Talk:John Kerry/Archive 19

Navy Discharge

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

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

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

John Kerry, Jewish American?

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

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

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

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

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

Jdavidb 23:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Edit War, Lame?

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

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

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

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

The 1st wound was minor

According to this [1] JamesMLane thinks that calling a minor wound minor is editorializing. If so, then we can't call Katrina a large or powerful hurricane. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 05:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Wiki link to wound should be restored

Merovingian removed [2] a wiki link to the word wound. I do not agree that his rationale as posited in his edit summary suffices for that unilateral, non-discussed deletion. I am asking for group comment about that here. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 07:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

My comments:

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

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

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

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

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

wound dialog - copied from talk pages of Merovingian and Rex071404

John Kerry's 1st wound

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

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

I do not agree with your justification [3] as to why you removed the wiki link from John Kerry. You have left out of your calculation the very real edititorial disagreements at that page over how much attention to draw to the minor nature of Mr. Kerry's 1st wound. My view is that readers DO benefit from a wiki link which informs them about wounds, especially since many critics of Mr. Kerry have many times very publicly criticized him for "puffing" in regards to his wounds. If it's not a big deal to you, I ask you to please restore that wiki link. I think it's important and I think it makes the article better, not worse. Also, if you notice, in the Kerry article, the word shrapnel which immediately precedes the instance of the word wound from which you removed the wiki link, links to a page which talks in very broad terms about shrapnel. By including the 1st link, but not the 2nd, the editorial result is to confuse rather than clarify, expecially since the shrapnel page closes the section on World War 1 with "Shrapnel can cause light or heavy wounds (or damage)". I see no reason why John Kerry should link to shrapnel which then links to Physical trauma (though the link is named "wounds"), if John Kerry is not going to link to wound. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 07:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Ok, who finds it creepy that in every single one of those listings, he refers to himself in the 3rd persons?--anon editor 03:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, what is it about this guy?

Hey, what is it about this guy? This page seems to have non-stop wars over content. Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam and Stalin combined on Wikipedia see less edit wars than this page? What is so special about this guy that makes people want to fight over him here day by day? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not that Kerry himself is "special", rather it's the unambiguous nature of the critical information which is available about him, but which those who tend pro-Liberal, resist allowing into the article. As for the "wound" issue, it's a small word "minor", but has great import.

The simple fact is that many on the Left want to slam Bush for having a cushy National Guard billet during the war, and for this reason, they want to keep one of the Liberal Icons (Kerry) from appearing to have gotten out of the service too easily himself (which he did). Kerry got out early on the basis of "three and you're out". That being three Purple Hearts. However, when examined in the light of the 1st so called "wound" being nothing more than a small scratch, it's clear that Kerry gamed the system to win early release from the service. And if that's true, then this undercuts criticism of Bush, (got off easy) because Kerry did the same thing (got off easy). And because the Left in America is anti-Iraq war, they need to undercut Bush whichever way they can on Military related issues. Bush's service record is a military related issue and as such, the Left needs to make it look singularly bad (see Killian documents). Because of this (and because Kerry is making noise about running again), the Left wants to accomplish the dual goal of making Bush look bad on personal military history, while making Lefties (such as Kerry) look good. got that? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 02:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What military service are you refering to? I don't think there's anyone claiming Bush saw active duty--anon editor 03:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you contending that the Air Force National Guard is not part of the US military? If so, you prove my point about the anti-Bush, pro-Kerry bias around here. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 03:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Bush never served in active duty, I don't see how that's biased, the national guard was never deployed, anywhereb, what bias is that? Is it as pervasive a bias as the one that told us his favorite type of chocolate chip cookie?--anon editor 05:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Some people in the U.S., on both sides of the aisle, can't stop talking about the 2004 election. In the first post-9/11 election, with the country fighting two wars, it was inevitable that the election would polarize the country. It didn't matter who Bush ran against - his opponent's name was going to get dragged through the mud no matter what. Nothing special about Kerry - he's just another politician. Rhobite 02:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Odd Edits by Rex071404

Removed almost all adjectives from the article, then labled then as POV removal, also removed reference to John Kerry owning a dog, as a blatent POV issue along with Favorite Food, and reference to him being a cyclist.. I could be missing something, but those don't actually seem like POV issues, unless of course this editor's idea of NPOV, is to remove anything that isn't negative, including what seem like rather neutral statments like John Kerry Owns a Dog, I'm going to rv the whole thing to back before the edit war--anon editor 02:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

More than a year ago, Kerry's campaign people leaked details about pet ownership. Any current status on the dog? Also, who says that Kerry is an avid cyclist? There is even less proof of that, than there is that his 1st wound was minor (please see above). Also, rather than just complain, why don't you ask me my line of thinking and see if we can agree on some edits? Also, when was the last time anyone had a current referrence that Kerry's "favorite food is chocolate chip cookies" and why should such minutiae even be in this article? Do we have such detail about all US Senators? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 03:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• So, what makes his pet ownership POV? or favorite cookie? I just dont' see any connection what so ever between your edit summaries, and the things you're re-writing--anon editor 05:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The connection between the deleted "cookie" referrence and POV is that such fawning minutiae, by being in this article, serves no editorial purpose of import. Rather, what it does is turn a biography into a hagiography. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 05:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what does hagiographic mean? --kizzle 05:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Bla, bla, bla, bla, you just keep talking, you're certianly the only one listening to you--Here I come to save the day 19:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

POV check tag for John Kerry

According to the edit summary by Szyslak for this edit, which states "rv {NPOV} - the tag is for disputes that can't be resolved after discussion; also removed gratuitous "See also" link)", it is clear that the correct course of action, on a disputed page (when issues can't be resolved after discussion) is to add an NPOV tag. This being the case, I am adding a POV check to this page and am reminding the other editors here of important details from the wiki article on "Consensus decision-making", which are: "Rather than simply list known alternatives, debate for a short time, vote, and then accept or reject by some percentage of majority (ex. over 50%, over 2/3), a consensus decision-making process involves identifying and addressing concerns, generating new alternatives, combining elements of multiple alternatives and checking that people understand a proposal or an argument. This empowers minorities, those with objections that are hard to state quickly, and those who are less skilled in debate. Therefore, consensus decision-making can be seen as a form of grassroots democracy."

I ask the editors here to take note that "combining elements of multiple alternatives" is an essential part of consensus decision-making and yet, the editors here have been reverting and deleting every edit I make to John Kerry (and has been doing so for well over a year and again, many times in the last few days). For this reson, it cannot be said that there is any valid consensus among the active editors on this article. As with that as my justification, I am adding the POV check tag to the article.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 20:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Comparison of George W. Bush and John Kerry outlines

Here are the 1st (5) sections of each outline from each article. It's clear that the Kerry article goes into much more personal detail, the net effect of which is to "sell" Kerry to people. It was forced on us by the pro-Kerry editors during election 2004 and it remains the same way today. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 21:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents section(s)	Bush	Kerry
1.0	Early life and education	Early life and education
1.1		Family background
1.1.1		Maternal family background
1.1.2		Paternal family background
1.2		Childhood years
1.3		Boarding school (1957-1962)
1.4		Encounters with President Kennedy (1962)
1.5		Yale University (1962-1966)
2.0	Religious beliefs and practices	Military service (1966-1970)
2.1		Commission, training, and tour of duty on the USS Gridley
2.2		Kerry's tour of duty as commander of a Swift boat
2.2.1		First Purple Heart
2.2.2		Meeting with Zumwalt and Abrams
2.2.3		Second Purple Heart
2.2.4		Silver Star
2.2.5		Bronze Star and third Purple Heart
2.3		Return from Vietnam
2.4		Criticism of military service and awards
3.0	Professional life	Anti-Vietnam War activism (1970-1971)
3.1	Business	Joining the Vietnam Veterans Against the War
3.2	Political Career	Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
3.3		The protest at the U.S. Capitol
3.4		Media appearances
4.0	Presidential campaigns	Early career (1972-1985)
4.1	2000 campaign	Campaigning for Congress (1970s)
4.2	2004 campaign	Career in law and politics (1972-1985)
5.0	Important People in Bush's Life and Career	Service in the U.S. Senate (1985-present)
5.1		Meeting with Ortega
5.2		Iran-Contra hearings
5.3		Other investigations
5.4		Kerry and the George H.W. Bush administration
5.5		2000 Presidential Election
5.6		Kerry and Iraq
5.7		Sponsorship of legislation
5.8		Political chairmanship and presidential nomination
5.9		Committee assignments
5.10		Issues and voting record

What does this have to do with anything? If you think the GWB article lacks information, go add it to that article. Gamaliel 21:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

My concern (as I have made abundantly clear - see above) is that this Kerry article has too much fawining detail. And, the few less flattering things which go in are immediately taken out. The outline speaks for itself - Kerry's article is imbalanced and there is no realistic correlation on the personal history outline between Kerry and Bush. Gamaliel, do you deny that Kerry's page has much more personal detail than Bush's? Also what is your justification for reverting at multiple pages on the Wiki - reverting me multiple times on political related articles? Do you deny that you have been reverting me multiple times, without talk page dialog and often with no justifying edit summary? Do you disagree with the details I have posted above regarding consensus decision-making? If not, please point me to the any edit I made in the last few days you (or one of the other Rex-reverters here) have allowed to my edits be "combined" into a poltical article, without being reverted or edited out. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex, John Kerry is a senator and a veteran while George W. Bush is a two-term president. Why do you expect their articles to be laid out in the same way? Rhobite 22:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Because disagreeing with him, according to his new page at User_talk:Rex071404/Liberal_bias constitutes a liberal bias. --kizzle 23:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The Kerry article was taking most of it's current form starting back in Summer of 2004. Between then and now, the pro-Kerry editors at this page have done all the can to keep embellishing it. And, Bush was not yet re-elected in July 2004, which is when I joined this Wiki - in part, to try to get some even handed treatment of the two pages. There is no denying the truth about the above outline comparisons: Kerry's has way more personal detail. And, now that Kerry is very well know, there no longer is any excuse for it. I am asking you other editors to please be more flexible on edits to this article and please allow some of my edits to stay in without reverting them. And as for Kizzle's comment - I'd prefer that he keep his personal taunts off of the talk pages of articles. He's welcome to criticize me on my personal talk page, but I feel that his comments such as that above are counter-productive here. Also, I'd ask that he stop stalking my personal scratch page list - it's not any of his concern that I am keeping a log of various edits, and by repeating my scratch page links all over, he's causing needless controversy. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex, I believe that adding to some liberal hit-list everytime someone simply disagrees with you is the very definition of counter-productive. It definetely doesn't help foster a sense of collaboration. As for your comments, I don't see a need to excise comments about a former presidential candidate simply because the election is over. I believe a policy of removing information when the subject steps out of the limelight is a bad way to go. --kizzle 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The only excuse there ever was (and a poor one at that) for having so much Kerry details, is that he was a national candidate and was perhaps not then well known around the country. However, that election is over and frankly, you know as well as I do that the ArbComm has already had a finding that election 2004 did intrude into this article. I contend that there is simply no justification for such copious detail remaining in this article. Especially since such simple things as a wiki link on the word "wound", the actual number of bills which became law "11" and an acccurate adjective applied to the 1st wound "minor" are kept out. Now as for your characterization of my log as a "hit-list", you are free to think what you may, but again I will ask you to keep your comments and suppositions of that nature off the article talk pages. I am asking you nicely and I believe that you are causing trouble by refusing to stop. Also, I do indeed contend that there is Liberal bias here and yet, I have softened the name of my log page to address the fact that there are some (such as you apparantly) who will offend themselves by snooping into my personal pages. That being the case, I went to a new page name which has less potential to offend uninvited perusers.Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• As far as "stalking" is concerned -- every page on Wikipedia is for public consumption. If you want a private scratchpad, do it elsewhere. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You miss the point - Kizzle is complaining about something that he alone has been advertising. I did not point anyone to those page(s). If he kept his complaints about them to himself, there would be no controversy. And Kizzle's ad-hominem criticisms about me/my logs do not belong on this page - they are detracting from the dialog here. Also, have you read the above points about "consensus decision-making"? What about the fact that every edit I make to John Kerry gets reverted? How this that anything but bias? And what about Kerry's 1st wound, was it "minor", yes or no?Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94}

Fundraising scandals

I intend to put details about this into the article. any comments? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 02:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is another link Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 02:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• as if you care what anyone else thinks? Just keep on trolling--anon editor 02:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

And another, here Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 03:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact that this is not even mentioned in Kerry's article is an example of the pro-Kerry bias I am talking about. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 03:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is another link Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 03:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not an example of anything except the fact that no one here knew about that information yet. Once again you are true to form and attribute sinister motives to other editors instead of simpler, innocent, more realistic ones. Gamaliel 03:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Not so. Bias need not be sinister. If I love kittens, I am biased in favor of them. And I am unaware of anyone who considers those who love kittens to be "sinister". Rather, bias (which your comments above confirm - perhaps unwittingly) can also manifest itself this way: a) Various wiki editor(s) like Kerry. As a consequence, they never #2) look for anything to critique him on and because of that, #3) those who are biased in favor of Kerry, never (search for, or) find fundraising scandal details about him via Google. Now as you can see, this theory could also account for why you or various others never found those fundrasing stories. And it's true that you did not ever find them, because as you stated "no one here knew about that information yet". I suggest this is because you have not looked hard enough - and I further suggest it's primarily because you are not interested to see to it that the Kerry article be as firm of a critique against him as the Bush article is against him. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 04:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I admit I do not look for bad things about Kerry to put in the article. Neither do I look for good things about Kerry to put in the article. It is not because I am not interested in this article being a critique of Kerry, it is because I am not that interested in this article. Like all the other editors here, I have interests beyond this article. I spend much more time writing about poets and comic strips than politics. Unless I am writing an article from scratch, I don't do extensive searches for information, I just add the information I happen to come across. I imagine that none of us have spent the last year constantly googling Kerry's name for the latest tidbit of trivia. We just monitor this article for major changes, and that's about it. We've moved on since the election, apparently you have not. Gamaliel 08:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I am interested in this article as part of bringing to it a sense of "parity" to the various articles which I see concerning Conservative Polticians on this wiki. Suffice it to say, your concession that you do not Google for critical items for Kerry makes my point for me, which is; the bulk of the editors who have opposed me in total on Kerry etc, for the most part do not put critical items into pages for Liberal politicians. However, from time to time, a subset of that group (the particular persons vary) go to great lengths to keep favorable edits in the Liberal articles - for example JamesMLane (and others) blocking me on the word "minor". The simple fact is that these editing patterns have the net effect of biasing the Kerry article in a favorable manner (and interestingly enough, the same basic edit forces array in a reciprocal manner at the Bush page - resulting unfavorable tone and text there). In case you have forgotten how this all started, let me bring you back to July 2004, when I joined. My research indicates that my 1st edit appears to be this [4]. This particular edit went right to the meat of the matter, which was that Kerry was then lying to the voters about whether or not he had released his full medical records. At the time, the biggest pro-Kerry editor was then, Neutrality. If I am not mistaken, it was his text which I modified to make my 1st edit. Now if you also recall, almost immediately after my 1st edit, I was emeshed in edit wars - one of the 1st was about Kerrry's medical records. Please go back and read the article and the talk page from those days - you'll see that I was knocked all over the place for trying to insist that Kerry had not actually released his full military/medical records. The pro-Kerry forces were adamant that I was wrong. Well then, guess what, look at this taunting edit left by Neutrality on my talk page this summer (when he certainly knew I could not respond due to 6 month hiatus). What does the edit say? It says that Kerry only finally signed his Form 180 (military service and military medical, records) release on May 20th, 2005! Har! Told you so. I was 100% right about that then and I am right about Kerry's minor wound now and I am also right that pro-Kerry Liberal editors are still up clucking their feathers and watching out for their champion. And if that's not true, then how would you explain the taunting edit Neutrality left for me (as linked above)? The bottom line is that the Kerry article portrays an excessively postive picture of him - positive to the point of falseness. That was true in July 2004 and it's true today. Final note, you may not care that Kerry has in the past done things like go around and falsely pretend to be Irish, so as to get the Boston ethnic Irish vote, (see Slate link - talk page). But I do, I am from Massachsuetts. I have followed his career for years and I feel it's important that when a local silver spoon hack politician tries to go for the brass ring, that everyone be afforded to have accurate information about him. The Liberal editors here have prevented that before and they still are trying to prevent it now. Kerry's an utter mediocrity - he's only gotten 11 bills passed in the US Senate in his ENTIRE CAREER. Why the pro-Kerry people are so intent on shunting those types of details under the rug or off to the side, is stunning to me. 11 bills - that's it and he wants to (still wants to!) be president! What kind of enyclopedia article keeps out such important details - while all the while telling me his favorite cookies are chocolate chip? In my mind, only a biased one does. Now, we might disagree on many things, but certainly we can agree that in order to evaluate a politician's effectivenes, bills signed into law is a more valuable data element than favorite cooke type, wouldn't you say? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 09:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

All this rant proves is your interest in dragging down a public figure you dislike and in rehashing old battles. If you want to make constructive edits, such as including information on the Sherwood lawsuit, go for it. But this article won't be served my removing information you dislike, however trivial that information may be, nor will it be served by you putting up a furious fight over insignificant issues where you are clearly in the wrong, such as wikilinking common words. Gamaliel 09:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Am I wrong to say that the 11 bills passed into law is a more important fact than chocolate chips? Also, why do you insist on harshly characterizing my edit as a "rant". If I put a pejorative of that tone into the Kerry article, you would expunge it. So why do you smack me with it? And as for "dragging down" Kerry, as Ronald Regan would say "there you go again". I am trying to put in a few, accurate facts and you call that "dragging down". Also, if Kerry were not so high in your mind, bringing even-handedness to this hagiographic sing song of an article, would not been seen by you as dragging him down. It's the opposite of the mind probe in "The Riddick Chronicles". In that movie, the mind probe detected a Furian and freaked out "Kill the Riddick - Kill the Furian". But with this article, it's "Protect the Kerry - He must not be dragged down". Please. If you were even vaugly familiar with Kerry and his track record in Massachusetts, you'd know that my assesment of him as a mediocrity is accurate. And if you think I'm trying to bring him down, you must think he's more than that. This to me, is your clearest admission of pro-Kerry bias so far. I assert that he's average. You assert that saying so brings him down. It's you who are exalting Kerry, not me bringing him down. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 09:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Kerry is being sued for defamation

I intend to add information about this to the article. any comments? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 03:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

More about this here Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 03:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

We don't archive things after a handful of weeks

..just because some troll, wills it to be so, or do we??--anon editor 03:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Alot of us editors are just coming off a very contentious battle with a user named BigDaddy777. So Rex, please cut us a little bit of slack. Hopefully, you will be more civil and collaborative than he was. But that's why some of us are jumping on your back right away. I know it's unfair, but that's the reason. Thanks. --Woohookitty 03:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"Accountable 1135", aka "anon editor" has already in an edit summary, accused me of being bigdaddy777, but I assure you, I am not he. Rather I am one who, having stepped in the cesspool of making harsh comments about others and exceeding 3rr in the past, am back after 6 months, with a direct, but improved approach, intent upon seeing to it that I am able to have at least some input on various political articles that interest me. Since my return a few days ago, my article edits have not been shown to be frivolous or factually wrong or POV. Rather, they have been unilaterally deleted and reverted with no realistic attempt by others to take any of the input that I offer nor allow me to edit this article at all. Look at the above back-up I've provided for my views. And what is the result? My comments are dismissed out of hand. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 03:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps if you did not attempt to bring up the same insignificant issues that were resolved a year ago using the same frivolous arguments you used before your ban, then your contributions might be taken more seriously. Gamaliel 03:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

They were never resolved. Rather, what happened was that I messed up my own opportunity by making snide comments and exceeding 3rr. This time however, I am focused on staying within acceptable parameters while attempting edits and at the same time also lobbying the others to concede that there is bias here. Four points: 1) For example, looking at the outline comparison above; how can you justify continuing to keep so much personal detail about Kerry in the article, especially since he is now well known nationwide? The net effect of all that detail is to make the article too hagiographic. 2) Also, you don't deny that the Bush article is much more of a critique than the Kerry article, do you? and 3) Will you accept the wiki link I want to add to the word wound. 4) Lastly, the issues I am concerned about are not "insignificant" to me, but if they are to you, why do you oppose me on them? (and please do not call my "arguments" "frivolous". I feel that borders on a personal attack) Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 03:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Your comparison is meaningless for two reasons. 1) It's nothing more than a list of headings and subheadings. This doesn't mean that this article has more information or detail or trivia, just that it is organized differently. 2) It doesn't matter that one article is more detailed than another. We don't do tit for tat comparisons like that. Different people work on different articles and different amounts of work go into them. Wikipedia is a work in progress. If you feel that the Bush article lacks detail, go work on that article.

Arguing about the wikilink to the word wound is pretty much the definiton of frivolous. It's very simple, and you'd recognize it if you weren't hellbent on attacking Kerry. We don't create wikilinks to words that sixth graders know. We're not here to define common words. That's the end of it. There shouldn't be any other consideration, especially one like a POV interest in making this article read one way or another. Gamaliel 08:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I answer Gamaliel as follows: 1) My exmple of outline sections in comparison is not meaningless. Rather it clearly points out that Kerry's personal history gets more hands on details - this can be confirmed by simply reading the sections referred to by the outlines, on each respective page. 2) It does matter that biographies ought to be similarly handled for similarly situated persons. During election 2004, those two persons each had a 50/50 chance of being the next president. Certainly that fact called for more balance than the editors here allowed. And it's long over due that Kerry's page reigned in. 3) Again, I do not feel the Bush lacks detail, I feel that Kerry has too much and it's hagiographic detail at that. G, Do you deny that Kerry's page tends towards the hagiographic? As for the wiki link, there is no argument, if others don't oppose me on that. Therefore, if I am being frivolous, how much more so are those who are trying to trump me on that? Also, the issue of Kerry's wounds goes right to the heart of how dishonest this article is. It is an established fact that Kerry's 1st injury was minor. If any editor on this page has been "hellbent" about anything, it's those who deny this fact and refuse to allow that word in. Even with links to wound page(s) which make clear that the the word "minor" is the correct descriptor for a wound of that type, not one inch is being given by the pro-Kerry crowd on that word. So who's being "hellbent"? And please, don't shift the argument to one about "common words". This is not about the common nature of the word wound, because common or not, there are clearly great variances in the severities of wounds. And this is more true that the point you push. Think about it; whenever you hear that a friend was injured, the 1st thing you as is "how bad was it?". Bt refusing to tell the readers how bad it was, we are in fact commiting the lie of ommission, "conincidentally" in favor of Kerry. I could go on, but I'll simply say that for an editor who claims disinterest in political articles, you sure do revert me often enough. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 08:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This is very much about the common nature of the word "wound". That is why people keep removing the link. You just don't want to listen to the explanation. If you want to do a frivolous thing, are we then more frivolous because we wish to prevent it? That makes no sense.

I never claimed to be disinterested in political articles, I just clearly said I was not interested enough to be constantly monitoring google and the news for the latest minor story. Gamaliel 08:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The Kerry article, as currently comprised, is hagiographic. I've raised that point about 20 times on this page, yet none of the entrenched editors dare to deny it. So then, since this is the base line, all we should be discussing is how to make it less so. I've offered suggestions. Others here have balked at and opposed my suggestions, but offered none of their own. And the point I raise does make sense. It's you who says I that I am making frivolous edits, not me. And by that, it's you calling me "silly and foolish". My suggestion to you is, if you really believe that, why are you fighting me over things as minor a wiki linking the word wound? I suggest that it's because you are biased in your views and for that reason you are fixated on my edits. I could say that is "foolish", but I won't. I will leave the insults such as "rant" and "foolsish", etc. for you to hurl. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 10:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I deny it. I think the article is fine as it is.

Your logic is incredibly tortured. You are insistent upon doing a foolish thing, and thus we are more foolish for wishing to prevent this? As I said above that makes absolutely no sense. I'm only supposedly "fixated" on your edits because you put up inane, to the death fights over foolish things and remove information to suit your POV. I'm going to attempt to refrain from continuing to argue about this because we're just going in circles here and not accomplishing anything. If you restrict yourself to productive behavior you might find that reactions to your edits suddenly change. So are you up to that challenge? Gamaliel 18:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I object to you calling my logic "tortured". I object to you saying that am "insistent upon doing a foolish thing". I object to you saying my actions are "inane". Perhaps if you laid off the insults, you and I could work together more effectively. That said, here is where are are at today: Gamaliel says "I think the article is fine as it is". Rex071404 says "The Kerry article, as currently comprised, is hagiographic". Wikipedia Wikipedia:Negotiation says "Principled Negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article.".

My major view(s) are 1) there are too many words associated with Kerry's personal minutiae currently in the article 2) there are not enough words associated with Kerry's faults and shortcomings - such as his anemic track record in getting bills signed into law. The ball is now back in Gamaliel's court, he has challenged me and I have responded.

The remaining question is: Will Gamaliel allow some of my edits to remain in the article and thereby effect changes to the text of the article, yes or no? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 18:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Edits should be evaluated on a case by case basis, not by a quota system. You don't automatically get x% of your edits in. If all your edits are suspect and meet objections from a consensus of other editors, then that's how the cookie crumbles. Gamaliel 18:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

If the consensus (among themselves) of "others" refuses to incorporate any of my ideas, by definition there is not consensus on this page, there is no consensus decision-making going on here and there is not any bona-fide negotiation. Suffice it to say, the closed-mided finality of Gamaliel's "that's how the cookie crumbles" jibe makes clear that he has zero intention of ever backing off from his instransigence against me. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 18:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

When I started Little League, there were no outs, every person on the team got a chance at bat before the inning ended. That's not how it works here. The consideration is what makes a good encyclopedia, nothing more. I'm sorry if you feel left out, but we're not here to insure you get your chance at bat. Gamaliel 18:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Huh? That makes no sense to me - don't you mean that there is no assurance that I'll get a "hit"? After all, on a team of friends, everyone gets a chance to bat. And by extension, in your analogy, we are both players and umps - making plays and judging each other. My concern is that I am constantly being called "out" even on plays that are clearly "safe". For example, as of 12.2004, John Kerry had gotten only 11 bills passed into law during his ENTIRE SENATE CAREER. That is an important fact that should be "safe" but you keep calling it "out". Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

On Iraq War

I would like to add information to the article, that deals with the fact that John Kerry promised not to criticise the President when he went to war, and then did so on the same day as the war started. I know that this news was reported in the media at the time. ComfortFood 04:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'd be curious to see some sources for this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I remember reading and hearing about that. I agree that he did break his word about that. Be cautious though, there are editors here who resist the insertion of critical items about Kerry. It's best if you post some links from mainstream media type sources, it you want less bones of contention here. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 04:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It's also best if you stop talking to your sockpuppets, but then, I know you don't use sockpuppets, and all these nice people with 2 or 3 posts just happen to gravitate to you and agree unconditionally with you--anon editor 04:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Anon, based on your intimate knowledge of various wiki procedures, I am sure you can get someone to confirm for you that I edit only from IP 216.153.214.94 and that no one else on this wiki does. Also, please direct your legitimate criticisms about me to my personal talk page. I am willing to dialog there. Please keep ad-hominem accusations off the article talk pages. That said, what are your views on the merits of the points I raised concerning the article (see above). I am interested in your legitimate comments. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 04:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently looking for links that will support these two assertions:

1. Democrat Primary Candidates agreed not to criticise the President during the actual war.

2. John Kerry criticises President on or right before March 20, 2003.

ComfortFood 05:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is something to get you started: "In May 2003, at the first Democratic primary debate, John Kerry said his vote authorizing the president to use force was the “right decision” though he would have “preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity.”

But then in January 2004, Kerry began to run as anti-war candidate, saying, "I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have." [5] Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 05:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the first claim: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50D17F93F550C7B8DDDAA0894DB404482

March 18, 2003, Tuesday (By The New York Times); National Desk Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 14, Column 3, 373 words DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 373 WORDS -Congressional Republicans gave unconditional support tonight to President Bush's ultimatum to President Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Democratic leaders expressed dismay over the failure of diplomatic efforts, but many said that with war imminent, they would mute their criticism and stand behind American troops. Most major Democratic presidential candidates also... ComfortFood 05:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears that only Dean did not take that pledge. This means Kerry did. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 06:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is an archive of the article text. It appears that NYT did indeed report that all candidates (this includes Kerry), except Dean made the same pledge. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 06:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is a CNN link to Daschle saying on 03.17.05 "If the President decides that force is the only remaining option to disarm Saddam Hussein, Democrats and Republicans will be unanimous in our strong support for our troops and for ensuring that they have all the tools and resources needed to be successful." Hmmm... looks like the rope-a-dope was being employed by Daschle here. Parse his wrods snd you'll see: strong support for our troops and for ensuring that they have all the tools and resources needed Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 06:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Dare I ask, "So what?" --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• What? you don't see it, first he promised to support the troops, then he blatently defiled that promise, by daring to criticize the person he was running against during a general election, obviously an act of such unforgivable hypocracy that it must be inserted into the article, as we all know, criticism of the president means you hate america, therefore you must also hate the troops, see.. that's not insane at all--anon editor 11:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This is relevant for several reasons. The first reason is that he gave his word that he would not criticise the President, and then he immediately broke it aftewards. If it was done on purpose, it would make him a liar. The effect was that on the same day the war started, people were also reading his criticism, when they should have been focussing on the President's leadership during the start of a war. If Kerry had been a General and had criticised the President, he would surely have been fired. Remember the case of MacArthur, Truman and the Korean war. It's something that every good soldier knows. You don't criticise your commanding officer in public during a time of war. The President himself would have been distracted by these comments during a time when his attention was needed elsewhere. What we need to keep in mind here, is that Kerry was running as a Presidential candidate. If he had become President, would he have expected his subordinates not to criticise him in this way? There is an old saying, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I would argue that this event can be seen in one of two ways, either Kerry did not bother to think about what the events were leading up to, or he did this out of deliberate malice in a calculating way. Unfortunately, a lot of history depends on how you interpret it. But clearly what we know is that he criticised the President on the day the United States went to war in Iraq. I think it should be mentioned in his biography. This is especially true when opposition to the war was a large part of his campaign. This can be seen in the larger political context of the Democrats as a whole, not wanting to seem to be weak to the American public on foreign policy. It seems that politicians are willing to lie to people until whatever controversy is in the news, that week, has passed over.

I would ask that we come to some sort of agreement on this topic, Jpgordon, so that the addition of this fact in the article can be done without it being reverted back to a previous form.

ComfortFood 13:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• (checking watch) Y'know, it's October 2005, not October 2004. Your guy won; you can turn off the slime machines now. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping for a comment that was related to developing this article.

ComfortFood 16:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Some people here aren't really interesting in playing fair, just in glorifying their idol--Here I come to save the day 19:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Did Kerry pretend to be Irish in the past?

Read this Slate article here Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 05:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• I agree, wonderful point, by any chance did you happen to read one of these articles here it certianly explains a few things, and with loads of credibility too--anon editor 11:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose if Bush were claiming to be a space alien, that would matter. As it is, I don't think he's every done that. Kerry, on the other hand, has falsely potrayed himself as being Irish, for personal political gain. Would you like some more links to better prove that? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 16:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't even bother, they'll just try and derail you, and drag you into a long and messy conflict, until the article looks like a kerry campaign comercial, best to ignore the buzzing sound they make and go straight to the article itself, be bold in editing and all that jazz--Here I come to save the day 20:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

BCCI investigation

A1sdf deleted the following paragraph:

One of the Bush administration figures criticized for his handling of BCCI was Robert Mueller who, in his then-role as Deputy Attorney General, was criticized about slow performance regarding the investigation. Kerry himself was criticized in some circles for not pressing harder against certain Democrats, and he was also criticized by some Democrats for pursuing his own party members, including former Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford. The BCCI scandal was later turned over to the Manhattan District Attorney's office.

Kerry’s role in the BCCI matter actually deserves more attention in this article, not less. The Washington Monthly article stated:

By the end, Kerry had helped dismantle a massive criminal enterprise and exposed the infrastructure of BCCI and its affiliated institutions, a web that law enforcement officials today acknowledge would become a model for international terrorist financing. As Kerry's investigation revealed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, BCCI was interested in more than just enriching its clients--it had a fundamentally anti-Western mission. Among the stated goals of its Pakistani founder were to "fight the evil influence of the West," and finance Muslim terrorist organizations. In retrospect, Kerry's investigation had uncovered an institution at the fulcrum of America's first great post-Cold War security challenge.

As our article notes, several agencies in the Bush 41 administration were culpable in not pursuing BCCI properly. Mueller was sent to debate Kerry on Nightline about the investigation. Although he was thus a prominent spokesweasel for the Bush administration, he was only one of several officials who were at fault, and who were mentioned by name in the Kerry/Brown report. It's interesting to note his involvement because he's now the FBI Director, but I don't see that fact as having enough bearing on Kerry's role to merit inclusion here. The rest of the paragraph, however, is perfectly valid information, and I've restored it with some tweaking. JamesMLane 21:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

In my view, JamesMLane's use of the term "spokesweasel", is indicative of bias on this topic. Likewise, his assertion of "culpable" - were there any findings or court rulings which held this to be so? If not, it's speculative POV. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 21:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course it's POV. POV is allowed on talk pages. I didn't use the term "spokesweasel" or even "culpable" in the article. JamesMLane 21:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but statements such as that are indeed indicative of a mindset which is likely going to color your editorial decisions - including those aimed ay blocking my edits. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 21:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

If you want to see why I called Mueller a "spokesweasel", you can look here for a passage from a book in which his Nightline appearance with Kerry is recounted. For the rest of it, my mindset isn't relevant. A biased editor has an obligation to rein in his or her bias and make edits that comply with NPOV and other Wikipedia policies. I've done so. JamesMLane 22:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

As I've made clear, I don't agree that you constrain your bias - as it applies to gatekeeping against other's political article edits - to the degree and extent you ought to. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources

A1sdf deleted a statement by Kerry on this basis: "using a website called 'peacecore' [sic] as a source, has got to be a joke, it's gone too". I can't see this as a sensible edit. Peace Corps Online is a public forum for returned Peace Corps volunteers. Does the word "peace" in the name mean that it must be completely ignored? Furthermore, the slightest research would show that this quotation isn't subject to any good-faith dispute. If you actually click on the link, you'll see that the Peace Corps Online post is quoting a Reuters dispatch. That should suggest that it's not some kind of left-wing propaganda lie. In fact, Googling the quotation turns up, as the fifth hit, a column by that well-known Bolshevik Ann Coulter, who cites the quotation exactly as it appeared in our article. [6] I've restored the quotation (giving Kerry's complete sentence), with a citation to CBS News to forestall further such sniping from people who regard "peace" as a suspicious word. I've also removed A1sdf's characterization of opponents of the war as "far left" and his later reference to "much of the American Left", words that serve no purpose except to convey the impression (probably a false impression) that these views are held only by a tiny minority. JamesMLane 21:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• You might even say that this person is a *gasp* sockpuppet, but obviously that title is reserved for people who DISagree with bigrexy--172.150.95.165 16:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, I think we should find a better one than National Review Online if this article is going to claim the wound was "superficial". I checked the source; it was an account by a doctor who treated his wound, as told by NRO columnist Byron York. (By the way, the link I removed is here. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 06:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC))

By the way, Rex, that was only ONE edit I reworked, out of the six or seven you made. If I were reverting you "out of spite", I'd revert all your edits. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 06:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Byron York @ NRO

(copied here from User talk:Szyslak)

NRO is suffiently mainstream and Byron York is sufficently well regarded that when Byron quotes Dr. Louis Letson, you cannot simply reject this source out of hand as being invalid - and somehow not meriting discussion prior to your reverting my edit. Please dialog with me about this on Talk:John Kerry. I'll answer there promptly, as soon as you articulate a rationale for you rejecting the validity of Byron York's quoting of Dr. Letson. Thanks. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 06:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverts and John Kerry

(moved here from User Talk:Rex071404)

Hi there. I wish you'd please stop insisting that other editors follow your personal policy on reverts. All around Wikipedia, I've found that politically contentious edits to major articles tend to get reverted, with or without "discussion prior to reverting". I don't like being reverted any more than you do. Personally, I've been striving to explain reverts more, which is something most Wikipedia editors don't do nearly enough. However, few people are willing to accede to your list of demands about how they edit Wikipedia. It's tiresome to hear your demands that people follow your instructions, which have no basis in Wikipedia policy or common, everyday editing practice.

About my edit: I did discuss it—after I made the edit, instead of before as you demanded in your message on my talk page. Apparently that wasn't good enough for you, but if you continue to insist on things like that, nothing on Wikipedia is. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 07:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Sz,

• #1) Where have I accused you of "spite"?
• #2) Where is your proof that Byron York is an invalid source?
• #3) Since when is NRO an invalid source?
• #4) Are you saying the quotes attributed by York to the Dr. are falsified and that the Dr. did not really say those things?

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 07:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex, you accused me of "reverting you out of spite" or something to that effect on your "liberal bias" page, which I found in your edit history. (By the way, making pages like that is really considered uncool here. What's the point of it? You could be giving some editors the impression you're putting together a "hit list" or something to that effect, or that you're planning to file an RFC or RFAr against the editors you listed.)

Anyway, about the York source: I don't think opinion magazines are always invalid or inaccurate as sources for Wikipedia articles. However, I don't like the idea of using an opinion magazine to "prove" a disputed claim as "fact". And yes, it is disputed whether Kerry bled enough for his Purple Hearts. It's not absolute truth that his wound was minor. It's just a pointless "campaign issue" from last year, not worth rehashing over and over again. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 07:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Sz, if you were not snooping on my private edits log, you would not be reading what are clearly chronological notes about suspect edits, notes which are clearly meant just for me. Regarding my log, not once have I ever told you to read that page, nor have I ever linked a comment to you to that page, nor have I ever directed the word "spite" to you. However, your edit summary [7] which caused me to make a note to myself does clearly accuse me of creating a "phony non-issue". Certainly, where I come from, it can be considered "spiteful" to call someone a "phony" or accuse them of being "phony" or doing "phony" things. Now, on to you and your assertion of "disputed"; the issue at hand between you and I right now is whether or not Byron York accurately quoted Dr. Louis Letson, not whether or the good Dr. was lying or not.

Q: Yes or no, are you willing to agree that the Dr. was quoted by York accurately? If not, what source can you point to which refutes York's quotations of the Dr. as being false quotes?

And FYI: the edit of mine, which you reverted, did not call the wound minor. Rather what it did was use terminology such as "small" and "superficially" [8] as presented in the Dr. Leston quote. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 08:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex,

1. Everything you post here, including what's in your edit space, is accessible to anyone reading Wikipedia and shows up in your edit history. In fact, I have a "private" page myself, at User:Szyslak/Sandbox. (Go ahead, read it. I'm serious.) If you don't want anyone to stumble on your "private" pages, perhaps you should write down your "private logs" in a text file on your computer.
2. I never called you a "phony". That would be a personal attack, which I strive to avoid. I called this issue phony. There's a huge difference.
3. The doctor is probably being quoted accurately. I never disputed that. But his testimony is far from conclusive proof that Kerry's wound was trivial, nor does it settle this disputed claim as absolute proof.
4. Please try to assume good faith, as I've been striving to do. I'm here to write an encyclopedia, not re-create the acrimonious debate surrounding trivial issues.

sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 08:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

(P.S.: I just made an edit that addresses the "minor wound" claim, without declaring one way or another whether it was "serious" enough for the Purple Heart.) sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 08:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Direct Quotation vs. "Opinion"

I recently made this edit which relied on this as my source. My source article is written by Byron York and directly quotes Dr. Louis Letson, the man who personally administered the medical treatment to Kerry's 1st injury. Mr. York, in the article, quotes the Dr. thusly;

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

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

As any plain reading of the York article makes clear, Mr. York, is directly quoting the Dr. and it is Dr. Letson himself who uses the words "small" and "superficially". Based on those direct quotes, I used the word "superficial" to describe the injury and "small" to describe the shrapnel. Frankly, I fail to se how anyone can claim that my version is POV or warrants the edit that Szyslak made here and which has in it this statement "which some of his conservative critics have called minor."

If you read above, you will see the enormous opposition that had gone against the use of the word "minor". So much so, that I took the time (as Kizzle wanted - see above) to get a direct source quotation. Yet, to top it off, Szyslak seems to be confusing York viewpoint with Leston's personal words. Arrgghhh.... I am going to sleep on this and let it sit for a few days. Perhaps by then Szyslak will see that my source is valid and he is confusing Letson (fact) for York (opinion).

Of course, there would still remain the point of whether or not Szyslak will subsequently accept the Letson facts as true facts. Because even if he does come to admit that Letson said those words (in writing, which York re-printed, verbatim), there will still be the issue of Szyslak (and others) perhaps faulting Letson's recollection or calling Letson a liar.

Even so, to my knowledge Letson is the only medical staffer who treated Kerry's 1st injury, so he is the only trained authority on what the treatment was and what size/type injury he saw. So then, I guess what I am saying is, why are we so quick to refuse the accept Letson's statement as valid? We have many other sources, in many articles who do not have a 35 year unblemished medical career vouching for them, as Letson does. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 08:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Page Size

This page is 80 KB long, and should be shortened or split as per Wikipedia:Article size. In a similar way as George W. Bush, this article, too, is extremely long, and could use much shortening, for a variety of reasons, such as fact checking and general ease of readability, making it viable for FA status. Thanks, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{02:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)}

I agree. Time to either delete some stuff or spin off subsidiary articles. I have long stated that there is too much minutiae in the John Kerry article. Perhaps we can begin by deleting details such as this "His favorite food is chocolate chip cookies." Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 16:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree. Several daughter articles have already been split off. I'm skeptical about whether more such splitting is sensible. The few items of personal details, like the cookies, do not add appreciably to the article's length. JamesMLane 16:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The cookie tidbit is one of dozens of excess sentences in this article. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 18:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• So, basically, you want to improve the article by adding verbiage that pleases your POV (such as going into detail about the nature of his wounds, for the purpose of belittling the plain unadorned fact that he received multiple Purple Hearts) while removing verbiage that doesn't please your POV in the name of removing excess verbiage. You're pretty transparent, y'know. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Please don't start that kind of hostility. By aggregate word count, my edits here have tended towards less words, rather than more. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 04:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex's removal of minor info

If you have done about 5 seconds of work on google and found the sources yourself, you could have found several sites which would have corroborated John Kerry's favorite food and his pets, rather than removing them and making other people find sources (which is ridiculous in the first place, is this passage really that controversial?). Please don't remove any more info citing lack of source unless you spend at least 5 minutes on google trying to find one. --kizzle 18:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is Kizzle saying that it's my job to prove the veracity of another's edits? Also, how timely is the Googled info? Is he sure it's current? Also, the source link must be provided in the article. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Because you are a participant in the editing of this article and you should share in some of the responsibility of factchecking and researching the article instead of demanding others do it for you. Gamaliel 19:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll wait for Kizzle's answer on that, thank you. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

In case you didn't realize, this is a public forum. If you want a private conversation with kizzle, use email. Gamaliel 19:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, is your name Gamizzle or is it Gamaliel? Because unless it's Gamizzle, I don't see how you feel you ought to answer for Kizzle, do you? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Fo'shizzle gamizzle. Gamaliel 23:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Umm, because its common courtesy. If you are here truly to build a better encyclopedia, than if you're unsure about the veracity of a statement, just spend 5 minutes on google trying to see if you can corroborate it. If a superficial search turns up nothing, then feel free to delete the info, otherwise add the sources you find. It took me about 5 seconds on the first page to find a good source for your info. It's not your job to prove the veracity, but you're setting a bad example that anyone can come in and delete any info they feel suspect without actually investigating themselves whether or not it is truly suspect. As for the "timeliness" of the info, they're mainly written around the 2004 election, but I really don't think we need to say "At the time", just put his pets and his favorite food as mentioned, then if a news report comes out saying that he's changed his favorite food or one of his pets dies or he gets a new one, we'll use that. I still can't believe I'm having this argument. --kizzle 20:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL --Aude 22:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex, if you go over to the George W. Bush article, you'll find that no sources are cited for the assertions that he was born in 1946 or that he's married to a former librarian named Laura. He might actually be ten years younger than that and be married to a former stripper named Boom Boom. Perhaps you should remove the allegation about this supposed "Laura" person until it's properly documented. JamesMLane 23:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I hear the Onion reports that the White House denies the existance of anyone named Karl Rove. Also, I hear it was a blue Fitzmas this year - no Karl Rove's head under the Fitzmas tree. JML's dreaming of a Rove Fitzmas... Just like the ones he used to know... Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Nah, I had a wonderful Fitzmas this year, watching Bush squirm, Libby resigning, exposing the Republican party for the corrupt bunch they are, ensuring the chances of a Democratic senate majority come midterms... actually it should be more like Fitzanukah, cause its going to last for a lot longer than a day. --kizzle 00:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, Kizzle, let me see (Democrat) Ted Kennedy killed a woman, (Democrat) Robert Byrd was a paid KKK recruiter, (Democrat) Barney Frank allowed a homosexual prostitute to run a call-boy service from his DC town house, (Democrat) Gerry Studds had homosexual sex with with a minor and refused to apologize, (Democrat) Bill Clinton was impeached, lied under oath, and has been credibly accused of rape, (Democrat) Hillary Clinton miraculously turned $1,000 into $100,000 one time and one time only - never again repeating the miracle, (Democrat) Dan Rostenkowski, former Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, was driven from office in scandal and pled guilty to mail fraud, (Democrat) White House Counsel Bernard W. Nussbaum (and others) illegally illegally obtain FBI files, (Democrat) Sandy Berger pleads guilty and pays a $10,000 fine for stealing government documents and (Democrat) Jesse Jackson referred to NYC as "hymie town". No wonder you have to look to the Republicans for holiday cheer, your Democrat friends have all gone to jail, plead guilty or should be in jail. Not much merriment there. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and Bush and friends manipulated intel to get us into a war where 2000 people have now died, at least when Clinton lied nobody died. Or put national security at risk for pure political retribution. That alone trumps your list. Merry Fitzanukah, Rex, and Happy New Indictments. --kizzle 02:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Two thousand people have died? At least 30,000 people have died. Fun selective list from Rex, though. Both parties are full of corruption; politics is full of corruption, and this is hardly news nor interesting. Neither is corruption that leads to war; LBJ knew full well that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was based on bogus info (something about those poor bastard sailors shooting at flying fish). Regardless, Rex's tirade makes it pretty clear that his only agenda here is the continuation of the slime job that his political allies won the election with in 2004. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, there's no "tirade" [9] as I was not venturing any opinions or making a speech, nor am I angry. This was pure Dragnet: "Just the facts, ma'am". Now as to Kizzle's "Or put national security at risk for pure political retribution". This is nothing but absurd conjecture which doesn't even allow for the possibility that Wilson, as the partisan he is, provoked the inquiries about himself by making the profoundly false pronouncements that he made. After a lengthy investigation, we have learned so far a) There is no charge or official allegation that anyone disclosed the indentity of a covert CIA employee b) there is no charge or official allegation that anyone, other than "Scooter" did anything but state to reporters that Mrs. Wilson (not, "Plame" - he did NOT say "Plame" to anyone) worked at CIA (not "is an agent", etc.) Frankly, I think Wilson is a pimp for using his wife this way. He went on that trip with every intention of stirring up trouble and to a certain extent, he succeded. However, if either of you bothered to do any real reading on this topic, you'd quickly find out that Wilson is an established LIAR, so far as reporting the actual facts regarding what he did and did not do in regards to his trip. Now then, this edit could possibly be a "tirade" except again for the fact that I am not angry. Angry at whom? Wilson? He's a nobody - a pimple on the ass of history. This time next year, people will have forgotten all about him. Unless of course Wilson himself gets charged at some point - which for spreading the lies that he has about his "trip" he should be. He needs only to be questioned by a Federal Agent and repeat the same lies he's told so far. In addition to lying under oath or to a Grand jury, lying to a Federal Agent in the course of an investigation is a Felony. Wilson should be questioned and charged. He's the traitor, not Bush, who Kizzle speciously and falsely accuses. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 13:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It's quire humorous that you call Wilson a liar yet skip over the fact that Libby was indicted for lying. As far as I can recall, Wilson hasn't been indicted yet for the crimes you allege he committed. I'm not sure he will be forgotten within a year, as the White House has already suffered real consequences directly because of Wilson through the forced resignation of Libby. If you think the Republican party isn't worried about the ramifications of this case, than you need to go talk to your buddies again. I'm glad we're on the same page about manipulated intel, though. Tell me this, Rex, if this is all "absurd conjecture", than why would Libby lie to a grand jury? Why risk 30 years max in jail if he has nothing to hide? Geezus I can't wait until midterm elections, with a failing war with no money, Tom Delay being indicted, Libby being indicted, Bush's retarded response to Hurricane Katrina, Bush's re-emergence of his drinking problems, reports of him yelling at his staffers, approval ratings at lethargic levels, it'll be almost too easy to take your cronies out of power. --kizzle 19:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, you are really losing it. Unless you stop bandying about such scurrilous nonsense as "Bush's retarded response to Hurricane Katrina, Bush's re-emergence of his drinking problems", I'm not going to bother dialogging with you regarding anything but a specific edit under discussion. FYI: I note that you do not deny that Ted Kennedy killed a woman and Byrd was a KKK leader - or how about the fact that Byrd not too long ago used the term "white nigger" on TV? Question: If, as I expect he will be, Delay is fully exonerated, will you admit that your broadbrush hysteria regarding him was overwrought? As for Libby, I do not claim to understand why he mis-spoke and/or lied regarding his discussions with reporters concerning Mr. & Mrs Wilson. However, the closest recent parallel was Martha Stewart and it that case - as in this case - the original accusation proved to not have suffcient foundation to proceed, only charges of lying went forward. Why did Libby lie? I dunno, why did Marthe lie? Personally, I don't think she did - she had nothing to hide and interviewed with investigators voluntarily. Suffice it to say, I don't think she rememebered the sequence of events correctly. I also don't think she should have been charged. As for Libby, from where I sit, the charges are more flummoxing. He could easily have hid behind White House lawyers and refused to answer questions based on assertions of Executive Priviledge - if what you are saying is true - that he was acting on instructions of Bush/Cheney. Had that been the case, they would still be litigating whether he even had to answer questions. Then, after he was forced to answer by the courts, he could have taken the 5th. In fact he could have taken the 5th even under the current circumstances. That he did not, would tend to indicate that his statements were not - in his mind as he said them - false or needing to be concealed. Kizzle, these points having been made, will you please stop with the wacky anti-Bush yammering, it demeans our discussions. And regarding your claims that "we're on the same page about manipulated intel", I don't see where you get that as I did not comment about "intel" and I certainly do not agree with the thesis that a) Bush et, al "lied" to bring war, b) Wilson "uncovered" truth c) White House "retaliates" against Wilson. There are so many flaws with that erroneous and myopic theory, that I don't even discuss it beyond saying, it's crap and only partisan zealots think it's true, IMHO.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see. My comments are "wacky anti-Bush yammering" and do not concern a "specific edit"... did you happen to see your comment that started all this? Here, I'll reprint it:

I hear the Onion reports that the White House denies the existance of anyone named Karl Rove. Also, I hear it was a blue Fitzmas this year - no Karl Rove's head under the Fitzmas tree. JML's dreaming of a Rove Fitzmas... Just like the ones he used to know... Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

What edit or use did that comment have? Funny that you say this under a thread started by me requesting that you don't delete info without actually doing some legwork, and your only response to this is to harp on James about Rove not being indicted. You might want to take your own advice there, champ.--kizzle 20:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, you are way off base here, I feel. My comment to JML did not concern you as it was not directed to you. Too bad the Onion Rove spoof is now deleted from the web - it was a hoot. And surely, in light of JML's jab about Laura bush, mentioning it was valid. As for Fitzmas - go to that page and you will see how emotionally invested JML is in all of that. For that reason, I do feel Fitzmas is coloring his views and was worth mentioning. Sorry it got you so hysterical. By they way, did Mary Jo Kopechne ("Kopechne died in Chappaquiddick, Massachusetts when a car driven by Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy, in which she was the passenger, went off a bridge and overturned into a pond") die because of Ted Kennedy, yes or no? At least when GWB used to drink and drive, he was careful enough to drive slowly and not kill anyone. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 20:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Umm, this is Wikipedia. As Gamaliel said, if you want to keep your comments to JML private, than email him. Sorry I didn't respond specifically to your Ted Kennedy question, I generally try and keep my comments short so that you don't avoid answering the general argument by focusing upon a minor aspect, but clearly you ignored my entire post pointing out your continued hypocrisy of chiding me for not discussing a specific edit while you continue on your off-topic "hysterical" tirades. For Ted Kennedy, I have absolely no idea, it happened over a decade before I was even born. Worst case scenario: Ted Kennedy killed a person. Either way, it is nothing compared to why the White House is in turmoil, according to almost every news source out there, because they are under serious investigation as to whether they breached national security for political retribution, or to the fact that more than 2000 people have died in a war which was justified on manipulated intel (read Price of Loyalty, Against All Enemies, Plan of Attack). Please, there is no comparison. --kizzle 20:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds super, except that the White House is NOT "under serious investigation as to whether they breached national security for political retribution". The investigation has been held, NO charges were brought contending what you allege. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"First of all, there is a legal proceeding that continues right now, and under our legal system, there is a presumption of innocence. We need to let that legal process continue."

"I think you're presuming things in that question, and I don't think while this investigation and this legal proceeding is ongoing, that we should make such presumptions. We should let that process continue."

"Again, there is an ongoing investigation; we need to let that investigation continue." - White House Briefing, October 31, 2005

Hmm, certainly sounds like Scott McClellan disagrees with your sentiments that the investigation "has been held", its almost as if he's saying the complete opposite. --kizzle 23:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because both you and he were not listening closely enough during the press conference? Or perhaps McClellan has another agenda that you did not consider.

Here is the operative Q & A regarding whether or not we ought to expect futher indictments:

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, this began as a leak investigation but no one is charged with any leaking. Is your investigation finished? Is this another leak investigation that doesn't lead to a charge of leaking?

FITZGERALD: Let me answer the two questions you asked in one.

OK, is the investigation finished? It's not over, but I'll tell you this: Very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried and would you ever end a grand jury investigation.

I can tell you, the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded

Find full transcript here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340_pf.html

I read that answer by Fitzgerald to mean that there is a slim to none chance any more indictments will come of this.

Personally, I feel that McClellan is simply using the "ongoing investigation" as an excuse to avoid answering questions. A crude, but effective tactic.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 01:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I guess we'll see what happens when that liar Libby has to tell the truth. And yes, the investigation is ongoing, as Fitzgerald himself says it's not over. --kizzle 18:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, Rove himself disagrees with you:

Fitzgerald appeared prepared to indict Rove heading into last week for making false statements, according to three people close to the probe. But that changed during a private meeting last Tuesday between Fitzgerald and Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin. It's not clear precisely what happened in that meeting, but two sources briefed on it said Luskin discussed new information that gave Fitzgerald "pause."

Rove remains a focus of the CIA leak probe. He has told friends it is possible he still will be indicted for providing false statements to the grand jury.

"Everyone thinks it is over for Karl and they are wrong," a source close to Rove said. The strategist's legal and political advisers "by no means think the part of the investigation concerning Karl is closed."

[10] --kizzle 19:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry's injury

A direct quote by the Dr. who treated Kerry uses the same three words I use: "injury", "superficial" and "small". Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for NPOV and didn't revert your other changes which are okay with me. I think your taking the term "superficial" out of context of the quote. The term "superficial" has various definitions [11], the top one being "1. Of, affecting, or being on or near the surface: a superficial wound." In other words, a "shallow wound". --Aude 00:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Read Letson's statement again:

"That seemed to fit the injury which I treated.

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

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

The wound was covered with a bandaid."

He uses the word "injury" 1st and "wound" last - so do I.

Now, as to the use of "superficial", I use that as I did because Letson said:

"a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin".

He is clealry stating that the injury was superficial.

Using the FACTS providd by Letson, I have assembled a non-POV sentence which uses all four key words and does not distort their meaning:

"Kerry suffered a superficial injury from a small piece of shrapnel in the left arm above the elbow [12]. The shrapnel was removed and the wounded area was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged."

Other than to re-tweak it as:

"Kerry suffered a superficial injury from a small piece of shrapnel in the left arm above the elbow [13]. The shrapnel was removed and the wound was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged."

I see no justifications for changing these two sentences. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

More than a year ago, we moved this whole area of argument into John Kerry military service controversy. That, of course, doesn't stop Rex, who spent quite a bit of time last summer trying to insert language downplaying Kerry's service, and who is now putting us through the same exercise yet again.

I believe we should stick with the long-established approach of giving the basic points here, with disputes left to the "controversy" article. All of Rex's boldfacing can't obscure the existence of a genuine dispute here. Letson says he treated Kerry's wound. The Navy records, however, show that it was someone named Carreon. Letson says oh, well, Carreon was assisting me and I had him sign the paperwork. Carreon is dead and can't come forward to refute Letson's story. Letson also says that, more than thirty years after the event, he still remembers it (down to the fragment's diameter in millimeters!). He doesn't claim to have made any notation about it in the records (or anywhere else, AFAIK). So Letson says he's reporting a decades-old recollection, which contradicts the records and can't now be corroborated, and which just so happens to serve his political ends (Letson appeared in one of the anti-Kerry SBVT ads).

The question for us is whether we should get into all of this in the Kerry bio, or leave it to the daughter article. I think we should continue the long-established policy of leaving it to the daughter article. Similarly, the George W. Bush article doesn't mention that several people who were assigned to Bush's unit in the National Guard say they didn't see him at drills. In both these cases, the accumulation of pro-and-con evidence on the military service disputes threatened to overwhelm the bio, so it was moved. It should stay moved. JamesMLane 02:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, I was actually under the impression that the military service controversy page had been merged into this page, with all the detail of his military service on this page. --kizzle 03:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The quote from Dr. Leston and the words he used, are in not and of themselves "controversial". Rather, the "controversy" attaches to those words by various editors here who insist on inserting sentences such as "Kerry's opponents, including the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, have contended that this wound was too minor to merit a Purple Heart and that Kerry used this injury as his first of three to game the system and obtain early release from his Vietnam service. However, Kerry's wound did qualify him for consideration under Naval guidelines for a purple heart, and a subsequent Naval review reiterated their position that the purple heart was correctly given".

Owing to the fact that this text which I edited in...

"Kerry suffered a superficial injury from a small piece of shrapnel in the left arm above the elbow [14]. The shrapnel was removed and the wound was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged."

...uses the EXACT WORDS that Dr. Letson used and because it's also carefully written, it's not in and of itself a controversy. If you insist on calling it such, we'll end up at the point where no text referring to the 1st injury/wound is allowed in, as every variant could be deemed "controversy". See Talk:Stolen_Honor#Per se controversy articles and associate sections on that talk page for related explanations. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 04:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex, you're treating Letson's every utterance as Holy Writ. There's a controversy over whether he even treated Kerry at all. We can't have a passage in the article that relies on him as an authority without also disclosing to the reader that he's biased and that the Navy's records don't support his claim. There's also the need to avoid giving the false impression that the wound was too small to qualify for a Purple Heart (even on Letson's version of the facts, the award was proper). That's why we should stick to the language that emerged from last year's wrangling, with further details going in the daughter article. JamesMLane 23:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with James's inferrence that the article has an enforced stasis regarding this section of text. I came up with phrasing which I think is NPOV towards both sides and is in fact, more accurate than what it replaces. Also, there is no credible evidence that Letson is lying about having treated Kerry or is to be disbeleived out of hand due to alleged bias. Also, as I have copiously explained previously, I feel the evidence clearly would support explicitly calling the injury "minor" as in "minor wound", but I am not trying to force that here.

James, other than arguing your point, you have supplied no data or evidence about wounds per se, but I have (see previous talk, above). That evidence, in the form of a wound treatment guide, can now be found here (URL changed recently). The treatment Kerry received (by all accounts) makes clear that he received treatment for a "minor wound". And yet, the text I editing in recently has softened but is still is correct, more accurate (than what you now lobby for), is NPOV and fair to both sides:

"Kerry suffered a superficial injury from a small piece of shrapnel in the left arm above the elbow [15]. The shrapnel was removed and the wound was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged."

James, you are again focusing unduly on the past edit war -won by your side by default, when I got booted for 3rr violations ("we should stick to the language that emerged from last year's wrangling"). This is espcially true, considering that the ArbComm made a specific finding about issues of the campaign intruding into this article. Need I remind you, that it was you (one whom the ArbComm addressed) and your cohorts that made the final decsion about the language you now insist on sticking with.

Plain and simply, I have compromised here and you have not. You need to do better than that or rightly speaking, you are not enagaging in Wikipedia:Negotiation or Consensus decision-making.

Suffice it to say, I contend that there is residual POV bias in this article and I further contend that you are arguing against various changes that would remedy this. For these reasons, I am not persuaded by your plea to "stick to the language that emerged".

Again I will repeat: JamesMLane and others here do not have authority to enforce stasis or otherwise "freeze" any section of this article. As for "false impression(s)", the copious amounts of personal minutiae about Kerry detailed in this article do indeed give the false impression that we as readers really ought to be sweet on Kerry, our patootie [16]. The entire article is too hagiographic and is way POV balanced in favor of Kerry.

James's ceaseless efforts to screen out all non-flattering facts, regardless of how tactfully conveyed, does not improve the article. On the other hand, this edit of mine does and I am going to do my best to see to it that the true words of "superficial" and "small" stay in. You are welcome to try incorporating those words into a sentence you'd prefer, but you have not made the case for keeping them out. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that there's any such thing as "enforced stasis". Your insinuation to the contrary is utterly ridiculous. A specific prior version of an article may be better or worse than a proposed change. It's always open to discussion. I said that this particular older version was superior and I explained why I thought so.

According to you, "there is no credible evidence that Letson is lying about having treated Kerry". The place to address that question is in the daughter article, John Kerry military service controversy. There the reader can be told all the details on both sides. It would be misleading to say that "there's no credible evidence" without mentioning that Letson's name doesn't appear on the official Navy record. In fact, another way to summarize the state of the evidence would be, "Letson's claim to have treated Kerry is unsupported by any other evidence -- nothing in any Navy record, nothing from Kerry, nothing from any other medical officer, nothing from anyone else in the squadron, and no claim by Letson that he made any contemporaneous record of a minor incident that he now claims to remember so well decades later." Of course, it would be biased to write that in the article without also reporting Letson's explanation for why his name doesn't appear. We have to put in all of it or none of it, and I favor putting in none of it, but making it available in the daughter article.

You write, "The treatment Kerry received (by all accounts) makes clear that he received treatment for a 'minor wound' . . . ." Bingo, end of discussion. The long-standing version gives the facts about the treatment he received. Several of us explained to you last summer that our job was to give the facts and let the reader draw the inference. If you think the inference is clear, then the only reason for your change is to emphasize a point that suits your POV. I asked you more than a year ago what facts (as opposed to inferences or conclusions or characterizations or opinions) were being kept from the reader by the version everyone else favored. You never answered me then. You still haven't.

You write that "the ArbComm made a specific finding about issues of the campaign intruding into this article." Specifically, the ArbCom thought that the main bio article was getting into too much detail about points being argued in the campaign. One of those points was the SBVT attack on Kerry's war record. The way to avoid getting into too much detail is to move all this stuff (Letson says this, the records say that, etc.) to the daughter article. It's odd that you invoke the ArbCom when you're the one trying to add detail about this campaign issue to the main bio article.

You continue to act as if the principles of negotiation and consensus mean that you must be "given something". That's not so. Suppose another editor comes along and says that, because Kerry's ancestry was Jewish, his bid for the Presidency was part of the international Jewish conspiracy. The new editor has a whole bunch of edits he wants to make that flow from that thesis. The rest of us think that the article should give notable facts about Kerry, and it already includes the Judaism of his paternal grandparents, which we think is enough. The new editor persists. He adds anti-Semitic material to several sections. He complains when someone reverts him. When two different people "gang up" to revert him, he complains even more loudly. Are we required to say that, in the interest of compromise, we must allow at least one little bit of anti-Semitic propaganda and/or conspiracy theories into the article? No, we're not. If all of his proposed edits are bad, then all should be reverted. Each edit is to be judged on its own merit.

Finally, your charge that I have made "ceaseless efforts to screen out all non-flattering facts" is simply false. There's plenty of negative stuff in this article that I've never tried to eliminate or even soften. What I have tried to do, not ceaselessly but as much as I've had time for, is to keep the article free of unencylopedic passages. You tend to write quite a few such passages. Furthermore, your edits, whether unencyclopedic or not, are always or almost always adverse to Kerry, whom you plainly despise. Dealing with your constant assault tends to skew my edits. If there were someone here acting the way you do, who had already incurred several different penalties for misconduct, and who was acting disruptively while trying to make pro-Kerry edits, then I'd be spending more time fighting with that person, and my edits would look anti-Kerry. I suggest that you lay off the ad hominem arguments and confine yourself to addressing the merits of specific edits. JamesMLane 00:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

James, thank you for your well reasoned and polite response. Though I disagree with some of your points, I appreciate that you are dialogging. As for the section under discussion, as of today, here is how it reads:

====First Purple Heart====

During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating in and around a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began to run. When the men refused to obey an order to stop running, Kerry and his crew of two enlisted men opened fire, destroyed the sampans, and took off. During this encounter, Kerry suffered a wound from a small piece of shrapnel in the left arm above the elbow. Dr. Louis Letson described the injury in detail:

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

I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps. I doubt that it penetrated more than 3 or 4 mm. It did not require probing to find it, did not require any anesthesia to remove it, and did not require any sutures to close the wound" - [17]

The shrapnel was removed and the wounded area was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged. Kerry returned to duty the next day on a regular Swift boat patrol. Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this injury.

Kerry's opponents, including the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, have contended that this wound was too minor to merit a Purple Heart and that Kerry used this injury as his first of three to game the system and obtain early release from his Vietnam service. However, Kerry's wound did qualify him for consideration under Naval guidelines for a Purple Heart, and a subsequent Naval review reiterated their position that Kerry's award was correctly given

As it stands now, this section is fair to both points of view and there is no need to chop this apart towards shunting details to any subsidiary "controversy page". In brief, it outlines the core of this issue in a NPOV manner, with details that are accurate enough to be fair to both views.

Are you willing to accept this section as it is now, or not? If not, then please tell me line by line, why not. Thanks. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 03:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

No, this version is unacceptable. It gives extensive attention to Letson's statements without noting that he's not mentioned in the Navy records. This version thus impliedly accepts that Letson is being truthful about having treated Kerry. Also, it goes into too much detail, delving into exactly the sort of dispute that led to the creation of the daughter article. When you found it convenient, you have inveighed against having too much detail:

Oh and since Gamaliel want to stuff the past ArbComm issues in my face, let's not forget what one of the key ArbComm findings was "User Rex071404 and others including the complaining witnesses, Neutrality, Wolfman, and JamesMLane have in the heat of the US Presidential election focused on the article John Kerry and carried the issues of the campaign into the encyclopedia article in detail.". [18]

Therefore, to the extent we have an outside opinion on this subject, from the ArbCom, it is that we should all take care to avoid cluttering this article with details that were being bandied about during the campaign.

I see nothing wrong with the version that was essentially stable for more than a year:

During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating in and around a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began to run. When the men refused to obey an order to stop running, Kerry and his crew of two enlisted men opened fire, destroyed the sampans, and took off. During this encounter, Kerry suffered a 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. Kerry was awarded his first Purple Heart for this injury.

If we were to lengthen that paragraph by adding material related to the dispute, we would certainly have to try to be fair to both sides. That goal would rule out presenting Letson as if he were an unquestioned eyewitness. Therefore, we'd have to amend your version by making it even longer and even more detailed. Some editors have expressed concern that the article is already too long; one way we manage its length is to leave the back-and-forth about SBVT's charges to the daughter article. What you've done is to add a lot of unnecessary detail to the military service section, and then removed it on the grounds that it makes the article too long, thus leaving the main bio bereft of any information about one of the most important aspects of Kerry's life. JamesMLane 09:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. I have been trying to trim this article for weeks and have been blocke at every turn. Even the smallest minutiae is re-inserted (ie: "favorite cookies"). The spin-off I did makes perfect sense. This discussion regarding 1st injury/Letson needs to move to: Talk:John Kerry's military service and I am copying it there now. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 09:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

uhh

do photos count as original research? I think as long as there isn't a copyvio problem, you can use original photos. --kizzle 01:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Photos by Wikipedia editors are exempt from NOR. See Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#NOR vs. photos made by Wikipedians --Aude 01:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Original Research

All quotes below are verbatim from: Wikipedia:No original research

1. "Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia."
2. "Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations". (my emphasis)
3. "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed."

Kizzle, please don't fight the obvious here, the image in question is indisputably original research - read the Summary for it:

Object: Support for election campaign of John Kerry, here at a residence in Arizona

Source: self

Photographer: Nils Fretwurst

Date: 2004

File:Private support for JK election.jpg

That image is an NOR violation and must be deleted (from the John Kerry article).

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 01:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

No, the photo is cute and can stay on the talk page.

Try to stop concerning yourself so much with rules and start thinking about ways to present both views of Kerry.

He was the opposing candidate for the most powerful electoral office in the world. He's bound to attract some controversy if for no other reason than that.

Just say that his supporters love him because they think he did X, stands for Y, and they hope he'll do Z. Then turn around and say that his opponents hate him because (they claim) he did A, stands for B, and would probably have done C if elected.

Don't try to make Wikipedia Wikipedia:settle any part of this dispute. Some things are beyond his dispute, like his birthdate, and what rank he held in Vietnam. But whether his meetings with top North Vietnamese officials were good or bad is at issue and therefore by definition something Wikipedia can't take a stand on.

I wish you people would stop trying to use Wikipedia to settle arguments. It only makes more arguments. Try writing for the enemy a bit. Uncle Ed 02:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Ed, of course it can stay on the talk page but not in the article. In the article itself, it is an NOR violation. Do you agree with this contention, yes or no? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 02:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex's position is misconceived, and he is being selective in his extracts from WP:NOR, and possibly hoping nobody will actually read the policy page. Under "What is original research?" it states: The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

It goes on further to state that: Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

In other words, creating a primary source is not allowed. Drawing from a primary source is allowed. In this case, posting the photograph does not create a primary source - the photograph is the primary source, it already exists, and the article makes use of it. And, as if to dispell any doubt, further down the page under "What is excluded from articles?" it says: A Wikipedia entry (including any part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas..., then goes on to give examples, none of which includes pictures, by the way. It's the ideas that are to be considered original research, not sources. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Not so, here again are the definitions and rules, quoted verbatim from Wikipedia:No original research:

1. "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication"
2. "Primary sources present information or data"
3. "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed"

That photograph most certainly a) was created by the editor who published it and b) [has] not been [previously] published in a reputable publication and c) it most certainly contains data and a statement, re: "support John Kerry".

Other than the fact some here would find it objectionable; talking exclusively from from a definition standpoint, how would it differ if I took a photo of a pile of dog poop with a John Kerry button stuck in it and a label on that button which said "Oppose John Kerry"? The answer is, with the reasoning being offered here, it would not.

Are you saying such an absurd turd photo would be allowed in? Well, what if it was boxer shorts?

Or a pile of condoms?

Or a douche bag?

Or a corpse on a guerney with a sign that said "Vote for Kerry, I did, twice today"

What about a cartoon drawing of said corpse with sign?

How does that differ from this photo under dispute? What about a photo of a cartoon drawing of the corpse with a sign?

The photo is a primary source created by whoever took it, period. It has not been elsewhere published in a reputable publication.

The tableau represented by the photo cannot be allowed to leap into the wiki via the creating of that primary source by the wiki editor, period.

Repeat after me:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed

If you allow this photo, this creates precendent for people who want to seed the wiki with self-created "loaded" photos. Such a policy would be folly and would open up a non-stop can of worms.

On the other hand, if any final ruling says OK to the photo, I absolutely will post a "bra and Kerry message" photo, which says "oppose John Kerry". With the logic being offered here, it will have to be allowed in.

I'll wait until I see how this turns out.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 04:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hardly. If one disallows this, then all the GFDL photographs created by Wikipedians to illustrate articles, no matter how neutral, become verboten, which is simply ludicrous. There are plenty of other, more fine-tuned, means to object to photographs - NPOV, unverifiable, irrelvancy, non-notability and so on, which would eliminate most if not all of your examples. WP:NOR is not a valid objection to the picture's inclusion given the way the policy is phrased, since it casts too wide a net. You would have done better to try and mount an objection on POV grounds, which is at least plausible, although still debatable. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, there is a TEXT MESSAGE in this photo, which is information, data and a statement or hadn't you noticed? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 04:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I noticed, but that still doesn't render your NOR objection valid. Now, if you wanted to object on other grounds, we may have something to talk about. FWIW, I agree with James below. Photo should be out, but not for the reasons Rex suggests. And especially not for the threatened opposition pictures. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, Khaos, since you assert above that the "photo should be out", did you just decide that now, or did you already know that when you reverted me here and put it back in? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 05:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I oppose inclusion of the photo, but for a different reason.

• NOR objection: Meritless. I agree with khaosworks. As an example, Rex's interpretation would require removal of both photos on New York-New York Hotel & Casino, along with a huge number of others.
• POV objection: Very dubious. The photo shows only that some people supported Kerry, which is already clear from the article and which isn't contested. Just running the photo doesn't imply our endorsement of that position, any more than it's POV for us to include the "Bush-Cheney '04" logo in our article on Bush's campaign.
• Usefulness to the article: It doesn't seem to add anything of note to the reader's knowledge of Kerry. It shows that one of his supporters thought of a clever pun and invested some time and energy in creating a visual expression of the idea. Fine, but that doesn't make it part of Kerry's bio. If it belongs anywhere, it would be in John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004.

Although I agree with Rex about not including the photo, I expressly disassociate myself from his vow to create and post one or more opposition photos if he doesn't get his way on this issue. He's threatening a violation of WP:POINT in an attempt to intimidate other editors into knuckling under to him. JamesMLane 04:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely made no such threat. Rather, what I said was, if any final ruling says OK to the photo, I absolutely will post a "bra and Kerry message" photo, which says "oppose John Kerry". Posting a reciprocal photo of the exact model and type, with an opposing message, is not any kind of "threat". It's axiomatic that pledging an opposing edit is not problematic, if the nature of the edit posted is allowable. Simply put, I most certainly am free to post a like, but opposing photo, if this type of photo is deemed allowable. There is no "point" to such an intention, other than to not let photos that imbalance an article remain in with no opposing balance. The mistake James makes is to interpret that kind of edit as a retaliation rather than what it would be which is, an editor waiting for confirmation that particluar photo types are acceptable, before using one. James's panic about "threats" is ill founded. Retaliators do not wait for permission. The operative phrase here is "if any final ruling says OK". If there were an official ruling stating that these types of photos are allowable (personally created political photos with embedded text messages), why should I not be allowed to post one myself? If that type of photo is legitimate, then my posting one is also legitimate. Legitimate edits by editors who wait for permission can not in any rational way, be characterized as having been made to "make a point". Frankly, this is semantic tongue twisting - if I had instead said: "If this photo is allowed, then I get to use one of the same type too, or it's not fair", James would not even be complaining. Suffice it to say, if James and others are that sensitive, I'll try to be more careful. Frankly, I find that responding to various editors on these pages is fraught with risks pertaining to complaints. Such extreme sensitivity is challenging to me, but I'll see what I can do.Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 05:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Please re-acquaint yourself with WP:POINT. If you think something is bad, don't add more of something bad. However, I also agree that the photo doesn't belong, for the same reason as JamesMLane. Rex's argument re OR is absurd; a picture I take is as much OR as a paragraph I write. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I also support JamesMlane and Jpgordon in thinking the photo might not belong for other reasons; however, objections for NOR are dubious. I don't think the photo is great quality or notable. In the George W. Bush article, there are photos of Bush speaking at campaign rallies Image:Bush 43 10-19-04 Stpete.jpg. I suggest something like that for Kerry would be more appropriate and better quality, if available in the public domain. If not, I suggest we just omit the photo from his bio. --Aude 17:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

If you agree that the photo "doesn't belong" (for whatever reason) didn't you just commit a WP:POINT faux pas by reverting [19] me and re-inserting it just to illustrate that you -as you said in your edit summary- feel that my "interpretation is absurd"? It looks that way to me. If you say the photo does not belong, and you are telling the truth when you say that, then you need to revert your own revert and take it back out, because your revert of me just now had the effect of putting the photo back in. Or didn't you know that? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 05:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Just a timing faux pas -- I reacted to your edit summary before I'd read James' latest, and was swayed by it (didn't take much, since it is a pretty dumb picture.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex, I don't agree with your concept of "balance" in general. In particular, I don't agree with staging a post-election dog poop photo. I don't know what you'd do about the images currently on New York-New York Hotel & Casino (photos by Wikipedians) and George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2004 (image representing only one side, with no "balance"), but I think they should stay. Speaking of Bush and campaign photos, by the way, we have one problem user who, despite the NOR policy, took a photograph of Bush during the campaign, uploaded the photo he'd taken to Wikipedia, and then inserted it in the George W. Bush article. I suggest you leave a stiffly worded warning on that user's talk page. JamesMLane 05:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex has something of a point here. It's one thing for a Wikipedia to photograph an example of grassroots Kerry support, it's quite another for someone to set up a display in their yard and photograph that as an example of grassroots Kerry support. This is a legitimate concern. However, Rex takes it too far. He has a tendency to be what we called in my RPG days a "rules lawyer", someone who attempted to use the rules to argue and manipulate the outcome of the game, as opposed to just role-playing and going with the flow of the game. In this instance, he takes his legitimate concern and twists it into an intepretation of the rules that is so absurd that it would disallow all user created pictures. (User created pictures are, of course, something that is actively encouraged here by everyone from Jimbo on down.) He is unwilling or unable simply to advocate his position, he insists that the rules demand his desired outcome. I think he should take Ed's wise advise: "Try to stop concerning yourself so much with rules". His legitimate concern aside, the photo is (in my opinion) pretty lame and should be excluded on those grounds. But whatever is decided with the photo, it should be decided by consensus and agreement and not by rules lawyering. After consensus emerges, at that point we should all let it go and not post retaliatory photos created solely to make a point, which I would consider a blockable offense under the "disruption" clause of Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Gamaliel 05:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

My objection is to the bogus "research" involved in locating (or setting up) that tableau with the "support John Kerry" sign, etc. If it were a pure photo of a campaign sign, there would never have been any doubt that it could belong on the Kerry Campaign article page. However, that clearly was not the artist's intention with the photo. The inclusion of the bras was an obviously intended message that ala Tom Jones or Teddy Prendergast, women are tossing underwear at Kerry because he is so desirable. Frankly, such sophmoric tricks ought to be blocked however they rightly can be. In this instance, I interpret the text in the photo, along with the other staged elements to be disqualified for the reasons I said. Indeed, the position I took on this type of image is the only viable one for dealing with images such as this: (click here to see). Of course, you will say that the text in this example image is objectionable and you might have a point. But a variant of that might not be and where would that leave us? Only the doctrine of barring via NOR, partisan photos which combine text and graphics can prevent shrewd "seeding" of the wiki with an endless stream of custom-designed photos, inserted on a point-counter-point basis. That's what I have been talking about all along here and it flummoxes me that I am having trouble conveying it. Also, what about the above editors who claim that they support the exclusion of the photo (on grounds other than mine) and yet, actually each both reverted me, twice placing the photo -which they contend should be out- back into the article, simply because I raised the "wrong" objection? Where is the "assume good faith" in that? When I initially raised this issue, I posted this talk page edit. Do not the other editors read comments here before reverting? And if they are certain of the "right" reasons to delete the image, why do they simply not tell me "the right reason is X" and then not revert me? What good is it if they share the right reasons, but refuse to act on those right reasons themselves? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94}

I did not see it as a reference to his sex appeal, but as a pun. "Support John Kerry" just like bras support breasts. Gamaliel 06:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Really? Then why is that photo not right out on the basis of being non-encyclopedic? Are "pun" photos about sitting Senators the right grist for otherwise straight-forward articles? Also, "support John Kerry" would, I feel, be more accurately conveyed by writing it on a jockstrap because he is (as I see it) a d*ck. He he, I made a "pun"... Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 06:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The photo is intended to prove a point and is indeed "research"

Ok, here is a new way of explaining:

This photo of the "support Kerry" sign shown in a tableau with some bras, can rightly be interepted (as a I've contended above) that it's been created to prove that Kerry is desirable. Gamaliel (above) said that it's a "pun", but if it's a pun, then the only rational reason for including it is to prove that Kerry supporters can make cool puns, hence Kerry must be "cool", which is still a form of proving something.

Because the photo in intended to make a point and is not just a photo of a butterfly or a tree, etc., the point this photo tries to make (whatever that point is) transforms this photo from being a "stock" photo into a form of argumentation - towards a point. That argumentation is what makes this photo "original research".

Indeed, the original caption for this photo was "Support for John Kerry, seen in Arizona". Quite apart from the fact that it appears more true the caption should have read "staged in Arizona" instead of "seen in Arizona", the operative word "support" argues that we, the readers, ought to interprept the photo as evidence of support for Kerry. Of course, since the photo's Summary details give every indication that the photo was staged, then this photo is indeed "original research" because it was staged, by a wiki editor, to prove a "novel narrative", eg: "there are women hanging their bras out for Kerry in AZ".

The reason photos need to be watched for Wikipedia:No original research violations is that the subject matter can be easily manipulated, prior to the shot being taken and then "surprise!", we have "proof" of something. This is called "creating a primary source" and it's why the NOR policy specifically states "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed".

And, if you don't think this is true, think about this:

Candidate A and Canddidate B are in close battle in a heavily minority district. Supporters of A, take signs for B, bring them to a field, dress themselves up like KKK and burn a cross, while holding B's signs. This, they take a photo of and then post it into B's bio page on the wiki with a caption of "Supporters of B hold a rally". Too impossible you say?

What if supporters of A take B's signs and make a big mess in a parking lot with them and leave also a lot of trash like water bottles and sandwich wrappers.... the caption for this reads, "trash left behind after local rally for B". More subtle - and how do we prove it's not true?

Suffice it to say, regardless of whether or not editors here may feel "the photo is cute", the reason that there is an Official Policy regarding Wikipedia:No original research which does indeed control the use of photos, is so editors cannot game the system by hitting other editors in their "the photo is cute" blind spots.

It may just be that no other editors here recognize that photo as Original Research - but I do and I think it would be informative if we could get an opinion regarding it from ArbComm or Jimbo, etc. - someone that this group of editors concedes has expert capabilties in interpreting Wikipedia:No original research as it pertains to photos.

As of this moment, the photo is still in the article and I have been reverted three times for deleting it. And at least two of those rverters do claim they want the photo out (see comments above and match names with revert Edit Summaries) - even though they themsleves reverted it right back into the article.

As of my last edit regarding this photo, since I keep getting reverted for deleting it, I have changed the caption to read "A home photo taken by photographer Nils Fretwurst, in Arizona, October 2004". This caption is factually correct and is based on the Summary data for the photo istself.

Still, as to why John Kerry should have "a home photo [of bras and a sign] taken by photographer Nils Fretwurst" in it, has not been made clear by those who reverted me and restored the photo.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 18:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• I might be missing something; is there a declaration or evidence somewhere that the display was created by the photographer? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe there is enough information here [20] to rightly conclude that the photo was staged by the photographer himself. However, that premise is not essential to my contention about photos of this type (those which argue for a point) as opposed to stock photos. For example, even if the bras and sign were found on the fence by the wikipedian who snapped the photo, how do we know he didn't remove a bunch of garbage filled boxes and empty booze bottles from along the fence, prior to snapping the photo? In that scenario, the true image of the circumstances of the Kerry "support" tableau is modified and we, as readers, are then deprived of an opportunity to evaluate the "support" in its genuine natural surroundings. The simple fact is that photography affords too many opportunities to manipulate a message and that's why photos with explicit messages, if they are a primary source created by the wikipedian, are not allowed. This is not a mere "stock" photo of some innocuous visage or tree or old barn, etc. This is a highly charged poltical message "support John Kerry" intentionally injected into the wiki on a 1st hand basis by a wikipedian so as to show a novel type of support. This image has does indeed have enough hallmarks of a photographic primary source to disqualify it as original research. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

This just gets more and more bizarre. Apparently now your argument is that it's "original research" because the photographer just might have removed some beer bottles or because it's a pun?! This would be soooooo much easier if you just took Ed's advice and forgot about the rules for a little while. It's not enough for you to simply advocate your position, you wrongly insist that the rules demand your desired outcome. So instead of persuading people to support your position, you are essentially recruiting people to oppose you, since people who would otherwise support your desired outcome (removal of the picture) oppose your tortured and incorrect interpretation of the rules. Gamaliel 19:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I object to the tone of Gamaliel's comments. I also object that in and of itself, disagreement with my NOR contention, compels other editors to keep this particluar photo in the article (see copious notes above). Additionally, I'll reiterate the point I am making, which is: It's the potential for abuse that makes photos with the hallmarks I have listed: a) created by the Wikpedian b) not published already by a reputable publisher -this does NOT include self-publishing- see Wikipedia:No original research (and certainly not by uploading it somewhere as JameMLane suggests is possible) and c) advocates an explicit message, that makes such photos invalid. Such photos are not mere "stock" photos - such as the GWB one by Jimbo that JamesMLane cited. Rather, they are advocacy photos aimed at making a point and whether the tableau is created, discovered or a combination, it is not "bizarre" to object to them as being unacceptable under NOR. And I think Gamaliel ought to stop hurling insults. This is not the 1st time recently that he has made a personal attack aginst me. Simply because he disagrees with my reasoning, does not grant him carte blanche to insult me. I think an apology is in order for the use of the word "bizarre" being directed by Gamaliel at my commentary. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I give up. Apparently you'd just prefer to go on alienating not only people who disagree with you, but also people who agree with you. Gamaliel 19:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Gamliel, I am going to ask you yet again; please stop intentionally insulting me. I consider comments such as "bizarre" and "alienating" to be intentional insults and I am explicitly asking to you stop making such comments to me. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 20:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous photo

What the heck was that ridiculous photograph doing on the page? It has no artistic value, no communicative value, nothing remotely of relevance to an encyclopædia. Frankly the picture should be deleted as waste of space. I've deleted it from the page. It belongs in the bin. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should also post your comments on the talk pages of each of the several editors who kept reverting me each time I deleted it from the article. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the bra photo.. I agree with you and Rex on this one. It doesn't add much to the article. It's funny, but not encyclopedic. Rhobite 19:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Jtdirl. We may disagree on reasons why the photo doesn't belong on Kerry's bio article, but it's gone and that's fine with me. Let's move on. --Aude 19:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Funny thing is, as far as I can tell, it's an anti-Kerry thing: support the boob, vote Kerry. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)