Talk:John Kerry/archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Vote

Ok. This is getting ridiculous. Lets decide this once and for all.

There a consensus on what to add into the article regarding the 'wound'. Now lets move on

FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  1. Further, consensus is that wound is the preferred descriptor. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Yes I agree. We have consensus regarding the word "wound" in this article. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Agreed. Rex's proposal regarding this issue was heard, considered and then dismissed. Rex's insistence on reverting his changes back into the article despite numerous people objecting is evidence of his disregard for consensus. If Rex continues to disregard the consensus, other methods of dispute resolution must be pursued. I would also like to point out that there are ArbComm judgements still in play that Rex has so far ignored: [1], specifically Remedy 5, and Enforcements 6 and 7. -- Mr. Tibbs 22:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. This is beyond ridiculous. The Purple Heart is a U.S. military decoration awarded in the name of the President of the United States to those who have been wounded or killed while serving in, or with, the U.S. military after April 5, 1917. I think we can agree that Kerry was not killed. Gamaliel 22:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. We have consensus -- and Rex needs to understand that this is not a platform for SBVT. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. "Wound" in, "minor" out. --kizzle 23:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Do we really need to keep arguing about this? Until Rex gets his way, apparently yes. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 23:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Rex deleted my comment. Derex @ 00:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. I'm driving through the stop signs only to add my comment to this tabulation. The "heat of battle" language that I quoted is not, as Rex implies, part of the test to determine which injuries are wounds; it's part of the test to determine which wounds qualify for the Purple Heart. For example, our Max Cleland article correctly states that he "was severely wounded", yet on Rex's contrived definition, losing two legs and part of an arm wouldn't be a wound because it wasn't in "heat of battle". JamesMLane 08:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The "heat of battle" language only applies to self-inflicted wounds. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Are you are suggesting one of Kerry's men shot him? (in which case that doesn't qualify either). Known incidents of friendly fire do not get a PH. Unless self inflicted in the "heat of battle" with full intent, bla bla, the injury has to be inflicted by any enemy. Even the most favorable reading of the Snopes source which JML loves makes no affirmative mention whatsoever of Kerry, his men or boat being under enemy fire. Nice try though. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 20:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
        • If that's responding to me, I don't understand what your point is; I was clarifying, thinking perhaps there was some confusion (by James) regarding the context of "heat of battle" in the PH regulations. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
          • I thought "heat of battle" was for all friendly-fire wounds, but it doesn't really matter. The point is Rex's contention that "wound" is POV because it presupposes the truth of one version of the facts, a version that's disputed. My response is that the shrapnel lodging in Kerry's arm was a wound whether or not there was any enemy fire. Calling it a "wound" isn't POV. Calling it "a wound that validly qualified for the Purple Heart because received in the heat of battle" would be POV, but no one's arguing for any language like that. JamesMLane 00:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
            • But "validly qualified" is precisely what is inferred by calling it a "wound" in the context of a section about a Purple Heart. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 00:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


There's a consensus...

You people are all well off the point. Rex at least is making his point as far as it logically supports him but your refutes are avoiding the real issue. First, is it possible to have a purple heart that states on your record (dd214 or otherwise) that you received a "minor purple heart" or attained a purple heart by a "minor wound"? Then you need to look at WHAT HIS WOUNDS ARE! If none of this is clear or public record (despite what sources you support Rex)then it should be stated on the record that some evidence/biographies or otherwise suggests that that there was something "minor" about his wounds. Make this statement as nonbiased as possible and continue to repeat the facts every time Rex objects. Your argument that this is about subjectivity or objectivity is unfounded if you yourself cannot be objective. I don't care about votes. History shows us that people are generally mislead by propaganda and disllusionment constantly. John Kerry has plenty of clear lies he supports that prove that if you simply look at all the objective facts. (Example, he along with many other democratic party members still continues to state that the war in Iraq was based souly on WMD's when this is clearly untrue. If you disagree with me on that then state so and bring that argument to the Wikipedia War on Iraq page. We've had a national obligation to take out Saddam ever since we put him in power, thinking it was for the better. WMD's are the least of our reasons to stop a mass murderer yet the lies keep on going. Therefore, people voting over truth is as substantial as logrolling the constitution). So quit being a bunch of idiots who think that by saying "It's clear that your wrong" you have made an objective point. Propaganda and it's effect on you is repulsive enough as it is. (Youngidealist 03:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC))

Prefer the phrase "minor wound"

  1. I believe the word "minor" is sufficiently supported by the evidence, and more informative to the reader. Note, however, that although I am expressing a preference for this phrase, I have indicated (way above) several other versions I find acceptable as well. Johntex\talk 01:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. "Minor wound" is more accurate here Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 12:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no consensus on what to add into the article regarding the 'wound'. We need to discuss it more

Rebuttal(s) to vote comments

  • rebuttal to Gamaliel's argument in vote section: While Kerry is still alive, there is no proof he met the "heat of battle" requirement, hence he was not "wounded" for PH purposes; absent proof of "heat of battle", injured is more accurate for 1st PH section context. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 22:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • rebuttal to Mr. Tibbs off-topic comments in vote section: Tibbs is wrong, I have been citing my edits when disputed. It is the word "wound" which is uncited. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 22:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • rebuttal to jpgordon non-sequiter in vote section: Huh? Kerrry either was in the "heat of battle" or he wasn't. That doesn't change with SBVT or not Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 22:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • rebuttal to Derex in vote section. Derex is right. I delete delete it. It was an oversight while I was moving blocks of text. I have apologized to him on his talk page. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 00:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • rebuttal to JamesMLane "stop sign" comments in vote section There is no denying that all wounds are injuries. However, there is a question under PH guidelines as to whether or not any particular injury is incurred in such a time or place as to be deemed a "wound" for medal award purposes. The entire SBVT/Kerry issue here was originally misframed, and I have been trying to correct multiple errors to the framing. The 1st error is the inaccuracy of failing to use the word "minor", which the evidence clearly compels use of here. Now, while the severity of an injury has no reference in the PH regs and for that reason a "minor" injury (if incurred in the "heat of battle") could indeed be deemed a "wound" for PH award, there still remains the issue with this particular injury, in that Kerry went around Hibbard to seek the medal. When the Navy concluded in 2004 that "the awards approval process was properly followed", they are referring only to what occured after Kerry went around Hibbard, which is after Hibbard was dismissive of the severity of Kerry's injury. None of this particularly matters except, that the basic rationale advanced so far for keeping "minor" out is that including "minor" tends to support what some editors here consider is an irrelevant SBVT argument against PH - that being the wound was not sufficiently severe. While it may be true from an award standpoint that the minor nature of the injury does not keep one blocked under PH rules, it is still none the less true that the wound was minor (all the inferences point to that) and the omission of that fact serves no editorial goal other than blocking an imagined intrusion of what is arguably an invalid SBVT critique of the basis for the award. Suffice it to say then, by blocking "minor" it is us who continue to turn this section into a pissing contest between SBVT and Kerry. If in fact, as seems clear, that wound severity has no bearing on the issuance of a PH, then accurately categorizing a wound based on available evidence, does not detract from the merit of one being awarded and hence, there is no POV in referring to Kerry's wound as "minor", because no criticism of the merit of the PH is made by using "minor". The next point however, is more subtle; this is the issue of calling an injury which has no evidence of having been acquired in the "heat of battle" a "wound" . I think it pretty clear that by working hard against "minor" (and thereby not invalidly undercutting the merit of the PH) that the editorial goal of some here is to the advance the PH as having been merited, which has never been proven true. Navy 2004 does not prove the PH was earned. The 1st hand accounts, lacking as they do any proof of "heat of battle", do not prove the PH earned. There is no proof that the PH was earned and because of that, using the lynch pin term "wound" which is how PH regs referred to injuries which merit a PH as, is indeed POV. In the context of a section regarding PH award, it simply is POV to call an injury which did not occur in the "heat of battle" a wound. And, while the injury was indeed minor, that itself is not what disqualifies - even severe injuries can fail to merit a PH. And please note the Max Cleland appeal to authority argument here does not fly in that Max did not get any Purple Heart for his severe injuries. And the fact that we on this wiki call them severe "wounds" is only testimony to how imprecisly that word is used by some, due to it's virtual interchangeability with "injury". However, when the context is a PH award, greater precision must be used because under the PH regulations, not all injuries are deemd "wounds" for PH purposes. Thank you James for supply the Max Cleland ref as it makes my point: Max's severe wounds/injuries were not acquired in the "heat of battle" and for PH purposes are not "wounds", hence Max got no PH medal. This is the exact same fact set regarding Kerry's PH. The editors here have been glossing over the fact that not all marketplace criticisms of Kerry's 1st PH focused on the severity, Rather, some did indeed focused on claims of self-inflicted grenade - still not during "heat of battle". However, even that was glossed over here because "self-inflictd" can still count - except again, if it's not in the "heat of battle". As evidencd by the Snopes link which James keeps pointing to for other reasons, there is no proof of "heat of battle". The fact that Kerry utlimately obtained a PH is only proof that PH regs, even when properly followed, are suffiently loosely applied (at least back then) that non-qualifying wounds/injuries can indeed prompt an award. All that said, none of this really matters to me except that the editors, by failing to rigourously follow the rules of logic here, have based their choice of "wound" on the wrong premise, that being "Navy 2004 and presence of PH itself proves we should use wound"; which as I have shown is not a true premise. And it's the failure by others here to use the editing method of apply the corrrect premise, which blocks them from grasping that the wound was indeed minor. They are so hung up on the risk of giving SBVT complaints credence, they miss the fact that in regards to wound severity SBVT is right, the wound was minor. And they are so hung up on personally believing that "minor" does not disqualify Kerry (which by itself, it does not) that they can't see they are still wrongly saying "wound" (wrongly due to the lack of "heat of battle") and "wound" without "minor" (wrongly due to available facts which show minor). Having said all that, taken together, here is where we are:
  1. There is no proof of "heat of battle".
  2. Even so, Kerrry does have the PH.
  3. Reopening that question here would be called a de novo look at the facts.
  4. The Navy declined to do a de novo look.
  5. There is nothing unreasonable about such a refusal.
  6. If we went with wound because a) it's implied by PH regs and b) de novo is look is out, that's not unreasonable.
  7. It is however true, that the evidence supports the word minor and continuing to refuse that is unreasonable.
  8. All these points taken together make clear that I am right to insist on minor, and there was nothing unfounded about my opposing "wound" alone rather than as "minor wound" which I long ago said I would support.
  9. From a pure NPOV standpoint, for all the points cited above, if this particular injury is called a wound it should be called a "minor wound".

Counter rebuttals specifically aimed at Rex

  • leave it for the daughter article. --kizzle 23:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal acknowledged and ignored. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you notice how you are the only one doing rebuttals? Doesn't this tell you something? MOVE ON. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, issue closed

The issue is clearly closed. Rex can complain all he likes. I think the rest of us should at this stage move on and pay no heed to Rex's endless complaining. If he continues, the issue should be brought to the arbcom and a request made that Rex be prohibited from editing this article, since he had shown a clear determination to POV this article at all costs. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No, there is no need to go to arbcom and waste their time & ours on yet a 4th case against Rex. The existing rulings (those that did not expire) are more than sufficient to stop this nonsense. All that is needed it a report to the administrator's notice board pointing out the infraction and requesting that the arbcom sanction be enforced under the specified remedy. Derex @
The simple fact is that "wound" is not cited to an authoritative source, period.
Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 23:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
The only simple fact here is that consensus has been reached. Please don't make personal comments about editors. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Who are you talking to, just me? What about "Rex can complain all he likes"? Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 23:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't the nicest thing he could've said. Then again, you've been essentially holding this article and its talk page hostage with your text dumps and incessant arguing in support of items that have already been decided by a consensus of editors, so maybe his frustration is understandable. I have to agree that it's been an awful waste of time dealing with this today when I would've much rather been working on building an encyclopedia. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Well then, may be you should go find a source which shows that Kerry's injury occured in the "heat of battle" and is therefore a "wound" for PH purposes. Unless and until you do, that word remains biased POV, consensus or no. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 23:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"Wound" has not been cited to an authoritative source. That is a fact. If I am wrong, what is the source? Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 23:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Issue closed. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Repeat: "Wound" has not been cited to an authoritative source. That is a fact. If I am wrong, what is the source? Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 23:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • You've been repeating yourself over and over again, and still can't hear. The source is the Purple Heart citation and regulations. That is necessary and sufficient. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Kerry's injury did not meet the "heat of battle" requirement set forth in the Purple Heart regulations. See above for complete detailing (with sources) of this point. If that's all you got, "wound" is still not supported by a citation. Indeed, based on the information from Kerry himself, the PH regs make clear that his injury did not meet the standards required to be deemed a "wound" for PH purposes. And if you claim there is an extant "citation" for this PH, source it. You won't be able to, because there is no "citation" for this PH. The only official documentation is the Sick Call Treatment Record, which does not use the word "wound". Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 23:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
A consensus of editors disagree with you. End of story. Please try to accept it and let's move on to something else. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Accept what? That "wound" is not sourced, but you guys want to use it anyway? Why should I do that? Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 23:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not answering these protestations anymore. It's done. I'll be glad to hear your arguments for anything else you want to see changed, but this is done. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This issue is now closed. Please do not discuss this issue with Rex071404. It simply gives him an angle to come back and repeat himself ad nausaum. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


What the hell??

Stop archiving this talk page every ten minutes, this isn't your own personal talk page Rex, you're taking this too far, it's almost like you're testing the system to see how far you can push before they block you or bring you up on sanctions, stop being a martyr already. If the admins weren't 100% sure that you'd come back as an even more trollish sockpuppet, they would have blocked you by now, learn to take a hint--IKnowWho(Gee, I'm a sockpuppet, how unexpected) 23:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop making personal remarks. · Katefan0(scribble) 00:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • ok, and if all ip address with open ports in the 216 range with a history of abuse were blocked, would you spontaneously combust, or just lose the ability to edit?--IKnowWho(Gee, I'm a sockpuppet, how unexpected) 00:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
That controversy is fine for daughter article, not this page though. --kizzle 00:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Kumbayaaaaa m'lord, Kumbayaaaaa. Kumbayaaaaa m'lord, Kumbayaaaa. Ohhh, Kumbayaaa.

or

All we are saaaaying, is give peace a chance.

or

Few times I've been around this track but its not just going to happen like that cause I ain't no holla back giiiirl, I ain't no holla back giiiirl.

--kizzle 00:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


This issue is now closed. Please do not discuss this issue with Rex071404. It simply gives him an angle to come back and repeat himself ad nausaum. He has talked the issue to death and is in a minority of one. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

This issue is now closed. A vote has already taken place. The decision was unanimous. Please do not discuss this issue with Rex071404. It simply gives him an angle to come back and repeat himself ad nausaum. He has talked the issue to death and is in a minority of one. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)



Issue closed

Reading the dialogue on this page, I've reverted to the version agreed by everyone but Rex and unprotected the page. EVERYONE: Please do not start this discussion again. Titoxd(?!?) 00:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry has been unprotected

The admin who unprotected, referred to this as "consensus" (Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 00:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)):

Ratification vote

(see below)

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 near a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began to run. These men failed to stop when ordered, and Kerry and his crew of two enlisted men then opened fire with machine guns destroying the sampans and quickly left the area. During this encounter, Kerry received a shrapnel wound in his left arm above the elbow. [2] Subsequently at Sick Call, the shrapnel was removed and Kerry was treated with bacitracin and bandaged. Kerry returned to duty the next day on a regular Swift boat patrol. Kerry was later awarded a Purple Heart for this wound. During the 2004 presidential campaign, various critics such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth suggested reasons that this injury did not merit a Purple Heart.[3] Also in 2004, after a limited review prompted by Judicial Watch the Naval Inspector General "determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved".[4] For more information, see John Kerry military service controversy.

Is this, as is, consensus, yes or no?

No

Yes

  • Yes. Scroll up. Titoxd(?!?) 01:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


This issue is now closed. Please do not discuss this issue with Rex071404. It simply gives him an angle to come back and repeat himself ad nausaum. He has talked the issue to death and is in a minority of one. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: A vote already took place. As with his determination to force his version of events on the page, Rex now wants to force his version of the vote. Ignore it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Not so. I am interested to see if the others accept this as is, for the consensus version. If they don't ratify it, up or down, then there is no consensus. When the conversation ended, we were only discussing "wound", not other parts of the section. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 01:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Another point of view

Although I completely agree that Rex is being difficult with his agressive pursuit of this question, I don't think it is very sporting to declare "case closed" after a day or so of voting. I see little harm in allowing other editors time to express their opinion. Johntex\talk 01:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It is actually after 200K of debate (him against everyone else), rewrites (him against everyone else), weeks of discussion (him against everyone else). So yes, the views of the community were 100% clear. The issue is closed. Rex can complain and complain and complain all he wants, but a consensus was agreed a long time ago and people are fed up with his one man crusade to POV the article and ignore everyone else. So yes, the case is unambiguously closed. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

He's been hammering at this exact same issue for over a year. Gamaliel 02:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I would think that should be enough time for you guys to find a source for the word "wound". I guess not. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 02:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Brinkley, or the 932,000 google hits for 'kerry wound', or Wiktionary:wound, or (as previously noted) the legal requirement for the PH, which was "properly approved".
Or, even the swiftvets themselves: Letson "I have a very clear memory of an incident which occurred while I was the Medical Officer at Naval Support Facility, Cam Ranh Bay. John Kerry was a (jg), the OinC or skipper of a Swift boat, newly arrived in Vietnam. On the night of December 2, he was on patrol north of Cam Ranh, up near Nha Trang area. The next day he came to sick bay, the medical facility, for treatment of a WOUND that had occurred that night." Now, the official record shows a medic, not Letson, treating Kerry. But, nonetheless, even the SwiftVets chief "witness", the medical officer they claim treated him, called it a "wound". So, there. wound, wound, wound, wound, wound, wound, wound, wound, wound .... wound. Derex @ 02:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
It's a wound, it's a wound, it's a wound, cha cha cha! Gamaliel 03:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't rhyme. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 12:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

So Rex is in denial of a wound.
He can't tolerate sight nor a sound
of a wounded John Kerry
He finds the idea too scary
Even though plenty of evidence has been found.

Boom boom. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 13:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

JK's got a house in Nantucket [5]
And shrapnel it seems, he can't duck it
Though injured that day
It is fair to say
As a limerick, my poem may suck it.
Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 15:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Kerry had a rough campaign time,
being hits by allegations and slime,
but unlike George B he fought,
no waver was sought,
and no advisor stands accused of a crime.

Even if he's not Irish at all,
he still won his re-elections in the fall,
as a senate big hitter,
and a safe senate seat sitter,
without need to canvass every mall. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 16:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Employing a heritage ruse
Kerry got Boston voters to choose
Him over his foes
So that's how it goes
Small wonder "not Irish" is news

A president (and poobah) named Kerry
Would make many Democrats merry
But alas, you will see
That it never will be
Cause he's no more special than Jerry

Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 20:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Instead we have Bush the retard
who appointed a horse judge as FEMA
His ratings are falling
McClellan is stalling
Yet Rex is still on Kerry's record
(little eminem license on syllables) --kizzle 00:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, do you mean?:

Instead we have Bush the dweeber
who appointed a horse judge to FEMA
His ratings are falling
McClellan is stalling
Yet Rex edits Kerry the goober
Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 00:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Nah, I'm sticking with mine. --kizzle 01:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Derex started making changes to to the new consensus version within 1 hour

Within one hour of the so-called new "consensus" version being announced, Derex is already modifying it back to his preferences:

  • (cur) (last) 01:34, 9 November 2005 Jtdirl (rv to Derex version. (Admins out there, please protect this again again. Rex is up to his old POV tricks.)
  • (cur) (last) 01:31, 9 November 2005 Rex071404 (rv to "consensus" Derex, please ratify consensus prior to any more changes)
  • (cur) (last) 01:29, 9 November 2005 Titoxd m (Reverted edits by 152.163.100.195 to last version by Derex)
  • (cur) (last) 01:28, 9 November 2005 152.163.100.195
  • (cur) (last) 01:28, 9 November 2005 Derex (→First Purple Heart - copyedit (probably foolish), tried not to step on any toes or change the meaning)
  • (cur) (last) 00:46, 9 November 2005 Titoxd (reading the talk page discussion, issue is now solved, modifying to version with consensus and unprotecting)

Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 01:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I can almost count the hours to when this page will be protected again. And when it is protected again, I'll be pleased. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't be pleased. Other things need to be done. For example, Rex's insertion of an innuendo about Kerry fundraising was clearly POV, but I haven't been able to pay attention to it because of all the other dust he's kicked up. JamesMLane 06:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes James, but at least then we would just have to control one page instead of 2. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Woohoo seeks "control" (see above) Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 16:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Innuendo? I disagree. Please state your objections here and we can discuss it. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 13:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the following phrasing for treatment of the wound:

At sick call, medical staff removed the shrapnel and applied bacitracin dressing.[6].

Description of treatment is right out of the official sick call report, see exact phrasing in the reference now provided. Finessed the Letson/Carreon issue while removing passive voice by saying "medical staff" removed it, rather than either a 'medic' or a 'doctor'. Derex @ 15:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"Medical staff" is fine. The problem is that the reference to "sick call", with the wikilink to the "Sick Call" article, conveys the impression that Kerry participated in "a daily lineup of military personnel requiring medical attention". I know of no support for that implication. In fact, I thought Letson's charge was that Kerry hastened to hunt him up immediately upon returning to base, because (according to Letson) Kerry was afraid the shrapnel would fall out on its own, and he wanted to be able to say a medic had removed it. (I'm not completely sure about that; it's been a while since I immersed myself in the SBVT smears.) Did the Navy have a separate form for medical work done outside a daily lineup, or did they just use the same form for everything? Unless there's some source for this version, I don't think we can take the title of a form plus an online definition as constituting proof.
The other point that we'll now evidently have to spend 15 months arguing over is the bandage. Rex says it's not in any official record. There's no rule that we're restricted to official records. If there were, most of the Swift Boat crap would disappear from Wikipedia entirely. Letson isn't mentioned in the records of the first Purple Heart; Thurlow, who in 2004 said Kerry wasn't really under enemy fire when he won his Bronze Star, himself received a Bronze Star for the same encounter, with a citation that reported the enemy fire, and that's the official record. The statement that the wound was bandaged comes from Brinkley's biography of Kerry, via Snopes. Furthermore, as I pointed out above, that's also Letson's story. That the treatment consisted of bandaging, as opposed to something more substantial, is a fact -- one that, as it happens, would strengthen an inference that this wound wasn't life-threatening. I'm against putting inferences like "minor" in the article, but that's because I favor providing the readers with all the facts and letting them decide which inferences to draw. JamesMLane 18:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
it is in the official record "bacitracin dressing" Derex @ 02:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

James, let's not get confused here. The section as Derex left it here works just fine but if you tamper with it, you are going to open another can of worms. I've accpeted it and Derex has accepted it. Please don't start again with trying to frame this section as a pissing contest between LetsonSBVT/ Kerry. There is no mention of any Letson/SBVT allegations at this point and that's for the best. Also, if you have evidence that some Sick Calls were not "daily lineups" then the place for that is at Sick Call not here. Now regarding any suggested "bandage", the best method here is to rely on a "best evidence rule". The best evidence is that we have a direct quotation from a Sick Call Treatment Record which by virtue of the Govt. name for the record, indicates treatment was rendered at a Sick Call and for that reason, we so state he was treated at a "sick call". There is nothing stopping you from fleshing out the Sick Call page, if needs be. Also, you must be kidding to try to cite Letson for any reason as you have utterly opposed "superficial" and "small" in the past, both of which came from Letson. Additionally, you can't stick Brinkley in our face and contend that he can somehow adds to the facts of the Sick Call Treatment Record. That book by Brinkly was recently written and any information he has about "bandage" (if any) comes comes from Kerry. If we accept that information at face value, with no discount for any self-serving bias in Kerry's re-telling to Brinkley, then we are back to putting our thumb on the scale in favor of Kerry. That's because Letson also could offer equally 1st hand information as that recited by Kerry to Brinkley. To allow Kerry's version, simply because he re-told it to Brinkley, but not allow Letson's who re-told it via an affidavit, is silly. Only if Brinkley in his book has sourced (not from Kerry himself) to contemporaneous corroboration -specifically about a "bandage" being applied to Kerry's arm- from the time period of the Sick Call, are we to give the Brinkley accounting of the Kerry story any more weight than Letson. Also, if you read my comments to Derex about this on his talk page, I've already pointed out that one could reasonably infer a "bandage" from the Sick Call Treatment Record; however an equally reasonable inference there would also support "minor", which I know you are dead set against. Suffice it to say, the only contemporaneous record of the treatment is the Sick Call Treatment Record and there is no mention in it of any "bandage". If you want to insist that Brinkley drew on data other than Kerry telling him so, you'll have to show it or else your suggestion that Brinkley is a superior source than the disallowed Letson, is just conjecture and supposition. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 19:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Two responses: first I see no reason not to include "bandage", simply include a reference. a web-lonk to snopes is fine with me, otherwise we can just use the fancy new reference/citation templates for brinkleys book(see SBVT for examples). second, the "sick call" article needs some work ... both my personal understanding & a google search indicate that "sick call" is simply walk-in service for those with "urgent complaints", routine complaints are handled by appointment. as just one of many similar examples: "Sick call is primarily for acute illnesses/injuries that might prevent soldiers from performing their assigned duties". all it really means is that you don't need an appointment, you just go in & get treated because it requires immediate attention. some bases have specified sick-call hours when staff is guaranteed to be available. of course, during a war sick-call is pretty much 24-hours. you just go in & they'll round up a medic if it's urgent. so, the wiki-article is mis-leading in this context, and the phrase sick-call is not particularly helpful to the reader. all it means is he went to the clinic and got immediate attention, rather than an appointment, because he had an acute problem. Derex @ 23:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Well isn't this just dandy. The only actual record of Kerry getting any treatment is a government document which says right on it "Sick Call Treatment Record" but you guys now have a problem saying Kerry was treated at a "sick call". You are ok with "wound" which appears nowhere, but you have a problem with "sick call" which is printed right on the form and refers to the actual military designation for the treatment session. Also, if "bandage" goes in, then "minor" is going in. Neither appear on the SCTR, but both could reasonably be inferred from it. You simply can't go around inferring for one, but not the other. That's so POV it's ridiculuous. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 00:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

No, my problem is actually with the sick call article you created. All the term means is that he went to the medic with an acute problem, and thus without prior appointment. Derex @ 00:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Well the solution to that, as I am always being told, is to fix the other article, not delete the wikilink from here. What about that? And you do see that I have sourced the key definition of "Sick Call" yes? If you have a problem with the Sick Call article, tell me here that you will dialog about that there, and I will watch there for your comments. Also, I have a source for "a daily lineup of military personnel requiring medical attention". Where is your source for your contention "All the term means is that he went to the medic with an acute problem, and thus without prior appointment" ? Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 00:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

certainly the other article ought to be fixed. but, i don't see that using the phrase "sick call" adds of much of value here, if it causes the wording to be strained. in other words, there's no reason to make the reader click on "sick call" to figure out that it means a medical clinic, when everyone already knows that word. i do think it's important to be clear that kerry didn't undergo trauma surgery or anything like that. so perhaps the word "clinic" ought to be used, and we can wikilink to sick call under that name. Derex @ 01:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Derex, you are misinformed here. "Sick call" can be process "lining up for sick call" and/or an activity "go to sick call" and/or a treatment session "I was treated at sick call". This is not generally known to the readers and a wikilink to an informative Sick Call page is a good idea. Oh well, too bad people would not leave well enough alone. The version from earlier today was fine. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 02:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

(copied from Rex talk)

it just occured to me that it's already in the sick call report, don't know how i missed it. "dressing" is medical lingo for a bandage[7] ... often gauze. so he applied bacitracin either under or on a bandage ... that's "bacitracin dressing". Derex @ 02:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not fully true, all wound coverings are dressings but not all dressings are bandages. Bacitracin alone is indeed a "dressing". I explained this already in detail, with full proof on talk. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 02:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

(from above)

That record does not say "bacitracin and a dressing", which might imply a bandaging. No, what is says is "appl (sic) bacitracin dressing". >>> Note the absence of any statement such as "wrap arm with bandage". <<< Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 02:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see Dressing the wound, here.

"The wound should then be covered with a clean dressing and bandaged to hold the dressing in place."

Note that "dressing" and "bandaged" are separate steps.

Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 02:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see Rex's talk where this is rebutted at great length, using his own reference. Derex @ 02:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It's affirmed there, not rebutted. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 03:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

1996 Fundraising issues

I believe that the public facts support mentioning this. However, if it needs a re-write, please discuss here. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 13:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

inserting the sign Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 00:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

This issue is now closed. Please do not discuss this issue with Rex071404. It simply gives him an angle to come back and repeat himself ad nausaum. He has talked the issue to death and is in a minority of one. 205.188.117.68 18:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

bacitracin is an antibiotic and an ointment dressing

Not a type of bandage, if you don't know that, then you probably need to go back to whatever type of primary school you eeked your way through--152.163.101.10 02:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Bacitracin is an antibiotic infused petroleum based topical ointment. It can be used as a dressing alone, or in conjuction with gauze; in which case, the two of them together are also referred to as "dressing". However, even togethr, those are not a "bandage". Bandaging, when done, would be done over a "dressing" as a discrete step. [8] The fact that there is no mention of any bandaging procedure in in Kerry's Sick Call Treatment Record, clearly infers what I have said all along: the wound was "minor". So minor in fact, that it did not warrant a bandaging, only antibiotic ointment. As to whether or not gauze went on with the ointment, your guess is as good as mine. There is nothing in the offical records which says either way. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 02:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
That's nice you can google, either way, back in the 70s (yes, I know, a long time ago) bacitracin wasn't as over prescribed as it is now, there's no way that it would have been prescribed if there wasn't a severe skin break, and a large amount of bleeding, as well as visible signs of infection, the only reason that it's used in over the counter ointmens and hand soaps nowadays, is becasue it's almost completly useless, as there aren't very many bacerial populations that aren't imune to it, so no reason to regulate, unlike back then, when it would still be considered a 'heavy weight' broad spectrum antibiotic--152.163.101.10 02:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

See this Govt link from Australia. "A first aid kit should be well stocked with dressings and bandages, disinfectants, fasteners, safety pins and other equipment such as resuscitation masks, scissors and splinter forceps." Dressings and bandages are clearly not the same thing. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 02:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

  • See this totally meaningless website that shows modern day use of a (now) unregulated OTC antibiotic? sure why not--152.163.101.10 02:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
See this link for "Bacitracin ointment dressing" used in context which proves that Bacitracin alone is medically referred to as a "dressing". Please note that the wound was left "open" (not bandaged) even though a dressing was applied. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 02:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Of course it was left open, the fact that you even think that's a contridiction, proves that your cookie cutter, straight from google, wisdom.. is worth everything you payed for it--152.163.101.10 03:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

"Ointment: A medication preparation that is applied topically (onto the skin). An ointment has an oil base whereas a cream is water-soluble. (The word ointment comes from the Latin ungere meaning anoint with oil)"

Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 03:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

That's amazing I*D*I*O*T: You...
Bacitracin was not available as an OTC ointment in the 1970s, it was still considered a powerful broad spectrum antibiotic, not like today where it's just something you stick under a bandaid... How 'bout this, I'm going to go argue with a brick wall, the witty banter that might generate would be far more stimulating than this--152.163.101.10 03:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Over-the-counter or not has no bearing on its status as an oitnment. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 03:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

  • No but it's status as a thing that didn't actually exist might--152.163.101.10 03:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • so, ip, what do you think the phrase "bacitracin dressing" in the medical report means? Derex @ 03:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a dressing in some form or another, laced with, what was, at the time, a broadspectrum antibiotic, what else could you get from that?--152.163.101.10 03:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, or it's bacitracin alone. Either will cover a wound and meet the requirment of a covering, which is the baseline definition of dressing. If the wound is a fingernail scrape, baci alone suffices. If it's more, probably gauze was used. In either case, the reports don't say, we don't know and the discrete step of "bandage" is not mentioned in the SCTR. Dressing and Bandage are two separate steps. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 03:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Derex, are you contending that in Medical Terminology, the words Dressing and Bandaging are interchangable? If that's your contention, you are wrong. And further, such a contention would buttress my "wound" "injury" contention, which you are opposed to. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 04:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Excuse me, we do know, no one would ever use a potent antibiotic for a 'nail scrape', of course it's used that way now, because it's been overused for decades, by people, probably as dumb as you, oh and laffo, nice choice of what to delete, nice non-missleading description too--152.163.101.10 03:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • We do not "know" that. In fact, it's more likely than not, based on the fetid environment our sailors were in during the Vietnam War that each and every break of the skin, no matter how small, when shown to a medic, got Bacitracin. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 03:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Does that mean that each and every time you're totally wrong, you're going to completly change your argument?--152.163.101.10 04:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Anon, I don't follow you. Please explain. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 04:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

This fascinating discussion of bacitracin is a sideshow

With regard to writing the article, no one contends that we shouldn't mention the bacitracin. The issue is whether we should mention the bandage. Kerry's biographer says the wound was bandaged. Letson, one of Kerry's harshest critics, says the wound was bandaged. No witness says the wound wasn't bandaged. No Wikipedia policy restricts us to the use of official records or constrains us from reporting facts that are cited to other sources. The statement that Kerry's wound was bandaged is properly sourced and isn't disputed by any source, so there's no reason for us to conceal this information from the reader. Information about the history of bacitracin (its original use, its downgrading through overuse, its conversion from prescription drug to OTC) could usefully ba added to the Bacitracin article. JamesMLane 04:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Do you have a link to a credible, independent source that states that Kerry was bandaged? Titoxd(?!?) 04:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Kerry's biographer got his information from either Kerry, or the Sick Call Treatment Record - there has been no showing otherwise. From our perspective, Kerry as a source, has no more validity than Letson as a source. James has many times refused me to use Letson for any reason. If he now bases his support for "bandage" even in part on Letson, that opens the door for Letson's 1st hand account of the shrapnel being "small" and "superfically" clinging to the surface of the skin. Both of which reinforce my contention that the wound was "minor". Since James opposes letting Letson lead us to "minor" how does he justify using Letson to introduce "bandage"? Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 04:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Response to Titoxd: In the article I included a citation to the Snopes piece, which attributes the information to Professor Douglas Brinkley's biography of Kerry. This is the type of source upon which we routinely rely. This particular point isn't in controversy anyway, because Letson, the SBVT witness who's harshly critical of Kerry, says the same thing.
Response to Rex: I don't favor citing Letson in this article; his view of the incident is for the daughter article. I mentioned him here on the talk page only as a further indication that there's no good-faith dispute about whether the wound was bandaged. JamesMLane 08:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Since I'm new to this article...

Is "wound" the only issue or are there others that need to be hashed out? I know one problem with an article like this is that John is still very much in the news, so we'll never be "finished" really. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The major hang up has for sometime been "First Purple Heart". Currently, this is how it reads. I would accept it like this, if the others will. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 04:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The assertion that the wound was not serious is not proper encyclopedic material. Snopes is in the business of reaching conclusions about disputed points, but we aren't. Also, I don't think the Judicial Watch role needs to be mentioned in Kerry's main bio, and I noted above that we should think about where the daughter article is to be linked. JamesMLane 04:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

James, the sources which Snopes cites (and from which you draw your material) were writers (as is Snopes) that made conclusions. Are you saying that somehow Brinkley's conclusions are more independant or otherwise superior to Snopes's? If so, explain. And, according to the USA Today link "Vice Adm. R.A. Route, the Navy inspector general, conducted the review of Kerry's Vietnam-ear military service awards at the request of Judicial Watch, a public interest group". JW's role certainly is germane, because without it, there would be no review. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 05:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's my point on this. Knowing snopes, that sounds very POV to me. Snopes is in the game of rumor mongering. I would suggest trying to find another source to back this up. I don't care what snopes is using, to be honest. I wouldn't call them a reliable source. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Other sources regarding this topic that aren't included in the section: From Salon: [9] [10] From FactCheck:[11] From CNN: [12] From Yahoo: [13] -- Mr. Tibbs 07:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
In general, I have a higher opinion of Snopes than the one you express. It doesn't matter, though -- in this instance we're not referring to a conclusion Snopes drew after weighing conflicting evidence, because there is no conflicting evidence. The exact passage in Snopes is, "Brinkley notes that Kerry went on a regular Swift boat patrol the next day with a bandage on his arm . . . ." Do you think Snopes would not only be so dishonest as to make up such a story, but would also then be so stupid as to make a false claim that the story could be found in a widely available book? and nobody's called them on their falsehood since they published it in February 2004? Unless and until someone says that this information isn't in Tour of Duty, I feel comfortable relying on it. JamesMLane 07:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
If memory serves, User:Neutrality owns a copy of the book. And I'm sure plenty of libraries still have it. Gamaliel 07:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Use CNN then or one of the other ones. I didn't say that Snopes was making it up. I would just feel better if we used someone else. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
One of the Salon articles is by Brinkley and may go into enough detail to mention the bandage, but I can't tell because I'm not a Salon subscriber. Even if it's in there, I'd rather link to a free site than a pay site. At this point I don't know of any better free site that confirms the specific point Rex is carping about, namely the bandage. (We don't want to link to a site that relies on Letson because his credibility is certainly more subject to challenge than any alternative.) I'm going to use the Snopes link until something better comes along. Woohookitty, feel free to substitute a diferent source, but remember that if we're relying on a link that doesn't say quite specifically "bandage" or "bandaged", Rex will remove the citation and the information, and will favor us all with a lengthy disquisition on the subject, and will repeat said disquisition several times over the next few days. If User:Neutrality were to confirm that it's in Tour of Duty, that would be fine with me, but I doubt that it would mollify Rex, given the vicious personal attacks he's made against Neutrality in the past. JamesMLane 08:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It's absolutely of no relevance that a Brinkley quote says "Brinkley notes that Kerry went on a regular Swift boat patrol the next day with a bandage on his arm". That's because:

  • 1) Brinkley is absolutely not a medical expert
  • 2) Brinkley was not a 1st hand witness
  • 3) Brinkley does not cite an independant source (or any source) for that assertion
  • 4) Brinkley is not independant himself - he was personally engaged by Kerry to write Kerry's authorized biography.

Brinkley saying "Kerry went on a regular Swift boat patrol the next day with a bandage on his arm", is no different than Kerry saying it. This is unsubstantiated assertion and as such, is unacceptable.

Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 07:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Brinkley is a perfectly legitimate source, and so is Kerry for that matter. You can't dismiss perfectly legitimate sources without a reason that's more substantial than your suspicions. Gamaliel 08:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

According to: Wikipedia:Reliable sources, some questions we should ask, are:

  • Were they actually there? (Brinkley was not there)
  • An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable (if this is anything more than Brinkley's opinion, a good journalist will have it sourced in the book's appendix or via footnote. Is it sourced there? What is the source?)
  • Get close to the source [I]f suspect sources have references, follow them. (without knowing where Brinkley gets this from, it remains suspect)
  • A fact is an actual state of affairs, which can be an historical event, or a social or natural phenomenon. To say of a sentence or proposition that it is true is to say that it refers to a fact. (if the bandage is an actual fact, there should be no problem in locating the original fact to point to. So far, nothing but the Sick Call Treatment Record has appeared. Does Brinkely cite other facts? If so, what are they? If Brinkley is citing Kerry's personal representations to him, then this is no more reliable than Letson's affidavit)
  • A primary source provides direct evidence for a certain state of affairs. This may mean that the source observes a state of affairs directly, or that they observe indirect evidence of it. In other words, a primary source is a source very close to the original state of affairs you are writing about. (Brinkley obviously is not a Primary Source here. What was Brinkley's Primary Source?)
  • Evaluating secondary sources [H]ave they used multiple independent primary sources? (We need to know what Brinkley claims to have relied on)
  • Evaluating secondary sources [D]o they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? (Brinkley is effusive in his praise for Kerry and has a vested interest in writing what Kerry wants. No Kerry approval = no Kerry sign-off on the book)

Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 08:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a simple question, Rex. Why do you care so much about one word? Especially when it's going to cost you credibility and possibly more. I don't get it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you threatening me? Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 08:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't threaten people. Nice job avoiding my question, btw. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
My answer then, is two part a) Which word are you asking about? and b) Ask the same question 1st to JamesMLane. When he answers you, I will too. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 09:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
You've avoided it twice now. Good work. Never mind. It would just give you another opportunity to talk about "wound". --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

"Tour of Duty is clearly a presidential campaign biography" [14] Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 08:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Kerry's personal diary as recounted by Brinkley at this NPR audio link makes clear that we have been only putting in service details which are hagiographic. We include many other service details, why is this not in? "They see a Vietnamese boat in a so-called curfew zone and they don't know what to do, so they shoot and they get to the boat and they find out it was just a bunch of women with children and rice." Did Kerry kill innocent civilians? And as far as Brinkley goes, it's clear from listening that he is utterly pro-Kerry in every regard. Brinkley is no more reliable a source than Letson. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 09:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I asked for protection again

We have had 75 (yes 75) edits in the 36 hours since this page was unprotected and it's the same old issues...wound...purple heart, non serious, etc. This is just insane. I think the admin who unprotected it misinterpreted us. We have a consensus. That's clear. But the edit warring is not ceasing. We need reprotection. Period. It's gotten to the point where I for one can't follow all of the edits. One article should not have to take up all of someone's time on here. It's counterproductive as hell. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's insane, but protection isn't the answer. The problem is, pure and simply, Rex. He's now again deleted the information that the wound was bandaged, writing in his ES, "remove 'bandage' this is disputed". There is no source that says there was no bandage. I'm not going to revert this latest foolishness because, by at least one interpretation, I've reached my revert limit. Protecting the page now would protect the wrong version, but even if it were fixed first, what's the point? The instant someone lifted the protection, Rex would be back at it. We can't keep an important article on semi-permanent protection just because of one disruptive POV-pusher. JamesMLane 15:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


Fine, Then send it to mediation...or...something. I don't think we can permit a never ending edit war. I mean I understand what you are saying, James, but there has to be a way out of this. Kate and I are both admins and we're trying our damndest to have some control over all of this, but even that isn't really helping. I've been in this for all of 3 days and I'm close to Wikiexhaustion over it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Woohoo, you are mistaken as to what's going on here. When this was unprotected, the First Purple Heart section was immediately jumped on by Derex within one hour, with edits that I took issue with. Others came along behind him and kept making changes that were bringing us back, not forward. The consensus we had (which I objected to as invalid) covered only the inclusion of the word "wound". If I am not mistaken, of the edits I have done here since that objectionable consensus was reached, I have abided by that and each of my offerings have included "wound". I have offered a number of variants of that section which I would accept (along with another two with Johntex and Katefan0). However, there is a core group, led by JamesMLane, who keep trying to use variants with a "Snopes" link. That Snopes link [15] is being used by James to try to justify the word "bandage" which is not sourceable (without inference) to Kerry's Sick Call Treatment Record (the only official treatment record) and for which, there is ongoing debate. James's suggestion via ES [16] that there is no dispute, is false. Also, when the Snopes link is present, I have tried to cite it to support the undisputed fact that Kerry's wound "was not serious...". This is evidenced by a) James has argued in favor of the validity of Brinkley as a source and b) the very snopes link which James keeps using has on it a verbatim quote by Brinkley which says Brinkley noted that, as in the previous case, "Kerry's wound was not serious enough to require time off from duty.". The fact is, James want to use Snopes to push his unsupported POV about "bandage", but when I cite Snopes for an undisputed fact, James and others simply delete my edit or otherwise modify it, removing the "not serious". This is plain and simply bad editing and POV. And since I am not going to sit here and just revert all day, each time the section is twisted around, I am left with trying to make a new silk purse out of a sows ear. Suffice it to say, this is why I have been editing here. Other than try to blame me, I'd like to hear James's and the others accounts of their recent edits - especially as it relates to trying to cite a single Snopes page, while disallowing that same page for another edit citation. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 15:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

That was explained to you over and over and over more than a year ago. It's been explained more recently. If the many words that I and others have written haven't succeeded in making the point clear to you, then I for one am unable to think of any further explanation. I see no value in repeating what I've already said. I just hope someone else will revert this page ASAP. JamesMLane 15:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

James, since you claim to have addressed these specific points, but don't want to retype the words, then I'd be happy to read any talk page diff's you post here which directly address this. And James, if your comment of "I just hope someone else will revert this page ASAP" is not a call for tag-team reverting, I don't know what is.Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 15:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Would you two please cease arguing for a second? Thanks. Now we have a revert war to add to the edit war. Anyway, I agree with you James about it not being good to have a semi-protected article. But, I'd argue that it's worse to have an important article like this changing twice an hour, which is why we're averaging over the last 40 hours or so. And this isn't even new data. It's not as if Kerry is in the news right now and we're adding new information. It's stuff that happened 30 years ago. I just think it makes Wikipedia look extremely unprofessional to have an article like this changing twice an hour. And honestly, I think this is beyond just a content dispute. So saying that well protection won't work isn't going to work for me. We have to do something here. Either we have to protect it or move it to mediation or something. I don't think we can permit a never ending edit war as a project on an article as important as this. It's not as if Rex or James or anyone else is going to stop the warring on their own. I think the time for that has passed. That's all I have to say... --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The Dressing ... (dun dun dun)

OK. It strikes me that right now we're stuck over whether to call the "bacitracin dressing" a bandage or not. Or whether "bacitracin dressing" could simply mean smearing some bacitracin over a wound and that's that. I did some poking around to see whether or not "bacitracin dressing" is a medical term carrying a specific meaning, and there do seem to be some indications that that is the case. Bacitracin dressing I've found is also called "Neosporin Adaptic dressing." [17] - here are some specifics about how it's used. [18] In other words, it's an "adaptic dressing" with some neosporin/bacitracin/antibiotic ointment applied to the dressing and then placed on the wound (or applied to the wound and then the adaptic dressing is applied on top of it). In general an adaptic dressing means a mesh gauze pad that doesn't stick to a wound. [19] So. Is a bacitracin dressing a bandage itself? Maybe. I guess it depends on how you define bandage. Regardless, it seems that a "bacitracin dressing" is a gauze pad of varying sizes. But, the standard technique for its application [20] -- and some amount of common sense -- does seem to indicate that some sort of bandage (or maybe medical tape) would be required to keep the dressing from falling off (Merriam-Webster: bandage: a strip of fabric used especially to dress and bind up wounds). Given this definition, it could be argued that the bacitracin dressing could itself qualify as a bandage. Good lord, I can't believe I spent an hour on this today. FWIW. I've also asked a doctor who is a Wikipedia editor whether "bacitracin dressing" is a commonly-understood medical term, also FWIW. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I can see it now. Did they use gauze or a band-aid? That'll be our next debate. :) All kidding aside, good work Katefan0. Should I open the cages? ;-) Sorry, but we have to smile occasionally... --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
YEAH yeah. Given this info, I might support language something like ... "and was bandaged with a bacitracin dressing." · Katefan0(scribble) 16:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
How about "and was bandaged with a bacitracin dressing, something George W. Bush never saw in his cushy National Guard slot"?  :) If you don't like that, though, your version is acceptable to me. JamesMLane 17:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Please take note of the argumentative Bush/Kerry framing which underlies James's state of mind here. Bush has no bearing on this. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 17:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Uh, James has a very good point, it just isn't appropriate to include it in this article space (of which I'm pretty sure he wasn't intending to). I find it incredibly hypocritical that you loathe Kerry for trying to get out of the war yet have no qualms with Bush "miraculously" getting into the TANG despite poor test scores, not to mention the period of time where there are no records he was in fact serving. --kizzle 18:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Kizzle, while you may be fixated on your personal hypothesis of my supposed views towards Kerry/Bush, I'll point out to you that we are trying to reduce the level of "pissing contest" in this section (1st PH), not increase it. Pleaese help with that by leaving the Bush/Kerry angle out of this. Opening that can of worms will do none of us any good here. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 02:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I've already agreed (in fact, I was the 1st to offer this, see my talk with Derex on his and my talk pages - and also above) that "bacitracin dressing" could (not must, but could) be interpreted to mean "bacitracin + gauze" and that some might refer to that combination has a "bandage". However, I have also provided links (see above) which make clear that "Dressing" and "Bandaging" are two discrete steps. [21], [22] Now, with with Dressing and Bandage, having been established as discrete steps, what information do we have to see which steps were taken with Kerry's injury? The only official record of treatment is Kerry's Sick Call Treatment Record (SCTR), which states "Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl (sic) bacitracin dressing. Ret to Duty." We find that source here. Suffice it to say, beyond that, James has offered only Snopes, which is problematic for reasons I cite immediately prior to here (above) or Letson, who James dismisses as unreliable when I want to cite him. Therefore, we are left only with the verbatim text of SCTR which does not state that a 2nd discrete step of "bandaging" took place after "dressing". Also, if indeed, the wound was a "little scratch" as stated by 1st hand witness, Ret. Lt. Gen. Hibbard [23], then it's highly likely that only bacitracin was used. But regardless of who said what, we have only three possible infererences we can draw from the SCTR:

  • Bacitracin alone
  • Bacitracin with guaze
  • Bacitracin with gauze, followed by bandage

Please note that the 1st two of these would definately support my prefered use of the word "minor" in regards to wound severity. And the 3rd, combined with no evidence or report of sutures and no lost time from work, again supports minor.

I have been holding my ground here for a very simple reason: James. et al, want to use inferences and sources to back up "bandages", but they do not allow me equally valid inferences and sources to back up "minor".

not only that, but it's actually at the point where James says I can't use the Snopes link [24] for a direct qoute of "not serious" as an alternative to minor, but he claims he can use Snopes to back up, "bandage" and "returned to duty the next day".

I fail to see how such an uneven applicaiton of editing standards will led to anything but more contested edits, or a problematic text, consensus supported or not.

Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 17:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem with what you're saying is that the sick call report doesn't say it was either dressed or bandaged. It says "applied bacitracin dressing." So then I began searching for whether "bacitracin dressing" means a certain thing in medical terms, and it appears that it does, as I showed above. The report doesn't say it was "dressed" OR "bandaged," the pertinent verb is "applied." So we can ascertain no meaning from that verb, and we also can't try to argue about whether it was "dressed" or "bandaged," from the action verb applied. What we can do is try to ascertain whether "bacitrain dressing" has a discrete medical meaning -- which it appears to me (see above) that it does. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Kate, are you denying that "bandaging" is also a discrete step, separate and distinct from "dressing"? If so, what about the sources I provide that show that it is a separate and distinct step? Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 17:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea whether there's a difference or not, but it's irrelevant because there's no indicationa bout either -- the action verbs "bandaged" or "dressed" get used nowhere in this report. We can ascertain nothing about which one was performed by the verb that is used, "applied." We simply can't know. What we can try to find out is whether there is a distinct medical meaning for "bacitracin dressing," as I mentioned above. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Kate, with all due respect, you need to rethink what you are saying. The SCTR, clearly says "appl Bacitracin dressing". When one applies a "dressing" to a wound, they are "dressing" a wound. Do you deny this? Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 17:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. I maintain that it's irrelevant given the above. You've aired your opinions, so let's let other folks talk now. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Rex is right on this one. I'm pretty sure "Bacitracin dressing" implies nothing about a physical bandage; "applied bacitracin dressing" is medic-speak for "put on some goo". If it were a civilian occurance, Mommy might have sprayed some Bactine on the owie. (And if she didn't, it might become infected and the owie would turn into gangrene. Or something like that.) Why the hell are we bothering about this level of detail? (And I hope Rex knows that his little superscript signature looks at first glance to say (all logic is penis based).) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
In general I agree that this is a silly argument. But it's one that folks are intent to press, so we might as well try to resolve it. I disagree that "bacitracin dressing" can only mean "smearing on some ointment," given that it semes to have a discrete medical meaning, which apepars to indicate otherwise. I respect your opinion though. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to doubt that the wound was covered with a bandage, to prevent further injury from clothing or brushing against something. You'd think that'd be SOP for any opening in the skin.
On another point, I don't see any reason not to characterize this as a "minor wound". There's no mention of stitches or any other treatment beyond first aid, and it didn't prevent Kerry from immediately returning to duty. As far as the Purple Heart is concerned, a wound's a wound.
—wwoods 18:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

So far, that's three for "minor wound": Wwoods, Johntex and Rex071404. At the same time, if "gauze bandage" or better yet "gauze dressing" were used instead of "bandage", I'd be ok with that. You guys think I push Kerry down with "minor", but I think you push him up with "bandage". Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 19:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

This is seriously the neverending edit war. --kizzle 18:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Why don't we just call it a bacitracin dressing, and let people imagine what they like about the meaning?
—wwoods 01:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Better, why not just call it bacitracin and let people find out whatever information they want to? Titoxd(?!?) 01:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Better, why not just say the shrapnel was removed. Bacitracin and bandage are both silly. Of course you're going to do that in jungle-river warfare for any cut at all. The important part is that the report shows that shrapnel was pulled out of his arm; the other details are a pointless sideshow. Derex @ 01:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd be ok with "gauze bandage" (less supportable) or "gauze dressing" (more supportable). I have a problem with plain old "bandage" as I feel it tends towards gratuitous hagiography and here's why: There is no information to suggest that Kerry was nursing a wound here, so why are we implying that by saying "bandage" to them? There is not much argument that this was by and large not serious to any degree, so then other than the fact that he got a Purple Heart from it, why is the supposed bandage notable enough to mention? Clearly, James is opposed to describing the wound itself ("minor"), so why does he want to describe the treatment ("bandage"). Non-severe wounds, that in and of themselves have no lasting physical effects are simply not notable so far as the after details go. By describing the type of wrapping as "bandage" rather than omitting that or using "gauze" (which may be inferred), we are plain and simply skewing the narrative in a gratuitously hagiographic manner. If the degree of injury is not notable enough to mention, neither is the type of wrapping (if any) it was given. It's enough to say "bacitracin dressing" and leave it at that. I will however, as a good faith gesture, offer that "gauze bandage" or "gauze dressing" as ok with me. What about you others? Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 01:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

A medical dictionary is not opinion

From Dorlands Medical Dicitonary [25]

dressing (dress·ing) (dres´ing) 1. any of various materials for covering and protecting a wound. See also bandage. 2. the putting on of clothing.

adhesive absorbent d. a sterile individual dressing consisting of a plain absorbent compress affixed to a film or fabric coated with a pressure-sensitive adhesive substance.

antiseptic d. a dressing of gauze impregnated with an antiseptic material.

bolus d. tie-over d.

cocoon d. a dressing of gauze affixed to the surrounding skin by collodion or other liquid adhesive in such a way that its elevated appearance resembles a cocoon.

cross d. cross-dressing.

dry d. dry gauze or absorbent cotton applied to a wound.

fixed d. a dressing impregnated with a stiffening agent such as plaster of Paris or starch, used to secure fixation of the part when the material dries.

occlusive d. one which seals a wound from contact with air or bacteria.

pressure d. one by which pressure is exerted on the area covered to prevent collection of fluids in underlying tissues; most commonly used after skin grafting and in treatment of burns.

protective d. a light dressing to prevent exposure to injury or infection.

stent d. a dressing in which is incorporated a mold or stent, to maintain position of a graft.

tie-over d. a dressing placed over a skin graft or other sutured wound and tied on by the sutures, which have been made of sufficient length for that purpose; called also bolus d.

Just as I said, said to Derex, if I were going to guess, I'd say "bacitracin dressing" could mean with gauze see "antiseptic" def above. However, I have also said it could mean bacitracin as just a covering. That is also true, see "occlusive" above.

In either case, "bandage" has a separate def [26] and based what we know was applied "bacitracin dressing" and what it could mean ("bacitracin with gauze"), then if James wants to call it "gauze bandaging", I would agree. Please note that I said virtually the same thing some time ago to Derex here "Personally, I might guess that Kerry got Bacitracin, with gauze and surgical tape. If you want to use that language, I'd agree. If others had actually read my reference to this, they would know that already. To reiterate, at most, Kerry got "bacitracin impregnated into gauze", which can be referred to as dressing, but is not referred to as "bandaging", but could be called "gauze bandaging" or "gauze dressing" and those would not be a lie and either would settle my concerns. What about James? Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 17:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Why does any of this matter? --kizzle 18:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It matters because JamesMLane keeps inserting the unsupported "bandage". Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 18:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying in the grand scheme of things, who cares whether it's a "bandage" or a "bacitracin dressing"? --kizzle 18:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Because Rex is trying to imply that it was a scrape, not even really breaking the skin. If he can argue that the medic just smeared a little ointment over it, that goes to support the claim that it wasn't a wound. Ultimately, Rex's issue is trying to keep any facts supporting the legitimacy of the PH out of the article. Every single dispute over every single word in this section is Rex trying to insert spin to push a POV, that's not my personal opinion .... the arbitration committee made that finding (POV pushing) about exactly the same disputes over exactly the same words a year ago. But, of course, you already knew all that. Derex @ 19:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The recent versions I have offered do not play up any pissing contest between SBVT/Kerry. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 20:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Rex, numerous people have showed you various definitions of "dressing", all of which involve some sort of cloth. You have never once, despite considerable google searching, been able to provide anything which explicitly states that an 'ointment' can be a "dressing". Not once. All the indirect evidence you provide is actually evidence against ointment as dressing, as I demonstrate on your talk page. You are required by the still-binding arbitration committee decision to provide a citation in view of your "demonstrated deficiencies" in conducting and interpreting the results of research. So, put up or shut up. You have provided no evidence, none, against Katefan0's suggested phrasing. Other people have provided vast amounts of supporting evidence and collectively wasted many hours on this point. Keep up this nonsense and I am going to start requesting relief over on the adminstrator's noticeboard under the existing arbitration remedies. Derex @ 18:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Cloth is not required and not all cloth is a bandage. For the record, I will again restate: [27] A dressing can be "occlusive d. one which seals a wound from contact with air or bacteria."

What do you think Bacitracin ointment does, when applied to the skin surface over a small scratch? It "seals a wound from contact with air or bacteria".

And you do know that an "occlusive" dressing is not the same as "antiseptic d. a dressing of gauze impregnated with an antiseptic material"? for if it were, they would not have two different sub-definitions to clarify the differences.

In fact, this definition of an "occlusive" dressing would even support petroleum jelly or nuskin [28] as a "dressing", which is what I've already told you several times.

In short, as I have made perfectly clear via both personal reasoning (which you reject) and citation (which hopefully you will stop overlooking and igoring), according to the medical dictionary, among other variants, a "dressing" can be antiseptic, which does have gauze which is what Kate is talking about (though she's wrongly trying to say it must be that type) or it can be (still among other types) "occlusive", which has no gauze.

The problem is that you and she and a few others here are trying to say a) a dressing must have gauze (which is not true basd on the medical dictionary) and b) because of that, since gauze (you contend) is "bandage", shzaam, we reach bandage.

However, as clearly shown above, your position is not sound and is not proved true.

At the same time, what I have said about the evidence supplied by Jams is correct, the word "dressing" does not establish "bandage". Try as you may to get around that, I have provided more than enough proof in the form of experts sources.

So Derex, please stop glossing over my postings. I have have met my duty. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 19:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


This page here appears to be talking about a scenario where an occlusive (see above) dressing consists solely of an antibiotic ointment. From my reading of it, it would hard to imagine gauze on the lips for several days, (and none is mentioned). However, it does seem to make clear that aditional ointment would go on. Having said that, again some here miss my point, which is the uneven application of editing rules. I say "injury" and you guys say must be "wound", yet you guys want to turn around and take the pontetially supportable "gauze" and turn it into "bandaging". Why does the word "gauze" even exist if it differs not whit from "bandage? And on top off it, you then go ahead and refuse to admit that the medical dicitonary and other sources I have cited, still make clear that "dressing" and "bandagin" are two distinct and discrete things. They simply are not the same. As a result, even if we agree on "gauze" (which I long ago offered), gauze does not establish "bandage". Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 19:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Rex writes, 'At the same time, what I have said about the evidence supplied by Jams is correct, the word "dressing" does not establish "bandage".' Assuming that "Jams" is me, Rex's statement is false because I've never even gotten into this minute analysis of the meaning of "dressing". The person that wrote the document was in the Mekong Delta in 1968, and was a medic in a unit where people were getting shot up all the time. The author didn't necessarily stop to parse every word. It's a mistake to try to pick apart the report as if it were a description of the results of a scientific experiment in a peer-reviewed journal. The evidence that I've actually supplied is that a biography of Kerry, written by a professor of history/American Studies, says the wound was bandaged. Rex objected that this biography was too favorable toward Kerry, so I supplied the further evidence that the main witness for Kerry's accusers on this point, Letson, also says that the wound was bandaged. That there was a bandage on Kerry's arm that day is better established and supported than at least 90% of the other facts on Wikipedia. JamesMLane 22:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, I will point out that the underlying issue between James and me is that he wants to be allowed to cite a particular source for his purposes, but does not want to allow me to cite the same source. If Letson is invoked for "bandage" that makes him valid for "superficially" and "small" in regards to the shrapnel wound. This makes the wound "minor" which is something James opposes. In the James scheme of things, Letson is "ok" if he backs up James, but "not ok" if he backs up Rex. Also, this issue of Brinkley was addressed above where I cited about 6 reasons from Wikipedia:Reliable sources which make clear that Brinkley's assertion must be verified with additional sources, something James has not dealt with -and can't because the only source is the treatment record (SCTR) and Kerry's assertions as repeated to Brinkley. Lastly, James failed to mention the additional iteration of his double standards of sourcing which is "Snopes" and which I have fully gone over in detail, above. Suffice it to say, Mekong Delta or no, it does not take much effort to write "wrap arm in bandage" if that's in fact what occurred. James has just got sour grapes because he's finally been caught with his hand in his editor's double- standard-cookie-jar. The bulk of the available information about "Bacitracin dressing" leans towards gauze perhaps being used, but no bandages. There is no information about "bandaging" in the SCTR which is the authoritative source. Simply because the best evidence available does not help advance James's desired POV, does not mean he can try to argue now why the SCTR doesn't say "bandage". James's Mekong gambit is just silly. By his logic, sutures are not written there either, but lets impute that into the record also. Why stop there? Perhaps Kerry got plasma, or a transfusion? Gee, uh the record says nothing about any tenus shot either. Aren't those routine for deep punctures? Oh yeah, Kerry got five of them, along with snake bite treatment, but the medic was too busy to write that fact down. James, when I used to pulled harebrained supposition out my butt, you objected and sought sanctions. But now you get to make suppositions?. The bottom line is that "Bandaging" and "Dressing" are simply not the same thing and the medical dictionary which I cited above, makes that 100% clear. And that's why gauze is called "gauze" and bandages are called "bandages"; they are not the same! James has not proved bandage and he's just mad that gauze is the best he gets (and he didn't prove that either -it's inferred). Several times, I've offered to support something like "the next day, Kerry returned to Swift boat duty with a gauze bandage on his arm" but James has yet to say if he'll accept that. So who's the POV hold-out here? Not me. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 23:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Nah, just scrap the whole thing. Bacitracin, bandage, gauze ... who cares? He had a piece of shrapnel pulled out of his are, why does the rest of this matter? I think both bacitracin & bandage should come out. If I recall right, the whole issue started a year ago when Rex stated the only treatment was bacitracin, because it was a scrape. Then someone else pointed out that it was bandaged. In my view, both are trivialities and both should come out. All that matters is that he had a piece of shrapnel pulled and was returned to duty. I'll leave it to the rest of you though, I've already wasted an hour debating Rex over this silly thing; I'll waste no more. Derex @ 03:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I kind of wish people would step back and see just how stupid all of this is. They don't give Purple Hearts for paper cuts, ok? If you don't think he deserved the PH Rex, that's fine, but you know what? They aren't going to take it back. I'm sick of this on both sides. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's a crazy idea

Rather than protecting the page again, why not just block Rex for persistant trolling?--205.188.117.68 20:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

  • On a side note, Rex, don't you have somewhere to be at some time during the day rather than trolling the same exact article for every second, of every day? I mean, you edit war over John Kerry for 24-48 hours at a time, do you sleep? eat? work? Or is your whole life edit waring over John Kerry a year after the election is over?--205.188.117.68 20:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Didn't you see that ad on TV, where the Chinese guy cloned himself to get more done each day?... That, or I am typing via thought projection while on the road... Or perhaps I have time distortion device which gives me 48 hours per day... In any case, I am not trolling and I'd rather you not say that. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 20:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought Rex said that there was no wound!

I thought Rex was 100% determined that we could not say that Kerry had a wound. Then why is he quoting a medical dictionary whose definitions for dressing are

  • any of various materials for covering and protecting a wound. See also bandage. 2. the putting on of clothing
  • dry d. dry gauze or absorbent cotton applied to a wound
  • tie-over d. a dressing placed over a skin graft or other sutured wound and tied on by the sutures, which have been made of sufficient length for that purpose; called also bolus d

Oh dear. Is Rex's terminogical game-playing coming unstuck, or is he admitting that when someone is wounded they have a . . . wound.

So Rex likes his wordplay to push
An agenda that helps him to rush
the reader into accepting
his version of correcting
to lead them against Kerry to gush.

FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Consensus for "wound" doth been reach
Injury no longer we teach
For certains been said
"That issue is dead"
By raising, decorum you breach
Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 01:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


For clarity sake we do say
accuracy must rule the day
a skin break is a wound
where no confusion is found
so disagreement we just had to lay.

A dressing is understood clear
to cover a wound less the fear
of disease that would bite
creating a necessity to fight
for common meaning we need to get near.

Medical dictionaries are all very well.
But 'tis the danger they could easily swell
confusion and doubt
and accuracy rout
where language should be clear as a bell.

FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I won't get into the limerick craze, but this is getting quite annoying. I'm going to be handing out 24-hour blocks for disruption to whoever engages in this silliness again. Titoxd(?!?) 01:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

could you be more specific? do you mean changing wound to injury, etc, or what? Derex @ 01:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
As in engaging in the poetic madness above these lines. Titoxd(?!?) 02:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Users, sir, are entitled to use any form of English they choose to in the exploration and examination of the contextual debate they are partaking of, once the linguistic construction used does not involve abuse. When one is or is not a fan of debate by limerick is immaterial to the substantive issue in the process of debatement. Any imposition of blocks would be an abuse of position and the powers possessed by an admin and would require the immediate reportage of such acts and the removal for one so foolish as to behave in like manner of the said power to impose restrictions on linguistic participation in and educative communicative exercise. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh well, I was actually enjoying debate by limerick. A fine limerick is a work of art that transcends those personal boundaries which naturally occur due to stress. I'd just like to add that I feel Jtdirl did raise his limerick game in the last session. Tip 'o the hat to you. Another benefit is how much they reveal about how and what each party thinks. Anyway, best to stop now so as to avoid a limerick arms race. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 02:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Not when it begins escalating to personal attacks and do not have any substance behind them. Very funny limerick below, by the way, so I won't block you for that one. Titoxd(?!?) 03:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex in his wisdom did speak
about the power of the language to seek
truth and dispel
confusion and sell
clarity to convince e're the meek.

Tis a pity to lose communication
with such as Tito's next connotation
where such language can kill
pure bitterness and thrill
through understanding and warm felication.

But for Tito's deep trauma we shall
confine limericks for a bit of a spell
and reign in our prose
simply because
it troubles poor Tito so well.

So alas we must lose the four lines
to communicate through means of some rhymes
and fight re the wound
through less fanfarious sound
and stick to the less melodious signs.

Fín.

lol FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Titoxd, I'm ok with whatever you decide, man. We need to end this somehow. It's too bad you can't protect talk pages. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Haiku in honor of Titoxd:
The limericks end.
We return to prose debates.
So fair -- but so dull.
-- JamesMLane 04:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Dull as the echoing sounds of reverts as they sweep before us. Wound. Non-wound. Dressing. Non-cloth dressing. Among the echoes of revertitis the melodic sound of rhythmic communication added a new frisson. But now, no more, sweet Wikipedians. We retreat into the dullness of a Wikipedia row, biting and barking at interpretations fair and foul. But at least, let it be said, the limericised communication spree raised a few smiles and calmed a few tempers. So 'twas useful after all. :-) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 04:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess... just help me out here. I want to get this revert war over. Titoxd(?!?) 05:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm an admin as well, Titoxd. I'm with ya. That's why I brought up protection again. Or mediation. Or something. I mean Kate and I are both admins and this has gotten so bad that at times, we can't do anything else but watch this article. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
And please let's stop the poetry. It's not amusing. It's annoying. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Poetry is fun
But it's starting to get old
This is it for me
 ;-)
Szyslak (Image:Szyslak sig.png [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 10:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The "snopes" link and "bandage" have been removed

I have removed the Snopes link and "bandage" for these reasons:

  • a) No one is disputing Kerry went back to work the next day: no Snopes cite needed for that.
  • b) Snopes is being used by James for "bandage", which Rex disputes.
  • c) The same exact Snopes page was used by Rex for "not serious" which James disputes..
  • d) If Snopes is left out, "bandage" and "not serious" both go away.
  • e) Leaving both these out, does not skew the narrative, but leaving only one out could.
  • f) If the disputed wound severity ("not serious") is not notable enough for us to ascertain and include as a detail, certainly then any disputed arm covering related to it ("bandage") is also not notable.
  • g) The acccuracy of the article does not suffer if these are left out in tandem.
  • h) If these are left out in tandem, Rex will not object to this (see as a diff, here).

James, if you insists that "Snopes" link must be used, please explain why here. Also, if you insist that the disputed "bandage" must mentioned, please explain here how it's absence as seen here (same link as "h") fatally flaws the article. On the other hand, if no fatal flaw is caused by removing "banadage", please explain why it must otherwise be kept (if that is what you are saying). Also, if you insist we keep it, knowing as you do that Rex071404 disputes that particular word, please explain why you JamesMLane, refuse to agree to drop that word. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 07:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's not use third person here. It makes it sound like you aren't taking responsibility for what you are doing. That's why we should avoid it on Wikipedia. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I use it here, because I fully expect James to refuse and I want this to read clearly when I post a link to it later for the benefit of others; 3rd person allowed the parties involved to stay in focus. That said Woohoo, what do you think of the merit of this tandem exclusion of "bandage" and "not serious" coupled with the deletion of the "Snopes" link? Are you in agreement or opposition, and why? Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 07:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Just now, once again, the elusive Mr. Tibbs has swooped in and completely ruined all the progress James and I have made so far this evening. If the other editors here won't help protect the text from these enormous backwards steps invoked by Tibbs (who does not participate in the dialog here) I don't see how it's resonable to expect that editing dispute resolution be reached here. Tibbs does not listen to me, perhaps another editor could speak with him. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 08:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Honestly, one of the main problems I've had here is that we just have so much going on, that I can't make heads or tails of it. I'd love to revert for ya, Rex, but I have no clue if I am reverting to a consensus version or just a version you 2 are working on. So I'm deferring. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Good call, Woohookitty. I certainly don't join in Rex's complaint that Mr. Tibbs's edit ruined some sort of progress that Rex and I had supposedly made. In fact, as noted by Mr. Tibbs in his ES, he restored some valid citations that Rex had deleted, which I had overlooked. In the summer of 2004, several editors tried to explain to Rex that it was unencylopedic for the article to characterize the wound as "minor". The only progress we've made in something like fifteen months is that Rex has shifted from "minor" to the equally unencyclopedic "not serious". I understand the annoyance you've expressed at this whole thing -- I'm sure you can understand that those of us who are in our second year of going at this with Rex are even more ticked off. JamesMLane 09:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Yep I know. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, in essesence, we have James's answer which is "as noted by Mr. Tibbs in his ES, he restored some valid citations that Rex had deleted, which I had overlooked". There simply is no reasoning with James. He is goinig to insist that his version and only his version (aka, one which he prefers) of the 1st PH section be allowed, nothing else. Does he address my concerns with Snopes? No. Did he explain the points I asked him about here? No. Instead he brushes them aside with an unexplained suggestion that "not serious", is somehow unencyclopedic even those two words come directly in the middle of a verbatim quote attributed to Brinkley and found on the very Snopes page which James uses for his justification of "bandage". Frankly, I am at a loss. If James is allowed to use the Snopes for "bandage" but I am not allowed to use the same Snopes for "not serious..." then we have applied a double-standard and we can never reach agreement because we are not starting from the same logic predicate. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 09:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact that everyone is endlessly debating minutie told me that when I got into this. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

So then Wk, drawing up a list of essential salient facts as per my suggestion to you, would perhaps help? Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 10:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Rex, the reason I despair of this so-called "dialog" is that I see little evidence that you pay attention to what I actually say. You refute positions I don't hold and ignore the arguments I actually present. Under these circumstances, I'm just not going to spend hours and hours correcting you, especially when it involves repeating things I've already said multiple times. Here are some headlines:
  • You refer to the bandage as "disputed". There are multiple sources, better than what we usually have on Wikipedia, from both sides of the divide, saying there was a bandage. There is no source that says there wasn't. This is not a good-faith dispute.
  • You say there's a "double standard" about Snopes as if the issue were reliability. The issue is not reliability. I have never said that Snopes was unreliable. The issue is that Snopes is not an encyclopedia and doesn't have our NPOV policy; instead, the Snopes policy is to evaluate the evidence and reach a conclusion. That means that some things on a Snopes page are appropriate for Wikipedia and some aren't. Whether John Kerry was wearing a bandage on a particular day is an objective fact. Whether the wound was "serious" is a matter of interpretation. For an even clearer example, note the headline on the Snopes page:
Claim: John Kerry's Vietnam War service medals (a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts) were earned under "fishy" circumstances.
Status: False.
Suppose someone edited the Wikipedia article to say, "During the 2004 campaign, false claims were made about Kerry's medals," and cited Snopes. Would that be appropriate? Of course not. It would be a clear violation of NPOV. The presence of that adjudication at the top of the page, though, doesn't mean it's improper to cite Snopes for basic facts. Similarly, you kept inserting the link to National Review Online for Letson's version of events. My objection was only that the disputed points addressed by Letson should be in the daughter article. Although National Review is much more POV than Snopes, it's sometimes OK to cite National Review for a fact, such as "here's Letson's version". That doesn't mean that our article could say "Kerry shows a poor grasp of world affairs" just because someone said so in National Review. There's no double standard here. Snopes and National Review draw conclusions; we don't. We can cite them for facts but not for conclusions.
  • You write, "No one is disputing Kerry went back to work the next day: no Snopes cite needed for that." Wikipedia articles are supposed to cite sources. That a few editors on hand right now all agree on a point is no guarantee that it will be so clear years from now. For example, even though there's no serious dispute about the point, some fanatically anti-Kerry POV-pushing editor might come along and say, oh, I dunno, something like this: "Also, this sentence 'Kerry returned to duty the next day on a regular Swift boat patrol.' should instead read as 'Kerry returned to duty the next day.', unless there is proof that Kerry was actually on a Swift Boat patrol, instead of at base, the next day." That would, of course, be grossly bad faith, but we might as well leave the citation in, just in case the article ever draws the attention of an editor who sees this encyclopedia as a prime ground for attacking politicians he dislikes.
I still don't favor page protection, but, frankly, that's not because I think there's some easy and clearly superior alternative. My long experience with Rex leads me to believe that neither mediation nor another RfC would accomplish anything, either. JamesMLane 12:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex rebuts James regarding Snopes, etc

Unless we are going to say that Snopes is incapable of using the Brinkely book as a reference and also incapable of quoting that book verbatim, then we are going to have to admit there does exist on Snopes, a verbatim quote (attributed to Brinkley, from his book) as follows: "Kerry's wound was not serious enough to require time off from duty." This quote is indeed on the Snopes page which James is citing [29]

Furthermore, the context of this quote indicates that Snopes asserts that Brinkley has said in his book that not only was the 1st purple heart for a "not serious" injury, but the 2nd is as well. Here, in it's entirety, is the Snopes sentence, verbatim, quoting Brinkley, as it sits on the page found at the snopes link: Brinkley noted that, as in the previous case, "Kerry's wound was not serious enough to require time off from duty.".

Suffice it to say , unless we are now arguing that Snopes is inventing quotes, then we have to accept as fact that James's highly vaunted source Brinkley has said the words, "not serious". The only point one could possibly argue here would be that Snopes has rendered an opinion about Brinkley's 1st PH comments when Snopes says "as in the previous case". Personally, I do not agree they are doing that. Rather, I feel this is a reminder in brief, not an opinion. But if Snopes is offering opinion, then I would say that opinion and fact are so poorly segregated on the Snopes page, as to render it valueless.

I find it interesting that James himself points to the headline on "Snopes" as being something we would never say here on the wiki. Indeed, with that he has opened the door to another point I have long argued about Snopes, which is Snopes is so chock full of flaws as a source and so pollutes our readers who are directed to it, that we should not use it at all. I reject the notion that somehow this particular Snopes page under discussion has such value that "We can cite them for facts but not for conclusions". Har! Far from it. By linking to that in this context, we plain and simply pollute the narrative of our own article.

Under the standard of 'half crappy links are ok , even FreeRepublic could be used for a source. Using James's desired standard of "cite for facts, not for conclusions", we find this interesting information on FreeRepublic [30], in the form of a combination of facts and conclusions. Please note that the facts are quoted and footnoted there: Later, after Schachte, Letson, and Hibbard's accounts of Kerry's wound were publicized, readers of Brinkley's biography discovered a passage quoting an entry from Kerry's war diary written after December 11 where Kerry recorded that "we hadn't been shot at yet". After this was pointed out, Kerry's campaign acknowledged that Kerry's wound may have been self-inflicted.

James would go absolutely berserk if I tried to write: According to Kerry, at this point, though "we hadn't been shot at yet", he nonetheless sought a Purple Heart for this wound.

James, this concession from Kerry establishes as a fact that a) Kerry was not involved in "enemy action" Dec 2 / Dec 3, so no matter how you slice it, there was no qualifying predicate enemy action which is the requirement to qualify for a PH. And with no enemy action, there can be no "heat of battle", so even if self-inflicted, it's not a "qualifying" wound. And yet, James stands by and watches while Kizzle continues to again and again try to insert the false statement that Kerry "qualified" [31] for this PH. Does James revert that or object to that? Why not?

Suffice it to say, James's standard of "use for facts only" is preposterous. The FreeRepublic example is only one, but there are many others. This idea of letting James cherry pick desired details from a snakepit of crap like that Snopes page is just plain not good. Nothing good can come from allowing sources like that to be used. However, if James demands Snopes, then at minimum, I am going to describe the 2nd PH injury as "not serious enough to require time off from duty"' because this is a verbatim quote from Brinkley and it is found on the James beloved "Snopes" page.

Now then, on this issue of sources let's see what else we find:

  • Rear Admiral Schachte said, ""It was not a very serious wound at all." [32] [33]. No witness has come forward saying that Schachte was did not see the wound 1st hand. Under James's rule of "There is no source that says there wasn't" regarding "bandage", then since there's no source which says that Schachte did not see the injury 1st hand, then we have to accept Rear Admiral Schachte's statement of "not very serious" at face value.
  • Now then, since there's also no source that says Ret. Lt Gen. Hibbard did not see the wound first hand, we also have to accept the statement of "He had a little scratch on his forearm" as accurate proof that the wound was not "above the elbow" and was minor or not serious [34] In fact, here we have another Boston Globe source telling us "Hibbard observed that Kerry's wound was minor" [35]. The Globe goes on to argue about the PH regs, but it does not present any challenge about the veracity of it's own conclusions about Hibbard's contention, for which they use the word "minor". Surely the Boston Globe is a reliable source. No need to fight them on the word "minor". It's either the Boston Globe's accurate summary of what Hibbard said at one point to them "minor" or it's what he actually said "minor". Either way, coming from the reliable source Globe, we can use it. And using James's rule of "no one says otherwise", there is no source which says that Hibbard did not see the wound.

Here we have two highly credible 1st hand witnesses, who under James rule of "nobody says otherwise", because no one has challenged that these persons at one point visually saw Kerry wound with their own eyes, we must accept at fact value what they say "not very serious" and "not serious" and "minor". Now then, James' 2nd rational for Snopes - to prove Kerry went back to duty the next day, also fails as a justification. Uh, we already have factual corroboration that Kerry went directly back to duty, and this is from a Primary Source, the Sick Call Treatment Record "Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl (sic) bacitracin dressing. Ret to Duty," [36] James is only citing Snopes for that fact instead of CBS so as to give another excuse to use Snopes. CBS is a better source for this verification than Snopes because CBS quotes the Primary Source SCTR, but Snopes quotes the Secondary Source of Brinkley's book. Kerry returned to duty after treatment. whether it was the same day or the next day, is not a notable fact and we do not have need a citation for that as there is no dispute that he returned to duty. Also, when we are trying to determine if "Dressing", "Gauze" or "Bandage" is correct, we are told by James "It's a mistake to try to pick apart the report as if it were a description of the results of a scientific experiment in a peer-reviewed journal." Here is another one off James's double-standards. He wants precision as to when Kerry returned to duty, same day vs. next day, but he does not want precision when it comes to calling dressing "dressing" or gauze "gauze". And James' smarmy jibe about this [37] edit fails to persuade because he himself says "there's no serious dispute about the point" and I yielded on that point right away as soon as I recognized that. There is no dispute, either here or in the public about Kerry's return to duty and in either case, the Primary Source SCTR, beats the Secondary Source Brinkley quote (via the, in this instance, Tertiary Source Snopes). James claims that he does not favor page protection, but is that is real worry? I think not, his real worry is that if we end up protected again, that his preferred edits might be the odd man out. See his recent statement here on talk :"Protecting the page now would protect the wrong version". Here's the bottom line:

  • Snopes is no good, but if it is good, I must be allowed to source "not serious..." to it, at minimum in regards to the 2nd PH as the quote is verbatim.
  • Snopes is no better than FreeRepublic. If the James rule of "cite for fact, not opinion" is allowed, then those Freeper pages which have facts with citations, must be allowed. I have offered an example of one above.
  • The SCTR is a Primary source. There is no need to look beyond this for details about what was on Kerry's arm. The SCTR refers to "Bacitracin dressing". So to should we use that phrase. I've tried to flex for James on this, but if you give him and inch he takes a mile. The amount or type of wrapping on Kerry's arm, be it "dressing" or "bandage" is simply not a notable enough fact to warrant superceding a Primary Source fact (SCTR), with a Secondary Source description (Brinkley). If so much precision is needed, then we must rely on the medical dictionary link which I supplied. A medical dictionary is more authoritative than Brinkley so far as medical terminology goes. The arm wrapping is the result of medical treatment, so the most precise usage is not Brinkley's layman usage, but the medical dictionary usage. And the dictionary makes clear that a "dressing" is not the same thing as a "bandage". Either the arm wrapping is a notable fact, in which case since it's a medical treatment, we need the precise medical term, or it's not a notable fact, in which case we do not need to look beyond the sole Primary Source, the undisputedly accurate SCTR.

Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 18:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I've already answered about 90% of this. New points: (1) Would I "go absolutely berserk" if you tried to add the quotation from Kerry's journal? The quotation is included where it belongs, in the daughter article (John Kerry military service controversy). I've never tried to remove it from that article. (2) Your esteem for Free Republic is laughable. Snopes is a far more reliable source. Even National Review Online is a more reliable source. The serious conservatives who write NRO are head-and-shoulders above the typical Freeper. JamesMLane 18:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

James says "Snopes is a far more reliable source". Says who? James?. Also, James still has not addressed the verbatim quote of Brinkley which is found on the Snopes page. I presume that James is waiving any objections to me using that. And remind me again James, why is Kerry's arm wrapping (aka "bandage") notable enough to mention? And what about SCTR being a better source than Snopes for "back to duty"? Where is your answer to that, James? And if Kerry returning to duty is notable enough to mention, isn't where he was at while away from duty (that being Sick Call) also notable enough to mention? Why do you keep deleting that?Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 19:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/Talk%7EJohn_Kerry_archive_12_d49b.html"