Talk:John Kerry/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Kate / Rex dialog, re: edits

Kate, I don't know what MT's game is, but you have been very helpful at John Kerry and I am not against you. And I am certainly not a sockpuppet. Please have a developer check my edits. I am only on a fixed IP DSL line in Massachusetts. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94}

...right. Well, that's enough of that. I think it was just an anon trolling anyway. Let's get back to talking about content. · Katefan0^(scribble) 07:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Tonight, Gamaliel made this edit [1], which I changed to this [2].

What say ye?

Personally, I'd like to drop the 11th most or 24th most ref as the section still has "liberal" in there too many times - too much pounding home that same word is not NPOV.

I cut 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" as being unsourced opinion. And there was no cite to show that Democratic Leadership Council is "moderate" as opposed to advocates moderate positions for Democrats, so as to win elections. DLC is highly partisan. I strongly contest describing them as "moderate".

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 08:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

non-partisan and moderate are entirely separate things. your objection makes no sense. Derex @ 15:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

My primary thought is: Let's resolve the Purple Heart sourcing issue before delving off down other tunnels, okay? I've asked you to respect this idea several times now. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

You have changed "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." to "There have been partisan allegations about Kerry being very Liberal, but a 2004 report by Anneneberg's FactCheck.org points out that some of these allegations vary in their accuracy." I don't see the point of taking just as many words to make the facts much less specific.

I also concur with Derex's objection re: moderate vs. partisan. Gamaliel 15:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• All of Rex's edits will need to be reversed when he eventually gets bored of (or booted from) Wikipedia. His entire agenda here has been a continuation of the massive GOP smear and innuendo job from the 2004 election cycle; Rex's six-month self-imposed exile (to avoid a one-year ArbCom enforced exile) has perhaps improved his tactics some, but his long term strategy has not changed at all. Every single edit he's made has been for the purpose of making John Kerry congruent with the GOP's 2004 campaign talking points. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

He won't get bored. Derex @ 19:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

For example, I am not a member of any "conservative special interest groups" (true) or the "the Bush campaign" (true), nor am I a registered "Republican" (true). To me, suggesting that criticism of Kerry as too Liberal is somehow limited to these few types of partisans, doesn't cover it all. My word choice of "partisans" makes clear that Kerry has been pressed by claims by those who are opposed to him; "partisans", not just some of those opposed to him "conserv. special interest / Repubs". In Massachusetts, most anti-Kerry votes are cast by voters who are not Republican. In his last senate race, Kerry got about 55%, which means about 45% were against hhim. But there is less than 15% republicans in this state. The official vernacular here for that is "unenrolled" (not "unregistered", but "unenrolled"). Remember: Factcheck.org only deals with some of the "too Liberal" allegations agaisnt Kerry. This section is accurate and correct as I have written it. Let's not get in to a battle which forces me to find allegations of "Liberal" from other sources, such as pro-Gun, which also shout "Liberal". Most Massachusetts pro-gunner's more often vote democrat and there is no data to prove that simply because they are pro-gun, they are also, say pro-life or pro-tax cuts. We have many many many, pro-gun, pro-choice, union workers who do not vote Kerry but are not categorizable as "conservatives" nor "Rebpublican". According to the Massachusetts secretary of State's most recent tally of voters by county, there are far less Democrats than "Unenrolled" [3]. In fact, a significant portion of Kerry's opposition and his support comes from the "unenrolled". Please stop trying to suggest that evwryone who is opposed to Kerry is a "special interest" or a Republican. "Partisan" makes it clear enough and he "factcheck" link is a good enough -though not comprehensive- source to make clear the contention that not all allegations of "Liberal" are super accurate, which is the whole point of this section. Unless the actual mix of voters in each state is looked into, there is too much variances in voter registrations to suggest that only "Conservatives" and "Republicans" see Kerry as Liberal many "Moderates" do to. We do not need to editotialiize along the lines of us trying to guess where the limits of criticism are. The generic word of "partisan" here is sufficient and is actually the most accurate. Final note, it offends my editorial senses to suggest that those who have qualms about Kerry's Liberalism, must be "Conservative" or must be "Republican". Where is your data which supports the impicit suggestion that theere were no organized "Moderate" groups calling Kerry "Liberal"? The mere act of opposing Kerry for being too Liberal, does not convert an person or group from whatever status they had prior to "Conservative". The criticism of Kerry as a Liberal is not the dterminative factor. Rather, it's the totality of the citable evidence. This setnece, "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" is loaded, POV, and unsupported.

As for waiting on PH resolution, when I hear "All of Rex's edits will need to be reversed when he eventually gets bored of (or booted from) Wikipedia" from other editors, it makes me realize that I am dealing with closed minds who refuse to budge. So when will certain others stop demanding that only their edits go in? Am I supposed to not edit anything else here, because certain others won't budge one inch on PH? For example, JamesMLane has already made clear that he intends to revert all the new PH work to the one month ago version. There is no reasoning with a editorial intransigence such as that. Guess what JML's stated intention moots any further dialog about 1st PH. Unless and until he cuts that out and agrees to flex, there will be no resolution there, regardless if Rex071404, Johntex and Katefan0 come up wiht another versiomn that we agree on, JML has already said he's goining to revert it back to the one month ago version. Isn't that enough proof as to where the roadblock to resolution is? As far as I see it, 1st PH is resolved; That section is either going to read the way JML wants it or it's going to b reverted by him. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 20:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex, your statement is a lie. (I'm sorry, but the presumption of good faith is rebuttable, not conclusive, and you've long since shredded your own credibility.) I expressed the opinion that the version of one month ago was better. With you, of course, a preference for one version is equivalent to an announced intention to revert and revert and revert in the hope that your sheer persistence will let you get your away against everyone else, but I don't operate that way. Show me a specific diff where I've stated such an intention. You know how to do it. You find it in the page history, copy the URL, and paste it in here. Put brackets around it if you want it to appear as a number; omit the brackets if you want the reader to see the full URL. Everything said here on this talk page is in the record. Find the place in that record that supports your statement, and I'll apologize for calling your statement a lie. JamesMLane 21:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

James, this edit which includes your statement of "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", makes clear that you reject any of the current changes from sooner than a month ago. And any reasonable review of your zealous ongoing efforts to block any changes to Kerry's 1st PH, makes clear that you do indeed intend to revert back to that. Are you now saying that I have read you wrong and you are pledging to not revert back to that? Either you have intentions or you don't. My statement of JML has already said he's goining to revert it back to the one month ago version has no (") marks in it, is not a verbatim quote and does not in any way state anything other than how I see it. Prove me wrong, pledge a promise that you will not revert (or incrementally edit) back to the month ago version. If you make that pledge, I am wrong. If you don't, my understanding of your intentions is correct. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

as James points out, favoring a different version is not a statement of intention to revert to it. i favor reverting to the month-old version as well, but that's not the same as saying that i will revert regardless of any future changes. Derex @ 23:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Still waiting for James to answer as per above. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Derex, you favoring something is not backed up the way JML's is, which is ongoing edits that disallow changes to that section. Also, I suggest that James ought answer yes or no, to my inquiry as posed above. You are not James and you cannot speak for him on this. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't presume to. James is more than capable of speaking for himself. My comment was, of course, speaking for me. And it was stating that your "quote" showed nothing more than exactly what James had already said. Derex @ 00:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Still waiting for James to answer as per above. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

James makes an offer

Rex, you wrote, "JML has already said he's goining [sic] to revert it back to the one month ago version." I pointed out that your statement about what I had allegedly said was false. You respond by demanding an absurd pledge, which is like charging that I've said I'm going to commit a murder because I haven't pledged not to. You're simply trying to deflect attention from your own falsehood by demanding that I pledge not to commit a murder. What actually happened was that I expressed an opinion about the comparative merits of different versions. Did I plunge in with a reversion spree to my favored version, in disregard of what other opinions were expressed on the talk page? No, I did not. Did I complaint that members of a "cabal" were engaged in "tag-team reverting" when everyone else involved disagreed with me? No, I did not. If you want to see examples of that kind of disruptive behavior, you'll have to look at edits to this article by someone other than myself.

I do not accept your implied claim that you could freely edit the article but that, a few hours later, it had somehow become a "consensus version" that no one could touch. Nevertheless, there seemed to be substantial support for including such additional details as the Navy conclusion. I expressed my opinion that that was a mistake, an opinion in which I was not alone; furthermore, I'm hopeful that the subsequent discussion has shown others that my reasons were sound. I intend to elaborate on that point.

As for pledges, I pledge not to violate Wikipedia policies as I understand them. I'll offer this further reciprocal pledge: I'll stop editing the article entirely if you will. Each of us can comment on the talk page, but if either of us wants to make a change in the article, he has to propose it here and hope that someone else will see merit in it and implement it. If you're willing to astound me by accepting that agreement, let me know; otherwise, I suggest that any further talk from you about pledges will be unproductive. JamesMLane 07:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Your offer intrigues me. However, unless Szyslak, Kizzle, Gamaliel, Derex, Jtdirl and Mr. Tibbs also agree, then what's the point? I support all my edits with copious talk here. Mostly, those other editors (other than yourself) offer virtually no edit related talk. If I were to make that agreement with you, since those others don't (by and large) pay any attention to the dialog here, then I'd be agreeing to a known defective solution. Here is a counter offer: On a separate sand box page, you and I directly dialog one on one and see if we can agree on a 1st PH section. What about that? Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 15:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep on topic please

Umm please listen to Katefan and stick to resolving the PH issue before you start jumping around to other sections. --kizzle 03:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Still waiting for James to answer as per above. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry is not Irish

John Kerry is not Irish section

I posted the above section regarding the Kerry/Irish controversy to John Kerry and Gamaliel came right along and simply deleted the entire thing (he also deleted it from his this talk page). Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 05:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the lengthy section of article text which Rex placed here and replaced it with a link to the page history. I have done this solely to preserve space on the talk page. Such text dumps are unnecessary when a link can suffice. Gamaliel 05:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I replaced the Gamaliel link with a more viable one, which makes it easy to read the fully cited, accurate, fair and balanced section I wrote about the Kerry/Irish controversy. It is by no means "nonsense" -as Gamaliel referred to as in his edit summary of "rv to me to restore Derex's edits, which are superior and more neutral, and to remove this whole POV nonsense that is "JK is not Irish" - preserved Johntex's style edits".

Gamaliel, the Wiki has a "nonsense" guideline Wikipedia:Patent nonsense and you know darn well that this new section is simply not "nonsense". You may not like the idea that Kerry went around for years masquerading as being Irish, but it's true that he did do that, the press has information about it and your wholesale deletion is pure POV bias and bad editing, nothing more.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 06:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Next time I will use the word "tomfoolery" or "balderdash" so you can't confuse Wikipedia guidelines with the everyday use of common English words. Also, please start making more frequent use of the "show preview" button as a courtesy to other editors, to avoid both edit conflicts and unnecessarily cluttering the page history. Gamaliel 06:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, Gamaliel, since when does your opinion of "tomfoolery" or "balderdash" give you carte blanche to delte new sections wholesale. Are you saying I have that same perogative at John Kerry? If so, I have some items I'm going to delete and I expect you to support me in that. If not, then sentence by sentence below, please state you specific objections to the Kerry/Irish section and 'backup your slanderous insult that I posted "tomfoolery"/"balderdash". Ether that, or stop being such a bully and leave my edits alone. That said, I am re-posting the text which you deleted so you can raise specifical objections and cite specific editorial justifications for those objections Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 06:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC) (see text which follows):

No one needs to raise "specifical objections" about a section titled "John Kerry is not Irish" anymore than anyone needs to explain why a section entitled "John Kerry is a Liar" is Not going to be allowed into this article. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

So you are saying that the section should be reinserted with the section name deleted? Perhaps mereged into another heritage section? Sounds workable. I'll get right on it. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 06:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh Tibbs, [4]you deleted the very edit which resolved your concerns "My "specifical objection" to Rex's "John Kerry is not Irish". you posted only one objection, the section title name. Now you raise another of POV? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 06:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This balderdash consists of innuendo and conspiracy mongering supported by no evidence, just two quotes from speeches prepared by others that were never delivered by Kerry. Gamaliel 06:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Gammy, your outlandish turns of phrase make me want to sing "It's innuendo, it's innuendo; innuendo balderdash, cha cha cha. It's innuendo, it's innuendo, innuendo balderdash, cha cha cha. Are you telling me I shoulda sticka my edit "innuendo" (aka, where the sun don't shine)? Or, are you mispelling the name of a song by Linkin Park ("In The End")? I figure you must be busy doing something, because you sure aren't busy offering any actual critique of the Kerry/Irish facts. Maybe if your luck holds, Good ole Mr. Tibbs will show up again after another 2 days with no other edits, just in time to revert my work here. Ah, suspcious alacrity... I know I've heard that somehwere before.Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 09:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, go read the links. Kerry's team denies it, but others report as fact that he delivered that 1986 speech on the floor of the Senate. Again, automatically, you leap to unfounded conclusions which tend to puff up Kerry. And FYI, I cite (4) valid referrences in that edit, not two. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 06:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I take it all this talk means the PH issue has been settled? --kizzle 07:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

No. Still waiting for James to answer regarding 1st PH revert intentions as per above. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 08:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Y'know, I used to think JK was Irish. But it didn't take a conspiracy within the highest ranks of the Kerry camp to convince me of that: it was because of his name. Anyway, I object to the "Kerry is not Irish" section because it's not a significant point of view that Kerry has been lying about his ethnic heritage. It was a stupid campaign issue that went nowhere in 2004 and isn't going anywhere now. No matter how valid those claims might be, they're not worth a section many times bigger than most of our entire articles tagged as stubs. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 09:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I moved it to the "Familiy Background" section, but Mr. Tibbs deleted it there too. Now, as to why it's worth mentioning; Sz, you can't simply brush it aside with a "It was a stupid campaign issue". Simply because Kerry ran for preseident, does not automatically convert every deceit or scandal he was previously in into "a campaign issue", stupid or otherwise. In an atricle which goes to such lengths to detail Kerry's now correctly known ethnic heritage, it's fair game to cite the actual press reports (which is what I did) relating to how a sitting US Senator either a) was so oblivious that he though he was Irish (but is not) or b) went around for years masquerading as being Irish -conveniently in the most Irish of all states- when it accrued to his benefit during state elections. These details are higly relevant to anyone seeking to gain a full snapshot of Kerry's self-knowledge, character and history.

And, unless and until the "Family Background" section is trimmed to make it less hagiographic, this "not Irish stuff" certainly does not warp the read of the total article and in any case, it's not POV, it's sourced and it's accurate.

Sz, You'll need better a objection than "campaign issue", because that's simply not true - it's more than that and you know it. It's a bona fide aspect of his personal life. Kinda like Jessse Jackson saying "Hymie town", Robert Byrd saying "White Niggers" or Barney Frank's boyfriend being accused of running a call-boy service from Barney's DC townhouse, right under Barney's nose. Kery/not irish rises above the level of ephemera and is certainly more germane to the history of Kerry than his favorite cookie "chocolate chip" or why he named his powerboat "Scaramouche".

Your complaint would have more credence with me if you would support me in deleting some of those trivial points. But since you don't, Kerry/Not Irish, since it is not trvial, is going back in. You'd be welocme to modify it as any editor is welcome, but I disegard Mr. Tibbs and his out-of-the-blue reverts and being utterly baseless. That and the fact that the only edits Tibbs seems to make is against me in articles I'm in (do I smell socks?), reduces his complaint validity to nil. As for your complaints on this Sz, you'll need to do better, as you've not made the case for exclusion. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 16:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The difference between this and what Jesse Jackson said is that Jesse Jackson actually did that. There's tape. There is no proof, other than innuendo and suspicion and two speeches he never actually delivered, that Kerry pretended to be Irish. His entire career has been subject to intense scurtiny from the nastiest bunch of political operators ever hatched, from Nixon's hatchet men to Karl Rove. Yet, after all these years and all that examination, no one has turned up a single bit of tape or a single bit of proof from the thousands of speeches and appearances Kerry made over his political career. But you want us to believe that he actively masqueraded as Irish because you think he did. Just because you fall for every half-baked bit of anti-Kerry spin doesn't mean the rest of us have to as well. Gamaliel 16:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, it's yet another insult from you "you fall for every half-baked bit of anti-Kerry spin ". Uh, Gammy, you forget that I supplied FOUR news reports from CREDIBLE sources which indicate that this is factual and true. Again, you prove that Gamliel has pro-Kerry bias in that whenever there are inconvenient true facts which make Kerry look less that glamourous, you call it "anti-Kerry spin". Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 17:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

When you repeat "four sources" like a mantra, you are being intentionally deceptive. Two of those four merely state that some people thought he was Irish and have absolutely nothing to do with the allegation that he masqueraded as Irish. Your other two sources quote from the same two speeches that were never delivered by Kerry. Gamaliel 17:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If Kerry/not Irish is notable enough to be published by many, many news sources (I cited only 4, but there are many more), then it's notable enough to put in the article. Gamaliel. you want to say "he never actually delivered" those speeches, but you have no citations for that claim, with which to supercede the citations I provdided that say he did. I dealt with the NPOV issue by including Kerry's staffers' denials. You on the other hand, want to take those denials as gospel and keep this out entirely. Again and again G, you insist on framing all issues in a way that presumes that what Kerry/Kerry spokespeople say is true and everything else is "half-baked anti-Kerry spin".

The news organizations which I cited are not in the "half-baked anti-Kerry spin" business and for you to suggest that is bunk. And this comment of yours: "intentionally deceptive", indicates why you want all negs by Kerry out - even if links to them are provided. That's because any reader here is free to read the links I provided, except that YOU made it harder by deleting the full text of my edit from here TWICE. Are you afraid that if readers here actually read what I wrote and the sources I cited, that you won;t be able to get away with calling me "intentionally deceptive"? Perhaps that's why you fight so hard to keep suff out of John Kerry, because you know that people armed with facts are not easily deceived. No Gammy, if anyone here is deceptive, it's you - for twice deleting edits of mine from this very talk page. Talk about crocodile tears; Gammy, your complaints (about this point) are laughable. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 18:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You go on about "people armed with facts", but have you tried actually discussing them? Your comments above are nothing but attacks and innuendo. Gamaliel 18:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

How so? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 18:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

1. It doesn't deserve its own section

I already mered into Familiy Hisory section, but was reverted there too.

1. Cite the allegation and cite Kerry's response afterwards

I did both: cite/quote the press reports and cite/qoute Kerry's staffer response. This was done right up fron, but I was still reverted

1. Let's see what it looks like

see link:

John Kerry is not Irish section

--kizzle 19:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This was nothing more than a cheap campaign jab. In the scale of historicity, this rates a big "so what?" I could see it being outlined in an article on the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign or something, since it was basically a campaign-related food-fight, but it definitely doesn't merit its own section of this article. Maybe a couple sentences in a section on the campaign. But that's about it. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Kate, you are mistaken The former Massachusetts Senate President Billy Bulger was often quoted as saying things such as "Kerry's only Irish once a year". Bulger is an Irish Democrat and when he was in office, was the most powerful politician in Mass for many years. This Kerry/not Irish issue predates 2004 election by many years. Simply because it came up again in 2004, does not make it a "cheap campaign jab". Kate, you are simply mistaken on this. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 21:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not mistaken. Saying Kerry's "only Irish once a year" is not the same as saying "Kerry's not Irish." It's saying he's not Irish enough. Similar to calling someone a fair weather fan. (I loved my Astros long before they got into the World Series, but others didn't.) I stand by my statement. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

As soon as I typed that, I realized I failed to make my point (FYI: Bulger also famously said that Kerry's JFK stood for "Just for Kerry"). The "once a year" snipe by Bulger was a two-part jab in that Kerry's Irish bona fides were not genuine and were limited to his occassional yearly attendence at Bulger's St. Patty's day breakfast. While much of this may sound like "inside baseball" talk, the fully ersatz nature of the Irish persona that Kerry carried for years, is indeed notable; at minimum in the context of his rise up the Irish Democrat power structure in Massachusetts. For example, if it turned out that Charles Schumer was not actually Jewish, it would indeed raise questions about why and how he carried that persona. Was it to get NYC votes or not? The simple fact is that Massachusetts/Boston Irish voters were, for many years, virtually exclusively Catholic Democrats and they voted Irish first, Irish second and Irish 3rd. You need to read "All politics is local" by Tip O'Neill (now deceased) to better appreciate how important legitimate Irish bona fides were in the Boston/Massachusetts political arena over the last 50+ years. According to the Boston Globe March 21, 2005, "The St. Patrick's Day political breakfast in South Boston yesterday marked a curious milestone in the state's political history: For the first time in a generation, no Irish-American has control of the Massachusetts Senate, House of Representatives, governor's office, or Boston's mayoralty" and "Mayor Thomas M. Menino -- the first non-Irish mayor of Boston in a century". [5] Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Justifying an entire section because "you got reverted" is lame, the material you're trying to put in definetely does not deserve its own section. I'm ok with a short allegation/rebuttal mention in family history section with accompanying citations. --kizzle 21:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

That Kerry is not Irish is irrelevant, and the fact that Rex makes such a big issue of it just shows how the extent to which he wants to turn this article into a POV 'expose'. He'll be saying that Kerry has family links with the Bin Ladens next. (Oops. no. That's George Bush that has. Sorree!) Of course Kerry didn't deny the impression that given his name he was Irish. He was running in an area where Irish links benefit. He would have been an ass to do so. If voters are dim enough to vote by identity rather than policy, and you are a policy wonk, you have to play the electorate at their own game. Tory voters were anti-divorce so Margaret Thatcher never mentioned that actually she was the second Margaret Thatcher; her husband had been married to and divorced from another Margaret Thatcher first. Tory voters were anti-gay so Michael Portillo played the straight husband and kept quiet his bisexuality. Voters liked 'local' links so Irish premier Charles Haughey claimed to be from Derry, from Dublin, from south Meath, etc, because he had been conceived in one place, lived part of his childhood in one place and part in various other places. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother played up her links with Scotland even though she may not have been actually born there. George Bush isn't from Texas. He is a WASP but plays the Texan and downplays where he and his family are actually from.

Politicians shouldn't have to do that, but unfortunately the voters leave them with little choice. You have to play to the demands of the public and if they demand that you be untouched by divorce or homosexuality, be Irish or from Derry or Scotland or Texas, and your job depends on it, if the issues you want to make laws about require you to get elected, and to get elected you have to play along with myths and stupid white lies you have to go along with it. Kerry simply did what you would do in the circumstances: if the voters initially get the wrong end of the stick and support you because of it, let the impression continue. Sometimes you find yourself stuck with having to play up the issue. It was a white lie, nothing more. The page on Thatcher doesn't make an issue of her husband's divorce. The page on the Queen Mother does not make a massive issue of where she was born. The fact that Rex is so determined to make an issue of it shows the extent to which he will stoop to anything to push his Kerry-bashing POV agenda.FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If the article were not over-emphasizing Kery's lineage, we would not have raised questions about his heritage to a point of importance in the narrative. That we have, now opens the door for germane questions about Kerry's previous candor in this area. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 21:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Overemphasizing Kerry's lineage? I feel like you're seeing ghosts that just aren't there on this one. Beyond which, Wikipedia isn't a tit for tat game. Wikipedia is not a battleground. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, tell that to Gamaliel and JamesMLane who fight me tooth and nail over every edit. Now then, Kerry's "Family background" is certainly carried to great detail in the article. Even so, if the issue about Kerry/not Irish doesn't belong in that section, then it certainly would belong in a new section, detailing Kerry's rise through the ranks in Massachusetts politics (during a perid of time, when being known to be Irish was of great political value). So perhaps we are haggling over nothing. The point is that it's an established fact that Kerry, at minumum, availed himself of the benefits of the Massachusetts/Boston Irish Democrat political machine to move up the ladder. If he did that by persistantly allowing even so much as a "misunsderstanding" to linger, it's a notable fact about his background. Certainly you are not arguing that his childhood reminisces are more notable than major themes of his public identity during his rise to power, are you? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not arguing anything. My opinion is my opinion. I'm afraid consensus is not with you on this point. · Katefan0^(scribble) 00:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I was afraid this was coming

Article's protected. Probably for the best. Way too much constant editing and concomitant reverting going on here. · Katefan0^(scribble) 00:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW the person who protected it accused me of reverting a protected page. They have now admitted that they may have been wrong. What seems to have happened is that they and I were editing the page at the same moment. As the records show my save of my edit occurred one minute before they saved with the edit summary protected. (An edit conflict should have appeared I presume, but for some reason it didn't. But the n Wikipedia is doing strange things lately.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

In case anyone forget, Katefan0, Johntex and Rex071404 agreed on (2) different versions of Kerry's 1st PH. On the other hand, the key editor who refused those versions and made edits which opened up the new round of edits to 1st PH is JamesMLane, who does not agree. The lynch-pin was that both he and Kizzle feel there should be two commander quotes along with the Navy report.

Anyway, for the benefit of the group, what concerned me about 1st PH section is that it was framed in a way to infer that there was no bona fide legitimacy to the dispute regarding Kerry's 1st PH. The supposition threre was because Kerrysomehow obtained that PH (on his 2nd try) all those who question him are solely partsian, does not fly with me. Again, I will reiterate, I am willing to go with just about any reasonable version that even JamesMLane comes up with, so long as we allow in the clearly accurate inference of "minor". It's important I feel, that we frame the section acurately. It is accurate to say that there was not much of a wound and that complaints were later raised about that. And of course, the specifics and validity of the complaints, are dealt with at John Kerry military service controversy. However, it simply is not a NPOV framing if we imply that there could not possibly be any valid basis for complaints because a) PH was awarded and b) the word "minor" does not appears anywhere. Both of those views are presumptive and frame the facts of an extant dispute, in Kerry's favor. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Mindboggling!!! *sigh* Putting in an explicit qualifier like minor, in other words Wikipedia telling the reader the wound was minor when that is not how it was described in medical documentation, is POV, just as calling it major if it was not described as such elsehwere would be. Letting the reader decide for themselves whether it is minor or not is NPOV. What part of Neutral Point of View do you have difficulty grasping??? Your pre-occupation with adding in slanted words, negative implications, snide tones to sentences and trying to ensure that the article points the finger is astonishing. That may be possible in a polemic, but not in an NPOV encyclopædia. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

To get to "bandage", we must make an inference, there is no verbatim proof

Jtdirl, again, I will remind you that "wound" does not appear anywhere and that we are inferring that we can use that word based on (albeit, reasonably good) evidence. Likewise, the reasonably good and official wording of "Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl (sic) bacitracin dressing. Ret to Duty." supports the usage of "minor". Now Jtdirl, think about what you are suggesting. You are suggesting that "wound" can be used because Kerry got medical treatment. And you are also suggesting that "minor" can not be used, because it's not literally in the Sick Call Treatment Record. Well you do know that all along Gamaliel, yourself and JamesMLane have been insisting we use a sentence which says: "The shrapnel was removed and the injury was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged.", but the word "bandage" does not appear anywhere in the official record. You guys keep saying Rex is "POV", but I have been giving you way more than the official record even states. There is nothing in the official record which states that Kerry got a "bandage", bandaging" or even a "band-aid". The official record regarding treatment, says only "Shrapnel removed and appl (sic) bacitracin dressing". There is no proof whatsoever beyond the term "bacitracin dressing" which indicates anything was applied. Bacitracin is referred to in medical vernacular as a "dressing". And for those of us who were scouts, we will remember our wound/injury dressing training. "Dressing" and "Bandaging" are not the same thing! Kerry's "wound" was not even bandaged yet you guys call me POV, when your side has been flat out (lying?) making things up about bandaging all along. That record does not say "bacitracin and a dressing", which might imply a bandaging. No, what is says is "appl (sic) bacitracin dressing". >>> Note the absence of any statement such as "wrap arm with bandage" <<< Bacitracin. Only. In other words "boo boo creme". Only. That's it. No bandage. No bandaging. Nothing more than a topical ointment dressing of bacitracin. So please, Jtdirl, get off your high horse about being such a good researcher and learn how to read plain English (/snide reference to Jtdirl's previous insults to me about "research"). And, according ot the BBC's "Learn English" guide "[you] dress a wound by cleaning it and covering it". [6]. It certainly is true that any covering which attends to a wound or injury, including Bacitracin alone (as long as it covers) is a "dressing". A bandage is a type of dressing, but so is Bacitracin by itself. All elephants are mammals, but not all mammals are elephants.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 01:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex, I am going to politely ask that you drop your crusade about "wound." Something that wasn't a wound doesn't need a dressing. Any other discussion is hopeless POV rhetoric. Beyond which, consensus is not with you on this point and there is therefore nothing more to argue. However, your stubborn insistence on pushing this point -- even in the face of a dissenting consensus of several editors -- makes you appear frustratingly obstreperous and I fear that it is making it difficult for other editors to work with you on other points of disagreement that you might find more success with. Please consider respecting consensus and dropping this pointless harangue about the word wound. I say this with the utmost respect. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Kate, see my reply, below. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 15:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment?

I'm sure this has been done before on the Purple Heart issue, but while the page is protected I think we should give the RFC process another try. To get the ball rolling, I suggest something like this, to be posted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics:

• Talk:John Kerry How serious was the wound that led to John Kerry's first Purple Heart, and how should the article address this issue? Some editors consider the injury "minor" and want the article to assert this claim as truth. Others say such a statement would be non-NPOV editorializing. Also, are there too many biographical details? If so, does this constitute an NPOV problem? One more issue: What should the article say, if anything, about claims that Kerry has misrepresented himself as Irish American?

I'm not commmitted to this wording, so feel free to suggest changes. I'd like the RFC to go up as soon as possible, though, so we can come to a satisfactory resolution and get the page unprotected soon. We don't need to continue these long, pointless debates at the expense of Wikipedians who are denied the privilege of editing this article. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 02:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

They are only "pointless debates" to those who think they are. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 02:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Which is why I wouldn't suggest putting that in the RFC. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 02:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and listed this article on RFC, noting that the article's currently protected. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 05:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that we wait until we can reach an agreed-upon framework for the questions to be answered. Ah, well, it doesn't matter. Regardless of what the questions are, and regardless of what the answers are, Rex will go on edit warring as soon as the page is unprotected. The only times he hasn't been doing so since his arrival at Wikipedia have been the periods when he was restricted from doing so. (In fact, he made at least one anti-Kerry POV edit to this article in violation of an ArbCom restriction. ([7])) Nevertheless, I don't see how we can expect anyone who hasn't edited the article before to give a useful response unless we do some structuring. As an example of what I have in mind, see this RfC. In that instance, we didn't post the RfC until all editors were happy with the way the issues were presented. That's the ideal way to proceed, as long as no one raises absurd objections to the wording. JamesMLane 06:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that's the ideal way to proceed with an RFC. However, the page's current protected status made it seem urgent to me that we get some outside input as soon as possible. Who knows, maybe someone who hasn't even been participating in this debate will come up with a solution none of us have even thought of. We'll see how it works out. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 22:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

James are you saying that Kerry was not "soundly" defeated? Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 16:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex proposes a solution

(in answer to Kate, above)

Katefan0, I am amazed that you do not understand my view here. The issue about wound is raised only as it relates to how it was arrived at, which was inference. Personally, I feel that any word which should be reasonably inferred, should be reasonably inferred. And certainly, without resorting to making an over-stretched inference, the use of wound can be considered reasonable and hence, acceptable. However, that is not the point. The point is that "minor" goes to the crux of the debate, which is: "are Kerry's critics about this wound completely full of crap or is there a rational basis on which they build their complaints?".

The critics contend that Kerry's 1st wound was either:

• a) accidentally self-inflicted or
• b) so small that no sailor with any backbone would seek a PH for it and
• c) Kerry was so bent on getting it that he went around Hibbard for a 2nd bite at the apple.

The defenders say:

• a) so what, he did get the PH and therefore
• b) that proves he was wounded and
• c) too bad if it was insignificant, the critics just want to make Kerry look bad.

Suffice it to say, both sides could be telling the truth and it would still be possible to frame the sentences which refer to these parallel (but distinct) views in a NPOV way.

Let's see what reasonable people might accept:

a) Kerry was wounded , b) The wound was not severe, c) Kerry was alert enough to recognize that (minor or not) he might want to seek a medal, d) Kerry was persistent enough to go get the medal on 2nd try, even after being turned down, e) Like Kerry or dislike him, Hibbard did indeed say it was "scratch", f) If we allow for Kerry (a respected Senator) being biased in favor of himself, it's basically not going to be any more or less than Hibbard (a respected General) being biased against him. We therefore give them both equal weight, g) The Sick Call Treatment Report does not say "wound" but we accept wound at face value., h) However, unless we are trying to suggest that the wound was more than "minor", then we cannot interpret the plain language of "appl (sic) Bacitracin dressing" to mean anything other than putting smear of Bacitracin on the wound., i) Even if you stretch that to include some gauze (not mentioned, but arguably, perhaps weakly inferred), trying to get "bandaging" from that is simply too much of a stretch., j) This is why, if we go with the JML desired text, we have to go with "minor". All the inferences and evidence point to minor. And, to leave minor out is to imply that the critics are basically imagining the start point for their criticisms.

If you'd let me, I'd write this:

On this patrol, Kerry received a minor shrapnel wound in the arm for which he later received medical attention and for which, he subsequently received a Purple Heart. During the 2004 election, there was considerable controversy regarding Kerry's medals, this one in particular. Nonetheless, a 2004 Navy review of the available supporting documentation determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved. For more information and details see John Kerry military service controversy

This type of framing establishes that there was controversy, but does not take sides. It think the editorial concessions I am making do not break fidelity the truth. Likewise, the editorial concession of allowing "minor" in does not break fidelity to the truth either. Ultimately, we either print truth, lies or confusion. Omitting "minor" is confusion. Calling it severe is a lie. Calling it minor is the most, reasonable, sound and accurate conveyance of the truth. Either we assemble the facts into a logical read or we leave the facts scattered willy-nilly. I choose assemble. Minor is the most reasonably inferred fact (after wound) and is sufficiently valid that certainly it ought to be used. And it certainly ought to be used before "Bandaged". Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 04:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This is just as pointless as the comments above, and I can see you've either not read or ignored my plea. Your arguments are useless. Consensus has already been achieved for a position that does not agree with yours. Your choices now are either to respect consensus, or not. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

So you are going to put in the inference that there was a "bandage" as a fact and say "bandaged"? On what basis? Also then, please quote verbatim below, the version of the 1st PH section which you contend has consensus. Also Kate, your "plea" said: "Rex, I am going to politely ask that you drop your crusade about "wound.". I am not opposing that word here, so your "useless" jibe makes no sense. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 04:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not inferring anything, and I'm not going to argue with you. There are no versions of anything. The argument here is simply over whether to call Kerry's wound a wound. Either you respect the consensus over calling the wound a wound, or you don't and your changes will continue to be reverted. What'll it be? · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Kate, are you even listening? I just spent an hour writing about "minor" and "bandaging", not "wound". Your question is moot because wound is not under discussion. Now I will ask you a question, yes or no, will you support this:

On this patrol, Kerry received a minor shrapnel wound in the arm for which he later received medical attention and for which, he subsequently received a Purple Heart. During the 2004 election, there was considerable controversy regarding Kerry's medals, this one in particular. Nonetheless, a 2004 Navy review of the available supporting documentation determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved. For more information and details see John Kerry military service controversy

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 04:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The word "wound" is under discussion because you removed it and/or used language designed to water down or obfuscate its meaning several times. I assume that your response means you won't respect consensus on this point, though I'm willing to be proven wrong if you choose to give me a direct answer. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm just getting involved in this. I don't understand this long, drawn out discussion over basically one word. Rex, accept the consensus and move on. All you are doing is hurting your credibility on other issues. I wouldn't recommending spending all of your "capital" on one issue. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

If you agree to accept my offering, we have a two way consensus which includes the word "wound". Yes or no, will you accept (and support) this:

On this patrol, Kerry received a minor shrapnel wound in the arm for which he later received medical attention and for which, he subsequently received a Purple Heart. During the 2004 election, there was considerable controversy regarding Kerry's medals, this one in particular. Nonetheless, a 2004 Navy review of the available supporting documentation determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved. For more information and details see John Kerry military service controversy

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 04:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex, a week ago you raised the preposterous charge that there was no support for the statement that Kerry went on a Swift boat patrol the next day. I pointed out that the support was in the Snopes piece, linked to in the article. You must have read the Snopes piece because you quoted some non-encyclopedic material from it, which we'll have to remove. Now you raise the preposterous charge that there's no support for the statement that the wound was bandaged. Guess what? It's in the same Snopes piece. AFAIK no source, not even the Smear Boat Veterans, has claimed otherwise. JamesMLane 07:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

A concensus has been reached, Rex, that "minor" is not going in and "wound" is staying. Please respect concensus. --kizzle 07:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Am I reading you wrong James, or did you just say "which we'll have to remove" in regards to material in the "Snopes" article? James, if you have just admitted to being an editor at Snopes, then that is your original work and you must recuse yourself from this dialog and from editing any related pages, because you are not an expert in the field and your ongoing edits there are proof that you are self-publishing. Please state for the recorrd, yes or no have you edited that Snopes article at any time? Is any of the material there as a result of you submitting it or anyone else submitting it on your behalf?

Also, the authoritative source for "bandage" if any (in fact, the only source) is Kerry's Sick Call Treatment Record. You want to cite that for what you say it shows shrapnel treatment = proof of wound, but the same exact document which specifically states bacitracin dressing as the entirity of the treatment (no "bandages" involved), you want to disregard it.

And I noticed that James still won't answer my question regarding his intentions with the 1st PH section. In any case, you've only cleared up your views on "wound" and "minor", now please answer yes or no, excepting the word "minor", will you JamesMLane and will you Kizzle, agree to and support this?:

On this patrol, Kerry received a minor shrapnel wound in the arm for which he later received medical attention and for which, he subsequently received a Purple Heart. During the 2004 election, there was considerable controversy regarding Kerry's medals, this one in particular. Nonetheless, a 2004 Navy review of the available supporting documentation determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved. For more information and details see John Kerry military service controversy

Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 07:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

First paragraph: even if James writes for snopes (which I doubt), it doesn't matter, he still can contribute as long as he refers to his info in the third person (read WP:NOR). Your suggestion would require no experts in any field to contribute to Wikipedia, which is ludicrous.

Second papragraph: umm, the treatment is not disregarded, it's included in the description of the wound. What I disregard is your subjective uncitable characterization of "minor". As for your proposed paragraph, I'm not sure I like removing info when possible, jury's still out though. --kizzle 07:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Not, so - he's not allowed to self-publish there to create primary sources for here. Also it's the treatment record which you disrregard if you use the word "bandage" as it does not appear there. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 08:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, you did not answer; I am asking you a simple yes or no question, please answer yes or no, excepting the word "minor", will you Kizzle, agree to and support this?:

On this patrol, Kerry received a minor shrapnel wound in the arm for which he later received medical attention and for which, he subsequently received a Purple Heart. During the 2004 election, there was considerable controversy regarding Kerry's medals, this one in particular. Nonetheless, a 2004 Navy review of the available supporting documentation determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved. For more information and details see John Kerry military service controversy

Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 08:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Responses to Rex:

1. I said we'd have to remove the material because it's unencyclopedic. Does that mean "we" Snopes editors or "we" Wikipedia editors? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Snopes isn't, so it means the latter.
2. Just in case it comes up in another context, though, I agree with kizzle about any Snopes editors who also contribute here. I'd be interested in seeing a citation to a Wikipedia policy or guideline to the contrary.
3. The source for "bandage", as given by my link, is Snopes. Reading the Snopes piece leads me to believe that Snopes's source is Brinkley, although I think that Letson has said the same thing. (If Brinkley and someone working with SBVT agree on a point, it seems fairly reliable.) Someone who has access to Brinkley's work could add in a specific citation, but I'd still want to keep the Snopes link, because it's a supporting source that's available online for free.
4. I don't agree with the proposed text above, with or without "minor". JamesMLane 09:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• 1) James, just state yes or no: Have you edited that Snopes article, or has anyone uploaded edits for you?
• 2) It's axiomatic that one cannot create and/or tailor sources for themselves at Snopes to support their positions here. If you can't understand that, oh well.
• 3) Your speculative intereptation fails to suffice. If you go with that, you are waiving objection to "not serious" which is directly from the same Snopes page and directly refers to the 1st injury.
• 4) Please state specific reasons why you don't agree with my immediately above suggested text.
• 5) Again I ask, do you intend to try to return 1st 1 PH section to prior version as asked above, yes or no?

Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 13:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, Rex, read WP:NOR again. You're flat out wrong. --kizzle 09:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex, I've learned from experience that you can supply a never-ending stream of inane questions. My personal favorite is this one, from Talk:Stolen Honor: "JML; are you contending that the end result (if you get your way here) is that the article will then be at the apogee of perfection, never being able to get any better than it is?" [8] So, Rex, I choose to focus on editing, and discussing the article, and answering reasonable questions about article content. I'm not going to waste my time following your every flight of fancy. If you want to cite that to the ArbCom for some purpose or other, that is of course your privilege. JamesMLane 15:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, according to NOR "[t]he only way to verify that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article, and to stick closely to what the sources say" and "In most cases, Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability...". If someone is writing material at Snopes and then using that material to verify the points they are writing here, it's not an actual verification. An outside source is needed for bona fide verfication. You can't "self-verify". If it turns out James is doing that (self-publish primary sources via Snopes), I will seek ArbComm guidance and/or sanctions. Also Kizzle, you did not answer; So I will ask you again: Yes or no, excepting the word "minor", will you Kizzle, agree to and support this?:

On this patrol, Kerry received a minor shrapnel wound in the arm for which he later received medical attention and for which, he subsequently received a Purple Heart. During the 2004 election, there was considerable controversy regarding Kerry's medals, this one in particular. Nonetheless, a 2004 Navy review of the available supporting documentation determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved. For more information and details see John Kerry military service controversy

Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 13:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I just don't understand the constant haggling over something that was already agreed to by consensus. Do you know what consensus means, Rex? It means that your opinion was taken into consideration by everyone, but not accepted. Consensus is NOT 100% support. So please, MOVE ON. You aren't helping anyone here, especially yourself. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Woohoo, show me what you think is the "consensus" version of that section, when that consensus was decided and by whom and how long that consensus is mandated by wiki rules that is shoul dfreeze that section from futher changes. When you do that, you'll have a point to make, not until Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 16:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "two-way consensus." I am also not talking now about how the entire paragraph should be structured. I am talking only about the use of the word wound. Consensus is that it shall be used; period; the end. The only remaining issue is whether you will respect the consensus to describe Kerry's wound as a wound or not. That's it. If you will respect consensus, then we can mark this one closed. If you won't, then just know that changing "was wounded by shrapnel" to "received shrapnel" or "Kerry had shrapnel in his arm" or any other such thing will be reverted. That's it. I'm glad to talk about the paragraph in a holistic fashion in another discussion thread. Thanks Rex. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The word "wound" is clearly included in the offering I presented to you. Words exist in context, not in a vacuum. My edit provides proper context for "wound" in a fair NPOV manner. Either you accept my suggested edit or you don't. Yes or no, do you accept it? Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 16:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of what comprises the paragraph as a whole, the final version must include the word wound to describe his wound. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

See [[Purple Heart]. As of today, accord to that, "injury" seems to be an interchangebale word - which has been a contention of mine all along. Even so, the fighting agaisnt minor is the problme right now. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 16:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem here is that the consensus is for one thing and you are trying to unsurp consensus by getting one editor out of many to agree to your change. It's a waste of time. You lost on this one. MOVE ON. I agree with Kate. I just don't see a way around "wound" and I don't see what the big deal is, even after reading the arguments. Does the NPOV-ness on this article hinge on one word? I just don't see that. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No, not "move on". James and others are trying to block any changes here and that's not ok with me, so I will not "move on". This entire dialog started because I inserted the word "minor" which is supported by inferenece from Kerry's Sick Call Treatment Record. And, as I pointed out, "wound" appears nowhere verbatim either, but is also arrived at by inference. James, et al want license to block my edits based on inference, but include their own that are baseed on inference. That, in a ntushell is the problem here. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 16:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter. Your arguments have been submitted and heard, and a consensus of editors have disagreed with them. You must now accept the fact that your side has not prevailed, and then move on to something else. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes Rex, but the consensus is that word minor should not be used. All you are doing is hurting your credibility. At some point, people will tune out on you. And then you'll have no influence on things at all here. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

2004 Navy does not rebut SBVT

"[A] half-assed action that hardly qualfied as combat" - John Kerry (Snopes), describes his so-called combat, from the night of his 1st PH. Of course, if it doesn't qualify as combat as per various critics, the then again, as per critics there was no sound basis for the 1st PH. So again, our narrative presumes Kerry's version of events to be correct.

Remember, the 2004 Navy did not take a de novo look at the facts underlying the award. The Navy has stated only that the "awards approval process was properly followed", they did not make any determination as to whether or not the information fed into the awards approval process when Kerry went around Hibbard for his 2nd bite at the apple was accurate or true. In fact the Navy said "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.". And yet, while there are editors here who want to give high credence Kerry's recently recited accounts (to Brinkley), these same editors want to discount Hibbard's recently recited accounts.

Here is the full Kerry version of that night, as recently told to Brinkley, via Snopes:

"It was a half-assed action that hardly qualfied as combat, but it was my first, and that made it very exciting," [Kerry said]. "Three of us, two enlisted men and myself, had stayed up all night in a Boston Whaler [a foam-filled-fiberglass boat] patrolling the shore off a Viet Cong-infested peninsula north of Cam Ranh . . . Most of the night had been spent being scared shitless by fisherman whom we would suddenly creep up on in the darkness. Once, one of the sailors was so startled by two men who surprised us as we came around a corner ten yards from the shore that he actually pulled the trigger on his machine gun. Fortunately for the two men, he had forgotten to switch off the safety . . ."

As it turned out, the two men really were just a pair of innocent fisherman who didn't know where one zone began and the other ended. Their papers were perfectly in order, if their night's fishing over. The fear was that they were VC. Allowing them to continue might have compromised the mission. For the next four hours Kerry's Boston Whaler, using paddles, brought boatloads of fisherman they found in sampans, all operating in a curfew zone, back to the Swift. It was tiring work. "We deposited them with the Swift boat that remained out in the deep water to give us cover," Kerry continued. "Then, very early in the morning, around 2:00 or 3:00, while it was still dark, we proceeded up the tiny inlet between the island and the peninsula to the point designated as our objective. The jungle closed in on us on both sides. It was scary as hell. You could hear yourself breathing. We were almost touching the shore. Suddenly, through the magnified moonlight of the infrared 'starlight scope,' I watched, mesmerized, as a group of sampans glided in toward the shore. We had been briefed that this was a favorite crossing area for VC trafficking contraband."

With its motor turned off, Kerry paddled the Boston Whaler out of the inlet into the beginning of the bay. Simultaneously the Vietnamese pulled their sampans up onto the beach and began to unload something; he couldn't tell what, so he decided to illuminate the proceedings with a flare. The entire sky seemed to explode into daylight. The men from the sampans bolted erect, stiff with shock for only an instant before they sprang for cover like a herd of panicked gazelles Kerry had once seen on TV's Wild Kingdom. "We opened fire," he went on. "The light from the flares started to fade, the air was full of explosions. My M-16 jammed, and as I bent down in the boat to grab another gun, a stinging piece of heat socked into my arm and just seemed to burn like hell. By this time one of the sailors had started the engine and we ran by the beach, strafing it. Then it was quiet.

"We stayed quiet and low because we did not want to illuminate ourselves at that point," Kerry explained. "In the dead of night, without any knowledge of what kind of force was there, we were not all about to go crawling on the beach to get our asses shot off. We were unprotected; we didn't have ammunition, we didn't have cover, we just weren't prepared for that . . . So we first shot the sampans so that they were destroyed and whatever was in them was destroyed." Then their cover boat warned of a possible VC ambush in the small channel they had to exit through, and Kerry and company departed the area.

Please note: Kerry spent that evening dealing with men who were "innocent fisherman". At no point does Kerry himself even allege he was fired on that night or that the men who ran from the sampans were anything other than more "innocent fishermen". Kerry does not say "the air was full of explosions from enemey fire" rather he says "the air was full of explosions" (which the firing of weapons from Kerry's Boston Whaler boat, would certainly cause). . Kerry himself does not even make the case that the 1st PH was earned. And in case you don't get it yet, the SBVT allegations and statements are de novo allegations. But the Navy did not take a de novo look at the facts. For that reason, the Navy's report cannot be held to rebut SBVT, for it simply does not. Again and again, various editors here put their thumbs on the scale in favor of Kerry and against those public sources which criticize him, such as SBVT and Hibbard.

Kerry himself admits to Brinkley that his insinuations he was in enemy contact that night are just that, insinuations "without any knowledge of what kind of force was there". Even by Kerry's most favorable account, to his personal biographer, while trying to put his best spin on it for his 2004 campaign, Kerry admits he had no knowledge as to what the status of those men who ran was. What we have here is totem pole presumption. Kerry insinuates it (with no proof) others draw inferences from Kerry's non-proved, admittedly deficient insinuation and we defend those inferences from all counter allegations, because as I have said all along, we are biasing the narrative of what we write in favor of Kerry. There is no proof of combat that night. Kerry has never said he thought he was in combat that night. And yet, the SBVT allegations have been consistently underweighed and dismissed as "partisan" on the erroneous assertion that 2004 Navy verifies Kerry's account. But clearly, the Navy has taken the position that there was no verification of the underlying facts by them as part of their review. This was is and remains a "he said/she said" between Kerry and SBVT. We have wrongly overwieghted in favor of Kerry on 1st PH and we continue to do so.

Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 14:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex has now thoroughly rebutted the view that our article would be balanced with the wording I objected to.

I thought that, if we were going into detail about the severity of the wound, the presentation should be, roughly, here's what Hibbard says, here's the evidence from the opposing POV from Elliott, and here's the Navy's conclusion. As I edited the passage, it read:

Kerry returned to duty the next day on a regular Swift boat patrol. [9] 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. Another of his former commanders, George Elliott, has said that the award to Kerry was in keeping with the Navy's practice at the time. [10], [11] In 2004, a Navy review found Kerry's award to have been correctly given under Naval regulations. [12]

Katefan0 and others thought that the Elliott comment and the Navy's 2004 conclusion were redundant, in that both rebutted Hibbard in the same way. Rex's comment above makes clear his argument that the Navy didn't review the facts. If our article includes the anti-Kerry comment by one of his commanders but not the supporting comment by another, then many readers will conclude that there is no evidence in support of the validity of the medal, and the Navy was just trying to cover up a mistake. The version with only Hibbard plus the Navy 2004 information is inadequate. We need all of it -- Hibbard plus Elliott plus the 2004 review -- or none of it. I still prefer the latter.

Incidentally, Rex, your lengthy quotation is probably a copyright violation. In strictest adherence to Wikipedia policy, we should consider posting it on Wikipedia:Copyright problems for consideration, so that if it exceeds fair use an uninvolved admin can remove it from the page history. Perhaps someone with more energy than I will pursue that course. JamesMLane 15:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

After reading this diatribe, I can more clearly see James' point. I'm afraid, Rex, that you've argued away someone (read: me) who might otherwise have supported a change you sought. But I can see now that you had no plans to stop there. Given that, I have to support the rebutting information from Kerry's other commander that James had sought to insert. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Kate, don't blame me for your lack of stamina here. If you go wobbly, it's not my fault. Also, your logic that my information above compels you to accept a James version is flat out silly. And your "had no plans to stop there" is a rude and offensive inference, which I resent. I have already offered several versions which I have pledged to stand by. My additional details posted above are prophylactic preparations for my expectations that James will never agree to any of my suggestions, one of which, he has already just turned down. This same one being one which you have not answered me on. So therefore, I will ask you again, yes or no, will you accept and support this version:

On this patrol, Kerry received a minor shrapnel wound in the arm for which he later received medical attention and for which, he subsequently received a Purple Heart. During the 2004 election, there was considerable controversy regarding Kerry's medals, this one in particular. Nonetheless, a 2004 Navy review of the available supporting documentation determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved. For more information and details see John Kerry military service controversy

Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 16:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It's neither rude nor an inference; you clearly had no plans to leave the information be, else why would you be posting voluminous information suggesting that the Navy review was incorrect? Do you mean to suggest that you simply threw that out there to inform the unwashed masses, without actually seeking corresponding changes to the article text? I'm sorry if you took offense as none was meant, genuinely, but I find that hard to believe. And no, I will not support that text. Why would you think I would? I've never accepted using minor as a definitive descriptor for his wound. Your text above is a step backwards. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Kate, you have to stop overlooking the obvious answers I have already given you. You said: "you clearly had no plans to leave the information be, else why would you be posting voluminous information...", but I have already answered that with: "My additional details posted above are prophylactic preparations for my expectations that James will never agree to any of my suggestions... (see above). Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 16:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Assume good faith. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you inferring that I do not? Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 16:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You said My additional details posted above are prophylactic preparations for my expectations that James will never agree to any of my suggestions... -- what else am I to take from that? I'm more than willing to be proven wrong. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, it's good to see that you finally admit that "wound" is not the bone of contention, but "minor" is. Kate, if those editors will not accept the valid inference of minor and will also not accept either of the versions you and I agreed on that other day that do not include minor, then in my view, there is no satisfying thm and I withdraw my support for any words not explicitly found in Kerry's Sick Call Treatment Record. If they want to quote that verbatim, fine. Anything else will have to be from an uncontested source. So far, I have validly contested every source they tried to sneak in. I simply will not stand by if one-sided, biased or unsupported inferences are put in this article. James and his cohorts must hold themselves to the same standards they hold me to. So then, why are you not pressing James to go accept the no "minor" version me you and Johntex arrived at a few days ago? Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 16:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"Wound" is no longer a bone of contention because a consensus has been reached that it should be used. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Not so; it is still under discussion as in regards to what standard of editing allows us to rationally choose "wound" for consensus. Our consensus must be rational, or it is not valid. Our consensus is not rational if we inconsistantly apply an editorial standard of inferences. We are applying a standard of inferences to arrive at "wound". If we do not extend that standard to arrive at "minor" which is an equally supportable inference, then there is no underlying predicate to support the contention that "wound" was arrrived at logically. Without the predicate condition of a logical foundation, the choice of the word "wound" is pure editors' opinion and as such is POV. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 17:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Enemy action in the first Purple Heart incident

Rex's long comment above has gone beyond the "issue" of the severity of the wound, and picked up another SBVT talking point: the charge that Kerry's wound resulted from a round that he himself had fired. (The SBVT was partial to calling the wound "self-inflicted", probably hoping to insinuate that Kerry had deliberately injured himself.)

The daughter article, John Kerry military service controversy, addresses this aspect of the Purple Heart. The facts make clear that SBVT's position is meritless. (The daughter article doesn't say that; it's my inference from the facts.) Under military regulations, the Purple Heart is awarded for "friendly fire" wounds in the "heat of battle", so long as the fire is targeted "under full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment." The Americans on that boat thought there were enemies present. The SBVT witness on this point is Schachte, and in his version, he was the one who made the initial decision to fire, because he thought there were Viet Cong on the shore. Thus, even if there actually were no Viet Cong, the fire was targeted with the full (albeit mistaken) intent of attacking enemy soldiers.

Any edit that got into this aspect of the Purple Heart would have to note what Schachte says, and would have to include the two other witnesses who disagree with Schachte, and would have to refer to the regulations to make it clear that a "self-inflicted" wound could still quite properly qualify for a Purple Heart. This would be in addition to the presentation of evidence about the severity of the wound.

That level of detail belongs in the daughter article, not here. JamesMLane 17:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

If the fork already addresses it, I don't see any reason to re-invent the wheel in this article, particularly in that much detail. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The predicate condition of "heat of battle" is not met by the unilateral firing of machine guns into unarmed civilian sampans and there is no information that anything other than that occured. Whether or not Schacht "thought" there was Viet Cong present prior to firing, is irrelevant. The standard of "heat of battle" must include an actual battle. There was not any actual battle. There was only -as admitted by Kerry himself- the unilateral firing of machine guns/m16's at unoccupied sampans after the fishermen had fled. Kerry's statement that he was "without any knowledge of what kind of force was there" (if any) likewise does not establish the predicate condition that a "battle" occcured, but in fact actually re-inforces that none did. And indeed, this is quite germane because James has been arguing all along that the 1st PH section must include the suggestion that facts of the injury occurance underlying Kerry's medal were ratified by Navy 2004, when in fact they are not. This point must be cleared up here, so as to be certain we do not misframe the 1st PH section as I contend we have been doing. The concomitant details of the disputes between Kerry and SBVT, et al, will of course themselves go in to John Kerry military service controversy, but the several sentences which comprise 1st PH section must not be aligned with erroneous or biased presumptions which takes sides. Inferences or contentions that Navy 2004 ratifies Kerry's account of the underlying 1st injury facts or that Kerry's account supports what we have previously been writing are not valid and must be eliminated. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 17:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

JML's proposal for the paragraph about the first Purple Heart

This version is based on what was in place in mid-October (October 17 version). The changes I've made from that version are: (1) change "in and around a peninsula" to "near a peninsula"; and (2) insert citation to Snopes for the statement Rex earlier deleted as unsupported, namely that Kerry went out on patrol again the next day.

Below, I give the paragraph about the first Purple Heart. The daughter article covers several medals, so the link to it is given in the section headed "Criticism of military service and awards".

Proposed text:

During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating near 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 shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow. The shrapnel was removed and the wound was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged. Kerry returned to duty the next day on a regular Swift boat patrol. [13] Kerry was awarded his first Purple Heart for this injury.

The point is to confine all this back-and-forth about disputed points to the daughter article. JamesMLane 17:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• It's possible I missed the answer -- where's the "bandage" come from? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

That's also in the Snopes piece. I figured that one citation at the end of the factual account would suffice, instead of peppering the paragraph with repeated references. JamesMLane 18:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah. I'd consider removing the "bandage" completely, or at least rephrasing. There's no indication that he was "bandaged" as part of his treatment -- just that he was wearing a bandage the next day. He might have been bandaged; he might have bandaged himself; why bother including anything we're not certain about one way or the other, that makes no difference one way or another? This whole thing should be kept to the minimum; the medical record shows he was wounded, treated with bacitricin, and released; nothing else is really needed. The whole damn thing isn't really needed, other than "he was wounded and received a Purple Heart; see John Kerry's military career for details." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The Sick Call Treatment Record does not "show" that Kerry was "wounded". It shows that he was treated for shrapnel with bacitracin dressing. Whether we choose to describe the underlying status of Kerry's arm as "wounded" or "injured" is an editorial choice, but there is no showing by any record, medical or otherwise that a "wound" rather than an "injury" is what was treated. There are no offcial records anywhere which show "wounded" in regards to Kerry's 1st injury. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 21:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I can see now the wisdom of this position. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Which position? That there is no more proof of "bandage" than there is of "minor" and that James has been trying to have it both ways - exclude my inferences, but include his? Is that what you now see? Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 20:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex counter-offers with a modified version of James's suggested text

In regards to James now inserting what is basically the 1 month ago version, I contend that this act of his vindicates my prior assertion that he did intend to go with that. I think he owes me an apology for calling me a liar. That said, if the group will agree to my modifications to James's posting, then we can reach consensus now. I would be willing to accept this version which I am posting here:

During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating near 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 running and failed to obey an order to stop. As the men fled, Kerry and his crew of two sailors opened fire on the sampans destroying them, then rapidly left. During this encounter, Kerry suffered a shrapnel injury in the left arm above the elbow. The shrapnel was later removed and the wound was treated with bacitracin dressing. The next day, Kerry returned to Swift boat patrol duty. Kerry was subsequently awarded his first Purple Heart for this injury. During the 2004 election, this incident was the focus of considerable contention. For more detail John Kerry military service controversy

And please note: I am not just being a pecker about the usage of "injury" along with "wound" here. As of today, even our Purple Heart article uses them interchangably: A "wound" is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent. A physical lesion is not required; however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record.

Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 18:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

If they're fully interchangeable, then you should have no problem going along with the consensus and using the word wound. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Unless of course, by omitting the other variant altogether, we make an invalid implication towards the PH being valid, not just having been awarded, which is what this is all about. One instance of each word will suffice (see beelow). Unless of course you are claiming that the words are not interchangeable and are thereby arguing for POV. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 19:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The only thing I'm arguing for is consensus. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

So if the consensus were that Kerry is Thor, you'd argue for that too? Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 20:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• What's your point? A wound is defined as an injury. So the term wound is absolutely correct, unambiguous (in reference to the award of a Purple Heart), and NPOV. Any further elaboration is interpretation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I like James' version better. Yours ends by implying significant doubt without any rebuttal and uses "injury" instead of the concensus-approved "wound". By the way, I thought according to you, "'wound' is not the bone of contention." --kizzle 18:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, do you deny that there was "considerable contention" about this? The actual state of facts regarding the extantcy of a controvery is not prone to rebuttal, only the two sides are. My edit does not take sides or mention any sides or their views. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 18:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You've both just adopted the view that the PH award ratifies the underlying facts that were submitted to get the award as being accurate. PH award standards require an injury to be sustanined in the "heat of battle". There is insufficent information for us to accept as fact that Kerry was in the "heat of battle" that night. For this reason, we stay clear of the SBVT/Kerry dispute as to whether or not that "injury" was sustanined is a manner that under PH regulations is to be deemed a "wound". The fact that Kerry got the PH only proves that he got it, not that he earned it, which is the crux of the issue. The 2004 Navy did not take a de novo look at the underlying facts and did not rule that the PH was "earned". Navy 2004 only asserts that "the awards approval process was properly followed" [14]. It does not take a position on whther or not the underlying information, ie; Kerry's statements about what happened were truthful or not. SBVT says that they are not, Kerry says that they are. If we call it a "wound" "wound" "wound" we are taking Kerry's side in that debate. However, if we use the words "injury" "wound" "injury" we are not taking sides and are in fact carefully as possibly, balancing both views. The only other suggestion I could make would be to strike the last instance of "injury" so that each word is used once. Then both views are exactly even, such as this:

During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating near 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 running and failed to obey an order to stop. As the men fled, Kerry and his crew of two sailors opened fire on the sampans destroying them, then rapidly left. During this encounter, Kerry suffered a shrapnel injury in the left arm above the elbow. The shrapnel was later removed and the wound was treated with bacitracin dressing. The next day, Kerry returned to Swift boat patrol duty. Kerry was subsequently awarded his first Purple Heart for this. During the 2004 election, this incident was the focus of considerable contention. For more detail John Kerry military service controversy

Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 18:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No apology; I stand by every word I wrote. As to the substance, you've lost me. Suppose Kerry panicked and fired a grenade launcher at a chipmunk, with no VC within a mile. Furthermore, Kerry foolishly fired while too close to shore, so that a bit of shrapnel from his own shot hit him and lodged in his arm. It seems to me that would be both an injury and a wound. Are you saying it would be one but not the other? JamesMLane 19:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

James, this is precisely what I am saying. For an "injury" (self-inflicted or otherwise) to be deemed a "wound" under Purple Heart regulations, the transaction which resulted in the injury must occur within the "heat of battle". This phrase "heat of battle" is the exact phrase which you yourself provided above and it is the official standard. Now as any plain reading of the 1st hand accounts make clear from that night, there was no "battle" and there was no "heat of battle". Rather, the was only three American men in a Boston Whaler, firing weapons at now abandoned sampans. There is no information which supports the contention that a battle occurred. Therefore, it simply is not possible for us to presume that the injury Kerry received was incurred in the "heat of battle". Without that predicate condition being met, the medal was can not be said by us to have been earned, which is what the word "wounded" in the context of a PH scenario implies. We should report that he received it, but using wound exclusively implies that he earned it, which based on the 1st hand accounts that make clear there was no ""heat of battle", he did not. Having said that, since we can not be absolutely certain that no Viet Cong were in the area and/or fired a weapon at them (even though no witnesses say this happened) we err on the side of caution and we use "wound" once and "injury" once. This way, we tell the facts without taking sides. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 19:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

All this is immaterial. A consensus of editors have decided that wound is the proper descriptor. The question has been decided. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

An irrationally reached consensus is invalid (see my explanation above). Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 19:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess the definition of a rationally reached concensus then is if and only if Rex agrees? I am very hesitant to take your description at face value, as "1st hand accounts" refers to SBVT testimony? --kizzle 19:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you even bother to read the previous comments before posting? Kerry's 1st hand statements, as quoted on the Snopes page (from Brinkley book) do not prove wound either. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 20:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Kiz, don't be snide. I am taking issue with this group of editors making unsupported inferences. It is indisputable that the inferences being made to support wound are disregarding the conflicting information which undercuts their basis. To bias an inference in that manner is logically unsound and hence irrational. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 19:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

As is a consensus being formed and one person trying to unsurp it. I don't think you have moral ground to stand on here. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The consensus is valid, irrespective of whether you agree with the position taken or not. Feel free to avail yourself of the solutions outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (although the primary one has already been done -- entering an RFC). Otherwise there's not much more to talk about on this subject. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You are free to deem it valid, but that does not lessen it's irrationality nor my contention that it's invalid. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 20:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course... you can contend so all you like, that's your right and I'd never expect anything else. But it changes nothing. This argument is done. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Only because you were unable to prove your point and quit the discussion. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 20:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Next. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Next? Next what? If you saying that the "consensus" you refer to is "next" to being valid, you are right - it's close (next), but still no cigar. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 20:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The consensus is perfectly valid whether Rex likes it or not. Nowhere on Wikipedia is Rex proclaimed infallible nor does he have a right of veto. Clearly there is a consensus so endless going around in circles to humour Rex's demands is pointless. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

If the "consensus" was that John Kerry is and has always been Irish, it would be equally invalid as a consensus which deems "wound" as the only valid descriptor. Saying otherwise does not change that fact. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 20:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This subject is closed. Let's move on. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

let the record reflect that woohookitty has also quit the discussion. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 20:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"Quitting" what? The consensus on this section was decided long ago. You are not God. We don't bow to the whims of one user over the whims of many. The needs of many outweight the needs of the few...or the one. Enough. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not suggesting you bow to whims. Rather, I am suggesting that you have failed in your editorial mandate to apply the principles of inferences evenly across all edits. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 21:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Some relevant quotes from Wikipedia:Consensus. Gamaliel 21:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• "In day-to-day Wikipedia practice, consensus is interpreted as something closer to supermajority, as unanimity is extrememly difficult to achieve."
• "Those who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a large group of editors should at least consider that they may be mistaken."

And two others Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 22:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy)" (Wikipedia:Consensus)
• "Cite sources: point the reader to authoritative references (and list them properly)" (Wikipedia:Cite sources)