Talk:John Kerry/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

The accuracy of "minor shrapnel wound" compels its inclusion in John Kerry

The superceding issue here is that the Letson quote is an affirmative fact set which HAS NOT been rebutted.

If JamesMLane, et al (the "No!" crowd) are concerned about accuracy, let them supply an affirmative fact set which speaks specifically to the treatment of the 1st wound and which differs enough from Letson's account that we can reasonably conclude it rebuts Letson.

If and only if they do that, will they have met their burden of providing facts.

As it stands now, the "No!" position is supported only by conjecture and argumentation against Letson's believability. And fair enough, claims against Letson are fair game -and as such can go into a detailed subsidiary article.

However, so far, to my knowledge the only accounting of actual wound treatment has come from Letson.

And, there has been NO evidentiary basis shown that would compel us to reject Letson's account as being utterly false, utterly fraudulent.

The "No!" group simply has not met its burden of providing us as editors enough proof to conclude that Letson's account should be wholly rejected in its entirity.

As editors, relying on the evidence -in the form of facts- we are able to reasonably conclude that we are not commiting fraud on the readers by including the word "minor", but are in fact better informing them by including it.

On the other hand, if we subsitute our editorial feelings in place of facts and reject the word "minor" solely based on non-deteriminative criticisms of Letson, we are inherently biasing the article in a manner which tends to favor Kerry and is therefor POV.

It tends to favor Kerry thusly: By shunting the word "minor" to the subsidiary article, we are making the editorial declaration that the word minor cannot be included in the main article, because the available facts do not support its inclusion there.

This however, is not a properly founded editorial premise, as the available facts do tend towards supporting the inclusion of the word "minor".

What a reader will take from this method of presenting the information, is "oh, this is just a he-said, she-said".

I contend that this is the exact conclusion which the "No!" crowd wants the readers to make, as this conclusion favors Kerry by reducing reader interest in the actual underlying fact set, which if read -even in neutral light- may not be flattering to Kerry.

Let me repeat what I have made clear already: The underlying facts about Kerry's 1st injury and treatment, DO NOT change, regardless of whether they subsequently (since the original date they occured) have become a part of a larger dispute regarding Kerry's personal history.

The time line is thus: Over 30 years ago, Kerry was injured and treated. Approximately 2 years ago, the severity of the injury became a political football. This current controversy DID NOT exist at the time of the injury treatment. The only thing which existed then WAS THE FACT SET REGARDING THE INJURY ITSELF AND THE TREATMENT PROVIDED.

My edit of "minor shrapnel wound" draws upon a citable source [1] -that HAS NOT been utterly (or even largely) discredited- and as such, has substantial validity. Further, this "minor shrapnel wound" speaks ONLY to the original fact set of 30+ years ago. It does not address or speak to the CURRENT controversy regarding this. As such, it can not be deemed partisan or POV. And, it is supported by a source (two sources if we count the "wound treatment guide" [2], three if we count wound) but it does NOT comment on or address the current controversy.

The edit of "minor shrapnel wound" is a neutral, fact supported edit which refers to a specific occurance in Kerry's life. Stating the fact that John Kerry incurred a "minor shrapnel wound" is not POV. Rather, it is justified on the same basis that "His right arm was also injured so badly that it was unrecognizable" is included at Bob Dole or the "lost the lower part of one leg in the Vietnam War" at Bob Kerrey".

Indeed, these two comparative citations make clear that the proper editorial stance is to INCLUDE those datums which inform the reader about the nature of a wound incurred. My edit of "minor shrapnel wound" does this with no bias and no cheating.

In my assesment, the rationals offered against "minor" have nothing but argument backing them up - no facts. And certainly, the paragraph closing seque of "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.", is more than enough to be double certain that the word "minor" does not take sides.

While arguments have been made that Letson is "biased", etc, no proof has been offered that the word "minor" in and of itself, biases the article, is POV, is an unsupported fact assertion or is otherwise false. For these reasons, and especially because the word "minor" is supported by the citations which I offered: [3], [4] and wound, the ongoing objections to its inclusion are groundless and are obstructionist.

There is no valid justification for continuing to try to "freeze" this section of the article. Those who insist on this, are NOT meeting thier burderns under Wikipedia:Negotiation, Wikipedia:Consensus and Consensus decision-making.

Here again, is the text I offer for the section titled "====First Purple Heart===="

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.

Those opposed to this version, if they want to be other than obstructionists about this, need to give us more than just arguments. They need to support their "No!" with facts. So far, they have not done that.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 09:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Letson's account shouldn't be excluded in its entirety, however, I do not believe that we should adopt his assessment of Kerry's wound into the official tone of the article itself, as Letson has no documentary evidence (he doesn't appear on the medical record of the wound itself) or no corroborating witnesses that he, in fact, treated Kerry, or would have remembered such a minor incident 30 years ago. Thus, we quote Letson's claim according to Wikipedia norms, note that he isn't actually on the medical records of the treatment, and continue to use the neutral "wound". There should also be an editorial judgment whether or not this info should be included on this page rather than the military service controversy page. --kizzle 17:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, you miss the point entirely. Any argumentation for or against Letson's credibility or details of his account, go on John Kerry military service controversy. What goes on John Kerry is only the phrase "minor shrapnel wound".

I have provided enough evidence that the wound was minor. Unless and until evidence is provided that the wound was more severe than a minor wound, then "minor" is the correct term.

In this instance, "minor" is NOT a subjective term. Rather, it is a medically related technical term which is used in the medical profession to classify injuries which require the treatment that Kerry's injury did. There is NO DISPUTE that Kerry's received only "bacitracin antibiotic and bandage".

Such treatment is the treatment that minor wounds receive. The wound care guide makes that clear [5]. This established fact, in and of itself, is enough to make clear that accuracy compels us to call the wound "minor". Letson's information backs this up, but is not essential to make my case.

Please do not get sidetracked here; though there may be arguments about Letson's motivations or veracity, this does not force a conclusion that the actual level of wound severity is unknowable. Remember, from medical terminology standpoint, there are only three possible scenarios: a) the wound was minor, b) the wound was more severe than a minor wound or c) we lack sufficent information to know the wound severity level.

Like I said, the wound care guide alone rules out "c)" as it makes clear that Kerry's treatment is the proscribed treament for a minor wound.

That leaves "b)" and "a)". So far, in more than a year of opposition to "minor", no editor here has presented any evidence that the wound was more severe than a minor wound, so we can safely take it at this point that no such evidence exists. Surely no one is suggesting that we call it a "severe wound" are they? There is no evidence to support that.

This leaves "a)", which is "minor". Here again are the reasons why we call it minor:

• 1) The wound care guide [6] makes clear that wounds which receive the Kerry treatment are minor wounds.
• 2) Letson make clear that there was very little to Kerry's injury.

These two facts sets, taken together or taken alone, each fully and completely support the use of the adjective minor as being correct.

The various editors complaints about Letson, serve only to sidetrack what is a straight forward fact assesment.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 17:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If talking about Letson is "missing the point", you shouldn't have mentioned his name so many times in the post I was responding to. To take a look at the link you provided, there are two types of wounds: those that "require professional medical care", and those that only require "minor" care, of which the latter I'm assuming you associate with "minor" wounds and the former with "non-minor" wounds. Now, under the list of wounds that "require professional medical care", or the "non-minor" wounds, there is this passage:

"A wound that has visible foreign material such as gravel, dirt, glass or metal."

John Kerry had visible foreign material, such as gravel, dirt, glass or metal (as in the piece of shrapnel sticking out of his arm). Thus, his wound was the type that required more than just "minor care", but actual "professional medical treatment".

In addition, the very first passage states:

"This Wound Care Guide is to help you learn self-care and first aid for your minor wounds"

The type of wound Kerry received ("visible foreign material") is under the list of wounds that require more than simple self-care, and thus does not fit under "minor wounds" that the later passages help in administering.

Now that you're distancing using Letson to justify your position on this page, and your own link describes treatment of the "visible foreign material" (metal/shrapnel) as opposed to simply "minor care", what are you going to use next to justify? --kizzle 18:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:Rex071404):

My reasoning is simple:

1. Is there good factual basis for the claim? I haven't done your level of research, but from what I have read, 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 you are trying to say that. You seem to be trying to stick to the facts. If the facts are presented in a careful, balanced way, then they aren't POV, even if some people don't like them. Therefore, I think the answer to this is also Yes.

If there is ever a staw poll on this topic, please let me know and I'll go over and register my opinion again. Johntex\^talk 17:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

That's all fine, but you still haven't justified your #1, as in why you think there is good factual basis for the claim. --kizzle 18:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Kizzle, this Discussion page is getting confusing (at least to me). I put my reply to you one section above (please seach on "Hi Kizzle" to find them). The section that starts "My reasoninng is simple" I did not put here. I think Rex pasted them here from his talk page. I don't think he realized I had already made similar comments higher up this page. Johntex\^talk 18:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Oops, sorry :) --kizzle 18:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem! I replied again (above). Johntex\^talk 18:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The uncontested facts support "minor shrapnel wound"

According to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your facts, an over-arching, guiding principle of all editing on the wiki is:

'Write stuff that is true: check your facts. Do not write stuff that is false. This might require that you check your alleged facts."

Here again are the uncontested facts:

1. Kerry was wounded
2. Kerry received treatment for that wound
3. Severe wounds require more treatment than "bacitracin and bandaging"
4. Kerry received only "bacitracin and bandaging"
5. The term "minor wound" is a medically specific technical term
6. Kerry did not self-treat his wound
7. Whether or not a wound is self-treated, does not change it's level of severity
8. Wounds that receive only "bacitracin and bandaging" from a medical professional are not referred to by medical profesisonals as anything other than "minor wounds".

I have tried, as best as I can, with the limited sources available on the 'net, to provide enough facts that the editors here who are opposed to "minor" can see that their opposition is unsupportable.

If Kizzle, et al (the "No!" crowd) insists on thinking that the sources I provided do not support using the adjective "minor" or the medical term "minor wound", I want him to please choose, based on the facts we have now, was the wound level

• A) MINOR
• B) SEVERE
• C) IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW

As evidenced by this: [7] in medical terminology, there are only two classifications of wounds, minor and severe.

According to this: [8], a "A minor wound is a small wound or a wound on just the surface of the skin".

According to this: [9], for a minor wound: "Apply antibiotic ointment to minor wound and cover with a sterile gauze dressing or bandage that is slightly larger than the actual wound."

I am NOT "distancing using Letson". Rather, I am providing additional information for those (such as Kizzle) who have difficulting grasping that the wound was indeed minor. Perhaps Kizzle thinks the wound was severe? Perhaps the treatment which the wound received is insufficient from Kizzle's perespective to indicate that the wound was minor?

Suffice it to say, I call on Kizzle to take a position: Kizzle, based on the facts and medical terminology citations we have so far, was the wound "Minor", "Severe" or "Impossible to know"?

I contend that it is true that the wound was minor. Leaving out this true fact will leave the false possibility open that it was something other than that.

We are told to write what is true. And yet, without accuracy, there can be no editorial truth here. We need the accuracy enhancing use of the adjective "minor" and the medically precise term "minor wound", both of which come together in a workable non-POV manner in "minor shrapnel wound".

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to take an opinion, but unfortunately I do not meet the criteria of an opinion that can be sourced in this article. The fact that Kerry according to your source has a non-minor wound due to metal lodged within the wound is plenty for me. This is the fact that is conspiciously missing from your list of uncontested facts that gives doubt to your subjective conclusion. --kizzle 19:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes or no Kizzle, are you saying that in medical terminology, there are more types of wounds other than A) Minor and B) Severe? If that's what you are saying, please list the others here. If not, please see this link [10] and concede that there are only two. Please take a position: Based on the ALL the facts about Kerry's wound/treatment and wound guides we have now, was the wound A) MINOR, B) SEVERE or C) IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW?

Kizzle, please take clarify your position, are you contending that in medical terminology the wound WAS SEVERE ("non-minor wound")?

Kizzle your refusal to choose proves that you are NOT interested in resolving our disagreement here. And this is NOT an attempt to get your opinion so as to source from it. Rather this is an attempt to get us to the point where, as per above, we know ourselves that we are writing the TRUTH, which is our duty as wiki editors. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It's funny how you don't disagree that your own source indicates the wound was not minor. And tell me where any of these links provided characterize shrapnel wounds where the metal is lodged in the arm as "minor". But so far, we have one source saying that a wound with "visible foreign material" such as the shrapnel lodged in the wound requires more than minor care. That's all I know, and I don't see how badgering to answer is going to help any, as my characterization of it being minor or not is not sourceable and thus not relevant. --kizzle 19:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI: here is another proof [11]:

"Kerry's former commanding officer, Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, told the Boston Globe last week that Kerry's first Purple Heart came from minor wound, resembling a fingernail scrape."

(Hibbard saw the wound with his own eyes, because Kerry showed it to him. The count is now two eye-witnesses for "minor", none for "severe", none for "don't know").

And Kizzle, the context for the "requires more than minor care" is as you point out, only as it relates to students trying to self-treat themselves. There is not doubt that the level of care Kerry received was appopriate to the nature of his injury. And there is no doubt that the level of care Kerry received was consistant with that of a minor wound.

The fact that Kizzle now tauntingly tries to suggest the wound was "severe", but will not come out and say it, tells me he is just mocking this discourse.

Kizzle, if you will not take a position on what is the known truth regarding the severity of the wound, then you are abrogating your wiki editor duties to "write stuff that is true".

From this point on, unless and until you say "Minor". "Severe" or " Impossible to know", I will not again reply to you, as you are in violation of your most basic duties and are therefore a rogue editor.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so attribute it to him, but don't include it in the main text. And if you disagree with "requires more than minor care" than maybe you should provide a better source rather than letting me dismantle it. Of course I don't think the wound was severe, but I don't think that it was minor either, and regardless either way, adding such information only draws conclusions for the reader and strengthens one point of view rather than simply saying he has an injury, providing the details, and letting them come to the conclusion whether the injury was minor (of which subsequently whether he deserved the medal at all, which is of course your highly transparent motive to include this passage). If asking to attribute a POV rather than injecting my own POV is a "violation" of my "most basic duties and are therefore a rogue editor", than that's ok with me. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. --kizzle 22:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Failure to respond to an allegation does not give allegation credence

Reading this page (BTW it is 246 kb!!! Pages are supposed to be archived at 32!!!), I have say that both Rex and John don't seem to understand the principles of objective research. A claim it itself is not proof. Nor is the fact that it has not been challenged. Very often people against whom negative claims have been made deliberately do not comment in response because commenting in taken as evidence in the media and in academia that the claim is sufficiently credible to need to be rebutted. For example, it was recently claimed that Albino Luciani (aka Pope John Paul I for 33 days) was homosexual and engaged in S&M and B&D, and liked playing "slave games". No-one who knew the man has bothered to deny the issue, believing the claim not worth commenting on. Following Rex's and John's logic, Wikipedia should feature an unevidenced claim on the basis that no one denied it.

A claim in itself isn't evidence. Documentary evidence is. A rebuttal at least opens up the possibly of saying 'x said such and such. y denied it.' But a claim, without reply, without documentary evidence, cannot be covered under objectivity rules, neutrality rules, standard academic and journalistic rules. The only way it could feature at all is in the form of saying 'x claimed such and such, but offered no evidence to prove the claim. Y chose to ignore the allegation.' and leave it at that. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You are completely off base here. We have TWO eyewitnesses (Hibbard and Letson) who make clear the wound was minor. The treatment of the wound was consistant with that of a minor wound. These ARE NOT claims! They are PRIMARY SOURCES which are being referred to. If nothing is offered in rebuttal, it is entirely reasonable to take them at face value, period. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 20:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Eye witness claims are only adequate if they are (i) recorded contemporaneously; (ii) supplied by objectively independent sources.

Of possible there should also be documentary records to confirm their claims.

The claims don't fit any of the criteria. The claims are retrospective. One of those making it was already politically aligned and so potentially politically motivated, and there is no clear documentary evidence to back up the claims. Frankly if you believe that "If nothing is offered in rebuttal, it is entirely reasonable to take them at face value, period" you obviously know nothing about how stories are covered in either the media or in academia, and you have an astonishing poor grasp of encyclopædic standards. Stop waging a POV war and practice elementary NPOV standards. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If the standard is "objectively independent sources", then NONE of the quotes from the vets who campaigned with Kerry should be allowed into any Kerry articles, including John Kerry military service controversy. I'm ok with expunging all their comments. Are you? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 20:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Jtdirl, it would be great if every claim in Wikipedia was substantiated by a second or third or fourth source. But that is an unreasonable standard. I never said a claim constitutes proof. For one thing, the source of the claim has to be taken into account. There are some black marks to the detriment of Letson's claim, such as the fact that he made the claim 30 years after the fact, and the fact that his name is not on the records. However, the former is easy to explain because it was at the time of Kerry's greatest fame that he would be most likely to come forward to talk about. The second I can only speculate about. Regardless, there is other evidence besides Letson's claim. For example, the fact that Kerry was not hospitalized, did not miss duty etc, does not seem to have any impairment of the limb, plus the lack of any denial, plus the fact that the care he received was consistent with the suggested care for a "minor wound" add up to a preponderance of evidence. It is POV to ignore preponderance of evidence and look for some certainty to drop out of the sky concerning a 30 year old event. We need to report what is most likely to be true. We can add a footnote to show that there is controversy about it. Johntex\^talk 20:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The media can exercise such judgments as to the veracity or otherwise of claims where there is a grey area. (Some tabloids may go with claims alone. Most broadsheets will only go with a claim if there is a response, which is why the Kerry camp declined to comment. Newspapers may also be influenced by their own political agenda; ie, if they are anti-Bush, they will accept anti-Bush stories wore willingly than anti-Kerry stories. Or vice versa, anti-Kerry stories more willingly than anti-Bush ones. But even within the media such coverage is highly controversial. Irish newspapers were badly stung two weeks ago when a police source in Moscow claimed that an Irish politician killed in a car crash in Moscow had a prostitute in the car with him. Yes he had a woman with him, but it wasn't a 16 year old prostitute but a 32 year old translator accompanying him to meetings. They ran the story based purely on a claim that the politician's family had declined to comment on. The circumstantial evidence suggested that the story might be true: it was in a red light district, he had a woman with him and it was 2am. But in reality the circumstantial evidence was misleading. He was en route to the airport for an early morning flight and the woman was an respected employee known to his family. The newspapers had to apologise (grovellingly) and promise to demand higher standards of evidence than just an unevidenced claim from a questionable source possibly motivated by malice, and a context that sounded plausible but again couldn't be proven — and in that case proved completely misleading.)

Encyclopædias, and particularly Wikipedia, follow a no original research rule which means we cannot editorialise like that, as that would involving reaching a conclusion rather than report a fact. The latter is NPOV, the former POV. Even if we believe strongly that the claims are likely to be correct (and the example of Liam Lawlor's Moscow car crash shows the danger of making such presumptions), to report them the way Rex wants to breaches just about every Wikipedia rule. The most that can be done is to report the facts as known (a wound - without qualification - and an award, and then in a footnote point out that two people so many years later disputed the generally believed version of events. The footnote would have to use key qualifiers such as claimed (if actual documentary evidence in the form of medical records confirming the story unambiguously existed, then one would use the stronger word "said") and sites as evidence the length/nature of the treatment Kerry received, while also stating whether the people making the claim were supporters or opponents of the Kerry campaign, and mentioning that the Kerry campaign declined to comment on the allegations. Doing it that way would avoid editorialising. The only other option would be to make a link page going though the evidence and linking to a one or two line mention in the main article. But there too the language would have to be very neutral and not presume that claims, without unambiguously proven as opposed to likely to be correct documentary evidence, are accurate. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Jtdirl's basic premise is that IF and ONLY IF a source which NO ONE disputes, used the EXACT WORD "minor" and put that EXACT WORD on the original injury treatment report, then NO AMOUNT of other evidence allows us, the editors to write the history of this wound using the term "minor wound". Such logic is absurd - across this wiki, there are many, many, many articles which could not possibly meet a such strict standard and would have to be deleted. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 21:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Jtdirl recites an interesting parable. I agree it is good to be caustious. However, caution must go in both directions. In the example about a contemporary car crash, it is possible to leave out disputed facts altogether and be safe in the knowledge that a little time might clar things up. This is a very different case here. We have gone through 30 years and one presidential election. More facts are not likely to come to light. In this case, Kerry himself and people on the scene at the time have been given a full opportunity to comment. In the car crash case, they interviewed his grief stricken parents who weren't even at the scene of their sons death. What possible comment can they have to make about the facts of the crash? The analogy simply does not hold up.

There is another distinction between this case and the car crash - we don't put out static editions, therefore, we can change anything later if our good faith effort at reporting the best possible knowledge turns out to be wrong.

There is also a logical fallacy implied that "since someone else made a mistake one time in using what seemed to be common sense, no one else should ever use common sense again".

We need to use the facts that we have and properly note anything controversial aobut them. To side with the 10% or 20% chance that the wound was not minor is simply not POV. If adding an adjective in is somehow editorializing (as implied below) then should we go through Wikipedia and take out every adjective? Of course not. Johntex\^talk 22:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia reaching a judgment on an issue by deciding that the official version is wrong is POV and editorialising. The official version may well be incorrect, but it is not an encyclopædia's job to set itself up as a judge on the issue. And giving strong attention and implicit credibility through how they are written up, to unproven allegations made not in a neutral forum by neutral observers but decades later in the heat of an election campaign, when one of the persons key to making the allegations is a political opponent of a candidate, is blatently breaking NPOV. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understnad your reference to the "official version". Can you please clarify? If you are referring to the military record that he received a wound - I am not saying I think the military record is wrong, I am saying that through a combination of sources, we can give a more complete description of the wound than relying merely on one source. I thought above you wanted multiple sources, now you seem to just want to stick with whatever a single specific source said. I find this perplexing. Johntex\^talk 23:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Survey of editors: regarding evidence supplied so far about 1st wound severity

I have asked several other editors this, but do not get any answers, so I am going to ask in the form of a survey. Please note that I have offered only three choices, "minor", "severe" and "impossible to know". Please do not tamper with my supplied list of choices. The "It is not for Wikipedia's job to editorialise..." choice did not come from me. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94}

Regarding the total evidence supplied on this talk page (see above) specific to the severity of Kerry's 1st wound, with the aim in mind of "write stuff that is true", to the best of my understanding and belief, I accept the evidence relating to proof of wound severity as showing that this medically specific technical term is true:

• The 1st wound was a "minor wound"

1. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 21:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Yes, there is strong enough evidence to support using this word in this article. I would not at all be opposed to a footnote to indicate there is some controversy. Johntex\^talk 21:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• The 1st wound was a "severe wound:"

1. I've never raised this point before, because I always thought it would be fruitless, but my research indicates that Kerry did not in fact suffer a minor wound. Instead, his arm was severed above the elbow. He was ordered to rest in the hospital while the doctors prepared for the surgery to re-attach it. He couldn't stand being out of action, though, so he sneaked out of his room, stole a potholder from the hospital kitchen to stop the stump from bleeding, and went out on a Swift boat patrol, killing scores of Viet Cong single-handed (literally). He then went back to the hospital and submitted to the surgery, but not before dutifully returning the potholder to the kitchen, where it remained as a treasured memento of the cooking staff. </parody> The preceding comment by me is absurd, but it's not significantly more absurd than some of the other comments on this page. JamesMLane 01:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• It is impossible to know, based on the evidence so far:

• It is not for Wikipedia's job to editorialise on the severity or otherwise of the wound. Our only task is to use the contemporary description as applied and mention in NPOV terms that decades later two people (one an opponent of Kerry's) disagreed with the contemporary description:

1. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
2. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
   1. There was no "contemporary description". The above attempt to circumvent my resonable attempt at survey by suggesting that there was is misleading. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 21:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      1. Sorry, you don't get to control the debate. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
3. I couldn't have said it better myself. Anything else would be POV, and not in the usage of "bias" which is commonly thrown around, but it would literally be choosing between two points of view. --kizzle 22:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
4. yes, this whole thing is ridiculous. how many years of effort have to go into this? he received a wound. period. it's quite obvious from the following text that it wasn't all that serious. why should we toss in a gratuitious adjective rather than let the known facts speak for themselves? Derex @ 02:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

1st "wound" - an alternative suggestion

According to this: [12], there has been NO PROOF supplied by Kerry or anyone that the word "wound" even appears in his treatment record:

The campaign could not locate a similar report for Kerry's original Purple Heart. As evidence that Kerry was wounded, campaign spokesman Michael Meehan showed The Associated Press a "Sick Call Treatment Record" from Kerry's personal files that included a brief written note dated Dec. 3, 1968, and stamped from the naval support facility at Cam Ranh Bay.

"Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl (sic) bacitracin dressing. Ret to Duty," it said. The note is followed by a signature that appears to say "JCCarreon" and some illegible letters that Meehan said probably designate the medical official's rank.

If we are going to be literalists, then I intend to re-write the section in dispute with a direct quote from Kerry's "Sick Call Treatment Record" as follows

====First Purple Heart====

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 received shrapnel in left arm above elbow. The shrapnel was removed and he 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 medical treatment. 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.

Please note that the bold text is mine and is to show that this an EXACT quote of the only evidence to come from Kerry about this, the contemporaneously written "Sick Call Treatment Record". The bold will be standard text in the article edit.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think it is a very good compromise. I would support this version (with the bolding removed). Johntex\^talk 22:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

On 2nd thought, this sentence "Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this medical treatment.", should probably read as "Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this". The "medical treatment" is conclusionary and should be stricken. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

According to the official document, what was he rewarded with the purple heart for then? --kizzle 22:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

We are not allowed to make conclusions. Let the reader decide. This is what the others here have been telling me, so this is the rule they are now bound by. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, this sentence "Kerry returned to duty the next day on a regular Swift boat patrol." should instead read as "Kerry returned to duty the next day.", unless there is proof that Kerry was actually on a Swift Boat patrol, instead of at base, the next day. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It sounds a bit better except it's not proper English. --kizzle 22:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex's conduct

Rex's conduct on this page has been anything but acceptable under Wikipedia rules.

• He is consistently abusive to other users.

• He insists on shouting his comments at people.

• He refuses to abide by the elementary requirement of NPOV.

• He then tries to claim ownership of a survey, framing questions which breach NPOV rules by proposing that Wikipedia editorialise on a controversial point of some dispute, and when an NPOV option is added in he posts (with his traditional shouting)

DO NOT modify my offered choices AGAIN - make your own survey if you want, but this is my survey. The answers below are NOT responsive to the questions I posed and will be designated as such

Funny, since you keep deleting my text (see history this page), I am unable to locate that which you are complaining about. Also, what about using the literal quote (as I suggest above) from Kerry's treatment record? will you support that? And don't complain that I interspersed my comment here, you did the same thing when you creatd a 4th choice to my survey - worse even, you have given others the impression that the 4th choice came from me. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me spell it out for you then:

1. You don't own this encyclopædia;
2. You don't own the page;
3. You don't know the survey;
4. Setting up a 'survey' containing fraudulent POV options is dishonest;
5. Posting messages stating 'how dare you' rants in the middle of a survey is both a breach of Wikipedia ettique and disrespectful to everyone on Wikipedia.

But then your handling of this survey is perfectly in keeping with your treatment of all attempts by other users to contribute to this page. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• He insists on bolding text in a paragraph to push his personal viewpoint about Kerry.

Uh, did you even bother to read this: "The bold will be standard text in the article edit" ? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Frankly given his behaviour, an RfC should be raised against him. His conduct on this page is nothing short of outrageous. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Have at it mate. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure a RfC against Rex is appropriate, possibly an RfC on this dispute is warranted, although I call not-it on drawing it up. One thing he does have you on, Rex, is that you don't get to control the debate by providing only your options, as clearly there was another option that many other people supported that you didn't give, thus your initial survey was a fallacy of choice between false alternatives.--kizzle 22:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, what I took issue with was his modification of the choices with a ("this choice added by" tag). I did not give that 4th choice and I do not want it to appear in my offering, undesignated. And frankly, I am inlcined to stop dialoggin with you Kizzle and I think it simply terrible that you refuse to take a position about the what the current batch of evidence supports regarding the three possibilities. And there are only three, no one is contending otheriwse. Also, based on all the objections and arguments made here, I am thinking that the literal quote of "received shrapnel in left arm above elbow" version (see above) is the best way to go. This will satisfy the complaints of the literalists, while at the same time avoiding a hagiograhic effect for that section. As for the 4th option issue, don't you understand what I am asking? I am asking the people here to comment on their position of what the provided evidence establishes to our satisfaction to be true regarding the wound. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Right, but like JP said, you don't get to control the debate. I am all for literal quotations, but it just doesn't read right to say he received shrapnel "in left arm above elbow", that's shorthand and not gramatically correct. I don't think the option is to excise the word "injury" or "wound" altogether, as this is not under debate whether or not he suffered a wound. The level of severity is under debate, thus we should not classify as either severe or minor, but simply say it was a wound, provide the details, and let the reader conclude. This course of action is completely irrelevant to what you or I or anyone thinks about whether or not the wound was severe, as the 4th option says above, it is not our job to editorialize and take sides between two contesting POVs. The mere fact that we do not specify in the offical text the severity of the wound does not render this portion hagiographic as you contest, it just avoids using conclusionary language about his injury. "Minor" is an inference/opinion/characterization, so quote it, attribute it, provide the facts, and move on, but it abandons the very notion of NPOV to adopt this Point Of View into the official tone of the article itself. You can choose to dialog with me or not, but this should make it clear that I am objecting to your viewpoint based upon reasoned conclusions and not just simply saying "No!" as you previously accused me and those who agree with me. --kizzle 23:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)--kizzle 23:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Note to Kizzle, but is for all, re: 1st "injury" issue

Kizzle, I am amazed at what a difficult forum for communication these talk pages are. Let me explain: My line of business puts me on constant verbal communication all day, face to face and on the phone. It is very rare that I don't reach agreement with people under those circumstances. For this reason, it amazes me that virtually nothing I say here seems to sink in. That said, you have to be aware that with my most recent edit I am indeed contesting whether or not the word "wound" is allowable or even proven true.

I've never raised this point before, because I always thought it would be fruitless, but my research indicates that Kerry did not in fact actually get wounded, but rather sought (and later received after his second try) his 1st purple heart on the basis of a shipboard mishap, such as scraping his arm - not during battle and not under fire.

To date, Kerry has not supplied any material which actually substantiates that the metal which was referred to as shrapnel on his treatment record actually came from ordinance.

Kerry incurred what amounts to a small metal splinter. If it were up to me, that's what I would call it, "a small metal splinter". However, it's not up to me, so I have been willing to compromise.

FYI: In my estimation, the most likely source for getting a small metal splinter while shipboard or dockside, would be by mishandling or brushing into an improperly stowed/secured wire rope [13].

Personally, I think with the addition of the Hibbard information of "Kerry's former commanding officer, Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, told the Boston Globe last week that Kerry's first Purple Heart came from minor wound, resembling a fingernail scrape" combined with the predicate condition of "The military regulations for awarding the purple heart specify that it is awarded when a service member is wounded or killed as a result of action involving a hostile enemy." makes clear that with the varying contentions as to the truth of when and how Kerry got this metal splinter, it's POV to call it a wound or anything but a small wound.

I've offered:

• "minor shrapnel wound"
• "superficial injury from a small piece of shrapnel"
• "superficial wound from a small piece of shrapnel"
• "a shrapnel wound of uncategorized severity"
• "received shrapnel in left arm above elbow"

(and associated variants) - all of which get attacked and rejected by a core group of editors, not one of whom will answer a simple question, which is:

If the facts we have do not support the use of the word "minor", do the facts we have support the use of the word "serious"?

Repeat, I am not saying that Kerrry could not have qualified for the PH under some interpretations of the PH rules of that day. Rather, what I am saying is that this section of the article has never shone the crystal glare of scrupulous accuracy on the 1st injury/wound/metal splinter.

As evidenced by the ferocious opposition to adding even a single word such as "minor", I think that more is a foot here than zealous desire to make wikiprogress.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 01:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• sigh* You still don't get it! Firstly you wrote above "my research indicates that Kerry did not in fact actually get wounded . . . " Have you ever read Wikipedia rules? It says unambiguously Wikipedia:No original research. It says explicitly If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy.

Unless you have published your research and had it independently verified it is irrelevant what conclusions you personally have drawn. If you have your own personal information, write it in a book, put it in a newspaper article but don't put your personal research here. Its usage breaks the explicit mandatory No Original Research rule.

Secondly, you wrote that "Kerry has not supplied any material which actually substantiates that the metal which was referred to as shrapnel on his treatment record actually came from ordinance . . ." Once the award was made for the reasons it was made he does not have to substantiate anything. It is on the record. Where a ruling of fact has been made (whether rightly or wrongly) , and one was to justify giving him the purple heart, the onus to disprove the reasoning for the award stands on those claims a miscarriage was made. (Just as if someone claiming that the Bush family were in the pay of the Bin Laden family the onus would be on them to prove the allegation, not the Bush family to prove it was untrue.) That is an elementary principle applied in public life, in law, everywhere. Its like if someone somewhere claimed that he beat his wife, and you then demanding that he prove he never beat her. The onus is on those making the allegations to prove they are right, not for him to prove that they are wrong.

You seem so blinded by your hatred of the guy that you demand Wikipedia abandon its own rules, standard rules of evidence and mandatory encylopædic standards to allow you to put your personal opinion on the evidence in as fact. And you then take offence when other users, following Wikipedia's own rules, standard rules of evidence and mandatory encylopædic standards, refuse to allow your anti-Kerry spin to be written as if proven.

Stop applying irrelevant non-encyclopædic standards and irrelevant unverified personal research to this article. It is a non-starter in Wikipedia articles and anything not following the mandatory standards of NPOV and objectively proven verifiability will simply be deleted. The onus rests with those making the allegations to prove unambiguously elsewhere that the purple heart was wrongly awarded. Then and only then can we make such an assumption here. To date a lot of opinions have been expressed but nothing has been proven to warrant Wikipedia saying that Kerry's PH citation was wrong. All we can say is that he received it for 'x'. A political opponent of his with military experience has claimed it is wrong, and leave it at that. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404 replies to Jtdirl - also to others here

Jtdirl, to quote youself "You seem so blinded by your..." love for Kerry, that you don't seem to even comprehend those who disagree with you.

Actually all I am blinded by is proper academic standards and objectivity. I personally think Bush is one of the biggest assholes on the planet, but I consistently reverted POV attacks on him from various pages. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Googling for information is indeed "research".

No. Googling provides sources of information: some good, a lot crap, some verified, a lot made up. A professional writer needs to be able tell the different types of information apart and know which ones are not worth a pile of bird droppings. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• When one personally Googles for information, they are doing "personal research"

No. (You really haven't a clue about research!) Reaching conclusions based on personal analysis rather than relying on reporting other objectively reached conclusions is "personal research". FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• The fact that you take that to mean "original research" is inexplicable to me.

You obviously don't know what 'original research' is then. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• I am not creating any primary sources, only referring to them - no more so than anyone else here.

No you are using POV language to promote your personal analysis at the expense of objectivity. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• The information I've read and referred to via links found by Googling (Yahoo!, etc) does persuade me that the 1st PH was awarded for something other than an actual wound received during actual conflict from actual ordinance.

Whether it persuades you is irrelevant. Your POV is irrelevant. The only think that matters is objectively analysed, well sourced, clearly verified documents and analyses. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Saying that the PH award proves the award was earned, is illogical - that justification is called "ratification by subsequent event" and does not change the underlying facts as to exactly what degree of injury Kerry received or from what source.

Have you ever done research, studied law, or know anything about the implications of actings and where different outcomes impact on presumptions of truth? Only someone who has never learned how to do professional research could write the above and actually believe it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• The existance of the PH award itself only proves that it was awarded, not earned.

It was awarded on the presumption of being earned. Once done so, it can only be removed by providing beyond reasonable doubt that the original conclusion were erronious. As in law the onus for providing that rests on those claiming that the original conclusions were wrong. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Please don't try to say that every single PH issued during Vietnam was earned - that's silly.

That is the presumption they exist under. Those that weren't properly earned should be explosed in fora capable of dealing with primary research on such areas. Newspapers and books can do that. Encyloædias can't. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• It is an established fact that Kerry was initially turned down (by Hibbard) for this PH.

It is an established fact that it was awarded. The onus rests with those saying it should not have been earned to prove that a mistake had occurred. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• There is not a clear record as to what process resulted in this 1st PH, as the ordinary process of going through your CO (in this case Hibbard) did not pan out.

Kerry did not create the procedures. Any procedural issues are a matter for those who designed and implemented the procedures, not Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• The fact that the PH was awarded, does NOT convert the facts for the 1st injury from being more severe than:

There you go again, shouting and demanding that your POV be accepted as NPOV. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• "a small metal splinter",
• aka "a small shrapnel wound",
• aka "a small wound",
• aka "superficial injury from a small piece of shrapnel",
• aka "superficial wound from a small piece of shrapnel",
• aka "a shrapnel wound of uncategorized severity",
• aka "received shrapnel in left arm above elbow"

• No evidence exists that the 1st injury was anything more severe than "minor".
• Evidence does exists that the 1st injury was minor.
• Merely stating the full facts about the severity of the 1st injury, does not, in and of itself, call into question the validity of the PH award
• PH awards are issued for minor wounds all the time
• There are several aspects of Kerry's PH award:

• a) the severity of the injury
• b) whether it was an actual wound
• c) whether Kerry went around his CO to obtain the PH
• d) whether Kerry ultimately gamed the system by relying on this PH -arguably deceitfuly obtained- to get an early "three and out".

• Our editors agreement is to keep all anti-Kerry & pro-Kerry military service arguments in John Kerry military service controversy
• This agreement regards the public controversies about Kerry, not any disagreement we as editors have between ourselves regarding the acceptable facts of history regarding Kerry's service.
• For example, if we disagree about what Kerry's highest rank was when he served, that disagreement would have to be resloved on this talk page, because the fact about Kerry's rank goes in to John Kerry
• Likewise, all actual facts regarding the actual severity of Kerry's 1st injury ultimately go into John Kerry
• To insist that any disagreement between editors regarding the facts relating to the severity of Kerry's 1st injury are not to be resolved on this page, is to abdicate out duty as editors.
• To insist that the existence of disagreement between editors regarding which facts relating to the severity of Kerry's 1st injury, does ipso facto convert our editors disagreement to a "public controversy" about those facts is false reasoning.
• There is no public controversy regarding whether or not Letson / Hibbard accounts are accurate.
• The only public controversy regarding Letson & Hibbard relates to what their motivation was for releasing the information.
• By not denying the the truth of the facts which Letson offered, Kerry's camp failed to raise a public controversy.
• Only Kerry's camp can raise that public controversy, because only they are in position to offer information as a rebuttal.
• No information offered by Kerry's camp has been offered as rebuttal of Letson's and Hibbard's accounts of wound severity, per se.
• If we insist on saying that there is indeed a public controversy (which is the trigger for putting the information regarding the trutfulness of Letson's and/or Hibbard's facts into John Kerry military service controversy), then we are confusing our editorial disagreement with a public controversy, which it is not.
• Both Letson and Hibbard have offered 1st hand witness of the minimal nature of Kerry's injury.
• Kerry's people have not rebutted the accuracy of those assertions, only the motivation for making them. For this reason, only the potential bias in coming forth is at issue with those two, not the veracity of the actual facts asserted by them (Letson: "superficial, small") (Hibbard: "small wound").
• It is undisputed that Kerry received treatment consistent with that of a small wound
• It is undisputed that Kerry's medical record indicates that he "[received] shrapnel in [his] left arm above [the] elbow".
• It is undisputed that the medical records indicate treatment for shrapnel of uncategorized severity.
• Jtdirl's suggestion that I am motivated by anti-Kerry hate is irrelevant.
• What is relevant regarding any and all editors is:

• a) Are their edits true, ie supported by verifiable facts
• b) do their edits, after insertion into the article read as NPOV

• The suggested options I am willing to offer for the "minor wound" sentence, which I will now re-list here, pass both those tests:

(these options contain words the other editors have objected to "minor", "superficial" and "small")

• "During this encounter, Kerry incurred a minor shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow"
• "During this encounter, Kerry received a minor shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow"
• "During this encounter, Kerry experienced a minor shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow"
• "During this encounter, Kerry sustained a minor shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow"
• "During this encounter, Kerry incurred a superficial wound from a small piece of shrapnel"
• "During this encounter, Kerry received a superficial wound from a small piece of shrapnel"
• "During this encounter, Kerry experienced a superficial wound from a small piece of shrapnel"
• "During this encounter, Kerry sustained a superficial wound from a small piece of shrapnel"

(these options do not contain words the other editors have objected to)

• "During this encounter, Kerry incurred a shrapnel wound of uncategorized severity"
• "During this encounter, Kerry received a shrapnel wound of uncategorized severity"
• "During this encounter, Kerry experienced a shrapnel wound of uncategorized severity"
• "During this encounter, Kerry sustained a shrapnel wound of uncategorized severity"

(Gramatically, only one variant of this next type works)

• "During this encounter, Kerry received shrapnel in his left arm above the elbow"

• So far, I have yielded and have agreed to accept the word "wound" if need be, though I have not agreed to accept it with without a specific adjective which helps both clarify the known severity of Kerry's injury and denotes the word itself for what it is in this usage; which is a medically specific technical term".
• The word "wound" is indeed a medically specific technical term, the proper usage of which does indeed include the variants of "minor wound" and "severe wound".
• At the very least, "wound" being a medically specific techical term -especially when being used to refer to a specific injury -a wiki link to wound is in order.
• For example the sentence; "I experienced a wound to my emotions" is a generic non-specific usage and need not be wiki linked. But the sentence "I received a wound to my leg which required medical treatment" is a medically specific use of the term and winklinking is in order. It also requires linking because there is more to the story - treatment, information about which can be found at wound.
• Up until today's most recent version of the the sentence under disagreement, the phrase "Kerry suffered a shrapnel" wound... was included. I object to the use of the word "suffered". There is no proof that Kery suffered. It's POV, it's unsubstantiated and it's hagiographic (yes that word again)
• The issue of what (if anything) the facts we have available to us establishes, has not been resolved.
• I contend that the facts we have establish without the need for supposition or therorizing, that the wound was "minor". Other editors here have disputed that.
• I have asked the other editors if they think the facts we have available to us enable us to gain an accurate understanding of the severity of the wound, but I have not been answered by most.
• To be more precise, as I see it, the facts we have avaliable to us make clear one and only one of these possibilities:

• a) Kerry was not wounded (this not being advanced - I have yielded on this point)
• b) the wound was less than minor
• c) the wound was minor
• d) the wound was greater than minor, but less than severe
• e) the wound was severe
• f) the wound was worse than severe
• g) We do not have enough information to make clear what the wound severity was

• As editors, we are supposed to assemble the available information into a coherent read that conveys the facts and leaves out our personal opinions.
• Doing this does does not require us to refuse facts which are multi-part and must be assembled for proper use, as in:

• a) Kerry received medical treatment consistent with that of a minor wound (Fact; substantiated; not in dispute)
• b) Kerry's medical report is presumed accurate (Fact, needs no substantiation; not in dispute)
• c) Kerry's medical treatment is presumed to have been correct for the type of injury he had (Fact; needs no substantiation; not in dispute)
• d) Kerry's medical record does not show that he receieved any sutures (Fact, needs no substantiation; not in dispute)
• e) For a "severe" shrapnel wound to have received no sutures would have been a notable event (and unusual) and if that were the case an accurate medical record would reflect the reason for that non-treatment (Common sense, needs no substantiation; not in dispute)
• f) US sailors in Vietnam were not sent back to duty the next day after having been determined to have sustained a severe shrapnel wound (Common sense, needs no substantiation; not in dispute)
• g) US sailors in Vietnam were not sent back to duty the next day after having been determined to have sustained a severe shrapnel wound and for which no sutures were given (Common sense, needs no substantiation; not in dispute)
• h) Kerry did not lose duty time (Fact; substantiated; not in dispute)
• i) Kerry has not stated that he had any lasting efects (Fact; infers proof; not in dispute)
• j) Letson has used the words "superfical" and "small" (Fact; substantiated; in dispute)
• k) Hibbard used the word "minor" (Fact; substantiated; not in duspute)

• These facts, taken together (summarized), even in light most favorable to Kerry lead only to the result that the 1st wound was minor. It is not a mere conclusion of reason, supposition or theory because these facts do not assemble any other way.
• I have asked the others here to offer opposing facts, if they have any. So far, none have done so.
• If there are no opposing facts, there is no opposing summary of facts and there is no bona fide editorial disagreement
• Non-bona fide disagreement is obstructionism, plain and simple.

As it stands now, I'd be willing to accept any of these three choices:

• 1) "During this encounter, Kerry sustained a shrapnel wound of uncategorized severity".
• 2) "During this encounter, Kerry sustained a minor shrapnel wound in his left arm above the elbow"
• 3) "During this encounter, Kerry received shrapnel in his left arm above the elbow"

• Having a stated aim of being flexibile, is not proof of editorial misconduct nor of an aim to be POV nor of an aim to print other than the truth.
• I am being flexible here, which is a key part of negotiation and I therefore expect the other editors here to also be flexible. Please see Wikipedia:Negotiation, Wikipedia:Consensus Consensus decision-making.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 10:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, Rex, the only thing flexible about your conduct here is your application of objective standards of research. Your fanatical preoccupation with things done to Kerry's body is bordering on the obsessive. Your definition of "flexibility" seems to be that

• Wikipedia rules be bent to suit your POV;
• Wikipedia standards on NPOV and No Original Research be jettisoned to allow you to express your political viewpoint on a politician;
• Everyone must accept your standards, not Wikipedia's, your opinions, not Wikipedia objectivity and your POV linguistic games rather than neutral language or else "they" are being inflexible. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Another way of looking at "wound"

In the aim of reaching true agreement, I suggest as an alternative, that we could look at the "wound" issue this way:

Suppose for a minute that the press reports regarding the severity of Kerry's 1st injury were the only fact set we had available. For example, according to CBS [14], regarding this injury, here is the information which is contained in Kerry's medical record, the record is known as a "Sick Call Treatment Record":

• "Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl (sic) bacitracin dressing. Ret to Duty".

Now as some of you know, the hard-line opponents to Kerry contend that there was in fact no injury that should reasonable be called a "wound". Indeed, this view (which I personally believe is true) is that Kerry got a small metal splinter via a shipboard or dockside happenstance. This view is that this did not occur during enemy interaction and was not caused by ordinance. I personally theorize that this was most likely caused by sloppy or inadvertent contact with a wire rope [15] during routine, non-combat activities.

However, this anti-Kerry view and theory is recited here only to make clear that opposition to Kerry on this point could (and in some circles actually does) include challenging the very use of the word "wound".

Now let's ask ourselves, how did the word "wound" even arrive in John Kerry in relation to the 1st injury? (see current version of disputed sentence):

• "During this encounter, Kerry received a shrapnel wound in his left arm above elbow."

One thing we know for sure is that the word "wound" does not appear in Kerry's "Sick Call Treatment Record".

But it is in the John Kerry article, so how did it get there?

Here is how I suggest the word "wound" got in the article:

• 1) The treatment report uses the term "shrapnel"
• 2) The term shrapnel when used accurately, infers that ordinance was involved
• 3) If ordinance is involved, the use of the word wound can be reasonable and correct.

Please note then, to get to the word "wound", we must logically accept that:

• a) the author of the notations in the report used the term shrapnel accurately
• b) he also verified Kerry's injury as coming from shrapnel, not something else.
• c) this verification did not consist solely of what Kerry told him (Kerry could be biased)
• d) if the verification did consist solely of what Kerry told the note maker, Kerry was not lying and he was not mistaken
• e) the note maker was not biased towards calling all metal splinters shrapnel so as to help his peers easily accumulate medals

There could be other doubts that our base assumption by-passes, but I think you get the idea.

The word "wound" is only justified because we presume that Kerry was wounded based on the occurrence of the word shrapnel in the medical record.

This presumption can rightly be said to be "inferred because of what is said (in the report)" Now, what I have been after all along is also "inferred because of what is said (in the report)"

Here is the proof:

• "Shrapnel" infers there was an ordinance caused injury, hence the use of the word "wound".

• "appl (sic) bacitracin dressing. Ret to Duty" infers there was very little to the injury, hence the word "minor".

Frankly, I feel that even if we were to discard all the other items that have been offered for fact (such as Letson, Hibbard and wound guides, etc.) and look at just the "Sick Call Treatment Record", this new light makes clear that the use of the word "minor" is equally correct as the use of the word "wound".

To use either of these words, we must draw an inference from the medical record. And, since both are based on inference, both have the same editorial weight.

With this additional proof, I feel that it is inexcusable to continue to block the word "minor" while at the same time allowing in the word "wound".

Oh and just in case anyone is inclined to try to cite the PH citation as an alternative source to draw "wound" from (I have not seen the PH citation on the web, has anyone?), let's be clear about that: Unless that citation is verifiably shown to be based on a de novo look at the facts regarding the injury, then evidence-wise, the PH citation is based on the original Sick Call Treatment Record and/or verbal representation(s) and as such is hearsay and has no evidentiary weight.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 12:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

frankly, this is ridiculous. also, this pretty well smacks of violataing the "original research" policy. we report facts, we do not interpret them. by your attempt to insert a completely gratuitous adjective which spoonfeeds the reader, you are interpreting rather than reporting facts. quite clearly, it can't have been that serious since he returned to duty the next day. so again, this is a ridiculous waste of time in clear violation of established policies. rex, do you have some sort of personal axe to grind here? Derex @ 15:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I contend that based on the proof I have offered at Talk:John Kerry#Another way of looking at "wound", in accordance with the fact utilization criteria laid out so far by other editors here, the basis for saying "wound" is no more justified than the basis for saying "minor wound". If you disagree, tell me why.

And FYI, the idea of laying out facts and reason in a logical sequence known as a "proof" for purposes of reaching agreement on a talk page, is not the same as trying to insert that potentially novel reasoning vertbatim, into an article. The idea is, we reach agreement here on the facts and then we reach agreement on an NPOV way to present those facts in the article. NOR issues only come into play if we are creating the fact referrences ourselves, or publishing our theories here as fact. Using our own reasoning to determine what is and what is not independant fact, and then how to present those facts, is not an NOR issue.

What is at issue here is simple: Is "minor wound" an equally valid fact as "wound" if one draws on the Kerry medical record for the fact supply basis? I suggest that it is and I think that I have shown that to be true.

Derex, please re-read my above post and comment on the merits of it, rather than speculate about axes to grind or mocking this discussion as "ridiculous". It took me over 3 hours to thoughfully compose my two most recents posts. If they don't interest you, that's fine, but please go easy on the taunting. I feel it's unwarranted, unfair and cruel. Thanks.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 16:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You came to my talk page and chastised me for not personally dialoguing here before editing. Well here I am. I am not taunting you. I am saying this is ridiculous, and I am saying why -- at your personal request. That you spent over 3 hours being ridiculous is not really my problem. Derex @ 17:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex, do you have a reliable source that suggests that Kerry's wound was minor? If so you can cite it. Otherwise you're coming close to running afoul of WP:NOR. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Q: "Rex, do you have a reliable source that suggests that Kerry's wound was minor? If so you can cite it."

A: Yes, it's a CBS report [16] (one of many similar out there) which directly quotes Kerry's "Sick Call Treatment Record". This "treatment record" is (as best as I have found from googling) the only contemporaneous record of the actual state of Kerry's injury/treatment.

As my explaination at Talk:John Kerry#Another way of looking at "wound" makes clear, Kerry's treatment record consists of two short sentences of detail, provided by the eyewitness treatment tech who both saw the wound and filled out the form:

"Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl (sic) bacitracin dressing. Ret to Duty".

That form does not contain the word "wound". However we can use the word wound based on it -if we make an inference- because the text on the form makes clear (without so stating it) that it was a wound which was being treated. Likewise, I feel that this form also makes clear -if we again draw an inference- (see Talk:John Kerry#Another way of looking at "wound") that it was a "minor wound" which was being treated.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

So you want us to accept the 30 year old recollection of an insignificant incident by a doctor who, according to official records, did not actually treat Kerry as proof and you want the article to state that version as fact, but you want us to dismiss an official record completed by the man who actually treated Kerry at the time he treated Kerry as "hearsay"? Is it any wonder people are calling this line of argument ridiculous? Gamaliel 18:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, two quick points 1) nothing at Talk:John Kerry#Another way of looking at "wound" relies on Dr. Letson, or quotes him or anything 2) I was referring to a specific PH citation as being heresay, not the treatment record. My entire line of thought in that section rests entirely on Kerry's "Sick Call Treatment Record" and does not utilize Letson or Hibbard. Please re-read. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, Katefan0, Derex and the rest are all 100% correct. At this stage seems so blinded by his fanaticism on the issue that he cannot see he is throwing all Wikipedia standards and requirements to the wind, and making a mockery of the No Original Research rule. If Rex feels so strongly about it he can go off and publish a book and then maybe, Wikipedia can use that information because it would then be from a secondary source and not primary research. But primary research of the sort he is demanding we accept cannot feature here. Period. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether there is a wound is a deductive inference, as in it must be true or else the language doesn't make sense. Whether the wound was "minor" is indeed an inference, but one that is poorly substantiated, not contained in the PH citation you use. Answer Katefan's question: Where is your source that describes Kerry's wound as "minor"?--kizzle 19:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, I am not quoting any PH citation. Rather, what I quoted (please re-read above) is Kerry's Sick Call Treatment Record, which says this: "Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl (sic) bacitracin dressing. Ret to Duty".

According to Kizzle, the proof of there being a wound is the result of a "deductive inference".

What I am asking the group to recognize is that when we make an inference which finds "wound" in Kerry's Sick Call treatment Record, we are obliged to allow an inference to also find "minor wound". There is an equal amount of basis for the latter as well as the former. Please re-read Talk:John Kerry#Another way of looking at "wound" carefully and in its entirity. Also, I was asked for a source that "suggests" not "describes". The source I have provided suggests "minor" the same way it suggests "wound".

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 20:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex, thanks for that link. It's an interesting article. However, I still don't see anything in here that actually describes Kerry's wound as minor. I see someone else saying they were, but you're not suggesting adding text that says "Commander Blah said Kerry's wound was just a scrape," you're suggesting we add authoritative language that would essentially mean that, without a shadow of a doubt, Kerry's wound was minor. In fact, the link you provided says this: The documentation does not describe the severity of the injuries. It's just not enough to authoritatively describe the wound as minor. However, it would be all right to add language similar to what's contained in the link along these lines: Conservatives, talk radio hosts and some newspaper editorials have questioned the seriousness of his injuries and whether the Massachusetts senator was deserving of the three Purple Hearts, which resulted in his reassignment out of Vietnam. Kerry's former commanding officer, Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, told the Boston Globe last week that Kerry's first Purple Heart came from minor wound, resembling a fingernail scrape. But we can't just stick "minor" in as a descriptor for his wound, because we have no authoritative source saying it to be true. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Katefan, but neither does the Sick Call Treatment Record state that it was a "wound" which was treated (as opposed to an injury, real or faked): "Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl (sic) bacitracin dressing. Ret to Duty". We are only able to infer "wound" because the word shrapnel was used. However, as I detail at Talk:John Kerry#Another way of looking at "wound", it's entirely reasonable to suggest that making an inference which finds "wound" establishes the predicate analysis justification to also make an inference of "minor wound". Please re-read my reasoning on this above and get back to me here. Also, as an advance note, please recognize that we do have an authoritative source for "minor wound", which is Kerry's CO Hibbard (who saw the wound 1st hand - other web articles make this clear). Here's what CBS says about him: "Kerry's former commanding officer, Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, told the Boston Globe last week that Kerry's first Purple Heart came from minor wound, resembling a fingernail scrape". Even so, others here have objected to Hibbard, so currently I am trying to rely only on the Sick Call Treatment Record right now. Thanks Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 20:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if there were no wound then there would've been nothing to dress. I don't see how getting into a "what is is" discussion is helpful. If you can find a source that calls Kerry's wound minor (I'd even be glad to help you craft it if you can find a source), please go ahead. Otherwise, there's nothing much really left to discuss here. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Katee, it's true that if there were not something which happened to Kerrry's arm, then there would have been no dressing. However, this cuts to the core of what I contend it the POV bias of using the word "wound" without "minor".

Here goes: If Kerry did indeed make up this story of having been wounded (as a significant number of anti-Kerry people contend), but was instead accidentally injured through happenstance while not in combat or even faked his injury (again as a significant number of anti-Kerry people contend is the case), then it is wrong to interpret the word shrapnel as substantiating "wound".

If Kerry faked his injury or was not injured in combat, then calling this a "wound" rather than an injury is POV.

However, as a concession to the other editors, I have conditionally offered "wound" as being ok.

At the same time, if the line is held against "minor" then we are back to challenging "wound" as that word is not in the Sick Call Treatment Record.

The "something" which was treated could just as well have been an injury, rather than a wound - and it could be a faked one at that.

There is a large body of protests from SBVT people who contend that Kerry faked or exagerrated this injury to game the system. If we allow ourselves to infer that it's a "wound", but block an inferrence supporting the word "minor", we are undercutting them in favor of Kerry.

I say that "minor wound" is accurate and fair to both camps and "injury" is accurate and fair to both camps. But I also contend that "wound" alone is not as accurate as the Sick Call Treatment Report makes clear it could be and I further contend that "wound" alone wrongly establishes a pro-Kerry POV by adding a "framing" to the debate about the validity of the PH. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 20:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This is beyond a joke at this stage. "Wound" is an unescapable conclusion of the description. "Minor" is not. "Wound" is factual — it does not indicate whether it was caused by others or self-inflicted. But "minor" is POV and a non-starter under NPOV rules. It can only be qualified by independent sources and references, not your POV. If the original description did not say it was minor, we cannot. All we can do is point out neutrally is that some individuals claim it was minor.FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate all the time you've taken to type all this out, Rex. All that remains is for you to find a reliable source that calls Kerry's wound minor, then you can cite it. Thanks! · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that "Wound" is an unescapable conclusion of the [Sick Call Treatment Report]". Rather as I have carefully explained, the use of the word "wound" rather than "injury" is a vernacular choice we are making.

And I further point out that by choosing "wound" instead of "injury", we are framing John Kerry#First Purple Heart to read in a manner that takes the pro-Kerry view of "legitimate wound" to be valid, instead of the anti-Kerry view of "faked injury" to be valid. We cannot allow John Kerry to take sides in this debate.

There is a large body of allegation from SBVT, et al that cannot be simply disregarded when making our editorial framing decisions. This is why I have long pressed for "minor wound". It is the best possible outcome between the two warring camps. The inferrence which allows "wound" without "minor" favors Kerry by framing the article towards his premise. We must not do that. Only a neutral framing of "minor wound" or "shrapnel injury" is fair to both views in that debate. Frankly, I would agree to drop this is "wound" issue were that word actually in the Sick Call Treatment Report, but since it's not and we are making the vernacular choices, the choices we make must not take sides.

Stripped of "legitimate" and "faked", we are left with "wound" and "injury". The pro "wound" editors simply have not made the case that we are compelled to use that term. Frankly, I see no reason why they simply won't agree to "injury" and end this.

And by the way, the allegation of "faked injury" is not the same as the allegation of "self-inflicted wound". A faked injury could be exampled by roughing up the skin on one's arm and poking oneself superficially with a metal sliver - no actual injury occured. However, a typical self-inflicted wound could be exampled by shooting onself in the leg - a bona fide wound, albeit, self-inflicted.

Part and parcel of the SBVT/anti-Kerry position regarding this injury is that it was so minute and from such a source and time as to not rightly merit under any definition -especially those that CO's such as Hibbard used to evaluate injuries- a PH award. And don't say that Hibbard would not have remembered his interactions with Kerry. Kerry was one of only a few Swift Boat commanders under Hibbard and it was only a few years later that Kerry had national recognition with VVAW. Hibbard -who I contend is reliable- would have indeed remembered Kerry and his "minor wound" (as per Hibbard).

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 21:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I've inserted Hibbard's criticism. Can we remove the sectNPOV tag now, or was that placed for something else? · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Kate's 11.03.05 1st PH version

Kate, if Kizzle, Gamaliel and JamesMLane agree to your current version as being acceptable, I will also agree. I am posting your version below, for reference purposes:

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 received a shrapnel wound in his left arm. Subsequently, the shrapnel was removed and Kerry was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged. The next day, Kerry returned to duty. Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this incident. Some have suggested that Kerry's wound was too small to be deserving of the award, including one of his former commanding officers, retired Lt. Gen. Grant Hibbard. [17] For more detail, see John Kerry military service controversy.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 21:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

As long as there's a one sentence rebuttal after the Hibbard mention, so that we briefly represent both sides and not just his opponent's, as in something along the lines that the Navy reviewed the records and concluded that the award was correctly given (James or Derex, do you have the link for that?) . --kizzle 22:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. Something like ... including one of his former commanders, retired Lt. Gen. Grant Hibbard. However, the U.S. Navy reviewed the case and concluded the award was proper <link to citation> · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Unacceptable. Kerry already gets a positive inference with "wound". The rebuttal gives him two "thumbs on the scale" to one. If another thumb goes in for Kerry, either "wound" must come out in favor of "injury" or "minor" must go in. On top of that, Kizzle's sentence (which I just now deleted, because he jumped the gun without waiting for attempt at consensus here) of "However, a subsequent Naval review found John Kerry's wound to be correctly given under Naval regulations" has the famously disqualifying "however" in it. So to reiterate: If another thumb goes in for Kerry, either "wound" must come out in favor of "injury" or "minor" must go in. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Have any of your own edits not been "jumping the gun" by that definition? Derex @ 23:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Really, making declarations and ultimatums like that aren't useful to building consensus. If there is a counter to what Hibbard said, and a quick way to include it, then that should be done. I mean, if it's someone saying "that Hibbard is a crackpot," then maybe not. But something as definitive as the Navy having reviewed the situation and actually having weighed in about it should definitely be included; to not do so is to do our readers a great disservice. Does someone have a source link we can review? · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Kerry already gets a positive inference with "wound". The rebuttal gives him two "thumbs on the scale" to one. The article is simply not the place for argumentation of this sort. It's totally unencyclopedic except in a detailed article about the controversy. Besides, reporting the wound isn't a "positive inference" -- it's the simplest form of the fact (unless we simply report that he got a Purple Heart on so and so date, which implies the wound). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm ok with Kate's version, as amended by Kizzle. Derex @ 23:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I am, provided it's sourced (I don't think it is right now). I'd like to see exactly what the Navy looked at or said so we can be sure to be absolutely precise about what conclusions they made. · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems perfectly fine and NPOV to me too. Good work. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404 11.03.05 1st PH version 1

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 received a shrapnel wound in his left arm. Subsequently, the shrapnel was removed and Kerry was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged. The next day, Kerry returned to duty. Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this incident. Although a subsequent Navy review of this award found it to have been correctly given , some have suggested that Kerry's wound was too small to be deserving of an award, including one of his former commanding officers, retired Lt. Gen. Grant Hibbard. [18] For more detail, see John Kerry military service controversy.

Blatently POV in how it used although to imply validity to Hibbard's claim, especially with the way it ends, which in effect says Although the Navy review agreed that the award was OK Hibbard suggests strongly that it wasn't. For evidence of the proof that Kerry deceived people read this link. You must be joking!!! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404 11.03.05 1st PH version 2

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 received a shrapnel wound in his left arm. Subsequently, the shrapnel was removed and Kerry was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged. The next day, Kerry returned to duty. Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this incident. Some critics have challenged the legitimacy of Kerry's injury and/or award, including one of his former commanding officers, retired Lt. Gen. Grant Hibbard. [19] However, a subsequent Navy review found John Kerry's award to have been correctly given under Naval regulations. For more detail, see John Kerry military service controversy.

This one implies Critics questioned the validity of the award and even whether he really was injured. The Navy said that the award had been given under the correct procedures, but did not say he was not feigning injury to get it. For more evidence of Kerry's duplicity read this link.

Stop trying to add in your political agenda into the article through implication, hint and ommission. Follow standard NPOV rules like every else. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You forgot supposition, conjecture, bias, stupidity, manipulation, scheming and finagling. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 01:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I can think of a few more, too. Derex @ 01:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Citation added...

..thanks James! I think the current version looks good and is fair. · Katefan0^(scribble) 00:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane 11.03.05 1st PH version

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 received a shrapnel wound in his left arm. Subsequently, the shrapnel was removed and Kerry was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged. The next day, Kerry returned to duty. Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this incident. Some have suggested that Kerry's wound was too small to be deserving of the award, including one of his former commanding officers, retired Lt. Gen. Grant Hibbard. [20] In 2004, a Navy review found Kerry's award to have been correctly given under Naval regulations. [21] For more detail, see John Kerry military service controversy.

Although I almost never agree with James, I will say that his alert removal of "However" makes this version almost non-offensive to me. I do, however stand by my view that we have chosen to use "wound" instead of "injury" and that choice was based on an unevenly applied standard of inferences. Nonetheless, so long as this above JML version stays unmolested in John Kerry (as currently shown by this example above), I pledge to accept this matter as resolved and agree that consensus was reasonably reached regarding this section. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Very good, and thanks to all. · Katefan0^(scribble) 00:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I promise not to molest the passage anymore. Of course James has to come in and take all the credit. --kizzle 01:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It's still POV and I'm preparing further edits, but I won't make them until I have my explanation ready to go to post shortly thereafter. JamesMLane 01:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

If James makes further edits to the above section, I withdraw my consent and agreement. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 02:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you wait to see what he has to write first? --kizzle 02:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

If his edits are ok, I'll re-grant it, but I retain the option to object and offer additional edits of my own. I am only agreeing to the curent version as shown above. I do not agree to carte blanche for James. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 02:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, just chill out until he actually edits something. --kizzle 02:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Next item on Rex071404 to do list - Pare down and/or balance the "Silver Star" section

• Problem: Too much text in the Silver Star section, all shaped in a too nicey-nice account.
• Problem: Quotes by vets are all by Kerry supporters. Three boats were present that day, so there were more than just Kerry's buddies from his boat. Alternative set of quotes should be mixed in.
• Problem: Many available facts tend to indicate that the enemy soldier was a teenager and that Kerry shot him in the back. At minimum, something regarding the facts of which direction the soldier was running ought to go in.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comments?

We have two entire articles devoted to this stuff. SBVT and John Kerry military service controversy. These articles were started in accordance with arbitration committee advice during the first case against you. The current article accurately portrays, with detailed reference, the basic facts. The two entire articles, which are clearly linked and referenced in the text go over all the details of the controversy. If you want to start playing games with the Silver Star account, first go do it in the "controversy" article. As of now, the referenced and cited facts in the controversy article support the current state of affairs in this one. In particular, I invite you to go dispute the accounts of the men on the boat who stated that the VC would have "lit us up like a Roman candle" had Kerry not shot him. the accounts of the other VC, the account of the commander of the other PCF involved, the contemporaneous statement of Kerry's commander, and statement of John Warner who was under-secretary of the Navy at the time, and the several documented lies and misrepresenations by Kerry's critics in that affair. Further, although I always try to assume good faith, I must say I am beginning to wonder whether your edits are tinged by an anti-American and anti-veteran POV. Note that I am not accusing you of that, but we can all benefit by examining our biases. Rex, though you may find the Vietnam war distasteful, as many do, it is important to rise above that bias and edit neutrally about veterans of that conflict. Derex @ 01:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Never ending LAME edit war (and complaints from the peanut gallery)

It never fails to amaze me how much energy is wasted over whether or not Kerry had "minor" wound. It must really burn someone's ass if something good is said about him as in: Unacceptable. Kerry already gets a positive inference with "wound". The rebuttal gives him two "thumbs on the scale" to one. If another thumb goes in for Kerry, either "wound" must come out in favor of "injury" or "minor" must go in. Get a friggin' life!

Suggestion: you should carefully read this article from the Guardian. No wonder more and more people think that Wikipedia is a joke. CuinnDubh 01:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Just want to add this thought: when friends ask why I think Wikipedia is unreliable, this is one of the pages that I show them. Have a nice day :) CuinnDubh 01:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

What about this disagreement over "minor" makes this page unreliable? I'm all on board with your description of Neverending LAME edit war, but I don't know how that correlates to reliability. Oh well, its over, "minor" is staying out, on to the next edit war. --kizzle 01:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Having taken a few days off from this insanity I'll be glad to respond to your question. It is unreliable because a reader never knows what "version" they'll get when reading Wikipedia.

One editor pushes a POV then another editor takes it out. Back and forth. If someone quoted this article while doing research on Kerry, the reader of that article may find something totally different than what the writer quoted. Does that make sense?

In other words, if I wrote an article about Kerry and quoted a printed book you could go to the library and check to see if I quoted correctly. With this article you never know what you'll get. CuinnDubh 01:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Dealing with some of Rex's edits and comments

Explanation of my latest edits:

• This article was long stable in a version that said, "Kerry returned to duty the next day on a regular Swift boat patrol." Rex didn’t like the concluding phrase, presumably because it served as yet another reminder that Kerry was in Vietnam, unlike some Yalies of that era. He said it should be removed "unless there is proof that Kerry was actually on a Swift Boat patrol ...." Rex then went ahead and removed the passage without waiting to see what support there was. The reference supporting this statement is found, mirabile dictu, in the "External links and references" section of the article. If you’re actually looking for it, it’s not particularly hard to find; it’s the link that’s described as relating to "Kerry's Vietnam service medals" (duh). I’ve restored the language with the supporting citation.
• Our article says, "Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this incident." I removed the word "later", but Rex restored it, saying, "he was not award PH on the spot". Do we really have readers who might think that, at 3:00 a.m. on a narrow waterway in the Mekong Delta, with Kerry and his men out on a skimmer with the engine cut so they could surprise Viet Cong who'd hear the approach of the noisy Swift boat, the Navy had another skimmer right behind them, crewed by an officer armed with a pen to sign Purple Heart recommendations, and by a clerk to fish the medal from an old toolbox bolted to the floor of the boat? It's truly absurd. I have no desire to get into yet another 100-kb edit war over a single word in the article, however, so here's another instance where Rex gets his way by his willingness to persevere endlessly while the rest of us want to spend time improving the encyclopedia.
• Rex wrote: "my research indicates that Kerry did not in fact actually get wounded, but rather sought (and later received after his second try) his 1st purple heart on the basis of a shipboard mishap, such as scraping his arm...." I’ve waded through quite a bit of the anti-Kerry smears and I’ve never seen any reference to such a claim. The SBVT arguments were that the wound was small, that it was caused by a ricochet from a weapon that Kerry himself fired, and that there was no enemy fire. Even SBVT’s star witness, Schachte, says that Kerry was wounded while out in a boat looking for Viet Cong at 2 or 3 a.m. Rex, would you be so kind as to share with us the source(s) in which you found the claim that Kerry was injured “while shipboard or dockside”?
• Rex has stated that one aspect of Kerry’s award is “whether it was an actual wound”. Later he added, "Now let's ask ourselves, how did the word 'wound' even arrive in John Kerry in relation to the 1st injury?" From that springboard he goes off on an argument that maybe “wound” is some kind of inference and maybe the shrapnel that was removed wasn’t really shrapnel. According to Corpsman Rex, "In my estimation, the most likely source for getting a small metal splinter while shipboard or dockside, would be by mishandling or brushing into an improperly stowed/secured wire rope." Well, let’s see how the armed forces use these terms. According to the relevant section of our article (Purple Heart#Award Specifications), "A 'wound' is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent." So Rex’s totally hypothetical wire rope splinter would be a wound, even if there were the slightest evidence for that hypothesis, which there isn’t; it's contradicted by the documents and by ALL the witnesses, even the anti-Kerry ones.
• Rex said that "Kerry already gets a positive inference with 'wound'", but jpgordon refuted that while I was working on this comment. “Wound” is neutral. If we’re going to get into this foolishness in the main Kerry bio article, the way to do it is to report one side of the controversy (Hibbard), report the other side (a position that Elliott, who’s anti-Kerry, states in the same Boston Globe article, with more detail appearing in the Snopes page), and then report the Navy’s conclusion about the recent controversy. I've edited accordingly.

Of course, there’s much, much more information of this sort that could be put into the main bio article. We moved it all out last summer, but now Rex wants to re-introduce the controversy material here. When it suits his purpose, Rex is very big on inter-article comparisons, so let me just note that there are plenty of undisputed facts omitted from the George W. Bush article, such as that a former lieutenant governor of Texas testified under oath that he pulled strings to get Bush his cushy Guard slot, ahead of other applicants, as a favor to the family; and that no one has come forward to say they ever saw Bush actually present at the Alabama unit where he was supposed to do part of his Guard time. We moved all that into George W. Bush military service controversy, just as we moved these SBVT attacks on Kerry to the daughter article John Kerry military service controversy. Are we going to undo those decisions from 2004? Maybe we should just save time and copy the entire text of each daughter article into the main bio article.

My bottom line: I favor reverting all the recent edits and restoring the paragraph about the first Purple Heart to the state it was in a month ago. JamesMLane 03:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

James, thanks for making clear once and for all your intransigent attitute towards making even one iota of chnage to this section of text. that said, I will point out that nothing you said above justifies you reverting today's consensus version back to the one you champion or otherwise violating consensus. I am sorry you are so angry, perhaps when you are able to put some of that aside, things will not get you so vexed. If we can agree on your edits, I'll support your desired modifications. If not, I won't. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 03:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

My wiki-vacation starts today and will extend until my midterms are done. You guys have fun with this. --kizzle 03:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

We'll sleep on it and then decide whether to (a) to leave as is; (b) whether to go back as James as suggested, and (c) how Wikipedia should deal with Rex's stunts. It took 100K of arguments, and a ridiculous row over whether to call a wound a wound, and acres of tantrums from Rex for 1 paragraph to get written. That ain't gonna happen again. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

James has already made modifications in violation of the hard earned consensus of today, I am in process of modifying those changes now. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 04:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jame's reverts, we don't need that much summary and repetition in this article, we already have a sub-article as well.Voice of font color=black>All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 06:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane has broken consensus

Withn this edit here: [22] JamesMLane has disregarded todays hard earned consensus version (see above) and gone back and made more changes. As a result, I'ver gone ahead and made some readjustments to this section, here is what I came up with:

====First Purple Heart (04:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)) ====

During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a Swift Boat operating in the area of a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat confronted a group of Vietnamese men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began to run. When these men failed to obey an verbal order from Kerry's boat to stop running, Kerry and his crew of two sailors opened fire on them with machine guns, destroying the sampans, then retreated. During this encounter, Kerry received a shrapnel wound in his left arm. Subsequently, at a Sick Call, the shrapnel was removed and Kerry was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged. The next day, Kerry returned to regular duty on Swift Boat patrol. Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this injury. Some have suggested that Kerry's wound was too small to be deserving of the award, including one of his former commanding officers, retired Lt. Gen. Grant Hibbard. [23] In 2004, a Navy review found Kerry's award to have been correctly given under Naval regulations. [24] This episode and award were the subject of many partisan allegations during the 2004 elections. For more details, see John Kerry military service controversy.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 04:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

zzzzz Anyone out there got any valium??? I can't take any more of this goddamned page and goddamned Kerry and his flaming wound . . . Rex going on and on and on and on . . . . Just a little something to lighten the mood before everyone who has ever worked on this goddamned page kills themselves in frustratation. Slán FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

(PS: and now, Rex, just because as well all know you like arguing (boy do we all know!), and there is no-one here left to argue with right now, doesn't mean you can start arguing with yourself. Have a nice peaceful time before James comes back tomorrow and reverts everything back a month and then we have to live through the whole month again . . . oh gawd! Deliver us from it. lol) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

If James does what you threaten he will do, it's a gross violation of the good faith that resulted in a new consensus version on 11.03.05. Also, as you know, I contend that "minor" is sufficiently inferred by the Sick Call Treatment Report that it should be included. This would have been over long ago, if you guys would stop fighting that word. Anyway, now that James has broken the consensus and made edits, I've followed with edits and frankly, now like "First Purple Heart (04:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)" the best. Any objections to that version (see above). Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 05:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, let me get this straight.... there's a version that's stable for more than a year, and Rex changes something he's changed multiple times before, always to the disapproval of everyone else, and this is perfectly OK; but when I change some very new language, that I never signed off on, and in fact that I specifically warned was POV in my opinion, that's a "consensus violation"? Yet when Rex made this edit at 23:11, 3 November 2005, that was also OK, and he was allowed to remove information that didn't fit his political agenda, but my addition of information at 03:05, 4 November 2005 was a "consensus violation", the page having somehow become frozen in less than four hours? Uh, OK, Rex, whatever. You go right on charging me with "consensus violation". Once you latch onto a phrase like that, you usually use it at least a dozen times before you're done, and you haven't made quota on this one yet, so you just go ahead and get it out of your system; I won't bother answering you. Oh, and don't forget to include it as one of the charges against me in your threatened RfAr. The ArbCom should get a hoot out of it. JamesMLane 10:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you James, but do you really have a problem with having a two-sentence, properly-sourced criticism of Kerry's Purple Heart? I understand that there's a fork article that goes into detail, but that doesn't mean we can't have a brief mention of the controversy in this one. Or are you concerned that this somehow opens the floodgates on Rex's favorite obsession? I apologize if I sound glib, but I'm a newcomer to the debate on this article. I just happened to see a lot of verbiage going on about "minor" and thought I'd drop by to see if I could help get some consensus, but I admit to ignorance about past edit warring here. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm still on Wikibreak, as I don't want to go anywhere near this for a while, but Kate (and Rex), I don't believe James wants to remove the criticism statement of the Purple Heart, as per his edit here. I think both you and Rex need to re-read James's bullet points above in the previous section, as regardless of whether I agree with them, he does present several interesting points which need to be addressed and responded to in order to finally reach some concensus here. --kizzle 18:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I read them when he posted them. (Thanks for the tip.) And while interesting, they don't go to the heart of THIS debate (over Purple Heart). Encouraging debate over whether something was a wound or not just isn't useful; a lot of this whinging on Rex's part can easily be dispensed with by insisting on proper sourcing. Is there a source for something? Great. Cite it. If not, drop it. That's really as far as it needs to go.

Now that I've read over the article history, I see that James added another rebutting source, and that's what touched this all off. While there's nothing wrong with what James did per se (I mean, it was properly sourced and perfectly relevant), it did serve to inflame Rex, for good or ill. Rex, Kizzle and I had, I thought, an agreement on a brief, factually-concise and reasonably fair thumbnail of the controversy. Then James added another reference. Obviously, more discussion must then be had about whether or not the change is okay. Which is where everything went wrong. Let's all stop reverting, and talk about whether or not it's okay to have the second rebutting link in that paragraph. Personally, I don't see the need for it. What more definitive answer is there to the Navy itself saying the award was proper? The other reference is just piling on unnecessarily, given that we have an entire fork article to discuss things of this nature. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

K, didn't mean the re-read part as snide if you were being sarcastic by "Thanks for the tip" , I just genuinely thought it had been skipped over. :) All I was saying is that James cited several different reasons for his edit, all of which are regarding the purple heart, which no one has responded to yet, I was just trying to help the discussion continue. I personally agree with James in that Hibbard, the other commander, and the Navy response should all be in there. Quoting the two commanders' sides of the controversy and then the Navy's side can only be contested by saying that it puts 2 positive statements to one negative statement along Rex's "rule of thumb"-o-meter. This isn't a balancing act of pro-vs-con statements, but an attempt that all sides are heard, and sometimes this constitutes more than two parties. If there are three parties to a controversy involving the subject of another article, are we only going to find some combination of two of the three where the positive match the negative? Of course not. We are here to represent all sides, and I do believe that Hibbard, the other commander, and the official Navy response are all within essential proximity to the heart of the issue. --kizzle 18:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I think everyone's fear is that Rex's antics here (I like the description "Rex's favourite obsession" BTW. That sums it up!) is that every single paragraph is going to involve a week of his POV demands, threats, insults that NPOV language is pro-Kerry, yada yada yada. I like your contribution, KatefanO, but fear that you might have stumbled into Nightmare on Wikipedia: The Rex edits and by Christmas we'll still only have reached agreement on two more paragraphs and Rex will still be reading non-existent bias into neutral words like 'wound'. How anyone could interpret a POV in wound is mindboggling? It was a case of paranoia gone mad. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed... I see that there's a long and frustrating history here, which is unfortunate. I respect all of you and it pains me to see everyone so violently at odds. Maybe it would help if everybody could rededicate themselves to separating content from contributor. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

That is a laudable, if difficult, goal. Johntex\^talk 18:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

James's points to respond to

My last post, I swear :)

Kate and Rex (or anyone else who hasn't thrown their computer at the wall from all of this) please respond to the points below. --kizzle 18:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

1. This article was long stable in a version that said, "Kerry returned to duty the next day on a regular Swift boat patrol." Rex didn’t like the concluding phrase, presumably because it served as yet another reminder that Kerry was in Vietnam, unlike some Yalies of that era. He said it should be removed "unless there is proof that Kerry was actually on a Swift Boat patrol ...." Rex then went ahead and removed the passage without waiting to see what support there was. The reference supporting this statement is found, mirabile dictu, in the "External links and references" section of the article. If you’re actually looking for it, it’s not particularly hard to find; it’s the link that’s described as relating to "Kerry's Vietnam service medals" (duh). I’ve restored the language with the supporting citation.
2. Our article says, "Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this incident." I removed the word "later", but Rex restored it, saying, "he was not award PH on the spot". Do we really have readers who might think that, at 3:00 a.m. on a narrow waterway in the Mekong Delta, with Kerry and his men out on a skimmer with the engine cut so they could surprise Viet Cong who'd hear the approach of the noisy Swift boat, the Navy had another skimmer right behind them, crewed by an officer armed with a pen to sign Purple Heart recommendations, and by a clerk to fish the medal from an old toolbox bolted to the floor of the boat? It's truly absurd. I have no desire to get into yet another 100-kb edit war over a single word in the article, however, so here's another instance where Rex gets his way by his willingness to persevere endlessly while the rest of us want to spend time improving the encyclopedia.
3. Rex wrote: "my research indicates that Kerry did not in fact actually get wounded, but rather sought (and later received after his second try) his 1st purple heart on the basis of a shipboard mishap, such as scraping his arm...." I’ve waded through quite a bit of the anti-Kerry smears and I’ve never seen any reference to such a claim. The SBVT arguments were that the wound was small, that it was caused by a ricochet from a weapon that Kerry himself fired, and that there was no enemy fire. Even SBVT’s star witness, Schachte, says that Kerry was wounded while out in a boat looking for Viet Cong at 2 or 3 a.m. Rex, would you be so kind as to share with us the source(s) in which you found the claim that Kerry was injured “while shipboard or dockside”?
4. Rex has stated that one aspect of Kerry’s award is “whether it was an actual wound”. Later he added, "Now let's ask ourselves, how did the word 'wound' even arrive in John Kerry in relation to the 1st injury?" From that springboard he goes off on an argument that maybe “wound” is some kind of inference and maybe the shrapnel that was removed wasn’t really shrapnel. According to Corpsman Rex, "In my estimation, the most likely source for getting a small metal splinter while shipboard or dockside, would be by mishandling or brushing into an improperly stowed/secured wire rope." Well, let’s see how the armed forces use these terms. According to the relevant section of our article (Purple Heart#Award Specifications), "A 'wound' is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent." So Rex’s totally hypothetical wire rope splinter would be a wound, even if there were the slightest evidence for that hypothesis, which there isn’t; it's contradicted by the documents and by ALL the witnesses, even the anti-Kerry ones.
5. Rex said that "Kerry already gets a positive inference with 'wound'", but jpgordon refuted that while I was working on this comment. “Wound” is neutral. If we’re going to get into this foolishness in the main Kerry bio article, the way to do it is to report one side of the controversy (Hibbard), report the other side (a position that Elliott, who’s anti-Kerry, states in the same Boston Globe article, with more detail appearing in the Snopes page), and then report the Navy’s conclusion about the recent controversy. I've edited accordingly.

Of course, there’s much, much more information of this sort that could be put into the main bio article. We moved it all out last summer, but now Rex wants to re-introduce the controversy material here. When it suits his purpose, Rex is very big on inter-article comparisons, so let me just note that there are plenty of undisputed facts omitted from the George W. Bush article, such as that a former lieutenant governor of Texas testified under oath that he pulled strings to get Bush his cushy Guard slot, ahead of other applicants, as a favor to the family; and that no one has come forward to say they ever saw Bush actually present at the Alabama unit where he was supposed to do part of his Guard time. We moved all that into George W. Bush military service controversy, just as we moved these SBVT attacks on Kerry to the daughter article John Kerry military service controversy. Are we going to undo those decisions from 2004? Maybe we should just save time and copy the entire text of each daughter article into the main bio article.

I changed Kizzle's bullets here to numbers, I hope no one minds. This should make it easier if anyone wants to reply to these points. Johntex\^talk 20:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404 addresses the group

I have copied a thread from above to here, so we will have enough room to dialog it to a conclusion. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 18:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

(begin copied thread)

---

OK, let me get this straight.... there's a version that's stable for more than a year, and Rex changes something he's changed multiple times before, always to the disapproval of everyone else, and this is perfectly OK; but when I change some very new language, that I never signed off on, and in fact that I specifically warned was POV in my opinion, that's a "consensus violation"? Yet when Rex made this edit at 23:11, 3 November 2005, that was also OK, and he was allowed to remove information that didn't fit his political agenda, but my addition of information at 03:05, 4 November 2005 was a "consensus violation", the page having somehow become frozen in less than four hours? Uh, OK, Rex, whatever. You go right on charging me with "consensus violation". Once you latch onto a phrase like that, you usually use it at least a dozen times before you're done, and you haven't made quota on this one yet, so you just go ahead and get it out of your system; I won't bother answering you. Oh, and don't forget to include it as one of the charges against me in your threatened RfAr. The ArbCom should get a hoot out of it. JamesMLane 10:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you James, but do you really have a problem with having a two-sentence, properly-sourced criticism of Kerry's Purple Heart? I understand that there's a fork article that goes into detail, but that doesn't mean we can't have a brief mention of the controversy in this one. Or are you concerned that this somehow opens the floodgates on Rex's favorite obsession? I apologize if I sound glib, but I'm a newcomer to the debate on this article. I just happened to see a lot of verbiage going on about "minor" and thought I'd drop by to see if I could help get some consensus, but I admit to ignorance about past edit warring here. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm still on Wikibreak, as I don't want to go anywhere near this for a while, but Kate (and Rex), I don't believe James wants to remove the criticism statement of the Purple Heart, as per his edit here. I think both you and Rex need to re-read James's bullet points above in the previous section, as regardless of whether I agree with them, he does present several interesting points which need to be addressed and responded to in order to finally reach some concensus here. --kizzle 18:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I read them when he posted them. (Thanks for the tip.) And while interesting, they don't go to the heart of THIS debate (over Purple Heart). Encouraging debate over whether something was a wound or not just isn't useful; a lot of this whinging on Rex's part can easily be dispensed with by institing on proper sourcing. Is there a source for something? Great. Cite it. If not, drop it. That's really as far as it needs to go.

Now that I've read over the article history, I see that James added another rebutting source, and that's what touched this all off. While there's nothing wrong with what James did per se (I mean, it was properly sourced and perfectly relevant), it did serve to inflame Rex, for good or ill. Rex, Kizzle and I had, I thought, an agreement on a brief, factually-concise and reasonably fair thumbnail of the controversy. Then James added another reference. Obviously, more discussion must then be had about whether or not the change is okay. Which is where everything went wrong. Let's all stop reverting, and talk about whether or not it's okay to have the second rebutting link in that paragraph. Personally, I don't see the need for it. What more definitive answer is there to the Navy itself saying the award was proper? The other reference is just piling on unnecessarily, given that we have an entire fork article to discuss things of this nature. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

K, didn't mean the re-read part as snide if you were being sarcastic by "Thanks for the tip" , I just genuinely thought it had been skipped over. :) All I was saying is that James cited several different reasons for his edit, all of which are regarding the purple heart, which no one has responded to yet, I was just trying to help the discussion continue. I personally agree with James in that Hibbard, the other commander, and the Navy response should all be in there. Quoting the two commanders' sides of the controversy and then the Navy's side can only be contested by saying that it puts 2 positive statements to one negative statement along Rex's "rule of thumb"-o-meter. This isn't a balancing act of pro-vs-con statements, but an attempt that all sides are heard, and sometimes this constitutes more than two parties. If there are three parties to a controversy involving the subject of another article, are we only going to find some combination of two of the three where the positive match the negative? Of course not. We are here to represent all sides, and I do believe that Hibbard, the other commander, and the official Navy response are all within essential proximity to the heart of the issue. --kizzle 18:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It's no problem, mostly I just want to try to corral comments to what we're discussing now; we can talk about other things later. I just don't want everybody to get ahead of themselves and end up having communications totally break down. And for God's sake, can we please stop re-copying humongous pieces of discussion? Anyway, I happen to agree -- there is no "we have one thing to your one thing, so that makes it fair" -- the question to ask is, is each SIDE represented fairly? And if there were not a forked article already, I would agree with you that multiple sources on the issue would be appropriate, even necessary. In general, yes, we're here to represent all sides. But the two sources don't represent two sides; they both represent one side. Adding another source, in my opinion, DOES serve to unbalance something that is only intended as a very brief thumbnail. Either or, matters not to me, but pick one of them, not both of them. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe there is a logical distinction between a "side" and its positive or negative connotations towards the subject, of which it seems you are equating the latter with the former. I do not put the Navy response as the same side as the commander corrborating Kerry's response simply because both their conclusions are beneficial towards Kerry; I think its similar to quoting the defendant's and prosecutor's arguments along with the final decision of the judge. Do we only cite the defendant's position if the judge agrees with the prosecutor, or vice versa? --kizzle 19:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You're almost supporting my point for me, I think. If there's been a judgment rendered in one side's favor, then why is their argument also necessary? This has been my point all along. The Navy said Kerry's award was proper. End of story. Why then include a statement from his commander saying it was? It's just unnecessary. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess we'll agree to disagree :). I just think that the Naval review falls outside of one side or the other, but that's just my opinion. --kizzle 19:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

---

(end copied thread)

Response to Katefan0 (the thread was oopied before I could respond, so I'll answer here instead of at the original location): If the article says that Kerry's commander faults the award, and that's the only contemporaneous view presented, then many readers will conclude that the 2004 investigation was a whitewash -- reflecting any bureaucracy's normal reluctance to admit a past mistake, amplified in the case of a political hot potato (investigating a major-party candidate for the Presidency a few months before the election). In fact, Judicial Watch, the right-wing organization that demanded the 2004 review, wasn't satisfied with the results and continued to grouse. The article was balanced when we said there was a controversy and left it at that. If we add to that by presenting specific evidence for one side (Hibbard's statement), then it's only fair to present one comparable piece of evidence for the other side (Elliott). In fact, my first reaction was to include the point that Elliott was actually opposed to Kerry, and criticized him on other grounds, which lends extra weight to his defense of the Purple Heart. I left that out to try to limit the presentation of evidence. Once we've told the reader that there was a controversy, and presented each side in a balanced way, it's not "supporting" one side to give an objective report of an official disposition. For the 2004 election, we report each candidate's position, plus we report that the voters (in the official count, anyway) favored Bush. That doesn't reflect a pro-Bush bias; it reflects the facts of the real world. JamesMLane 21:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry James, I respect you a great deal but I simply don't agree. Both items serve to rebut in the same fashion. The point here is not to be comprehensive (that can be done in the fork), only to be fair. I understand that you disagree that excluding one is fair, but I simply don't see it. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Dealing with this issue made a complete mess of the page back during the election. I agree with James that the page was balanced when we noted a controversy and pointed to the full length article on it. The whole reason that article got started is because once you start trying to present evidence there is irresistable pressure to add more evidence. The page quickly gets mired down. As I pointed out before, the full-length article on the controversy was suggested during arbitration as a way to keep the main page from getting filled with such details. I'd personally be willing to stick with the PH compromise if that were all. But that's not going to happen with Rex, long experience & three arbcom cases make that clear. So, I'm somewhat inclined to draw a line in the sand that we report that a controversy exists, but not get into any evidence one way or the other in this article — clearly linking to a full article on the topic instead. That's how it was handled before, and I think it's appropriate. A valid criticism of this article would be if we reported something as fact which is contested. I don't think that's presently the case, but for example we could avoid the whole "wound" issue by simply stating the uncontested fact that shrapnel was removed from Kerry's arm. Derex @ 22:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Derex, what about if we "don't report" things that are "uncontested facts"? For example:

• It is uncontested that Kerry met with Ortega and had a photo taken with him, The Boston Globe publishes it on the web, but Gamaliel keeps reverting me when I post a link to it along with a one sentence quote from the Globe.
• It is uncontested that evidence exists to support a charge that Kerry previously pretended to be Irish, confabulating false statements to further that masquerade.
• It is uncontested that there have been news reports of Kerry using his poltical muscle to get a parking spot for himself in front of his Beacn Hill town house.
• It is uncontested that Kerry and his wife own a number of very expensive homes.

Those are four uncontested things, which I am certain, if I tried to add here, my editing foils would delete. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 01:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have not seen any of these edits, nor have I reverted any of them. If you'd like, make a proposal about how to include these neutrally and I'll look at it. I will say that none of these look terribly interesting for an encyclopedia article. And lest you think that I'm being politically biased, go have a look at Bill Frist where I moved the "cat Mengele" thing to a subarticle for the same reason (not substantive to the importance of the man). Derex @ 02:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

new comments go below here (please make your own sub-section and keep your comments there for readability):

Rex says

The problems on this page stem from (I feel), these points:

1. James has lingering suspicions and resentments against me from last year.
2. I have a bold, pushy manner which offends editors like JamesMLane and Jtdirl.
3. I categorically reject the contention that John Kerry is or has recently been NPOV.
4. There are a number of specific points I have raised regarding this, which have been the source of contention, mostly with JamesMLane and then the several editors who tend to affirm his views by helping James revert me.
5. My method of explaining things on talk seems to not follow any classically modeled system that Jtdirl (and some others) ascribe to (see Jtdirl's comments of: "You really haven't a clue about research", "You obviously don't know what 'original research' is then", "Have you ever done research, studied law, or know anything about the implications of actings and where different outcomes impact on presumptions of truth?").
6. Here again, are some of the things regarding John Kerry which (as Mayor "Mumbles Menino" of Boston would say "really fry my nose"):

The John Kerry article is too voluminously packed with hagiographically structured sections and excess ephemera, which serves only to "puff up" Kerry. Some of the minutiae I wish to see deleted are:

The Kerrys have a German Shepherd named Cym (pronounced "Kim") [25], a yellow canary named Sunshine [26]. Kerry's favorite food is chocolate chip cookies.[27]

In 2004, he named his favorite books as Trinity, by Leon Uris; Flags of Our Fathers, by James Bradley and Ron Powers; and Undaunted Courage, by Stephen Ambrose. He had recently read Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World, by Margaret MacMillan. [28] Previous reading during the campaign included Rogue Nation, by Clyde Prestowitz, and Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich. His favorite movies are Giant and Casablanca.

These are two examples. Others could be found, but those were two.

Also, often, even perfectly valid, NPOV (and true) edits which I make are removed by others again and again and again, forcing me to reinsert, reinsert and reinsert:

• For example, this: [29] was one of several reverts which kept reinserting an obviously unacceptable photo. Each time I deleted it, someone kept putting it back it. It was only when enough comments appeared on the talk thread which I started and kept hammering at, did the crazed editors who insisted on that photo relent. I point out that JamesMLane, Kizzle and Gamaliel did nothing constructive to help keep that crappy photo out. I contend that this is an example of the editorial bias I am confronted with here daily. I further contend that these three did nothing, because contrary to their contention of utter commitment to NPOV at John Kerry, they actually do edit towards the result of a "pleasant read" at JK (rather than an NPOV read) - that being, one which comports with their 'John Kerry is a good guy' view.

• Here is another example: [30] which was a revert against me by Gamaliel. He has reverted me on this same edit many times. I am adding a single sentence direct quote from the Boston Globe, which is directly related to the subject, yet G keeps reverting me. Also, a review of some of G.'s reverts on this, will show that he has a real problem with even allowing a link to the photo which shows Kerry shaking Ortega's hand. Now I ask, if Kerry went to see Ortega and it's notable enough to mention, since there is a link available to a Boston Globe photo, why should Gamaliel deign it to himself that he has the power to keep reverting me?

• With this edit: [31], I tried to tighten some language and add Kerry's position about Gun control to the article. Before my edit, the section "===Issues and voting record===" read like this:

Though portrayed during the 2004 presidential election as a staunch liberal, John Kerry's voting record is more consistent with that of a political centrist. A member of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council, Kerry has co-sponsored Senate legislation with such prominent conservatives as Pennsylvania's Rick Santorum. While conservative special interest groups and the Bush campaign often noted that in 2003 Kerry was rated the National Journal's top Senate liberal, that rating was based only upon voting on legislation within that past year. In fact, in terms of career voting records, the National Journal found that Kerry is the 11th most liberal member of the Senate. Most analyses find that Kerry is "a bit" more liberal than the typical Democratic Senator. For example, Keith T. Poole of the University of Houston found that Kerry was tied for being the 24th most liberal Senator. Kerry supports abortion rights for women, endorses civil unions for gays, opposes capital punishment except for terrorists, and is generally a supporter of trade agreements, having supported the North American Free Trade Agreement and Most Favored Nation status for China, but Kerry opposed the Central American Free Trade Agreement. For more information on Kerry's political views and voting record, see John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004.

After my edit, it read like this:

Kerry is member of the Democratic Leadership Council. Most analyses find that Kerry is more liberal than the typical Democratic Senator. For example, Keith T. Poole of the University of Houston found that Kerry was tied for being the 24th most liberal Senator. In terms of career voting records, the National Journal found that Kerry is the 11th most liberal member of the Senate. Kerry's positions have included support for abortion rights for women, civil unions for gays, opposition to capital punishment (except for terrorists) and support for most gun control measures. Kerry has generally been a supporter of trade agreements, including North American Free Trade Agreement and Most Favored Nation status for China, but Kerry opposed the Central American Free Trade Agreement. For more information on Kerry's recent political views and voting record, see John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004.

However, user "Mr. Tibbs" swooped in here [32] and reverted me (along with some subsequent edits of mine).

I'll point out that it was again Mr. Tibbs who last night, appeared out of nowhere and after not participating at all in yesterday's lengthy Kerry talk page efforts, reverted my counter edits of James's consensus busting edits to the '1st PH' section.

• [33] "Revert Rex's removal of sourced info to last version by JamesMLane"
• [34] "Revert to last version by Mr. Tibbs. Rex, I've read all the talk and I'm not going to get into an arguement with you. Fact is, you're removing sourced info"
• [35] "Revert to last version by Mr. Tibbs. No, you Rex, are the one who is violating consensus. And you've forced the community to prove that repeatedly by collectively reverting your edits"

Please pay especial attention to that last ES by Mr. Tibbs. It is this kind of blatant tag-team reverting that completely thwarts the edits of the minority voices. I contend that this type of tag-teaming is most prevalent on article pages that are politically related and which liberal-oriented editors have seized control of by "collectively reverting". I contend that John Kerry is one of those articles. Another would be Fitzmas. And note how JamesMLane and Mr. Tibbs are again simpatico there as well. Frankly, I find it galling that some editors such as JamesMLane and Jtdirl can prattle on and on about "Rex did this" and "Rex did that", when it's also quite clear what they are not doing. What they are not doing, is not helping any edit which I make, no matter how reasonable, stay in any article where they would rather I not edit. If there is a solution to this "Mexican standoff", I don't know of it, but I am all ears.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Rex071404

Rex, can you try to contain your comments to what we're currently discussing? All of this can be brought up another time. Please remember to comment on content, not contributors. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Kate, to ignore the very relevant context I have laid out above, is to disregard my concerns about the problems here. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 20:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I said anywhere that your concerns should be ignored. I said to please try to take one thing at a time. Concentrate on the current debate, if you would. The rest, if you feel it necessary, can be brought up later. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex, I don't know if this information will please you or dismay you, but: It's not about you. Your constant complaint of being picked on is not a "very relevant context". I strongly agree with Katefan0 that you should focus on the article and stop couching everything in terms of personalities. Here's one example that particularly struck me: You complain that I "did nothing constructive to help keep that crappy photo out." Your approach to issue was to keep removing the photo, to post an attack on it that relieon what I and others considered a clear misreading of the NOR policy, to keep repeating your opinion incessantly and at length, and to fling charges of bias at anyone who disagreed with you. My approach was to discuss the specific issue, explaining my reasoning for opposing the photo, and not disparaging editors for disagreeing with me ("Love men, slay errors"). I'm sorry if you consider my approach unconstructive. I believe that a fair-minded observer reviewing the issue would conclude that I did make a contribution toward the removal of the photo. JamesMLane 07:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

James, you did not delete the photo. That means either you accepted it as meeting your editorial standards, or you refused to apply your standards to it. As it stands, the photo was bona fide junk, did not belong and is now gone - but you refused to delete it. To me, this says you did very little. In fact, you stood by while I got reverted and but you did not revert the reverters. I fail to see how either your editing standards or your application of them, were acquited rightly by that episode. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 07:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

In this instance, my nondeletion meant that I thought discussing the issue on the talk page would be more fruitful than edit warring. If you look over my history, you'll see that I frequently state a position on a talk page without making the corresponding edit. With a photo like that one, the important question is whether, upon the ultimate resolution of the dispute, the photo is included or excluded. How much time the photo was up in the meantime is much less important. JamesMLane 10:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Johntex says

• There have been several versions here that I could support. My favorite so far is the one above, at the start of this section. this section. I think it is clear, informative, NPOV, and not overly lengthy for inclusion in the main article. Johntex\^talk 19:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't mean to make a link to the edit button. My bad. Johntex\^talk 19:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Katefan0, when you refer to the version agreed to yesterday, do you mean JamesMLane 11.03.05 1st PH version? Thanks, Johntex\^talk 19:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks Katefan0. Yes, I can also support this version that achieved a certain level of consensus yesterady. Johntex\^talk 20:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

This [36] version is also acceptable to me. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 21:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Please note Derex made an unsigned post above stating that he has posted a 3RR notice about Rex at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Rex071404. I have been to that page, and it looks like something is wrong with that page because the edit buttons there do not go to the correct place. Johntex\^talk 21:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Katefan0

This is probably already fairly clear, but I support the original version yesterday that kizzle, jtdirl, Rex and myself had agreed on. I don't mind the version Johntex posted either. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, here is the version of the articlespace I was talking about: [37] I think it's functionally the same as yours, with the exception of the line about it being a partisan fight in '04. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

As previously stated, this [38] variant by Kate is acceptable to me. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 20:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404 comments to Derex

Please see this. It's directly about this topic, but I have linked it here rather than repost to save space.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 07:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel

On one hand, I agree with Katefan that we should concentrate on the current debate. On the other hand, I feel obligated to explain and defend my edits yet again and to respond to Rex's umpteenth labeling of me as one of his oppressors.

• The "Support John Kerry" photo: Rex claims that I and others "did nothing constructive to help keep that crappy photo out." On the contrary, I repeatedly participated in the talk page discussion, where I posted my opinion that the photo should not be included in the article. Talk page discussion is often not constructive, true, but revert warring is almost always much less constructive. I have no obligation or desire to participate in some silly edit war Rex started, especially when the only reason it lasted as long as it did was because Rex insisted on attempting to rewrite the rules of Wikipedia once again.
• The Ortega photo: First Rex insisted on inserting a link to the photo in the middle of the paragraph. Rex is right when he says "It is uncontested that Kerry met with Ortega and had a photo taken with him." I don't dispute they met. In fact, last year I spent a good amount of time researching and rewriting the section about their meeting. No one disputes that they met. It's a fact. So why do we need a link to a picture to substantiate a meeting that everyone agrees took place? Do we usually stick links to pictures in the middle of paragraphs in Wikipedia articles? Is this a common practice here that no one told me about? When a link directly to the image wouldn't do, Rex quoted the caption and used that as an excuse to link to the picture. The caption quote was useless as it said in vague terms what the previous sentence already said in more specific terms. Yet Rex insisted. So instead of a link directly to his beloved picture and a two sentence caption, I substituted a link to part of a Boston Globe story which extensively discusses his Senate career, including the Ortega visit and that very same photo. This link was one of the sources I used for the section and provides much more information than Rex's preferred link to a two sentence caption. And Rex still isn't satisfied!
• Issues and voting record: Rex claims to be "tightening up" this paragraph. Yet he removed a key piece of information: that Republicans were misrepresenting Kerry's voting record. The other editors were right to restore this information.

None of these issues would be issues at all if Rex wasn't more concerned with himself and how many edits he gets in and who "tag team" reverts him instead of the quality of the finished product. Last year Rex put up furious fights about nonsense like bolding his preferred links and including two wikilinks to the same article in the same sentence. This year it's about how common English language words are supposedly pushing a POV. I can't wait to see what's next. Gamaliel 03:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how so-called (and unverified) misrepresenting(s) of Kerry's voting record matter, when verfied photos of Kerry with Ortega don't... Unles your POV is focused on defending Kerry's honor from the unseen perils of the vast-right-wing-conspiracy. Suffice it tosay, there is no publically notable controversy regarding Republicans "misrepresenting" Kerry's voting record, so why is that in there? Mind you this complaint comes from Gamaliel who kept deleting the very germane fact that as of 12.2004, a total of 11 bills sponsored by Kerry had become law. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 03:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I see this was a mistake. Every time I attempt to address one issue with Rex, Rex finds an entirely unrelated new one to complain about. This thing about "11 bills" is one I have absolutely no recollection of so I can't address this new complaint. Regarding the issue of Republicans misprepresenting Kerry's voting record, contrary to Rex's claim, it was a notable controversy that was discussed in the press. I point him to this article which took me 3 seconds to find via google. Try it sometime. Gamaliel 04:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo says

The argument "what if someone did this particular thing 100,000 times"

is not a valid argument against letting them do it a few times.

--Jimbo

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 09:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

And your point here would be ... ? Derex @ 15:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes others here kill my edits for even the slightest deviation from their preferred standards, claiming basically that I fail some Strunk & White test. Example;, I'd like this to read, "The next day, Kerry returned to duty...", whereas I keep getting reverted to "Kerry returned to duty the next day...". I fail to see what compels the revert other than supposed fidelity to a style preference, supported by the insinuation that crappy style editing must never be allowed (if indeed my style is crappy). Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 17:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious, why do you prefer your version? If it's just a matter of correct style, why do you care? Derex @ 18:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I could ask you the same question. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't state a preference, you did. What's the difference how it's stated? I don't see it, and you're the one making a fuss about it. Derex @ 23:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

First Purple Heart - fixing some errors

My most recent edit:

• Kerry was not commanding a Swift boat on this occasion. I’ve never seen any source claiming that he was. As I pointed out above, it was a skimmer. This smaller boat would be brought to a dangerous area by a Swift boat, and would then cut its engine so as to be able to sneak up on enemies in a way that the big noisy Swift boat couldn’t.

My bad about the boat Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 17:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• I’ve seen no source to the effect that Kerry participated in any kind of formal “Sick Call”. My impression was that he just went to where the medics hang out and asked someone to look at his wound. I’m removing the reference to “Sick Call” unless and until a source is provided.

CBS [39] reports that the treatment Kerry received was memorialized on a "Sick Call Treatment Record". This is the only document which establishes a shrapnel wound/injury treatment record. By the very name/nature of the record -which pro-wound editors cite as establishing that treatment was provided- said treatment was provided at a "Sick Call". There is a wiki-stub for this term which needs work. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 17:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Rex earlier deleted the uncontested statement that Kerry went on a patrol the next day. Rex’s stated reason was that it wasn’t sourced. I restored it and specified the source, which was one of those linked to at the bottom of the article. Rex has now, without explanation, removed the citation to the source. I’ve restored it. Someone else might raise the same objection in the future, so we might as well note which reference source supports the statement. (That Kerry went on patrol the next day makes it clear that the wound wasn’t disabling. I have no objection to providing the notable underlying facts that shed light on the severity of the wound.)

I removed the Snopes link [40] because no one here disputes the established fact he went right back to duty. That and the fact that the Snopes link is heavily pro-Kerry biased in tone. However, if we insist on the Snopes link as a valid source (which John is still linking into the text), then I offer we should uss this text from it "The injury was not serious" as it refers to this injury and supports what I have said all along. However, unlike Kizzle tossing one of my own sources in my face, I am not going to do that to James here. Rather, I ask that James delete the Snopes link. I have many problems with that which I'd rather we don't inject here. But if we must, then we must also insert "The injury was not serious", which comes directly from Snopes on the same page James is linking to. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 17:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

If I had asked you to delete the medical source without showing you why it was flawed, you would have simply ignored my request. Please, analyzing the validity of sources is vital here, and doesn't need to be characterized as "tossing one of my own sources in my face". --kizzle 19:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't edited the portion that presents evidence for only one side of the dispute. As per my comment to Rex about my editing style (in connection with the disputed photo), I’m not going to simply revert this partial presentation. I’ll address that subject in a separate post later today, when I’m fresh. JamesMLane

I object to James (and Kizzle) chracterizing as "sides" more than (2) statements. There are two sides to this: The "Yes, he earned it" and the "No, he didn't". Hibbard represents the "No, he didn't" and the Navy represents the "Yes he earned it", If James adds in another "Yes, he did" that's two statements for "Yes" and only one for "No". Please James, this is highly contentious, with Katefan0, Johntex and myself in opposition. Please do not proceed with adding more quotes. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 17:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

No, there aren't two sides to this. There's "he earned a Purple Heart". There's no legitimate debate about it; according to the Navy, he earned it, and there is no other relevant authority. Then there is "political opponents claim he did not deserve the Purple Heart"; there's no debate about that either (certainly, political opponents claim he did not deserve it.) No particular extra detail is needed except in in-depth articles about Kerry's military career and the 2004 election campaign. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

If I understand what you, basically, you are saying that anyone -even a respected authority who was present at the time- is presumed to be speaking on this basis of "political opposition" if they allege any facts which contradict Kerry as having been seriously wounded or otherwise suggest that Kerry's injury was minimal. What you are basically saying is that if a known Kerry supporter called the wound "minor", then they too would be political opposition.

Kizzle when we say:

Some have suggested that Kerry's wound was too small to be deserving of the award, including one of his former commanding officers, retired Lt. Gen. Grant Hibbard. [41]

we are not presenting Hibbard as a Kerry poiltical opponent. And, though he may well be one, the mere fact that Hibbard said in 2004 -when asked- to the Boston Globe regarding Kerry...

"He had a little scratch on his forearm, and he was holding a piece of shrapnel," recalled Kerry's commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard. "People in the office were saying, `I don't think we got any fire,' and there is a guy holding a little piece of shrapnel in his palm."

...doesn't in and of itself make him one.

Hibbard's quote raises the question of "merit" and the Navy's review statement, close the question of "merit":

In 2004, a Navy review found Kerry's award to have been correctly given under Naval regulations. [42] For more detail, see John Kerry military service controversy.

It is simply not true than any unrebutting insinuations are left hanging.

Also, now I see what Kizzle is saying - he is saying that the Navy's September 2004 report precludes us from mentioning that "merit" has been and still is disputed. Kizzle, the public controversy on merit did not cease with that report, nor is it ever likely to. To sugges that the mere existance of that report forcloses us from preorting that there is dispute, does not make sense to me.

Also according to this [43]:

"Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed."

Note the key phrase "existing documentation". The only existing documentation for the 1st PH is the Sick Call Treatment Record. There are no after action reports. No commendations. Nothing to suggest that we should presume Kerry's version of events to be correct, vs SBVT's.

For the purposes of awarding medals, the Navy might make that presumption, but for the purposes of reporting history, we should not simply gloss over bona fide controversy with a "the navy said it's ok, that settles it".

Also, the Navy's report basically says "eh, thre's no real way for us to double-check, so we are not going to try":

Conducting any additional review regarding events that took place over 30 years ago would not be productive," he wrote. "The passage of time would make reconstruction of the facts and circumstances unreliable, and would not allow the information gathered to be considered in the context of the time in which the events took place.

The Navy's 9/2004 report is not holy writ which silences critics. To suggest it is, is silly.

Also, to suggest that the Navy's finding of "the awards approval process was properly followed" is the same as saying that the original request for the medal was accurate and hence, valid is illogical.

The Navy has already said that they have limited documentation regarding the medals. Kerry has already said that they have released everything from his files and there is nothing more than the Sick Call Treatment Record to back up the 1st PH. That's it, nothing more.

It simply is not reasonable from NPOV posiiton to insist it to be impossible that Kerry exaggerated to get the 1st PH, yet this is essentially what we have learned from the sum and substance of Hibbard's two contentions, which are: 1) Hibbard saw only a minor injury, that the shrapnel was not in -it was in Kerry's hand, and 2) Kerry went around Hibbard to get the medal.

To me, this sounds like there is enough reasonable doubt about the veracity of Kerry's account, to cast doubt on precisly what occured - from a history standpoint.

So Kizzle, there are two sides and if you say you insist on one only, that is indeed a declaration of bias. You are aiming to bias the history towards you POV only. And it's only your POV that there is not bona fide dispute, which survives forclosure from the Navy finding.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Huh? I don't think you understand what I was saying at all. I'm saying we should represent Hibbard's claim and the other commander's claim to present both sides, then conclude that the official Naval review vindicated him, just like we would quote the prosecutor's and defendant's arguments, than say what the verdict was. While it may not be "holy writ", it is the Navy's official position on Kerry's purple heart, which is probably the most authoratative body in the matter rather than two commanders caught up in a heated election. On a side note, of course Hibbard's one quote doesn't make him a political opponent, it's his membership in SBVT. --kizzle 22:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

As for your subsequent added text to your post, I think you've begun to ramble. I don't think we need to excise there is doubt, that's what the military service controversy article is for. What we include here however, should be small and essential facts. All the rest of what you're talking about is pure conjecture. As for me insinuating only one side be presenting, I have absolutely no idea where you got that. On a side note, can you reply to subsequent posts rather than simply adding on to your existing post? It makes reading this conversation confusing. Sigh... I need to get some work done. --kizzle 22:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This quote "No, there aren't two sides to this" is by another editor (see above). I mistakenly thought you said it. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle your comment to me was too harsh ("ramble"). Also Hibbard's quote is not "conjecture". Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I apologize, I didn't mean in a negative sense, just that I felt it was off-topic. --kizzle 00:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The Navy's review does not vindicate Kerry. See my reasons above which I was typing when you posted.

The Navy has only said "proper procedures were followed" and "we say this based on the records that we have we have" (paraphrased). They do not say "we weighed Kerry's acount of his injury and have found it to be accurate, there is no reason to think that Kerry exaggerated his injury to the Sick Call treatment personnel" (paraphrased).

The Navy did not issue a finding as to whether or not Kerry exagerrated, which is the bone of contention.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

And I'm saying we should report that Kerry had shrapnel removed from his arm, was returned to duty, and received a Purple Heart. Then, there was some controversy during the election ... please see the controversy article. What is the problem with that?

If you want to get into Hibbard, then we need to get into how Hibbard made statements, then retracted them, then retracted the retractions, then retracted the retraction of the retraction. How Dr. Letson claimed he treated Kerry when the records indicate he didn't. How Hibbard stated that wounds of that type routinely received Purple Hearts. How two eyewitnesses state that they were with Kerry that night and were engaged in a firefight, but the SBVT chap claims he was there, not them, & there was no firefight. How the Navy official investigation found that all of Kerry's combat medals were properly issued etc etc etc. That's all covered in exhaustive detail in the controversy article. (One does wonder why Hibbard, 30 years later, suddenly remembered a "scratch" suffered in the middle of a war in which many of his men were killed. Not that it matters, since the official medical records that that shrapnel was removed from his arm which is an explicit example covered in the regs for the Purple Heart, and confirmed by the Navy OIG investigation. Further, if we want to get into whether this was a valid award or not, we should give examples of similar awards under similar circumstances to establish this award was within standard practice. One of Bob Dole's purple hearts has been raised several times as a perfect comparison illustrating the point.) So, you see my point? This article is the place for facts; the other article is the place for reporting the various bits of evidence. That's why we have it ... again at arbcom's request during the case for which you were banned the first time. And, I'll note that dispute was over exactly the same details, which is why I earlier asked if you had a personal axe to grind here.

Again, what is appropriate for this article is the basic facts ... shrapnel, return to duty, purple heart, controversy exists w/link. What's your problem with that? Derex @ 22:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Then I want verbatim facts, not words such as "wound" which we choose. As I have said before, rather than saying, "Kerry received a shrapnel wound in his left arm.", I would be willing to accept "Kerry received shrapnel in his left arm". And the issue of the link to Sick Call needs discussion. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

That is of course what we are supposed to do, and I have suggested exactly that phrasing before. Shrapnel was removed from his arm by a medic. My repeated point, and that of others, is that there is no need to characterize it in any way beyond that. Derex @ 23:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"Wound" is the verbatim fact. He received a Purple Heart. Therefore, he was either wounded or killed (according to the criteria for a Purple Heart). He doesn't seem to have been killed. Ergo he was wounded. Anything other than that is unnecessary characterization. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the regs Purple_Heart#Award Specifications you are indeed correct, jpgordon. In order to receive the PH you must be "wounded". The Navy did award a PH, and the OIG found it to have been properly awarded. Ergo, the Navy determined that Kerry was "wounded". That is as established as a fact of this sort can get -- an official Navy determination. I also note that under the regs, Kerry could not have applied for the medal himself. So, someone up the chain of command took the initiative in awarding it. Derex @ 00:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

There is still the issue that while the proofs you offer may tend to ratify the usage of the word "wound", nowhere does the word "wound" appear verbatim in any government document cited for that injury. And what's all this "ergo" stuff? You are not reading copies of the then in-force regs, only the ones that are out there now. And in any case, you afford your views some "ergo" room, but not to "minor" which results from: Kerry got bacitracin and a bandage, ergo, his wound was "minor". If you get ergo, I get ergo too. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

You are missing the point ... the word "wound" is a requisite for the purple heart. go look at the top of the section i linked. the navy gave him the PH; the regs for the PH require a "wound", the oig later investigated based on sbvt complaints and stated the award was properly authorized. how can he have deserved an award explicitly requiring a "wound" if he did not have a "wound"? logically impossible. ergo, the navy has determined he was "wounded".

Specifically AR 600-8-22 section 2-8 (a). Derex @ 00:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The key word is "deserved". It is in dispute as to whether or not Kerry lied about, maufactured (Hibbard saw shrapnel held in plam of hand, not in arm) or exaggerated his injury. If he did any of these, then whether or not Kerry succeded in that without detection is not the same as the fact that he did utlimately get the PH. Any way, you are still using "ergo", except that you contend the PH regs are prima facia evidence of a mandate for "wound". Indeed, your logic on this is very strong, but it does still require that we infer that Kerry did not cheat. I am not willing to make that inference -unless, in return you also make the inference that the wound was "minor", which it clearly was. Who has the better case here depends on how we weigh the evidence. PH regs are indeed good evidence. But the ones you cite are not contemporaneous to Kerry's service period. What was contemporaneous then, we have no copy of. Also Hibbard stood between Kerry and PH and turned him down, but you refuse to admit that. So Kerry got his PH after going around Hibbard. All that proves is that Kerry knows how to persist in the face of adversity. This trait cold be read as a plus (tough) or minus (weasle). In either case, there is still enough smell here to warrant including the Hibbard Globe link and sentence along with the Navy sentence and USA today link. I think the way it reads right now [44] is just fine. This is why I cited Jimbo above. This version is not so bad that it can't stay. I'm content to accept it - it's you guys who are keeping this thread open by fighting, not me. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 01:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The requirements also include that it be part of the official medical record. There is an official report, filed by the medic J.C. Carreleon (sp?) stating that he removed shrapnel from Kerry's arm. How exactly did Kerry "cheat" on that? Further, as I pointed out, under the regs there is no procedure to "request" a PH. You either get it or you don't ... he couldn't have asked for it. Nor could he have gotten it without an official medical record of the wound. So, how could he have cheated? You may think he didn't "deserve" it. The United States Navy begs to differ. Derex @ 01:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

You're might not be quite right about "requesting". Army Regulation 600–8–22, page 19 (I don't know how to cite chapter and verse here) allows PH's to be requested if they were somehow missed; medical records are required. I imagine the Navy reg is similar, though I'm not going to hunt much further. Regarding the dates of Kerry's service, the requirements for the PH have not changed much at all, and that same regulation gives the history of the changes; nothing in the language regarding wounds has changed -- in fact, they make it quite clear that the wound can be extremely minor; physical lesions are not required; all that matters is medical treatment be required. (And needing Bacitrin means it wasn't minor -- just try leaving an open wound untreated in the tropics...) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, since you ask: Hibbard saw Kerry holding the shrapnel in the palm of his hand (see the Boston Globe link). If that happened before the Sick Call treatment was given, then Kerry removed the shrapnel prior to the call and re-inserted it himself into the "fingernail scrape" Hibbard saw OR it was never imbedded in him in the 1st place. Perhaps he found it on the deck? the point is Hibbard saw it in the palm of Kerry's hand. Now, if he removed it himself prior, he faked out Mr. Carreleon by reinserting. If he originally inserted it himself, he faked out everyone. Now, if he removed it himself (even if he did re-insert), it's still valid. But if he originally inserted it himself, it's not. The lynch pin is: Did Hibbard see him before or after Sick Call. If it was afterwards, you win. But if it was before, then stalemate; "faking it" remains equally valid as not. Also, Hibbard would indeed remember Kerry's showing off a small sliver of metal. Sailors are notoriously tough. Someone saying "look at what got me" over basically nothing, especially if that someone was in front of Congress a few years later (and was a tall Boston Brahmin who says Geng.Giss.Khan) would be easy to remember. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 02:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• You're missing a key word throughout: Hibbard SAYS he saw Kerry holding the shrapnel. Hibbard SAYS he saw Kerry showing it off. Hibbard SAYS he saw a fingernail scrape. All anything will boil down to is "he said she said". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a "he said she said" and we are taking a side -Kerry's side- if we underweigh his detractors comments and overwiegh the facts which help Kerry. The existance of the PH and the 2004 limited Navy inquiry have some probative value, but so do Letson's comments and Hibbard's comments and the treatment description of "bacitracin and bandaging". Even so, all this is mooted if we agree on a version. I think this is ok:

proposed PH1 resolution - posted 03:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 03:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Further Hibbard never said it didn't come out of Kerry's arm. He never implied it either. So, he didn't even SAY anything relevant other than that it wasn't a big wound ... and we already knew that. Certainly, if he thought Kerry had shoved into his own arm, he would have said that quite explicitly. All Rex has got to go on is that Hibbard didn't explicitly state that the shrapnel was first removed, then shown off. Why the hell would you show off shrapnel that hadn't come out of you? So your argument, without any supporting evidence, would be that Kerry shoved a piece of shrapnel into his own arm? I refer you then to the arbcom ruling cited below requiring you to provide a citation for any disputed edit you make. If you are correct that he shoved a metal shard into his own arm, then I completely agree with you that John Kerry is clearly a deranged man, who would stop at nothing to get out of an assignment that he volunteered for (both the Navy and then a transfer from sea to the dangerous river work). Derex @ 02:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I am not making the argument that Kerry is deranged (or was back then, when he was only a kid). Rather, what I am saying is that we cannot totally discount Hibbard. After all, he is a Ret. Lt. Gen, and that carries substantial presumed credibility - equally as much as Kerry's word. Hibbard says he saw the shrapnel being held in the palm of Kerry's hand. If that occured before Kerry's Sick Call, Kerry loses credbility and it casts his entire version of events in suspect light. That's enough reasonable doubt for use to not immediately assume that those who contradict Kerry are only partisans. Hence, why I wanted something to tone down the certainty of the history we were writing in that section. The true history for this event is more clouded and less certain that we were allowing. Now that the language and read for that section is somewhat softer than it ws before, "minor" is no longer a big deal and we can see if the current version works for everyone. I'm ok with this:

proposed PH1 resolution - posted 03:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 03:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• No good. Some have suggested that Kerry's wound was too small to be deserving of the award. But that's a total non-starter; there is no such thing as a wound that was given medical treatment that is too small to be deserving of the award. All that the regulations now, and then, require, is that it have been given medical treatment (not even that it required medical treatment). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex, show me where Hibbard states that Kerry found some shrapnel lying around and inserted it into his own arm. If the original shrapnel wound was received in another manner Kerry was entitled to the PH under miliatary regs. That's true even under your fantasy where it fell out by itself ... which contradicts the medical record anyway. It's still true even if it fell out and he stuck it back in, ouch! In any case you cannot provide a reference where Hibbard claims any of the above, and you are required to do so in view of your "demonstrated deficiencies in engaging in and interpreting the results of research" (see below). Derex @ 18:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration rulings and findings which are still binding regarding this article

The following Arbitration Committee rulings are relevant here. Note that these are all still in effect. Rex was banned for 4 months from editing political articles & then later 6 months, but the ruling cited below were not given an expiration. Rulings are verbatim, the bolding emphasis is mine.

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404_3

Principles & Findings

1. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind".
2. An encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details.
3. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda advocacy or advertising.
4. Rex071404 and his IP address 216.153.214.94 have disregarded the previous arbitration ruling and has continued to revert articles in an attempt to push a point of view

Remedies & Enforcement

1. Edits (including those whose edit summaries offend) by Rex071404 to John Kerry and related articles or their talk pages which contain insulting language directed towards those he views as his political opponents may be removed by any user. Attempts by Rex071404 to revert such removals shall justify a short ban which may be imposed by any sysop.
2. In view of his demonstrated deficiencies in engaging in and interpreting the results of research Rex071404 is required to cite a relevant authority, either by footnote or by comment embedded in the text, which supports every [disputed] edit he makes.
3. In the event Rex071404 makes an edit which cites no authority or an inappropriate authority it may be removed by any other user.
4. In the event Rex071404 reverts any edit for any reason any administrator may impose a short ban (a hour to a day for first offenses and up to a week for repeat offenses).

To the anon who intionally omitted key details, you missed this:

1. "Rex071404 is banned from reverting any article for six months."

That time period has elapsed. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The "anon" was me, I forgot my sig. And yes, the time period for that particular ruling has indeed elapsed, which is why I didn't include it. The rulings I cited, I cited because they are relevant and did not expire. Indeed, several of the rulings regarding reverts would make no sense at all if they did not extend past the various blanket bans on reverts and edits by you. Derex @ 23:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Derex, I think you need to go get ArbComm confim on what you are suggesting. This: "In the event Rex071404 reverts any edit for any reason any administrator may impose a short ban (a hour to a day for first offenses and up to a week for repeat offenses" was only in force for six months, no longer. To say otherwise is to misread the ruling. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

(sorry, edit conflict with Jtdirl) I copied the rulings verbatim. Other rulings, no longer in force, explicitly stated that they expired after the ban. I do not need an arbitration committee confirmation of a verbatim reading of their rulings, which literal interpretation is also backed by all circumstantial cues. You need an arbitration committee ruling if you think that their exactly stated remedies should no longer be in force. In other words, you want it over-turned, you go get it over-turned. It says what it says, and it's not a fluke or an over-sight on the timing. The minor rulings don't even make any sense that way (and they are even stated after the major rulings -- blanket bans on edits and reverts). The onus is on you to get it over-turned. They state what they state. Derex @ 00:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The ban from editing was time-specific. The others restrictions imposed seem to have no time limit. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Derex, you are mixing up the prohibited activity "reverting within six months" with the penalty if I violated it, which was "temp ban". Other than that specified penalty, there was no penalty spelled out for reverts within the six month, so the ruling would have had no teeth. If the Arbcomm had meant: "In the event Rex071404 reverts any edit for any reason during or after the sixth month period, in perpetuity any administrator may impose a short ban (a hour to a day for first offenses and up to a week for repeat offenses), they would have said that. Instead of shouting me down aabout this here, why don't you go ask them? The same ArbComm members, not others. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I have not a thing to ask. I cited verbatim their rulings. What is not clear about them? I see no ambiguity whatsoever. If you think they were written in error, the onus is on you. I see no evidence whatsoever either circumstantial, implied, or literal that they were not intended exactly as written. Indeed, all non-literal evidence confirms a direct reading. Aren't you a "strict constructionist" anyway? I see absolutely nothing to debate about. I see absolutely nothing that is ambiguous. I see absolutely no reason why I should have to run over to arbcom and start a proceeding to get them to go back and review a ruling when you have already wasted their time 3 times. If you don't believe they meant what they wrote; you go argue to them that they didn't mean what they wrote. That's not my job. Derex @ 00:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Derex, are you an admin? If yes, are you citing these in preparations of personally making a ban against me? If not, why are you telling me this? In either case, I will no longer argue this with you. Proceed however you will. If you act wrongly against me, I will seek redress. If you don't, I won't. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I cite these because they state what other users are explicitly allowed to do, and what you are explicitly disallowed to do. I cite these because we are supposed to respect Arbcom rulings, if not then what's the point of having one? Stay within the bounds of these rulings & findings, and we'll have no trouble.

Also the principles they lay out are important: "not a complete exposition of all possible detail"; no "propaganda or advocacy", "not a soapbox", etc. These are all explicit guides to what is acceptable editing. Derex @ 00:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

If you contend I am currently banned for any reverts, I disagree with you. If you contend I must cite sources and can't just pull my own opinion out of my but in the form of an edit, I agree with you.

However, I do not see where you think I am in conflict. I am not trying for a "complete exposition of all possible detail". In fact, if you recall, this entire dialog has stemmed from one word "minor". All the rest is reasoning, example, logic and citations about related and derivative points of discussion. Frankly, to suggest that I am now doing what got me in trouble before is unfair. Back then, I reverted everyone about everything all the time and supplied very little citations for many controversial edits. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

We're beyond that. "Minor" isn't going in, and "wound" according to Derex and jp's logic above is going in. The focus now is whether the other commander's testimony is put in. As for Arbcom ramifications, believe it or not, the Rex we're dealing with now is waaay better than before, he is much more civil and polite, although highly stubborn :). I feel that he should enjoy every right that the rest of us have, including 3 reverts. --kizzle 00:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Kiz. Personally, I'd prefer to stay ut of ArbComm "court" and I do believe I am being nice. A bloviator, perhaps, but not a "dick". Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 01:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

kizzle, you're just a big softie, you bleeding-heart liberal ;-) rex, you are being nice ... that's not my problem with you, nor has it ever been. i actually went over to arbcom trying to find the "principles" -- particularly on excessive detail, but then i noticed the other stuff. i do think it's relevant, not necessarily at the moment but still relevant. should this come to the point of arbitration, it's not actually necessary to file a 4th case because the previous ruling still binds. that's the point. also, it's not exactly nuts to think this will reach the point of arbitration; we've been there 3 times already over the same issues.

i think the underlying source of this long-running dispute is pov pushing, which used to manifest itself in incivility. but the problem is pov pushing, and the arbcom explicitly found that to be the case. i still think that's what's going on. so, no i don't think that rex is going to get blocked for a revert. in fact, he got away with 4 reverts yesterday. more important than all that is the guiding principles arbcom laid out regarding the appropriate scope of this article.

now, as i said before here, and actually privately to you a few months back, i like rex. but, i've had it with him trying to insert spin, politely or not, and i'm just making it clear that i'm not going to tolerate it for the sake of comity. in fact, if you go back and look at the 1st ruling, you'll find that arbcom already made a finding that those disagreeing with rex had engaged in ample good faith dialogue ... and that was explicitly about this purple heart issue. could he at least found some other issue to start with than "minor" ... exactly the dispute which eventually led to the 1st arbcom case (i'm not sure if you were around for "minor" round 1, kizzle). now, i've got a bad cold & i'm grumpy, so maybe i won't feel so hard-nosed in a couple days. (it's cold up here in SF ... why, oh why, did i leave sunny SB?) but right now, i've got very little patience. he can earn back my trust, but he hasn't got it yet. one way would be to stop pushing his exact same agenda from a year ago. Derex @ 01:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

It was a beautiful day today, perfect weather ;) I'm just trying to soak it in myself. --kizzle 01:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Bastard. I miss my office view too: ocean, dolphins, bikinis. Sigh. Derex @ 01:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

What was that Rodney King said? "Can't we all just get along?" I am ok with this version (for reasons stated above)... what say ye to this?:

proposed PH1 resolution - posted 03:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 04:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Asked and answered in the previous section. Post-mortem electioneering. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

BigRexy

Still think it he isn't BigDaddy? --I172.142.98.29I 00:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

---

No, not a chance. I actually like Rex in a very odd sort of way. BigDaddy, not so much. Besides, their ip's resolve to places a couple thousand miles apart. Derex @ 00:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Right, of course AOL ip addresses resolve to either Virginia, or NY, no exceptions, except that's meaningless, it's just where they happen to keep their servers, no additional meaning, I doubt anyones ip would resolve to a place where they actually are--172.142.98.29 00:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but Rex is kind of cuddly. Derex @ 00:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

If you say so--172.142.98.29 00:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I assure you I am not "big daddy" I edit only from 216.153.214.94. This has always been true with all my edits since I started as that anon IP in july 2004. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

PS: I am in Massachusetts and have always been, [45] this proves it:

IP: 216.153.214.94 Country: United States City: Fitchburg, Massachusetts

Country Code: US Currency: USD [United States Dollars] Private IP? No Known Proxy? No

• I think what you mean to say is: Choice One Communications Inc, who operate dynamic servers in Rochester, NY, Fort Wayne Michigan, and apparently Fitchburg, Massachusetts, for small businesses throughout the the North East, and Midwestern United States [46], provided DSL for your office, which proves that... not a thing--172.142.98.29 00:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• And for the record, that's a terribly inaccurate website [47]--172.142.98.29 00:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

As you correctly concluded, I operate from a fixed IP dsl line in Massachusetts. how you interept that to be AOL, puzzle me. Even so, if I can't convince you, the I am not sure what that means? Are you now going to chase me around the wiki? If so, I ask that you don't. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

No, my point is that my ip resolves to AOL's servers in Virginia, making the concept of finding someone's actual location via an ip, absurd... besides, they don't provide personal use DSL service, they provide access for offices, businesses, etc..[48] but not some person's home, that means unless you have no internet access outside of your office, you're lying about only using that one ip--172.142.98.29 01:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Unless I own a laundrymat and live in the upstairs apartment. The DSL is for the wireless LAN I provide for my laptop toting college student customers. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 01:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ah ha! Now I know you're lying, I've never run across a wireless router that worked within 100 feet of a washing machine, let alone an entire laundramat--I172.142.98.29I 01:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Please, if you want to fight with Rex about that, take it elsewhere. We've got enough to deal with just taking care of John Kerry. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, besides I don't really want to continue this anyway--I172.142.98.29I 01:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I know. For the record, I have plenty of experience with both. I would bet a $100 bucks against a $1 that they aren't the same. Derex @ 00:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

No way they're the same. Main reason why I think so is because Rex didn't list me in his "liberal editors cabal" hitlist and BD777 certainly would've. · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not Rex is BigDaddy; their Article Edits follow the same pattern: Destructive editing motivated by an extreme POV. Here's Rex deleting entire sections: [49] [50] [51] [52]. Now look at BigDaddy's article edits: [53] [54] [55] [56]. And while we are busy endlessly chattering about Rex, Rex just goes ahead and rips out another source he doesn't like: [57]. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC