be patient while I assemble and prepare. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry hagiographic problem #1 - Too much personal history in early years

Looking at Al Gore and George W. Bush as benchmarks, John Kerry has too much early life personal details. It is too hagiographic to have all these sections -

• 1.0 Early life and education
• 1.1 Family background
• 1.1.1 Maternal family background
• 1.1.2 Paternal family background
• 1.2 Childhood years

- rather than a simple "Early and personal life" (Gore) "Education, military service, and early personal life" (Bush). Kerry has too much detail. Unless the narrative is intended to get us to admire [13] Kerry, then there is no rational reason to have so much personal history detail in these sections. These sections should be trimmed and consolidated. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments from editors who disagree that there is a hagiographic problem at all

• The presence of neutral, relevant factual information about a person and his or her background does not constitute hagiography.
• Problems of tone, if they exist, are not solved by chopping out random bits of an article.
• There does not appear to be a consensus that this article is too long.
• Comparisons with other articles are generally irrelevant as different editors work on different articles, different amounts of work go into them, and different areas are focused on.
• If one article appears to have more information than another, the solution is to work on building the latter article, not chopping up the former. If you feel GWB's early life or family background is insufficently covered, no one is stopping you from going to that article to address those issues.

That about covers it for now. Gamaliel 02:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Gamaliel. Being a firm believer that more information is better than less information I see no use in removing the section on Kerry's family. I would like to see in returned.CuinnDubh 04:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with Gamaliel's excellent (even erudite) comment, except that I'd add another point to his discussion of comparisons with other articles:

• Different article subjects will frequently call for different treatments. For example, Kerry's military service was much more important, in his development as a person and in his political career, than Bush's was. On the other hand, Bush spent much more time working in the private sector than Kerry did. Therefore, the emphases (space allocation, order of presenting information, etc.) in their articles may well differ. We shouldn't have to cut Bush's stints in the oil business and the Texas Rangers down to whatever length is appropriate to Kerry's brief career in private law practice. We shouldn't have to cut Kerry's Vietnam service down to the length of the discussion of Bush in TANG. Similarly, Rex's edit summary asserting "Bush's relgion goes near top - too must Kerry's or it's POV disparate treatment" is misguided. Bush has made much more of a public deal about trumpeting his religious beliefs (and, lately, Miers's religious beliefs) as a qualification for public office. A completely NPOV contributor, exercising editorial judgment, could well conclude that the subject of religion deserved more prominence in Bush's article than in Kerry's. JamesMLane 10:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• James, you have ZERO proof of this 1/2 of this sentence: "Kerry's military service was much more important, in his development as a person...". And regarding "religion", this sentence by James is just silly: "A completely NPOV contributor, exercising editorial judgment, could well conclude that the subject of religion deserved more prominence in Bush's article than in Kerry's." for the simple reason that the opposite "could" be equally true. Especially if this "NPOV editor" bothered to pay attention to what Kerry has actually said on the subject: "I thought of being a priest... [I] was very religious while at school in Switzerland. I was an altar boy and prayed all the time. I was very centered around the Mass and the church." and "I'm a Catholic and I practice, but at the same time I have an open-mindedness to many other expressions of spirituality that come through different religions. … I've spent some time reading and thinking about [religion] and trying to study it, and I've arrived at not so much a sense of the differences, but a sense of the similarities in so many ways; the value-system roots and linkages between the Torah, the Qur'an, and the Bible and the fundamental story that runs through all of this, that … really connects all of us." are two examples. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 13:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

As usual, Rex, you've missed my point. When I referred to what an editor "could well conclude" about this particular question, I didn't mean what an editor must conclude or what I myself do conclude. If I had meant one of those things I would've said so. I was simply refuting your attempt to force all articles about Presidential candidates into one Procrustean bed. Your edit summary implied that the placement of the discussion of the person's religion must be identical in all such articles, or we're somehow being biased. I disagree. I believe in the application of editorial judgment. That belief leads me to reject your suggestion (below) that the Kerry article should include such points as "what brand toilet paper he prefers". JamesMLane 13:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well then, regarding Kerry, let's add his shoe size, his dork length in mm, cm and inches, how many moles warts & pimples he has, his favorite fruits, nuts & vegetables (we already have his favorite cookie), what he ate for lunch each day for the last year, where he eats lunch most often, which of his seven mansions and large homes he slept in the last 6 months, the last time he was constipated, the last time he vomited and why, how many times he masterbated as a teenager, if he's ever looked at a woman "with lust in his heart", if he's ever looked at a man "with lust in his heart", his position on papal infallibility, if he prays to the Virgin Mary, if he believes in heaven, if he believes in evolution, if he thinks we evolved from chimps, apes or something like that, how much change he has in his pocket on any given weekday, what brand toilet paper he prefers, who his next door neighbors (both sides & front/back) are at his Beacon Hill residence, whether he did indeed use his clout to get a fire hydrant moved there so as to gain a much coveted personal parking space, his position on whether or not would he sleep with Janet Jackson, Madonna, Cher, Al Gore and/or Phyllis Diller if given the chance, does he please his wife in bed, if so, how often, what positions, where else have they done it in the last 6 months, has he ever shoplifted anything, told a lie, hit someone in anger, visited Auschwitz/Birkenau, the Great Wall of China or Trinity (1st nuke test site), does he think that Carrie-Anne Moss (played Trinity in Matrix series) is "hot", would he kill a chipmunk to have dinner with her, would he eat a live chipmunk to be President of the USA, 10, 100, 1000 chipmunks, what three answers would he add to Jeopardy! if he had the chance, does he think that Jesus ever told any lies, does he think that Gandhi was a space alien or that Mother Teresa really was no help to people at all and finally, if my skin is somewhat dark, if and when we give "reparations" how much should people with my skin tone get? Indeed all these things and more, as they relate John Kerry are of the utmost importance and must all be included. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 07:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're going with this, could you provide more examples? --kizzle 19:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)