Talk:John Kerry/August 2004 Archive 1

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.

Archived as of August 1, 2004. If anything else needs to be moved back out of the archives, feel free, but please be aware of the page size. Ambi 12:41, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contents

POLL

There was a poll in progress, so I've again taken that part of the Talk page from the archive and copied it back in here. I did not copy the lengthy "Comment" subsection from the archived poll discussion -- only the first few subsections, the ones with the votes in them. JamesMLane 08:50, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All right now. Let's have an informal poll see if they's some way we can stop this before I go completely insane. Here's how it works. Submit what you think shoud be the content of the disputed section in a sub-talk page so we can get a rough estimate of where the consensus is. (A sub-talk page is like this: Talk:John Kerry/Sample.) Neutrality 06:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality's version

(John Kerry/Neutrality)

  1. Neutrality 06:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. This is the longest version, and since Wikipedia is all about having the most information in one place and in the open... Amicuspublilius 03:16, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

VVAW cross-reference version

(John Kerry/VVAW cross-reference)

  1. JamesMLane 06:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Lyellin 07:42, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  3. This is excellent. john k 12:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. Would be great with pictures. --Aaron Hill 09:51, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 10:01, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  6. Excellent. Neutral. Thorough. I salute you.Wolfman 21:56, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  7. Neutral, thorough, concise. A little long, but he talks about it a lot. Why, I don't know. Why don't we say something about his policy views and plans? He's a politician, right? Wouldn't that be more relevant, interesting, and important? One would think he's a military officer from reading the article. Kevin Baas | talk 22:15, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)
  8. I agree—it seems very neutral, especially because it addresses the controvery but is not too long (IMHO, disproportionate attention to the controversy seems to bias the article towards criticism of Kerry). neatnate 09:59, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Change in this version: The suggestion from Aaron Hill was a good idea. I've added the testimony pic from the protected article. The image of the medal and ribbon would be appropriate for the separate article that will address the medal-vs.-ribbon distinction in more detail. JamesMLane 10:23, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Remove section entirely

  1. Gzornenplatz 06:32, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Gamaliel 07:30, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. john k 11:46, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 06:58, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. My second choice, but better than the status quo. JamesMLane 18:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Return to Rex's version(s)

  1. Rex071404 16:55, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Buster 05:57, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Second choice, same reasn. Best to have more information than less! Amicuspublilius 03:18, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here is Rex's (1st version - see 2nd below) of "VVAW": Talk:John_Kerry/Rex's_version (moved to subpage by Ambivalenthysteria for brevity)

See Rex's 3rd version below, under section titled: "1971 Meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) (Rex v.3 - How about this?)"Rex071404 15:11, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rex '71 VVAW v.3

  1. Rex071404 23:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lyellin's Version 1 Talk:John_Kerry/Lyellin

  1. Lyellin 07:10, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 07:25, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lyellin's Version 2 Talk:John_Kerry/Lyellin

  1. Rex071404 15:13, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) (as a fall back choice only - and link display must be corrected)

Notes on protection and civility

Regarding the protection: I know the page was only very recently unprotected, but judging by the number of reversions (at least five in the last hour before protection) and the accompanying edit summaries, I thought things were rapidly heading downhill with no end to the reversions in sight. I especially want to bring to attention this illuminating edit summary by Rex071404:


(/*RV to previous, reversing repeated vandalism by JamesMLane and Wolman -Sysop - please check and see if Wolfman and Neutrality are coming from the same IP address)

To Rex: Please understand that charges of vandalism and sockpuppetry are serious accusations and should not be bandied about lightly. This sort of language violates both wikiquette and the civility rule. So please, for the sake of everyone concerned (including yourself), try to keep the slander and histrionics to a minimum (preferably zero). Thanks for your consideration. -- Hadal 07:41, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... when I, in my new user ignorance, made mutiple postings to Neutrality's talk page, he deemed it "vandalism" and referred to it as such. Even so, perhaps I miss-used the term. My apologies. Also then, what is a "troll"? Neutrality called me that several times as well. I wouldn't want to misuse that term either. Rex071404 07:47, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Rex, you've been playing this "Oh, I'm just a new user, I don't know how things work here" card for quite awhile. It's getting tiresome. When are you going to learn how the Wikipedia works instead of obsessing about the John Kerry page? Have you bothered to read any of the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines yet? Or the Welcome article and the many links it contains? Meelar posted links to these on your talk page shortly after you got your username. older≠wiser 12:33, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I do not consider my interest in this page to be an "obsesssion" any more than yours is. Please refrain from futher insulting me. Rex071404 17:00, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's spamming. I know, you know it, they know it. And you know very well what a "troll" is, because you called the anon user a troll in one of your edit summaries.--Neutrality 15:31, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Here we go again; Neutrality again tries to pick an arguement with me. Frankly, I am losing interest in answering each and everyone of his non-productive jabs. Truly, I wish he had kept his word way back at the beginning of this. Right at the beginning of the 1st edit war (which he started) Neutality had a message on his personal page which said that he was going to stop making political edits for a while. Of course, his statement was proven false my his subsequent actions. Also, last night, before this took off again, I left him a message asking why he kep re-inserting his verion VVAW, but he did not reply to me. It's important for the group to recongnize that Neutrality was indeed putting in his personal version of VVAW which in no way resembles what some of you now prefer (and which is currently in there). It was this malignent effort by Neutrality which I was posting against last night. In my view, I think that N. was trying to get the last post in again last night - just like he did previously. Also, please take note that N. has at one time or another in this, himself done basically each and everything he complains about me over. For this reason, I am wondering if he is showing the requisite emotional and intellectual detachment which is needed to hold Wiki leadership positions. Also, please review his Edit Summaries from last night - one of them, on a full blown revert, stated and implied that N. was "Attempting a compromise...". From my perspective, this is not true whatsoevr. I am available to dialog with N. as much as he wants. It's him who remains silent. Who among you thinks that I am at a loss for words or am unwilling to speak up? Rex071404 16:58, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well Rex, frankly I do. You advertise your willingness to dialog and accuse Neutrality of refusing your entreaties. However, I left you a note last night (a) denying your charge that I was a Neutrality sockpuppet (b) trying to start a friendly dialog about your fundamental objections. In response, you simply deleted my note with the comment "Wolfman: you are not welcome here - your comments will be deleted until you shape up on the John Kerry page". So no, I do not believe your constant protestations that you are open to dialog but are always met with silence.Wolfman 17:29, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Wolfman, the comment from you which I deleted was not in any way focused at gleaning a compromise. Rather it was by and large, a tongue lashing against me by you. Since at no tme have I ever used the term "sockpuppet" against N or you., I interpreted you message to be needlessly hostile. And having received it in the middle of the edit battle, I had no time for it. However, I did leave an Edit Summary reason for deleting it. There was nothing to prohibit you from re-contacting me and asking what I meant by "shape-up". Since you still have not done that, I can only conclude that you don't care what I think to any degree at all. If that's the case, why should you be cluttering up my talk page with false suggestions that I alledged "sockpuppetry"? My Edit Summary was to a sysop to ask them to see if the same IP address was in use. If I had that information, I could rule out if you and N. are at the same location or are one and same person(s). I have not, however at any time said that I thought this the be the case. There would be no way to determine that without more informatin than I am able to gather....Rex071404 17:50, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Rex, you are certainly not at a loss for words, however your words are often harsh and unreasonable, making it extremely unpleasant to deal with you. You apparently are too busy obsessing over this page (yes, I said it again and it is not an insult) to take an interest in how Wikipedia works and you continue to flout Wikipedia guidelines and when confronted with this plead ignorance due to being a new user. If your "new user" pleas were accompanied by even the tiniest bit of humility (like maybe ratcheting back on the histrionics for a while until you can participate in a non-disruptive manner), would go a long way towards rehabiliating assumption of good faith in your regard. older≠wiser 17:05, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Huh? Rex071404 17:52, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Several times now after being criticized for something, you have used "I'm a new user" as an excuse, and yet your bad behavior continues. Your "new user" pleading is getting tiresome. It would be more believable if it was accompanied by a more than temporary change in behavior. You've been around Wikipedia for a couple of weeks now and have had plenty of opportunity to familiarize yourself with how things work. Further, a "new user" plea would be more believable if accompanied with just a tiny bit of humility and contrition rather than making an offhand excuse. I can't speak for others, though I suspect many here feel the way I do, but I can no longer assume that you are acting in good faith. older≠wiser 18:32, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've been away for 36 hours, and it's disappointing to see that things have gone rapidly downhill. For starters, this page should never have been unprotected at the point it was at. Another 48 hours, and things might have been different.

That said, I believe the vote above was straightforward enough that it's safe to say that Rex went against consensus by adding in his own version. That was unacceptable, as it is not his place to decide that he is allowed to ignore certain people's votes. However, I think it also highlights just how bad a mess much of this article is. Looking at this edit by Rex, he's added in two sections which seem to me to be a) somewhat poorly written, and b) still with something of an anti-Kerry POV. On the other hand, he's left in a general section about VVAW which is just as POV - in the opposite direction.

I think we should bring in a mediator - quickly - and go through this article, section by section. Much of the sections about Kerry's ancestry, childhood and military career needs condensing. Large pieces need NPOVing (as they're either pro-or-anti-Kerry), and other pieces are just badly worded. And we have other details which are completely pointless - who cares what book he read during the 2003 campaign? If we move quickly, I think we could get this up to a much better standard within a couple of weeks - and well ahead of the immediate prelude to the election, when the article is likely to be receiving most hits.

Finally, in the meantime, I suggest that all of us protagonists in this dispute come to an agreement not to edit the article while the dispute is ongoing, so that the article can be unprotected. Thus, we could treat it as if it were protected, without having it appear that way to outside contributors - and making Wikipedia as a whole look bad. Ambi 10:06, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While I completely agree with you that something should be done, and I appreciate your effort to make constructive suggestions, I have a different view of some of the particulars. Unprotection was obviously premature, but 48 hours of more of the same wouldn't have changed anything. As for mediation, it was my impression that a mediator can't be brought in unless and until the contending sides have all accepted mediation, which hasn't happened here. I agree that there are many improvements that could be made in the article, but they can't be made while it's protected, and we saw what will happen as soon as it's unprotected. Finally, the suggestion of a mutual agreement among all the protagonists would work only if there were a fairly high level of trust. With terms like "vandalism" and "troll" and "bias" being tossed around with mad abandon, I don't think we have that kind of trust here. What would happen when an anon user, not part of the agreement, showed up and made a change that was very similar to what one of the usual suspects (you, me, Rex, Neutrality, etc.) had been promoting? Would there not be suspicions? Would those suspicions not be voiced? Loudly? and repeatedly?
I have two suggestions to offer. (1) We copy the article onto a sandbox. There'd be a normal wiki process there to try to improve it. If, at some point, the article, or much more likely a particular section or subsection, reaches the point where it has consensus approval, then a sysop substitutes the consensus version for the equivalent section of the main article. The idea is that edits to a particular section might be implemented even without a consensus on the entire article. (2) Arbitration. There is now a much stronger case than there was a few days ago for saying that all other means of dispute resolution have been exhausted. JamesMLane 16:45, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Sandbox idea sounds good. This is what I have been trying in my requests to the group about my v.3 VVAW. My chief concern is that the group seems to want to shunt the critisisms about Kerry off to a sub-page. The adddiyional click required to read would have the effect of giving more prominence to the main article and would thereby cause too much of a pro-Kerry POV Rex071404 17:04, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
We have to make judgments about what goes into this article, what's in a separate article (not a "sub-page", a separate article), and what's omitted entirely. There wasn't much controversy about dropping Kerry's astrological sign entirely. Good. On this more substantive point, however, your "chief concern" is that most of the people here disagree with you about the importance and appropriate treatment of a few particular subjects. The sandbox doesn't mean that we must all use your beloved v.3 VVAW as the base and confine ourselves to tinkering with it. The sandbox will be worthless if it just turns into a replay of last night's fiasco, in which you incessantly restore an overly detailed narration of trivia that you happen to consider important. If you conduct yourself that way, then the sandbox will be too chaotic to allow us to make any progress on, say, how we present Kerry's military career. JamesMLane 17:20, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
JML, about the "mis-statement" you complained about to me: Do you, yes or no, concede it is indeed true that when you used the term "poll results" you mis-stated the fact regarding the current status of the "poll". If you do not answer this question, I will lose respect for you. Rex071404 17:11, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No, I do not concede that. Incidentally, it was you who complained (in an edit summary) that I was allegedly "mis-stating the facts." I responded to this charge on your Talk page, trying to keep yet another fracas off this page. You followed up by posting your request for a concession on your Talk page, on my Talk page, and here. The next time you have such a question for me, one posting will suffice. JamesMLane 18:04, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have to agree with both Ambi and James here. I was away for the weekend, and it seems that now we're back to a situation that is VERY open for edit-warring. I appreciate Snowspinner's point that this page should not be protected, especially now. I agree. I would have preferred that something like the sandbox could have been done first. I still think it would be a good idea to go through, section by section, and NPOV this. Hopefully now, it can be done in a civil manner and we won't need the sandbox option, but I for one am all for it, if it is needed. Lyellin 06:50, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion on how to proceed

I suggest this:

  • 1) 1st we agree on an outline showing the total # of suggested sections
  • 2) Then we agree on and assign an approximate maximum word count per section
  • 3) Then we agree on the total number of images for entire article
  • 4) Then we agree on which sections can have an image

Armed with this framework, I am pretty sure we can re-do the page to something we all will accept.Rex071404 17:59, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with agreeing to an outline of the article, though I think the one we have now is just fine. But I disagree with setting arbitrary caps on the number of words or pictures per section. Gamaliel 18:09, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well at least let's start on the outline right away.Rex071404 18:12, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Why not just focus on the heart of the matter instead of joining a 4-step program? You, Rex, recently stated that your most fundamental objection is that the VVAW/Kerry controversy is largely handled in a separate article. Is that correct? As I understand it, this is objectionable to you because requiring an extra link click seems to de-emphasize the controversy. I gather that the argument against including a full discussion in the main article is that a full discussion is rather lengthy.
So, if I understand the situation correctly, the fundamental question is whether VVAW/Kerry goes in a linked separate page, or gets fully inserted into the main text. So why not try to agree on that first.Wolfman 19:11, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This would not even be at issue if we inserted my version of VVAW. That's because mine is succint enough to meld into the flow of the current article with no problems. I am open to modifications of it, but see no reason why the pro-Kerry POV'rs here are so oppossed the the few links which are very important, I feel. I especially refer to: NYSun and ABC News. Rex071404 20:26, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


A followup question to clarify your position, Rex. I already know you prefer Rex_v3. But, suppose the current VVAW/Kerry article were inserted directly into the Kerry article (rather than linked). Would that satisfy your primary objection, provided that the two links you just mention are also included?Wolfman 20:39, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The fact that the non-"positive" links keep getting removed, regardless of where they are placed, makes me leery of yielding on this issue. The ABC News and NY Sun links deserve to be on the main page. At lot of much less germane information is. To keep these out, in light of what's allowed in, is too much POV. Rex071404 03:39, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unprotection

The page has been unprotected, because protected pages are bad, especially when they're on pages that have information that changes significantly and rapidly, as current major Presidential candidates do. Note that continued edit warring on this page will be frowned upon, and may lead to users being blocked for disruption of Wikipedia. Snowspinner 19:05, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Medals, ribbons and atrocities

I should know better than to edit in this war zone, but there are a few changes I just made which shouldn't be controversial.

The article mentions Kerry's ribbons and the "two medals" without ever mentioning why this is a point. Never mind that ribbons-medals has been a point of controversy for years. Even never mind that Kerry has claimed to have thrown more than "two" medals. The only source we have for the origin of the two medals Kerry said he threw is Kerry himself. He said that one WWII veteran and one Vietnam veteran each gave him a medal or medals, that he put them in his (shirt, IIRC) pocket and when it was time for him to throw his ribbons, he reached in his pocket and threw the medals as well. Frankly, having been there (and even if I wasn't) why would "a WWII vet and a Vietnam vet" give Kerry (in particular) their medals to throw instead of throwing them themselves? The whole point of the exercise wasn't to "give the medals back" it was to make a personal statement--witnessing, as it were. So I think that "he said" is as mild a comment as we can possible make in article space.

The second point is on the "atrocities." Kerry did not witness these personally (he's made that point himself enough times) but reported what others had said. The "testifiers" were not under oath in Winter Soldier and how much they said is truth, half-truth or outright lies remains an open question. In brief, let's qualify the statement like good little historians of the atrocities themselves (as opposed to Kerry's statements, which are transcribed under oath) to indicate that these were, and are, claims. In short, my generation of vets did good stuff, and bad stuff, and lots and lots of thankless stuff. Let's not make Wikipedia a further instrument of slander, no matter how pretty we want to Kerry to look. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:53, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Leadership" and the VVAW

I made alterations to correct two points. First the thrust of the article implies that Kerry was a leader in ending the Vietnam War. The VVAW (and particularly Kerry's testimony) did have an impact but it served mostly to put an imprimateur on anti-war protest of people who could not easily be dismissed as dirty-hippy-college-students; but the war was alreasy ready on the way out in 1971. Troop number peaked in 1968 and when Nixon took office, the disengagement began. VVAW was another "brick in the wall" so to speak. By the same token, VVAW was "effective" but not "one of the most effective." The anti-war movement was active and huge for years (the Pentagon was "levitated" in 1968, IIRC). -- Cecropia | Talk 20:09, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Snopes "hoax" email

I removed:

A hoax e-mail that that made specific claims about Kerry's service record was recently analyzed by Snopes, an urban legend inquiry website.[1].

First, this is a "straw man." It is not refuting material in our article. It is publishing an email not in this article and then knocking it down.

Second, nowhere does Snopes say the material is a "hoax," so that characterization is false, though in fact, if it is a hoax, that's even less reason to refer to it. Should we publish every cock-and-bull story on the internet just so we can call it a lie?

Third, and this is an aside, this is a little out of Snopes range and perhaps competence. What Kerry did or didn't do in Vietnam is not in the nature of an urban legend, and though Snopes is good at debunking alligators in your toilet doesn't mean that they are politically impartial. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:18, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Let's not go on a "Triva Witch-hunt"

While I understand the need to remove such information as Kerry's astrological sign — due to its easy availability given his birthdate and its irrelevance — I'd like to urge everyone here not to delete everything remotely entertaining. Someone, I think it was Rex, deleted this sentence from the section on Kerry’s muffin shop:

“The current owners, Carol Troxell and Sara Youngelson, supplied 1,000 gift bags of "John Kerry Chocolate Chip Cookies" made with his mother's original recipe to the Boston 2004 host committee for a DNC media walkthrough during the Democratic Convention at FleetCenter.”

Removing unnecessary words is important, and copyediting and proofreading are great. Wholesale removals of interesting material are not, as m:Wiki is not paper. I’ve restored. Neutrality 21:37, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman and Neutrality are back at it already

In the last few minutes alone, the two of them have plunged right back in to their regular pattern of sterilizing John Kerry so that nothing (not even a link) which thay want out, stays in.

Rex071404

No need to get hysterical. I cut the link. And I explained why in the comment. I'll elaborate here. First, the link is NOT primarily about Kerry's decision to quit the VVAW (the relevant topic). It is primarily about the controversial Kansas City meeting, which we have had endless debate about. Even the title of the article emphasizes the "Dark Plot". That meeting is discussed in detail in the X-Ref which provides context and links to other sources. Second, some of the details in this article have been refuted by more recent publications. For example, Barnes no longer asserts that Kerry was at the meeting in question.
In short, I view this link as an attempt to end-run a consensus approach to the VVAW/Kerry controversy.Wolfman 22:55, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can we get some feedback on the link[2]? It is getting placed at the end of the penultimate paragraph in section 3 (anit-war activism). I don't want to get in a petty revert war over this, but I do think the link is largely off-topic, unreliable, and POV. Update: Link is gone at the moment. Wolfman 23:00, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I support that link as germane, accurate and non-intrusive. Rex071404 03:49, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can we slow down the editing a bit?

OK, edits from various parties are going on at a rapid clip. I'd like to suggest that everyone follow Cecropia's example and EXPLAIN any significant changes that you make to the article on the talk page. Although the volume of this talk page may explode, I think it may help to avoid a revert war if everyone just slows down a bit and makes an effort to explain and justify any deletions or additions. older≠wiser 22:36, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am being cautious in my edits and am making clear Edit Summary notations. Please see entry below about Ortega update snafu. Rex071404
My comment was not singling you out--edit summaries are fine, but when edits are going by as fast as they are now, it is very easy to overlook the edit summaries. I suggest that the extra effort from EVERYONE involved to explain significant changes on the talk page may help to avoid an edit war (or at least keep the major activity on the talk page rather than in the article itself). older≠wiser 22:45, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The momentary delete of Iran/Contra was accidental and has been corrected

While posting improved Ortega, update snafu lost a section. Neutrality fixed it and I reposted the new Ortega - see edit summary Rex071404 22:37, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See new section title of "Anti-Vietnam War activism and Congressional testimony"

This title is far more accurate for that section since the text there focuses mostly on Kerry's testimony and the time frame surrounding it Rex071404 22:47, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have just had to block someone for 24 hours. This was in lieu of allowing an edit war that was going to lead to yet another page protection for this page. I hope this is the last block that needs to be assigned over this edit war. However, I encourage everybody to take under advisement that this is not a page that should be protected. This page will proabably need a lot of updates over the next three months, and it needs to be kept editable. To that end, some suggestions to avoid making me come down here again:
  1. Use accurate edit summaries. If the edit summary is "Fix typo," it should not have any content deletion. It should fix a typo.
  2. If you are reverted, discuss the change and come to a consensus. Especially if the page is moving very quickly, which this page does, an edit summary is not enough. Furthermore, if someone clearly disagrees with you, stop, discuss, compromise. Constant page edits make it very hard for people to get in and do anything with the page. Discussion before making controversial changes also has the advantage of slowing down the editing, so tha tother people can get in and do something.
  3. Edit from a Neutral point of view. Be civil. Assume good faith.
Thanks. Snowspinner 23:17, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. Sound advice for all. I will be sure to keep this in mind, and encourage others to do the same.--Neutrality 00:22, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ortega -- there is no "consensus version"

Just in case anyone was confused by the references in edit summaries to "JML's consensus version" of the paragraph about Ortega: I proposed a draft (in a comment now in the Talk archive). Rex said he liked it but would probably want to add the statement that Ortega was a Communist (inclusion of which I specifically said was wrong). There the matter rested. No one else commented, there was no poll, and the page was protected at the time so there was no Ortega-related editing. I like what I wrote (duh) but I wouldn't claim a consensus for it. JamesMLane 02:49, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Account of Vietnam service

We have a problem with properly sourcing this text. Some of the previous version of our article is Doug Brinkley's wording, not always with attribution. I'd prefer to minimize the extent to which we use direct quotations, claimed to be fair use. In particular, the passage where we quoted Snopes quoting Brinkley quoting Kerry is unclear as to who's saying what. I've paraphrased some of it instead (keeping Kerry's direct quotation). Snopes quotes Brinkley extensively, so leaving in the Snopes link gives the reader access to those details. The same problem arises with regard to the Silver Star incident, and I'll try to clean up that passage unless someone beats me to it.

Furthermore, characterizing Kerry's injuries is POV, especially since we follow up the account of his tour of duty by devoting such careful attention to the criticism of his war record, including the severity of the wounds. Instead of asserting that an injury was "minor", the initial passage should just report the facts, e.g. that he was back on patrol duty the next day. The assertion that the wounds were minor, if included at all, should be attributed to his critics. JamesMLane 06:07, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Common sense, self-evident observations need not be "assert{ed}". An injury which requires no stiches, causes no loss of work time and requires only bacitracin and a bandage is ipso facto, minor. However, it may be true that one of the three Purple Heart injuries Kerry sustained may have been closer to moderate. If you have a problem with this observation (not an "assertion"), then perhaps you should back track and read the Kerry released summary of his medical records (which certain parties have been quite vigilent in deleting the link to from John Kerry. Or, for your benefit, here it is again. One need not have specific medical training in order to read the plain english text written by Kerry's doctor: "Mr. Kerry sustained a shrapnel injury in his left arm above his elbow. He was treated at the Cam Ranh Bay US naval support facility where the shrapnel was removed and the wound was treated with a topical Bacitracin antibiotic dressing. He was returned to duty following his treatment. ". There can be no arguing that the 1st injury was without question, minor - "topical Bacitracin antibiotic " - around my house we call that "boo-boo" creme. For the sake of clarity and factual accuracy, in referring to this 1st injury, it is right and proper that it be described as a "minor" injury. About the others, I will have to re-read the section more and re-think. Rex071404 03:23, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As a neutral way of addressing the fact that the 1st injury was not severe, but to also avoid the contested word of "minor" I re-wrote the last sentence concerning the 1st injury, thusly: "For this injury, Kerry was awarded his first Purple Heart. As this injury was not severe, Kerry was able to return to duty the next day, conducting his regular Swift boat patrol with a bandaged arm." Rex071404 03:29, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As you point out, going back on duty the next day already implies the wound was not severe. So, you're adding that intro phrase is either (a) redundant, or (b) providing emphasis for subtle POV. Neutrality put "combat" in front of injuries in his edit. That is another example where both (a) and (b) are both true. I think the neutral policy in such cases is to act like a good copy-editor and strike the redundancy if it truly does not sacrifice any clarity. I am making this edit on the "not severe" phrase.Wolfman 04:00, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please talk with me before you revert and/or remove my well-thought-out textual entries. You may claim to be doing good copy-editing, but you ingore the fact that wihtout the "not-severe" qualifier, a reader could mis-presume that for some unkonw reason, Kerry returned immediately to duty even though serviously injured. Wile I agreed with you about the word "minor" as it could imply a dismisive tone. I am not pleased that you and neutrality immediayle jumped on line whne I started making edits tongiht and I am also not pleased that the two of you are inching towards provoking an edit war (it seems to me) by your incessant trumping of virtually every edit I make. I have trouble resuming good faith, when you behave this way Rex071404 04:10, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please, let's not start an edit war over a simple turn of phrase. You don't have to tell people the wounds are minor, they can judge for themselves as we have detailed descriptions of each injury in the article. And when you say "Kerry returned to duty the next day", I think it's redundant to point out that the wound was minor, as people are most likely not going to assume that he went out in the boat with a bleeding stump. In an article like this one, where everyone is hypersensitive to POV, it's probably best to leave even common sense characterizations out, and in any case they are rendered redundant by the preexisting detailed descriptions. Gamaliel 04:20, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex, you keep complaining we do not talk to you about the edit. What do you think all of the above is, if not discussion?Wolfman 04:31, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The reading public is entitled to know that not all of Mr.Kerry's injuries were of the same severity. What is the point of saying: Injured. Injured again. Injured for a third time. Where is the richness of detail in that account which allows a person to fully appreciate the sacrifices that our fighting men and women make for USA? Also, my comment should have been discussed more prior to the tag-team changes being made by Neutrality and Wolfman Rex071404 04:34, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Each of the wounds and treatment are described in exacting detail. I even know that Kerry's sore ass was treated to a warm soak. That's pretty rich detail in my view. Also, there is no "tag-team". I explained my edit carefully above. I am not in collusion with Neutrality or anyone else. Now, as you asked, I have politely waited for another response. I still disagree with you edit for the reasons carefully explained above.Wolfman 04:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't think "warm" is enough detail. Was it tepid? Luke warm? Boiling hot? America deserves an answer. Gamaliel 04:49, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
With your text, the severity of the 1st wound is not explained clearly. Also, by changing the term from "minor" to "not severe" any scent of POV is excluded. And, this word choice helps set the context for the 2nd and 3rd wounds as actually being of a differing level of severity than the 1st. This makes for a more enlightening read. The readers are entitled to context. Also, since this is no longer a POV complaint which you have, ours is now a simple disagreement on style. It is not fair that between you and Neutrality, the final say on style should be pulled from my comments evry time. Please read my comments on this page of this evening. I am trying very hard to respect each other editor's ideas and text. I ask that you do the same for mine. There is no major problem cause by leaving "not severe" in and this section, with my sentence is cerainly no more redundant than many, many other paragraphs in the article. I ask that you leave this be until others can also comment and I can reply to them as well. Rex071404 04:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lehman citations?

I cut a sentence in the criticism section about Sec. Lehman issuing a second set of medal citations years later. It had no logical connection with the surrounding text that I could see. If anyone thinks it's important, it probably ought to go into the VVAW medal-toss X-ref. Apparently some bloggers fantasize that this shows Kerry had to get a new set of medals. The original citations by Admiral Zumwalt are now linked into the text from wikisource (where I transcribed them).Wolfman 08:43, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I object to Neutrality moving all the photos to the right...

Without comment or discussion, and while leaving Edit Summary notations which are cryptic and falsely marked as "m" for "minor", Neutrality is at this moment, changing the entire layout of the John Kerry page. This type of non-discussd major change is precisly what precipitates revert wars and edit wars. I stongly object to his doing this. Rex071404 03:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You have to pick your battles Rex. You do lot's of little things I don't like, too. Moving a pic from left to right is hardly Armageddon. Maybe it renders better on his browser that way; I moved a picture yesterday for that reason. If you don't quarrel over little things, your big objections get more attention.Wolfman 04:19, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please notice that there is double display of seome sections after these major reformats by Neutrality. Plus, please don't characterize my comments as "battles". I do not view myself as being in conflict with you and I ask that you also not do this Rex071404 04:31, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Not intended literally, it's a common turn of phrase. The point is that being quarellsome over little things makes people less disposed to cooperate on big ones.Wolfman 04:36, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please do not suggest that I am being "quarellsome". I do not think of you that way and I ask that you not suggest that of me. Also, I am seeing several sections of the page show up again lower down on the page, even after I refresh. Are you also seeing this? Rex071404 04:46, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zumwalt

According to Kranish, et al, p. 104 "Zumwalt decided to fly down to An Thoi to pin the Silver Star on Kerry's uniform himself." Gamaliel 03:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wow, didn't realize that. Figured he was just in the area. I'll put it back.Wolfman 03:52, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex

Replacing "in connection with" with "charged" is awkward. I already mention what the specific charge is later on. We should try not to use the same verb that way twice.--Neutrality 04:09, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed - I have changed it to "arrested for" instead of the prior "in connection with". An arrest is a very specific thing, my text is NPOV and yet more accurate. Rex071404 04:17, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


To: Neutrality

Your last change mucked up the entire layout - please revert Rex071404 04:20, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I concur with this change you made which resulted in this: "During this campaign, Kerry's younger brother Cameron and campaign field director Thomas J. Vallely were arrested after breaking into the basement of the building housing both Kerry's own headquarters and their opponents' headquarters." Rex071404 05:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Page layout is all messed up - please read !

Please take notice that there is double display of some sections!!! Rex071404 04:39, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just deleted the duplicate sections. I'd appreciate it if everyone looked it over to make sure I didn't delete too much. (Rex, I'm confused. Why didn't you just delete it yourself? Did you think it was a discussion issue?) Gamaliel 04:47, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Because I got booted yesteday and I want to avoid doing anything that could be mis-interpreted as a wholesale "revert". Also, whoever did it should be more aware and I wanted them to take notice of their error. Rex071404 04:58, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I had to re-do two minor changes I made, but the other two came out fine. Man, trying to do proofing and wikifixing on this article right now is like trying to fix a pocket watch while Erol Flynn and Douglas Fairbanks are stage-fighting on your table! --Ray Radlein 05:03, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Gamaliel: I checked your fix, and I think we now have all and only the sections that were there before. Thanks! Some particular edits may have been lost, like the Heinz links, so we'll keep an eye out. Ray: I agree. If everyone would use the Preview button and combine their edits, so that the page isn't being changed so frequently, all of us would have readier access. JamesMLane 05:34, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wish to bifurcate the "further reading" section

I believe that the readers can better locate tems to read if the "books by John Kerry" and "books by other authors" are broken out bu subsection, in that order.

Any comments, please? Rex071404 05:22, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. I feel that it adds an un-necessary layer of complexity. Right now it's a simple list, easy to parse.Wolfman 05:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why bother? There are only eight items, and the list is unlikely to grow beyond 10 or 12. If it does, we can deal with it then. On a related note, they should remain in alphabetical order and not chronological. Gamaliel 05:37, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think chronological is more representative of what's currentlty on the market and available to obtain to read. Plus, chronological fits nicely with the timline nature of the total article. Rex071404 05:40, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Bibliographies (and wiki articles I'd imagine) list books alphabetically, and I see no compelling reason to arrange them chronologically, since some of these books cover his entire career. Gamaliel 05:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Characterizing the injuries

As has been pointed out by others, Wikipedia is to present facts. If the facts about the injuries make it "obvious" that they weren't severe, then readers can draw that conclusion for themselves, without being spoon-fed.

Furthermore, as to Wikipedia procedure, there is no rule that says one editor can write the content as he pleases, and then all others must refrain from editing it "until the dialog is complete." In this instance, the dialog will never be complete. Everyone else will keep explaining why the correct NPOV approach is to state the facts, and Rex will keep insisting that he's right and not budging a millimeter. I'm going to delete the characterization and restrict the statement to the facts. Rex, if you think that any fact is being concealed from the reader, please explain it here, i.e., please specify any additional facts about the severity of the injury that would not be known to the reader. JamesMLane 06:14, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for mistating my position and for violating the spirit of the ongoing dialog by reverting me prior to discussion. Let me see now, so far today, Wolfman deleted my sentence 2-3 times, Neutrality 1-2 times and now comes you, doing it also. I have explained by views clearly and copiously. The burden is on you to demonstrate why the sentence the way I have it is either inaccurate, more redundant than other things elsewhere in the article, or POV. However, since it is none of those things, and you made the change prior to dialoging, you have acted in out of order. I am restoring that sentence, pending a better justification for the concerted efforts the three of yu have engaged in to block me. Frankly, I feel that the three of you are being very petty Rex071404 06:28, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It has been explained multiple times to you. Given that at least four people disagree with you, and you seem to be the lone objector, the burden is upon you to explain what is wrong with the consensus version or why yours is superior. Gamaliel 06:35, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have done this severral times ,in great detail (see above). Since none of you have backed up your objections with a sound critique, I interpret the fact that you are all in agreement to be indicative of a group-think POV on that sentence. Rex071404 06:38, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I would accept changing the front part of my sentence of: "As this injury was not severe..." to: "After his wound was disinfected and bandaged...". This consitutes a pure recitation of facts, and cannot be construed as a "characterization". This is subject to the two final sentneces staying in the order I have placed them, with mine 2nd to last. Rex071404 06:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

Rex's comment of 06:28, 3 Aug 2004, under "Characterizing the injuries," convinces me that arbitration is necessary. It's not that this one particular thing is so egregious; it's just the straw that broke the camel's back. Rex is a continual distraction from serious work that needs to be done. For example, the first part of section 4 needs attention -- the chronology bounces around, it has too much detail (we don't need to include that Kerry's first campaign manager is now a state representative), etc. Yet, I'm deflected from rewriting that section. Anyone who wants to give me their ideas about framing an arbitration request can leave me a message on my Talk page, but that of course will provoke another barrage, so an alternative is to email me at JamesMLane@aol.com. My current inclination is to request that Rex be banned from editing this article and the other Kerry-related articles. JamesMLane 06:46, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Precisly what is it about my comments under ""Characterizing the injuries" which you object to? I have made multiple suggestions at a compromise text: I went from "minor" injury to "not severe" to "After his wound was disinfected and bandaged...". Where is your proof that I am not trying to reach consensus? I want context for the severity of the wound. There is nothing wrong with wanting that. I am making great efforts to adjust my text to satisfy the others. However, the same can not be said about them. Frankly JML, I think you are simply frusrated that I have sufficiently honed language skills that I can convey informaiton in a variety of ways. This and the obvious goal that some here have of keeping this page sanitized in a pro-Kerry manner, is the crux of the rub. Suffice it to say, I am amazed out how intolernat you are being of my perspective. Have you no interest at all in being flexible? Rex071404 06:58, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Rex, you really won't convince anyone of your "honed language skills" when you misspell words in that same sentence. In all seriousness, "minor" isn't providing context, it's a description. Gamaliel 07:04, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks you for your snide personal attack - perhaps it will add credibility to your complaints...Rex071404 07:12, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And as to your complaints about spelling, I said "language" not "spelling". Certainly you know they are not one and the same. Also, the word "minor" is indeed a word that adds to a description. However, you misapply it if you don't think of context. Minor is a word relating to size or other measure. Size can be measured on scale or relatively. Then there is also an absolute referrence on size - so far as people are concerned that is. For example, it is true to say that compared to the Earth, the Sun is enormous. However, compared to certain other suns, ours is indeed minor in size. The point is that the word minor is not, in and of itself, self-disqualifying for use. If the word minor is used to describe the size of a wound - say as in comparison to other wounds suffered, then there is no bias. Even so, I have long since moved past trying to fit that word in here. I think you are mulling a moot point. Rex071404 07:38, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's a shame, because earlier today I was impressed at how everything had calmed down and even my opinion of Rex's work had improved. But I guess this was inevitable, and arbitration may be the only answer to prevent periodic reoccurences of this nonsense. If it isn't this, it'll be the order of books in "Further Reading" or whether to put pics on the left or right or something else insignificant. Gamaliel 07:01, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Gamaliel it is cruel of you to suggest the minor textual changes I seek are non-sense. But if in fact they are, why do you bother to fight me over them? Also, I see nothing aiming gaining consensus in your revertsion of a hot button sentence and your insertion of an Edit Summary which says "(John Kerry is friend to all children)". And then to top it off, you note that it is an "m" for minor edit. I thought you were a long timer here. Shouldn't you know better that to make comments that can be construed as intentional taunts? I have adjusted my text to come closer to the group three times on this one sentence tonight. Also, I concurred with (2) other of Neutrality's edits. That makes (5) points of either agreement or attempted agreement this evening, yet you still criticize me. I don't see you reaching out to me the same way...Rex071404 07:10, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I get a little punchy in the late hours and I do silly things sometimes, to amuse myself and to lighten up a ponderous argument like this one. I don’t apologize for it. I might if there hadn’t been a constant stream of weird invective coming from you, the most recent of which is the preposterous claim that JML is jealous of your "honed language skills". Skills which, frankly, still need a bit more honing. I honestly admire the fact that you’ve reined yourself in a bit and seem to be making constructive efforts and edits, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to treat you with kid gloves, especially not when you are still throwing out strange accusations. When you’re not in the majority in a discussion about grammar, of all things, you just need to let it go. Gamaliel 07:26, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I just got into work, so I've been looking through the history, etc, etc. First off, I agree with Gamaliel- the work being done was impressive. The "Compromises", however hard to find, seemed to be occuring, and Rex makes a valid point that the tone of the injury section is better now. In light of that, I'd say arbitration is a bit ahead of the schedule. But, ignoring that, there is a strong point to be made for the fact that there were something like 3 or 4 sections relating to the picture change, and accusations that were said/implied, that really did not need to be. And directly above Rex, how do you expect everyone to work together to edit and make it NPOV, if you try to imply that JML is jealous of your "honed language skills", and continue to insist that everyone here is trying to put information in a pro-kerry manner? I wouldn't agree to arbitration, yet, but you have to at least understand where everyone is coming from right now, Rex. Lyellin 07:12, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Things calmed down for approximately 24 hours. Snowspinner said that he had blocked someone for 24 hours (although he tactfully named no names). My guess is that he hoped this relatively mild action would produce a permanent improvement. It has not. That's one reason that, after mentioning the arbitration idea earlier (probably an archive or two ago by now), I've now concluded that no lesser measure seems likely to help. JamesMLane 07:21, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The point is that I am frustrated too; I have made three attempts this evening to respect the wishes of the group on this. In fact, my 3rd version uses almost the same words they use, but in different order. I don't see anyone else here suggesting anything. Why is it that they get to decide that something stays frozen text-wise forever, under penalty of constant reverts and threats of Arbitration? And they a hurling many snide tweaks - look at G's "John Kerry loves all children" edit summary. Such tweaks are indicative of either a pro-Kerry bias or a needless attempt to stir up hostilities....Rex071404 07:22, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And accusing JML of being jealous of your "honed language skills" wasn't "a needless attempt to stir up hostilities"? Gamaliel 07:33, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC
I'll respond to that when you tell me what data you have to back up that "John Kerry is friend to all children"... Frankly, since he supports partial-birth abortion - which is the partial extraction and killing of full term pre-birth infants, I don't see how that can be true. That said, do you really want to go there, or do you admit you were just teasing? and if so, am I also allowed the same largesse? And if so, please lighten up...Rex071404 07:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
wow. I suspect he was doing it because of the almost hilarity of this discussion/edit "wars", etc, if you take a step back. I won't put words in Gamaliel's mouth though, but 1- let it go? and 2- let's not start ANOTHER debate here (abortion), because that statement is just plain wrong. Lyellin 07:53, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
I love this. You demand citations and explanations for an obvious joke and then you tell me to “please lighten up”. This is truly theater of the absurd. Gamaliel 08:00, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The only part of my description of PBA which could be said is less than 100% always accurate, is that not all PBA victims are full term. However, since neither you no I have the statistics, primarily because Abortion Mills, unlike other medical facilities, dont have to keep full records of what they do, there is no measurable way to determine precisely what percent of PBA victims were indeed "full term". That said, any child which is forcibly removed from the womb in a viable state, becomes a de-facto "full-term" infant. This is because, properly speaking, "term" in the context of child birth, refers to ther period of time a child is in the womb. A child is only a "preemie" when exceptional care is required to keep it alive after an unsually early birth. Ok? So don't tell me I am "just plain wrong" for you not nothng of what my knowledge level on various topics is....Rex071404 08:03, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Go read Kerry's campaign page here. Read his quote on abortion. Then read how he's voted. He's voted against preemie abortions, as long as exceptions were made for when not having an abortion would be dangerous to the mother's health. That bill though, was trashed by Bush. That's what you were wrong about, not about what consitutes an abortion, or not. But that is unrelated- if you want to continue talking about this, let's do it on our talk pages, because I don't want to crowd this page anymore. Lyellin 08:11, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Weird doubling

Arbitiration section has some weird doubling that I'm afraid to attempt to fix for fear of deleting something, or getting into edit conflits while doing it. Lyellin 07:58, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)


It's the result of rapid fire postings. That said, I am going to take a several day, voluntary hiatus. See if you guys can think about what I am trying to fit in. Perhaps we'll be able to better communicate in a few days. Thought for the day:

  • "In an argument between a cockroach and a chicken, the cockroach is always wrong...."

Rex071404 08:06, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel's edit seems to have eliminated the duplication. Thanks again, Gamaliel! JamesMLane 12:09, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Section 4 problems

As I mentioned above, section 4 of this article needs a lot of work. The chronology is confusing and the level of detail is excessive. Some of the statements are just wrong -- for example, the race in which Kerry contemplated a run against Philbin but ended up supporting Drinan, who won, was in 1970, not 1972. I've gotten partway through a substantial rewrite, which I'm adding as "Campaigning for Congress" for lack of a better title. I'm also spinning off his Senate career as a separate section. JamesMLane 08:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The portion of the article covering the period after VVAW has now been substantially reworked. What was section 4 (1972-date) is now sections 4 (1972-85) and 5 (1985-date, i.e., service in the Senate). The material is closer to being in chronological order. (I departed from strict chrono with a flashback to Kerry's 1970 political aspirations, and a flashforward to accommodate the subsequent history of the cookie shop, so as not to have to return to it later.) The former version had excessive detail about his 1972 campaign, but virtually nothing about his work as ADA and Lieutenant Governor. The new version is better balanced. (From the 1972 campaign, I did of course leave in the fact that his brother and campaign manager were arrested and charged with breaking and entering. A lot of what I deleted was the long Boston Globe quote with their subsequent self-serving comments on the episode.) Another change I made was to take all the information about the birth of Kerry's daughters and his separation from his wife and consolidate it in the "Family" section further down.

It's ridiculous for the history of his service in the Senate to lead with a visit to Nicaragua, so that's another section that could use some attention. JamesMLane 12:09, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I really don't want to get involved in this page, but...

I really don't want to get involved in this page because it seems like a constant edit war, but for someone courageous enough to brave the flames, it would seem appropriate (at this point) to include dates on the various headers in the text.

Someone wanting to look up various sections of John Kerry's life would have to sift through prose to find dates, whereas sections broken up by dates would facilitate this type of research. I noticed this as I was checking out the recent revisions to some of the sections that specifically deal with certain years but do not explicitly state so in their headers.

This is just a suggestion, though. =) Ieshan 13:10, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

I wrote my explanation of edits to section 4 (above) and then, before posting, modified it to include dates. I thought it made my comment easier to follow. You're suggesting that the same would apply to the actual article. Duh! I hate it when I get that "Why didn't I think of that" feeling. Anyway, I've added dates. JamesMLane 17:28, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Advice on reversion

I hate to come be cranky and authoritative again, but another piece of advice for everyone that will help keep people's editing privledges intact and keep this page unprotected.

If you feel something should be discussed more before further reversions take place, a great way to foster this is to stop reverting. Even if it's not a version you like, be the better editor and let it go for a few days while discussion takes place. It's not the end of the world, and it fosters lots of better feelings.

It takes two people to have a revert war. If you don't want a revert war, simply stop reverting, and there is no longer a revert war. Snowspinner 13:28, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Restoring section deleted from this page

While reviewing the discussion on this page, I noticed in the Arbitration section above that JamesMLane made reference to Rex's comment of 06:28, 3 Aug 2004, under "Characterizing the injuries,", but I was not able to see that section. It appears that section was removed by Rex in this edit: [3]. I'm not sure exactly what happened, and given the quirks of edit conflicts on a page with frequent edits, I'll assume that it was done inadvertently. I have restored the text of that section to its place above the Arbitration section. older≠wiser 13:34, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

He's deleted sections and comments before, and been apologetic each time it's happened. Given his unfamiliarity with wikipedia, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt on this one too. Gamaliel 17:23, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A fair and well-documented biography

This anti-Kerry article at BushCountry.org uses this article as a reference to try and prove how terrible Kerry is. Besides finding it a little humourus, I find it a little suspisious that there was a huge edit conflict, and then as soon as the conflict was resolved, this article was released. I know it might be a little bit paranoid, but it isn't beyond belief that maybe the person pushing some of the things in this article had an agenda. Now, these are all premature accusations on my part, since I haven't been involved in the edit conflict, but I'd ask that some people who were involved please look into it. { MB | マイカル } 14:29, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. Besides it being a POV website, with a POV article, which well, strings together a bunch of facts to try to imply things, nothing is too special. The edit war that's going on was about a section that is misquoted in the article anyway, or at least summed up badly. I wouldn't accuse anyone of anything- it's a non-issue, IMHO. Lyellin 14:42, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
Disgusting.--Neutrality 14:51, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That article is really quite funny to read and actually compare to the article. In an odd way, I think it speaks volumes as to the balance of the article that such a POV site can cite the article to support it's position. Charges of pro-Kerry bias in this article don't carry as much weight when even blatantly POV sites reference the article to support their position (even if they are very selective about what they quote or paraphrase or mis-summarize). older≠wiser 15:12, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Lyellin -- non-issue. I notice, though, that our "source" message says that Wikipedia is cited "by the mainstream press." Maybe we should reword that. Calling the BushCountry website "mainstream" is definitely POV. JamesMLane 17:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

off-topic: the 'medal-pinning' caption mentions silver star twice, but not bronze. i don't know which one is being award in the pic, or i'd fix it myself. could someone who knows make the edit. thanks. done.

"a fair and well-documented biography of John F. Kerry" - BushCountry.org, August 2, 2004

Perhaps we should place that at the top of the talk page to ward off accusations of POV and bias. Gamaliel 17:20, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Minor questions and comments re Neutrality's edits

  1. I think you picked up an older caption for the testimony pic. Its error in identifying the committee has since been corrected, and other information has been been moved to text or is better presented there.
  2. The link to the transcript of the testimony was embedded in text, but your edit leaves it hanging at the end of the paragraph. It was my understanding that embedding was the preferred style where feasible. Is there a reason not to follow that here?
  3. Any particular reason you changed "[[Waltham, Massachusetts]]" to "[[Waltham, Massachusetts|Waltham]], Massachusetts"? I don't think it makes any difference -- but that's why I'm curious!
  4. You've introduced an inconsistency in that "state Representative" is sometimes spelled out but sometimes shortened to "state Rep." I prefer the former because of the possible confusion with "Republican".

JamesMLane 17:28, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • To answer question 1: I don't understand. What was the error in the caption? I'm confused on this.
  • To answer question 2: I prefer putting most of the citations at the end of paragraphs because it makes for a better flow, and while you read, you're not interrupted by links until the end. But if you prefer embedding, I have no objection to that.
  • To answer question 3: Because I don't like having redundant wikification. In fact, "Massachusetts" shouldn't even be in there.
  • To answer question 4: You are correct. Fix as necessary. :) Neutrality 17:53, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Neutrality, thanks for responding.
  1. Kerry testified before the Foreign Relations Committee, but you restored an old caption that said "Armed Services Committee".
  2. Yes, I prefer embedding, but not enough to make the change. So I'll go along with your version.
  3. I left "Massachusetts" in because some readers might not know where Waltham was. Some readers might start with this section, so I gave the state name for the first town and hoped they could figure it out thereafter. I agree with you that there's no reason to wikilink "Massachusetts" but we have to include it in the town link because there are a few in England.
  4. Thanks, will do.
JamesMLane 18:26, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Meeting with Ortega

I've rewritten the Ortega section because it seemed fundamentally flawed to me as it didn't talk about why they went. I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs of the Nicaragua conflict so I've got no problem if someone tweaks the facts or language. Gamaliel 22:16, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Prominent listing of this article on pro-bush website

This article is listed on this website [4]. The call it a fair and well-documented biography of John F. Kerry. This can bring in some new pro and anti-editors to this page Walter 14:33, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Interesting, that article is an outstanding example of the importance of NPOV. It takes many of the facts here, but includes so much POV that you'd think Kerry eats puppies for breakfast, right after he beats his wife & children.Wolfman 16:06, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Quote with bad reference

"It's the reason he gets so angry when his patriotism is challenged. It was a traumatic experience that's still with him, and he went through it for his country." It affects the way Kerry lives his life every day, the source said, since "he knows he very well would not be alive today had he not taken the life of another man [he] never ever met."[5]

I clicked the link provided (hoping to specify the quoted "source"), but was unable to find the quote. (used ctrl-f search for 'patriotism'). Does anybody know the actual source of this quote?

I wonder if the reference actually belongs to a nearby paragraph, but got moved in some copyediting.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/Talk%7EJohn_Kerry_August_2004_Archive_1_c793.html"