Talk:John Kerry/July-August 2004 archive

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

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)

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)

note -- mbw/.204/Wolfman (finally got a login) have changed my vote to VVAW X-Ref above. Noted in case someone wonders why the count went down.

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)

Counteroffer

The concept of "an edit truce" is meaningless. Truce or no truce, no one can edit this page while it's protected. I agree with SimonP that the current situation is very bad. Kerry will soon be the Democratic nominee, but only a sysop will be able to include that and other Convention-related information in the article. A more meaningful "truce" would be along these lines: (1) Text of the disputed section 3 is moved to a new page, something like John Kerry/Sandbox, where discussion of the VVAW-related topics can continue; (2) the disputed section 3 is temporarily removed from the main article; (3) the main article is unprotected; (4) everyone agrees not to edit John Kerry on these subjects for at least a week while we try to find consensus on the "sandbox" page. That's not a great solution, because it leaves the article completely silent about Kerry's role in VVAW (a subject we all agree should be covered), but at least it would allow improvements on other subjects. Rex071404, will you accept that as a temporary working plan? JamesMLane 06:50, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have trouble visualizing your offer.
Please tell me; Y/N:
Would there be included in the "unprotected" John Kerry page a section called "The medal-tossing incident" and another called "1971 Meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW)"?
If yes, please post below a vebatim replica of how you say they would appear.
Or if not, why don't you take a few minutes and copy, edit and re-insert below, my version of the '71 meeting section with your suggested changes? I'd like to see if you feel any part of mine is acceptable to you at all.
By the way, doesn't it alarm you that Neutrality was heavily involved in the "pre-protection" editing of John Kerry and also of George_W._Bush prior to it's "protection", but he's now totally silent on the efforts to reach consensus here...?
It's almost as if, having succeded in locking in his edits, Neutrality is sitting on his hands and refusing to help...

Rex071404 07:07, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, they would not. They would be temporarily removed from the article, and then be discussed on a subpage until consensus was reached. As to actually solving this, two of us have attempted to write neutral versions at John Kerry/VVAW cross-reference and Talk:John_Kerry/Lyellin, but you have, as far as I can see, ignored both of them. Ambivalenthysteria 07:15, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That is an unfair characterization. I have reviewed those writings (if we are talking about the same thing) but am still at a loss as to why otherwise involved persons such as yourself will not make the effort to try and refute the list of facts which I have supplied above at the section titled "Summary of Facts". Before I can consider your comment to be anything other than closed-minded noise, please answer this question for me: Do you dispute the truth of those 11 facts which I have listed in that section? If yes, please specify. If not, please drop your opposition to incoporating reference to them (such as I have done in my 2nd suggested text for '71 VVAW, shown above). I await your reply. Rex071404 07:26, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ambivalenthysteria's interpretation of my counteroffer is the correct one. The language now in the John Kerry article as section 3 would be deleted. For now, Neutrality's proposal would not be added. My proposal would not be added. Your proposal would not be added. Lyellin's proposal would not be added. This temporary solution would eliminate all the pro-Kerry information about his eloquent opposition to a colossal governmental mistake, and/or all the anti-Kerry information about his mendacity, depending on how you want to look at it. As for your more recent question, both Lyellin and john k have gone through your eleven points, but I don't have the patience to scrutinize each one to see whether I agree or disagree. I note that the first few relate to Kerry's Vietnam service, which is in section 2 of the current article and therefore wouldn't be covered by my truce counteroffer. As to the ones relating to VVAW, my basic answer is that, whether the statements are true or false, they're not important enough to include in the main article beyond a brief reference. If my proposal is ultimately adopted, the evidence on these subjects can be presented at greater length in the separate article, linked to the main article. I realize that you disagree about the importance of these particular statements. That's your right. You should recognize, however, that this article can't include every truthful statement that anyone might make about John Kerry. Your repeated implication is that, if a contributor refuses to accept a true statement as part of the article, the refusal is clear proof of bias. That implication is unfounded. JamesMLane 07:59, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There is no possiblity that your suggestions here can be acceptable unless the overall pro-Kerry nature of the entire John Kerry page is toned down. For example the single most detailed section of the entire page is titled "Kerry's second tour of duty as commander of a Swift Boat" and yet all this information is dedicated to events which took place within a time span of only approximately four months. To read all the detail, you would think Kerry was in country for several years! If you can't see how this has a POV which favors Kerry, then your suggestions to me will probably not be persuasive. It is inarguably true that Kerry's military service was relativly easy and his medals earned for relativly little. These are inescapable facts and ones that will not go away, whether you succeed in blocking them from inclusion in this Wiki or not. Rex071404 08:16, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Was his second tour of duty in a swift boat? Yes. Title is appropiate. Would it be appropiate to list the amount of time he spent on that second tour in the article. Sure. If it's not there, perhaps a change should be made. But that doesn't make it pro-kerry. Lyellin 08:59, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
This started out as a discussion of section 3. Now you (Rex) seem to be saying that you will continue your "adamancy" as long as there's anything anywhere in the article that you disagree with. If everyone takes that approach, the article might be unprotected just in time for it to include the election results. Instead, let's be practical and think about how we might move forward, OK? I've made a procedural suggestion about addressing the dispute that led to the article's being protected. So far you haven't accepted that suggestion (the truce "counteroffer"). Going beyond the procedure and looking at the substance, my proposal for handling the VVAW controversy in the John Kerry article is to have a summary in the main article with a link to a separate article. This would treat Kerry like his opponent, in that the military service controversy concerning George W. Bush is handled by a summary in the main article with a link to a separate article. To the extent that there's any controversy about Kerry's military service, I'd be amenable to considering having a summary in the main article with a link to a separate article. I would not, however, be amenable to saying that nothing can happen until everyone is satisfied with every aspect of all these articles. JamesMLane 09:15, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I support the idea of this counteroffer, so we can get this discussion off the rather important page, and onto a new section. Ambiva- Rex did try to incorporate portions of my text into a new section, just so you know. I'm working on a reply to the "facts" and also another re-write... just takes time.
That was me Lyellin 07:23, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
Lyellin, why don't you do a re-write of my 2nd version of VVAW and post it below. If you take into account my concerns which by now must be obvious, I'd like to see what you come up withRex071404 07:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm getting there :P Currently at work, so I try to do a BIT of work in between trying to calm this down. Lyellin 07:37, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
Interesting counteroffer, remove everything that is not pro-Kerry from Kerry's BIO as if it never happened, and keep it in dispute till at least the election is over. I hope that not direction I see this going. Wikipedia is inherently biased to the liberal agenda but this is taking it to the extreme. Anonymously signed for good reasons 67.3.219.94 09:08, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Response to 'Facts'

1)Kerry was only in harm's way in Vietnam for FOUR MONTHS! Alright, why don’t we state “Kerry’s second tour of Duty, when he was stationed in Vietnam, was for a duration of 4 months, as he was sent back early due to receiving 3 Purple Hearts. 2)The "wounds" he received were barely scratches. Ok, this one is highly POV. We could describe the wounds, I guess, but that also seems POV. Sorta ambivilant on this one. 3)The Purple Hearts he received for those wounds enabled him to leave early (which he did) I covered this already in # 1 4)The Silver star he recieved was for beaching his boat in contravention of his training and chasing on shore by foot and getting a rocket launcher. He may or may not have shot a fleeing wounded man in the back - we haven't even hashed that out on this page yet. alright, but they DID give him the medal, thereby validating that contradiction of orders. And we can’t know what happened. We can report what people have said. Beyond that, if it’s an enemy combatant, I don’t think ANYONE can object to them being shot. Especially those of us who have not served ina military setting. 5) He willingly participated in an awards toss back (medals) ceremony. No one disputes that 6)About this ceremony, he has changed his story a number of times. We can explain the issue here- HE has said he threw something, perhaps now he threw something else. We can’t say “Oh, he keeps on changing his mind” 7) He was intimately involved as a leader with VVAW. And also left because he did not feel many of the things were appropiate, and felt he could help his cause (which, was still the same as the VVAW), by running for political office 8)Certain VVAW person(s) did advocate violence at a particular meeting.

No one argues that, although I don’t see why this is relevant at all to John Kerry

9)Kerry's contemporanious statements about this have been contradictory. My version mentions this already, in a NPOV manner, as does James 10) The FBI confirms and Kerry campaign accepts as true the fact that Kerry was at that meeting. My version has the FBI, but not the campaign. Alright. 11) Kerry has also changed his story about this several times. ..Kerry says he doesn’t remember, and then has admitted that if records show him there, he must have been there. SO? I don’t remember which meetings I went to of my HS Drama club, and that was just 3 years ago. Lyellin 07:35, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Your response does not refute the truth of my facts, rather, it argues various merits for and against referring to them.
1st we need to clear up whether ot not you agree the facts I state are true. For example, if you don't like the word "scratch", what are we to say about his wounds? That they were "extremely minor"? The truth is, that those wounds were indeed almost nothing more than scratches and to describe them as "minor wounds" paints a misleading picture in the mind of the uninformed.
Most persons, when they think "wound" think stiches and loss of blood at minimum. Kerry did not suffer either of those to any degree. In light of that, his constant parading around as a "band of brothers" man is especially misleading. Did you see that mini-series? The wounds those men suffered were horrific. For Kerry to employ the "band of brothers" theme in his campaign is disgusting. And if you don't think he is doing that, look at this link here
The reason why so many of you think I am POV about my chosen verbiage for Kerry, is that frankly, you are misinformed about many details of Kerry and his public message. What's POV or not in regards to Kerry will largely have to be wieghed against how Kerry potrays himself to the public. If he goes parading around saying things that paint a false picture, it is not nessecarily POV to add some information that allows a reader to put Kerry's claims into context.
Rex071404 07:57, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Rex. *sighs* Please, for a second, assume everyone here is as smart as you, and everyone here cares as much as you, ok? I am not misinformed. Heck, I am more informed than I SHOULD be. I regulary have contacts with one of the highest GOP donors in the last election (Hint: I work at an embassy). I read all sorts of various news, from all sorts of sources, from Fox, to CNN, to BBC, to the National Journal. For once, let's assume that everyone is on the same kind of level. I object to your verbiage because it's POV. Many of the "Facts" that you state and portray, are most likly facts. They are also said in a manner that is entirely POV. That's the issue here. Beyond that, notice that there are many of us here who want to resolve this, as quickly as possible, as appropiately as possible.
All of that above though, is a non-issue. Whether or not we are informed does not affect if we can see that a sentence is highly motivated in a point-of-view manner in one way or another.
I was not trying to refute or prove your "facts". I'm not in a debate about the facts here. I'm in a debate about what needs to be included into a NPOV, encyclopedic article. The truth of the matter is, the national media has barely paid much attention to this. EITHER side of the media. It was an issue, it was reported, then it became a non-issue.
I've been posting about the VVAW meeting. Medals are a different issue. Wounds/medals are a different issue. Needing a seperate section. But you know what, I don't have Kerry's Medical reports after the wounds. Do you? If you do, please show them to me, I'll be interested to read them. Regardless, he was wounded, he got the purple hearts. The same arguemetn can be made that Bush was in the military. He was. Now, I personally believe he skipped out, etc, etc, but we have a seperate page for that for a reason.
Lyellin 08:06, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
Oh yippie! Form what you say, it appears that you (as well as have I) have met Richard Egan in the past. Big deal. Are you implying that you speak for him and that he is now anti-Bush (as are you)? Here is something for you to chew on: Who give's a rat's ass what the "national media" keeps up with as meritous of being reported. That is NOT a valid benchmark as almost 90% of all persons in the media self-indentify as being democrats! In fact, by citing the media, you make my point: This information, though true is not being tracked almost anywhere else, which leads me to this question: Are you suggesting that this Wiki carry only that information which can be directly derived from National Media sources? Why not just publish CNN newsfeeds then? Now in regards to KErry's medical record, I tried posting this information in my 1st version of the sub-section which was then called "combat medals", but Neutrality kept deleting it. Here is what he kept deleting:

"Due to questions regarding the nature of his wounds, in 2004, Kerry's Campaign staff released his military records. These show second citations for a Silver Star and a Bronze Star were issued by John F. Lehman, who was Secretary of the Navy eleven years after Kerry's service. Some news reports have indicated that parts of these released records were in summary form only (Kerry Doctor Issues Summary)."

Now interestingly enough, contrary to what most people think, Kerry HAS NOT released the details about the wounds and treatment for all his wounds. He has released only a re-cap summary as explained in the link. Rex071404 08:35, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No rex. My point is that your continued accusations that we all have no idea what we are talking about, are completly ignorant of everything, and don't care, are unfounded. Ignoring the Media bias arguement (As oh, I love that arguement, but that's irrelevant to now, luckily), I happen to like putting in information as NPOV as possible. Which is why I like to draw from national media, but several sources, to get quotes (not analysis), from the people involved.
Ok, so Kerry hasn't released his medical records? Ignoring the issue of this sounds like the other presidential candidate in some ways, it also is irrelevant. He hasn't released them. I can't tell you what his wounds were, I don't have the facts at hand. Which really makes me wary of any statement about them, in EITHER direction, being POV, beyond something like "he recieved wounds, they got him purple hearts". Lyellin 08:49, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
Only if you are so stubborn that you refuse to read the little that Kerry has admitted to. Kerry's limited medical records release clearly show that the injuries were almost nothing. Read the link will you PLEASE: (Kerry Doctor Issues Summary).Rex071404 09:06, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Having read it, I notice that he lists three pieces of sharpnal. Alright. Also a contusion (which basically amounts to nothing). He had shrapnal, was treated. So he didn't lose an arm. The basic facts still don't change, and I can't see your point. He was ignored, he got purple hearts. What is wrong with that statement? Lyellin 09:20, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
The information you supplied above about how you use the media is so funny, I am almost plotzed myself! Are you serious? If you ask 10 gluttons to go interview people on the street about any subject the gluttons choose, you can be pretty sure that the quotations obtained that way will be mostly about food. The fact that you can't see the pernicous effect of the liberal media bias, helps explain yours...Rex071404 09:10, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Now you are also attacking me as well. I had hoped to avoid that. Rex, I use the media, just as you have been doing above (Quoting sources.. New York Sun, etc), because the media is a valid source. It is not the only source. So are sources like the Medical release you linked to. I am almost going to completly ignore the fact that I've been trying to resolve this, with NPOV options, asking for your opinon, and trying to move this matter to a seperate entity, along with otehrs, you and insist on spending time here bereting all of us. Heck, I think I'm the only one here that openly admits to perferring kerry, and I'm working with and trying to compromise with you. Lyellin 09:16, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
If anyone cares, I intend to vote for Kerry, but I agree with Lyellin that the standard here is to construct an encyclopedic, NPOV article. Unfortunately, from the perspective of moving toward that goal, time spent trying to reason with Rex seems to be completely wasted. I don't know whether we get off this treadmill through mediation, arbitration or some other mechanism, but what we've been doing so far isn't getting anywhere. JamesMLane 09:38, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Try this one

There is a second version on Talk:John_Kerry/Lyellin. Lyellin 07:48, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Except for formatting the link, that's much better than your previous effort. However you still have not said what problems you have with my current version (my #2 sample). Why do you insist on changing mine to such a degree? Rex071404 08:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
People insist on changing it because it's considered by numerous people to be POV. That's why there's been numerous attempts at trying something else. I don't like Lyellin's new version as much - I don't see the difference between version 1 and version 2, except that version 2 is a bit longer and has more messy wording. Ambivalenthysteria 08:08, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Typing in a bit of a rush. I'm worrying about an acceptable version, not properly formatted, right now. Why? because you have whole paragraphs that do nothing that speculate, and make the section ENTIRELY too long. We've discussed that above, about the relative importance of sections. I can say everything, show the discrepency in Kerry's statements, and still only take four paragraphs, instead of eight, while also making it much more NPOV and leading. I happen to think version 1 is better. Unfortunetly, I've not had enough time to edit version 2 to be happy with it. Lyellin 08:10, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

I've archived the page again - it had got up to 68kb. Ambivalenthysteria 08:28, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Ambiv. Lyellin 08:53, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Re-insertion of "Summary of Facts" as carry-over from Archive July 04 #2

I am interested to present the facts in such a manner that the reader says to themselves: "I didn't know that". That's it, that's my entire objective. And what do you ask, might they currently not know? Here are the facts you people keep obfuscating:

1) Kerry was only in harm's way in Vietnam for FOUR MONTHS! 2) The "wounds" he received were barely scratches. 3) The Purple Hearts he received for those wounds enabled him to leave early (which he did) 4) The Silver star he recieved was for beaching his boat in contravention of his training and chasing on shore by foot and getting a rocket launcher. He may or may not have shot a fleeing wounded man in the back - we haven't even hashed that out on this page yet. 5) He willingly participated in an awards toss back (medals) ceremony. 6) About this ceremony, he has changed his story a number of times. 7) He was intimately involved as a leader with VVAW. 8) Certain VVAW person(s) did advocate violence at a particular meeting. 9) Kerry's contemporanious statements about this have been contradictory. 10) The FBI confirms and Kerry campaign accepts as true the fact that Kerry was at that meeting. 11) Kerry has also changed his story about this several times.

In brief, those are the essential FACTS, each of which is TRUE and can be shown via external sources to be true, around which I'd like to write "Medals" and "VVAW".

Unless and until you pro-Kerry persons can refute my facts, I remain adamant that my version be used as the starting point, for I indeed have refuted your "facts" and shown them to be primarily a grab-bag of assertions and personal feelings, such as various contributors expresions along the lines of "so what" and "it's not that important". Rex071404 00:44, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lyellin responded to every single one of those above, as did someone else in a prior archive. Just because you don't get the answers you want doesn't mean they haven't been responded to. Ambivalenthysteria 08:41, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Regardless of your false characterizations of what has transpired, these facts HAVE NOT been refuted. Indeed, the contortions that some such as you are going through to avoid facing up to these facts would make any limbo artist proud. Rex071404 08:44, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Rex, There are many facts I can dispute. Kerry is tall (That's in the article! Re: "Lanky Yankee - Rex071404 09:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)) . That doesn't nessecarily mean I need to put that in the article. My mother likes KErry. A fact (Mom's not a public figure so not noteworthy - Rex071404 09:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC). But irregardless, our job here is not to refute facts, or prove them, it is to figure out what goes into an article (of course you allow tons of pro-Kerry crap in. - Rex071404 09:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)). Those of us here who are trying to NPOV are giving compromises that still state what you want (that he may or may not have been double-talking) without leading people to a conclusion that is a purely POV conclusion. This is not a debate about the facts (please review previous postings - others have spent considerable time and detail deleting and attacking my facts, regardless of gently I present them or how little text they take up- Rex071404 09:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)), it's a debate about what to include, and how to include it. Lyellin 08:52, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
You won;t be satisifed unless and until you write a glowing pro-Kerry biopic. This has turned into a farce. Goodnight.Rex071404 09:03, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No Rex, I won't be satisfied till it is NPOV. Currently though, I'm paying attention to this section. Want the truth? I haven't read the rest of the article. I saw a request for comment, so I came over, saw the issues at hand, and was trying to figure out how to help. Now tell me, if my second one is more acceptable, and my first was partly, what is the issue? I'm stating what you want, and I'm doing t in a NPOV way. Now, I will be going through the kerry article to see about NPOV, but not until this is resolved, and only in a way that is NPOV... ignoring my personal POV. I can't let that cloud my judgement as to what or not to include, and i worry that you are letting your POV cloud yours. Lyellin 09:09, Jul 29, 2004

(UTC)

Please go back to the beginning of this issue and take note of how many times Neutrality reverted me without discussion. Also, search each page for my name to see what I've had to say so far and also read the links I've offered up. If you work quick, this will take no more than 1/2 - 1 hour of your time. I'm going to bed now - I've been at this for the last 16 hours.Rex071404 09:16, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Rex, I read those. I haven't read the article itself, which is what I said. I've read the links. Neutrality's reverts are not at issue with the NPOV of this section. Might be something to talk up with Neut, but not with the NPOV of this section. Lyellin 09:22, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration?

I suggested earlier that it may be worth proceeding with pushing for arbitration, as we seemed to not be getting anywhere, and I doubt mediation would be of much assistance at this point. It got swamped over in the discussion, but after JamesALane's latest response, I figure it's worth putting up again. However, if you guys want to keep trying, I'm happy to do so. Ambivalenthysteria 09:49, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll do whatever the community thinks best. I'm perfectly willing to sit here and try to hash things out, or to go to mediation. Lyellin 10:02, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
My comment was vague as to the best way to proceed because I don't feel very familiar with the dispute resolution mechanisms. I took a quick look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and noted that arbitration is described as a last resort. I don't know whether all this flailing around that we've been doing would enable us to "show that [we] tried to resolve the dispute by other means." I also looked at Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance. I thought about raising the matter there but the AMA seems geared more toward helping people present a case in the context of one of the other methods.
One concern I have is with the time a process takes. This article is unusually timely. Arbitrations can apparently take several weeks. I'd hate to see this article remain protected for all that time. JamesMLane 10:13, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What we've been doing of late is pointless. I say arbitration. john k 10:17, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's a catch-22. I don't think we're getting anywhere here. James: The AMA is for representing people in Arbitration proceedings. Were you looking for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation? We could try that, but based on Lyellin's experience so far, I'm inclined to think that it would also be a waste of time.

On the other hand, arbitration proceedings could take weeks, and it looks terrible if this article is protected right through a time when it's likely to get a great deal of hits. We could ask for a temporary injunction, which is provided for under the arbitration policy, but to my knowledge, hasn't been acted upon yet. I think I'll go and ask a few people as to what could be the best course of action from here on out. Ambivalenthysteria 11:03, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What a mess this discussion page has become. Multiple reinsertions of the same sections with new comments afterwards. Sigh. I'm not very familiar with any but the RfC stage of dispute resolution. I share James and AH's concern that arbitration could take a very long time--and what would we be arbitrating anyways?--isn't arbitration for user behavior? I do think Rex has little grasp of or patience for Wiki-culture and has been rather rude and consistently asssumes bad faith on others. He is obviously a single-issue POV warrior with no apparent interest in Wikipedia other than forcing his POV on this article--so perhaps arbitration is appropriate, but I suspect the arbboard might like to see this try go through mediation first. But with either mediation or arbitration, what happens to the article in the mean time? older≠wiser 12:03, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Listening to you guys talk, it's like we are are on two different planets. Time and time again, I have asked everyone on this page to specifically comment on my 2nd example for VVAW, but the best most of you can muster is "Oh boy, we can't make any progress!". You can't make any progress, because you won't focus your mind on the task at hand, which is, REACHING CONSENSUS! Therefore, I am reposting my 2nd VVAW (again) and am asking each if you to look at it and tell me; what specifically are your objections to it? Here is is again(!):

Rex071404 15:43, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


As I stated above:

"For example, the single most detailed section of the entire page is titled "Kerry's second tour of duty as commander of a Swift Boat" and yet all this information is dedicated to events which took place within a time span of only approximately four months. To read all the detail, you would think Kerry was in country for several years! If you can't see how this has a POV which favors Kerry, then your suggestions to me will probably not be persuasive. It is inarguably true that Kerry's military service was relativly easy and his medals earned for relativly little. These are inescapable facts and ones that will not go away, whether you succeed in blocking them from inclusion in this Wiki or not."

Rex071404 15:58, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Rex, your most recent posts validate my conclusion that there's no point trying to reason with you. Someone reading only your posts would think that you were being ignored. In fact, the questions you raise have already been answered, repeatedly. You continue to give no evidence that you have read other participants' comments or made any genuine effort to understand them.
Your most recent posts reiterate two of your favorite points. I'll make one last attempt to communicate an answer to you. After this, I'm going to try to find the strength to resist the temptation to answer you, unless and until you say something new and substantive.
(1) "I am reposting my 2nd VVAW (again) and am asking each if you to look at it and tell me; what specifically are your objections to it?" My objection is that it gives far too much attention to trivia. The accusation that John Kerry told different stories over the course of decades about whether he attended a particular meeting is less important, objectively, than the accusation that George Bush, having gotten into the National Guard, didn't fulfill his service obligation. The latter point is mentioned in the George W. Bush article but only briefly, with a link to a separate article that has all the details. Comparing the treatment of these criticisms of the major-party candidates, your proposal would have the John Kerry article devote much more attention to a much less important criticism. I prefer to treat each candidate the same way.
(2) You repeat, verbatim, your criticism that there's too much detail about Kerry's military service, and you repeat your suggestion of linkage between this point and the question of what to put in section 3. As to the level of detail about Kerry's military service, I previously responded that I'd be amenable to the idea of condensing that section, with the full description relegated to a separate article. As to the linkage, I explained why I thought that was a bad route to take. You now repeat your previous comments and add, "What say you to that?" It's as if I'd never written anything.
I don't mean to imply that I'm the only person whose comments somehow don't make it to your planet. It's just that, naturally, I feel more strongly about my own comments. On each of these two points, I took the time to consider and respond to your arguments. Apparently, I might as well not have bothered. You didn't agree with my response, so you just ignored it. There is no genuine dialogue going on here. JamesMLane 17:20, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ok JamesMLane , now that you've told me that your SINGLE OBJECTION to my suggested text for VVAW is that "it gives far too much attention to trivia", you have again highlighted the problem here: The pro-Kerry people such as yourself, are too quick to dismiss verbiage they disagree with as being not-important or "trvial". Excuse me, but when did we appoint you arbiter of relevance?
Personally, I think it's very germane and very important to be sure people know that there are episodes which directly relate adversely to the veracity of Kerry's campaign image, and because of that Kerry has sweptt them under the rug.
Why is it so important to you that Wiki readers not be allowed to have enough information to be made of aware of the fact that there are various controversies in Kerry's past?
Rex071404 18:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Additionally, the currently glowing tone of this section (Kerry's Boat command) completely omits the widely known fact that a significant number of Kerry's former Swift Boat commrades are adamantly opposed to him -this on the basis of their personal knowledge of him. For example the new book Unfit for Command cites this fact: "Only 2 of John Kerry's 23 fellow Swift boat commanders from Coastal Division 11 support his candidacy today.". And according to that new book: Two of John Kerry's three Purple Heart decorations (#1 and #3) resulted from self-inflicted wounds, not suffered under enemy fire.

And yet to read what is on Kerry's page today, you would think that he is another Audie Murphy.

Also, considering the amount of credibility Richard Clarke's book was given in regards to GWB, the continued whitewash of the facts which don't favor Kerry, is all the more annoying.

Rex071404 16:56, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I hear each of you, but you ARE NOT responding to my question:
"Using a scale (picture it as an analog meter, such as a multimeter) of 1-100 with 50 being exactly neutral (pure NPOV), 0 being totally "negative against" Kerry and 100 being totally "positive for" Kerry, what would you rate the current status of John Kerry?"
Please reply.
Rex071404 17:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Many of you might think me an interloper, but the only reason I'm giving some input is the fact that I did do a fair amount of editing on the article about a month ago to remove its rampant POV status. I still think it hasn't changed. I suggest that "John Kerry" and "John Kerry, Nominee" (or some other name) are separated: one for the bare-bones of his life (birth date, served in Vietnam from such and such to such and such a date with no editorializing) and one for the controversies and positive points, perhaps separated into sections "Pro" and "Con" even, to be rudimentary. But, as it stands, the entire article is POV in favor of Kerry with the exception of about two sections, the large one in question and another one, which is objective but still unfavorable. If this cannot happen, it would be irresponsible to simply delete the section on the VVAW issues. That would be like editing the concentration camps out of "Nazi." Not that the article in question deals with a Nazi, but you get my point. Both sides, or no sides. Amicuspublilius 03:29, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can we stay focused please?

This page has been archived twice in two days. This is clearly getting out of control. We’re never going to achieve anything if we just keep churning out the text back and forth.

Rex, there’s no need to keep reposting the entire text of your proposed selection, as you’ve done repeatedly. Someone’s already shown you how to make a subpage for it, so all you have to do is link to it.

Everyone, I think the discussion is breaking down into what I see as three separate issues: JK’s military service, the medal incident, and the meeting. What originally began as a discussion of the last incident has splintered and expanded. Now I realize that some editors see them as connected, but we will never achieve consensus by arguing about all these issues simultaneously. I suggest we table discussion of two of them and tackle one until we settle it to everyone’s satisfaction.

And the poll? When does it end? Will we implement the results? Will we all agree to abide by the consensus? If not, then why shouldn’t we go to arbitration right now? Gamaliel 18:31, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel, if by "implement the results" you mean ignore the dissenters and continue on with the glowing biopic you already have for Kerry, well, you've done that already so why wait any longer? Simply have your pals "un-protect" John Kerry, put all the addtitional pro-Kerry material you want in, then "re-protect" so as to block out those you disagree with. Oh, and be sure to do this when no one is looking, so no non-pro-Kerry stuff gets in again....

By the way, I notice that none of you will answer the question I've posed in trying to establish that there is indeed already a pro-Kerry POV permeating John Kerry and it's only in light of that, that the items I want to put in look stark in contrast. Why are all of you afraid to assign a number to your assement of that page's current status?....

Rex071404 22:38, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please comment on my 3rd attempt (Rex v.3) at consensus. Will you accept this version of VVAW? Rex071404 22:50, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Paragraph 3 quoting the Sun should be deleted. The reason is that you state that it is uncertain whether he was at the meeting (in the last paragraph). I presume this uncertainty has a valid basis. But the only documentation you provide a link to suggests that he was there. Alternatively, also provide a link to whatever sources argue that he was not at the meeting.67.180.24.204 01:55, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Request for mediation

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#User:Rex071404_and_User:Gamaliel

I'm tired of being insulted by Rex every time I post here, so I've made this request. Gamaliel 01:49, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel says 'I'm tired of this', 'I'm tired of that' and he's too tired it seems, to comment on VVAW - Rex v.3... Rex071404 02:00, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Snide remarks will not encourage me to comment.Gamaliel 02:06, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If you had an over-arching desire to reach consensus, you would plow forward with the sharing of ideas, bruised feelings or not. Since you don't, I can only conclude that your aim is to wait me out long enough until you can drive me away by complaining to the powers that be. BTW: Did you watch any of the DNC tonight? I did, and exactly as I said he was doing, Kerry charged forward and over exaggerated his puny 4 month tour of duty in Vietnam into some super-human effort. It amazes me how blind you are to that... Rex071404 02:55, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Good on you, Gamaliel. I guess it's worth a try. Ambivalenthysteria 03:02, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
As a member of MedCom, I have recused myself from any involvement in this case. At this point it is unclear whether Rex actually accepts mediation or not. If not, I suggest the case be referred to ArbCom.--Neutrality 03:11, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
To all interested persons: I have responed to the above statements on the appropriate page: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#User:Rex071404_and_User:Gamaliel. In my view, this issue is not ripe for mediation, as the complaining parties have not exhausted all other recourse first. I have been dialoging. I have been offering compromises. I wish these persons would do they same. See my above postings. Notice that these complianing parties do not respond to my questions. Rex071404

Change in Kerry's status

Kerry is no longer the presumptive nominee, he is the nominee. I want to edit the protected page to reflect this, changing:

John Forbes Kerry (born December 11, 1943) is a United States senator from Massachusetts, and, due to victories in the U.S. presidential primary elections, is the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee for President in 2004.

to

John Forbes Kerry (born December 11, 1943) is a United States senator from Massachusetts, and, having accepted the nomination of the Democratic Party on July 29, 2004, is the party's nominee for President in 2004.

Yes, change it

  1. Cecropia | Talk 03:37, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) Endorse own proposal
  2. Well, duh.--Neutrality 03:55, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. JamesMLane 03:57, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) Obvious. Does it really need a poll? Can't some uninvolved sysop just come along and do it?

No, leave it


Other

Change only that, nothing else until consensus is reached. Rex071404 04:06, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'm just going to change the wording. If there is a consensus objecting or wanting language tweaks, they can holler for me or another sysop. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:09, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And FYI: Kerry is the Democrat nominee, not the Democratic nominee. The controlling authority at the DNC is not the national committee, AKA The Democratic National Committee. Rather, the controlling authority is the delegates. The delegates are Democrats, not Democratics. Kerry was nominated by the Democrats to be the Democrat Party Candidate for President, 2004. Rex071404 04:10, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That distinction of "Democrat" or "Democratic" was started by Joe McCarthy (seriously). Although using Democrat rather than Democratic has entered the language as an alternate usage, it is awkward and seems partisan. The official name of the party is the Democratic Party. It would be generally correct to say that "he is the Democratic Party nominee" or "he is the nominee of the Democrats." -- Cecropia | Talk 04:18, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Interesting - thanks! On another note, please take notice that user Neutrality is following me around this Wiki, changing questions I pose and entering misleading notations. It appears that he has taken too strong of a personal interest in the controversy of this dialog. See my notes (and the evidence of what he is doing) here: [[1]]. Any advice ot assistance you could give would be appreciated. Rex071404 04:32, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Using "Democrat" as an adjective is a usage solely of Republicans, in my experience. (Well, and FOX News, if you want to count that as contradicting my thesis.) I didn't know about McCarthy. I assumed it arose because "Republican" is both the noun and the adjective and the GOP types just applied the same pattern to their opposition. JamesMLane 04:29, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Post DNC news reports make my point about VVAW

As of tonight, after the DNC meeting, the Associated Press is now saying: "Kerry Leaves a Large Hole in His Resume". This underscores why its important that we don't do the same thing by leaving out VVAW details. Read link hereRex071404 04:43, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

AP isn't saying that; they're carrying an opinion piece (NOT a news report) that says that. That content is presented in a distinctly non-neutral POV. --JohnRDaily 06:39, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Huh? Either it's factually accurate to say that the Kerry resume, as reported by him during the DNC rendition of his life story, includes little detail about his anti-war activities, or is it not factually accurate to say that. It's either true that Kerry's proclamations about his BIO offer up little detail about that period, or it's not true. I say that it is true - that these important details are being glossed over by Kerry. And I also say that the pro-Kerry crowd on this page is trying to do the same thing - sweep inconvenient personal history items about Kerry, under the rug. I have offered up verified facts to prove my point. On the other hand, those who want the VVAW details left out, reduce themselves to arguing that they feel it's not relevant. Well then, I feel that it is, so how are we going to resolve this?....
I suggest this:

1) Concede to the truth of the facts I have listed under "summary of facts". 2) Assist me in re-phrasing my expression of those raw facts in a way you'll accept. 3) Assist me in shaping brief narratives using some of those facts.

I wish to post material on: A) Kerry's 4 month tour of duty B) Kerry's wounds C) The Medal Toss D) 1971 VVAW.

Rex071404 14:51, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1) As has been pointed out to you numerous times, by numerous people, those "facts" are not necessarily facts..
If you dispute the truth of them, then why can I cite valid sources?Rex071404 22:22, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
See Revolver's comments below, namely I can see the POV (no pun intended) of both Rex and the others. It is true that, (after minor tweaking), what Rex is offering is essentially "facts". And it is also true that the choice, arrangement, and presentations of those facts by Rex constitutes a POV.
2) What is wrong with Lyellin's first version (Talk:John Kerry/Lyellin)? It presents the facts in very much the same manner as your own, but with the wording being significantly improved.
He's 2nd is better than he's 1st, but I still prefer my 3rd. What's wrong with Rex v.3 VVAW?Rex071404 22:22, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Takes longer to say the same thing, not as well written. Though it's getting quite close to being acceptable, Lyellin's version remains, IMHO, the superior one at the moment. Ambi 23:14, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3) What narratives? We're here to present facts, remember.
Yes, but the manner we present them in, depending on the lenght of time and the details given, can rightly be described as a "narrative". An oral history of say, Martha Stewrts trils, recited on a step by step basis, ould be a narrative. I think what we are trying to avvoid here is "editorializing" more so than "narrating"...?Rex071404 22:22, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Fine, but we need to be very careful here to avoid diving into POV either way, if we stray from the core facts.
4) If you can do so in a neutral manner, be my guest. Ambi 21:59, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If I can do what? Please clarifyRex071404 22:22, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Posting material on those four things. Ambi 23:14, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Observations from a non-participant

Some observations about the disagreements on this article (in particular, the issues raised by Rex):

I can see the POV (no pun intended) of both Rex and the others. It is true that, (after minor tweaking), what Rex is offering is essentially "facts". And it is also true that the choice, arrangement, and presentations of those facts by Rex constitutes a POV. (Note: I'm not saying that a similar thing doesn't happen in the article itself at times!) The point is that when arguing for a specific claim, opinion, conclusion, or deduction, you have to marshall facts. In fact (again, no pun intended), it could be said that the judicious selection and arrangement of facts is one of the most important skills necessary in debate and persuasion. In other words, although facts are a necessary condition to achieve NPOV, they are not sufficient. This is why the AP piece is an editorial, not merely a news summary. It marshalls facts, yes, but it is clear (or should be) to anyone who reads it that there is a larger conclusion the author wishes the reader to draw, which is not purely factual -- namely, that Kerry's slight of his anti-war history in his DNC speech raises questions about his motives and whether he is being completely earnest and upfront about his life story. Notice, the editorial doesn't have to say this explicitly; it's implied. But nothing in wikipedia should be implied. The whole purpose of NPOV policy is that the claims and conclusions implied by the arrangement and selection of facts should be stated explicitly. In other words, if "narratives" are to be presented, they should be explicitly noted as such, (and who is "drafting" them). I think the inability to recognize or realise this is one of the fundamental issues behind the majority of NPOV disputes on wikipedia.

Again, I would repeat, I think this problem occurs in the article in many places as well, lest Rex think I'm picking on him in particular. Revolver 22:08, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I second the above comment by Revolver. In fact, one of the reasons I have chosen the target points that I wish to insert, is to balance off what I feel is currently a overly pro-Kerry tone in the current John Kerry page. For example, the section entitled "Kerry's second tour of duty as commander of a Swift Boat" is much too detailed for the brief period of time which it covers - that being approximately four months. Also, there is no scale to it that allows a reader to put it into perspective. Coming from a standpoint of being personally knowledgable (through extensive research) on WWII, Korean and Vietnam Era Military Awards, I can tell you that the most deserved award Kerry received was the Bronze Star (and the accompanying 2nd Purple Heart). However, an informed view of the facts, put into context, makes in clear that the Silver Star is in substantial measure, an over reward for an extremely limited action. And even taking Kerry's account at face value, it appears that Kerry chased down and shot a wounded fleeing Viet Cong teenager in the back - a noteworthy fact since this, in and of itself is the sum and substance of why Kerry got the Silver Star. Now beyond that, there is the larger point that Kerry is now advertising himself to many tens of millions of Americans of voting age. Since this may be the 1st time they have heard of Kerry and since it is more likely than not that they are unfamiliar with what it has traditionally taken to get a Silver Star, it' very likely that an uninformed voter would erroneously conclude that Kerry did some enormously distinctive effort to get that Silver Star. Please read the book tiled "The Tunnels of Cu Chi" (example link) and see the repeatedly ultra-brave things our "tunnel rats" did, all for less recognition than Kerry who did much less. Suffice it to say, I do recognize that Kerry was admirably brave when he got the Bronze Star, but in context, he is not the new Audie Murphy that he is being portrayed as. If th pro-Kerry crowd would crop this "Kerry's second tour of duty as commander of a Swift Boat" section by about 2/3rd's, I would have less problems with the tone of the whole article and would be more likely approve of the total mix. As it is however, John Kerry is simply too pro-Kerry in it's implicit and explicit POV and I must continue to lobby forcefully for more balance.Rex071404 22:56, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, I suggest that you re-read Revolver's comment, as part of it was also targeted at you. Secondly, numerous people have agreed with you that the military section could do with some condensing, but you have so far ignored them. Thirdly, it is not our place to make judgment on whether he deserved the medals - simply to report on the facts, which thus means what medals he was awarded, and the acts that he was rewarded them for. Ambi 23:08, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A limited observation: I think it is fair to mention that there is a lot of criticism (not sure how to concisely qualify by whom) over the awarding of Kerry's Silver Star. I don't think we need to go into the details, but some mention of the criticism is in order. older≠wiser 23:15, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Rex, Snopes has a nice writeup on the medal controversy. You might find it informative and relevant. I frankly don't understand your alarm at the Wiki noting that a veteran was highly decorated. You don't seem to think the decorations were deserved. Perhaps a neutral way of addressing this concern would be to link to the citations. Probably a better link can be found, but this one at least gives people the Navy's version of why the medals were awarded.
I agree with both Bkonrad and the unsigned comment above. How about including that criticisms have been made, in the article itself, perhaps with a quote/citation, and then discussing the controversy in greater depth in another article, as has been previously suggested? (I can't remember who by, Lyellin perhaps?). The other alternative is to do what unsigned suggested, which isn't a bad idea either. Ambi 23:22, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, we should report facts. And it truly is a fact that the Silver Star which Kerry received was received as a consequence of comparatively little meritous behavoir. Please look more deeply into the historical record of Silver Star awards. You will find that unlike the Purple Heart during Vietnam, there is no contention that these were easiy distributed. Further, take some time to review the facts surrounding the awarding of others Silver Stars which were awarded contemporaneously to Kerry's and you will see that there is a peculiar imbalance between what Kerry did to get the medal and what others ahd to do.
Everyone knows that the National Media make great hay of the suggestion that GWB's father may have helped him choose and get the Air National Guard post that he got. Is it so inconceivaable that Kerry's Brahmin Yankee connections helped him get the easy Swift Boat billet and also contributed to his being "shepherded" by upline top officers who were well aware of his connections? You do understand that Kerry was no ordinary soldier from an ordinary family. He was well connected even back then. When a well connected person gets a reward for relatively nothing, it tends to raise flags of stricter scrutiny. this is true for all public persona and its fully fair to put a closely scrutinizing spotlight on Kerry.Rex071404!

As for the "Snopes" link, we could spend 100 houre re-inventing the wheel discusing that, but it's conclusions do not persuade me and of all the pro-Kerry suggestions so far, that "snopes" link is THE WORST. I absolutely will not yield in opposing that, if anyone tries to put it in, now in the middle of this! Rex071404 23:37, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Referring to previous indendented paragraph by Rex suggesting special treatment for Kerry: Kerry _requested_ duty in Vietnam. He _requested_ Swift Boat duty. Swift Boat duty in Vietnam was the most hazardous position in the Navy at the time. He was wounded three times, lest you think it wasn't dangerous. Yes, some of the wounds were minor. But it's just a matter of luck when shrapnel hits your arm rather than your head. That you try to portray yourself as some sort of neutral arbiter is really quite hard to swallow. (I can provide a link to an image of his request if you like).
It is this type of mis-informed and unsigned opinion from latecomers such as "67.180.24.204" which gums up th works, Please take note that "67.180.24.204" is also mucking up my perosnal talk page and is is also stalking me about my comments on Ann Coulter. Suffice it to say, amphibious helicopter marines (a navy unit) and navy seals (aa navy unit) and carrier launched fighter pilots (a navy unit) among others were far mor hazardous. Even so, I will not allow 67.180.24.204 to sidetrack my train of thought. I feel this group is now making progress and I would like to continue that.Rex071404 00:06, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Should have clarified with most hazardous position 'for which he was eligible'. Kerry was neither trained as a SEAL or a pilot. I'm sorry you choose to characterize my joining the discussion on Coulter as 'stalking'. Sometimes I try to make a point through humor, perhaps you missed the humor.67.180.24.204 00:16, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Welcome to the party 67.180.24.204--don't mind Rex, he insults and belittles just about everyone who says anything remotely critical of his opinions. Regarding Rex's statement above: And it truly is a fact that the Silver Star which Kerry received was received as a consequence of comparatively little meritous behavoir. I very strongly disagree with this appearing in the article as a fact. We can report as a fact that people have criticized the basis for Kerry's Silver Star--but there are obviously many who do feel he earned the Silver Star. We can report that both POVs exist, but aside from that, the fact is that he recieved a Silver Star, and according to the documentation for the award, there is nothing to indicate that he did not earn it. older≠wiser 02:01, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Attn: older, please notice that I am making the effort to soften my tone and I ask you do the same. Also, .204 reinserted argumentative stuff on my personal talk page several times. I have found from Neutrality that this is not the Wiki way and I avoid that now. My statment to .204 was to make sure he also would stop it. And coincidentally .204 did take notice of my Kerry and my Coulter comments. Unless he looked me up, or has some other agenda, considering that I've only commented on a total of (4) Wike pages ever, that's an odd coincidence. Rex071404 06:55, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Look Rex, sorry if I've caused offense. I did repost a comment _once_, not several times, to you. It was intended to be humorous, since the issue was 'censorship'. I'll not do that again, as you seem a bit sensitive. Hardly shocking that I (like you) have involved myself on two politically oriented entries. It's not like your other post was on calcium chloride. I'm not out to harass you. Indeed, I'll do my best to utterly ignore you in the future.67.180.24.204 07:05, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please keep your eye on the ball

I am asking for group agreement that we use the Rec v.3 VVAW. See all three of my VVAW versions here: Talk:John_Kerry/Rex's_version. please take note, that from version one through version three, I took a lot of group input and made it much less POV and much more acceptable to all. Also, if you like, please go to my page here Talk:John_Kerry/Rex's_version and copy my v.3 as a new entry, then edit that entry to how you like it andd we can all review you suggestions. The sooner a few do this, the sooner we can be done. Plese make the effort.

(Or), without further delay, state yes or no, will you accept Rex VVAW v.3 ? Rex071404 06:48, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Yes:

Rex071404 06:48, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


  • No:

see my comment 67.180.24.204 06:56, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Let's keep everything together in one poll

Several people besides Rex have been working on ways to deal with these subjects. Multiple versions are available for consideration and voting at the top of this page. Anyone who wants to support Rex VVAW v.3 can go to Talk:John Kerry#POLL and vote for it, in a comprehensive poll that also gives other participants a chance to solicit support for their proposals. That's the fair way to do it. JamesMLane 07:36, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, but please do not miss the point that we can effectively use the sub page with my (3) versions as the drawing board page that has been called for. On this page, we can make sample versions to share. I sense that my v. 3 VVAW might be close to being acceptable, that is why I am asking for others to make and post derivatives of it on my sub page. JamesMLane, why don't you try that, please? Rex071404 07:42, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the this Wiki?

According to user 67.180.24.204, who, in his comments on the Ann Coulter talk page, while opposing an idea of mine, said this: "The Wiki's job is to report on what is, not what you would prefer to be",

That being so, it would seem that there is no longer any excuse to keep various unfavorable facts about Kerry out of the John Kerry page.

That is unless 67.180.24.204 is being disingenuous with us and has been opposing my suggestions about Kerry in bad faith.

After all, on the Ann Coulter page, certain editors, including 67.180.24.204 are very active there in making sure every fact and quote, etc., that looks bad for Coulter gets in, but on John Kerry, anything that looks bad for Kerry they work to keep out. Do I sense a pattern here? Rex071404 08:42, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

67.180.24.204 posts a version of Rex's v.3 VVAW

(see all examples here: Talk:John_Kerry/Rex's_version)

Rex, I did exactly as you asked: I took your v3 as a template. I condensed the verbiage. I kept the facts, but took out the buzzwords. The only non-trivial thing I recall dropping was an external link to the nysun (because your own writeup suggested it was not definitive). What important _fact_ is not in the revision? If I omitted one, I'll be happy to put it back in. As to Coulter (which is quite irrelevant here), you deleted a quote claiming it was unsourced; I went & found the source. What's the problem?67.180.24.204 14:07, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you 67.180.24.204 for making the effort. Here is are some reasons your version of my v.3 does not measure up:

  • 1) The factual record is clear: it was not mere "violence" that ws proposed. It was assasinations. However, because The NY Sun link is included in my v.3, I am willing to soft pedal with the word "violence" as the reader can get all the details from the NYSun link. This was a compromise by me from my eaelier, much harsher versions. Even so, removing the NYS link would then require that the word "assassinate" go back in.
  • 2) There are some example names of the targeted victims so as to make clear that this was not idle chat, real persons were suggested and named in that meeeting.
  • 3) The STK (suggestion to kill) was not "by all accounts" soundly rejected. If you read all the links I have provided since I began this dialog here, you will find well sourced interviews with Mr. Camil the (initiator of the STK) where in he DOES NOT mention that his idea was soundly rejected at the VVAW meeting. Rather what he does emphasize is that he was serious in suggesting the STK.
  • 4) Now as to whether or not it's "unclear" that Kerry was still a member then and still in attendence then, your version is mistaken. Kerry's spoeksperson has already conceded to the accuracy of the FBI report which places him there (see my previous entries for explainations about this and links). So far, when I have raised that as a fact on these talk pages, there has ben no contention by anyone here that the FBI is wrong. The FBI places him there, and his spokesperson does "accept" that to be true ("accept" is the word Kerry's person used when conceding the point - see my previous entries). What I have allowed in my version is that it may be true that Kerry sincerly does not remember being there. What's not in dispute by Kerry/Kerry's spokesperson though, is whether he was there. Again: the fBI places him the and his this has been publicly accepted by Kerry team as true. Nonetheless, to be less POV against him, I left plenty of room for others to accept his denials of remembering his attendence as being valid. The distinction is that to imply or say that he was not there, is false. But it can be true to say that he does not remember. My version deals with this point better.
  • 5) As for "published reports are clear", this is too much strongly worded as pro-Kerry. All the quotes you can find on this ar later day interviews with persons sympathetic to Kerry's campaign. There are no contemporaneious reports from '71 other than the FBI report and we are not sure of it's full contents, only that Kerry's people have allowed that it places him at the meeting. I am howevr willing to stipulate that Kery more likely than not, did not support the STK, however, I think my version does it better.
  • 6) The photo must stay in as there are already too many posed pgotos from Kerry service days in the preceding section. There is nothig wrong with this photo and it is not POV to keep it in.
  • 7) Let's please keep this discussion in context:
* A) Kerry was there (and hence, by implicatiton, still a member)
* B) A suggestion to kill important US Politicians was mde there (this is not in dispute)
* C) Kerry has initiallly claimed he left in July '71
* D) Kerry's team then admitted he was at the meeting (change of story)
* E) The suggestion to kill was made seriously (this is admited by Camil, who made it)
* F) There is no evidence that Kerry reported to police this STK (suggestion to Kill)
* G) There is evidence that Kerry was still claiming VVAW on leadership Jan 26th, 1972 - This is the NY Times article (about which, I am already compromising by leaving out this link).
* H) These items, taken together, clealry show that Kerry's repsonse to a bona fide STK does not appear to be in keeping with what one reasonably would expect from a sensible man.
* I) Kerry is glossing over this episode and even the entire anti-war time period in his campaign BIO. Persons seeking full history about Keery cannot receive it from him.

All the points I have marshalled, especially in light of how pro-Kerry and detailed the other sections of John Kerry are, makee it plain that 67.180.24.204's version of my v.3 does not cut the mustard.

Even so, I am still asking for others to make the same attempt 67.180.24.204 has. I feel that a few juxtapositions of versions, accompaanied by a list of facts such as above, will make it clear that my v. 3, or something very close to it, does pass the NPOV test and should be re-inserted in place of the current version pronto. Rex071404 17:04, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

About Rex's so-called "facts":

  • A) Kerry was there (and hence, by implicatiton, still a member)
    • The strongest factual assertion that can be made at this time is that there are conflicting reports about whether Kerry was there.
  • B) A suggestion to KILL important US Politicians was mde there (this is not in dispute)
    • Agreed
  • C) Kerry has initiallly claimed he left in July '71
    • Agreed
  • D) Kerry's team then admitted he was at the meeting (change of story)
    • This is mostly just a quibble, but they have not "admitted" he was at the meeting--they acknowledged that "If there are valid FBI surveillance reports from credible sources that place some of those disagreements in Kansas City, we accept that historical footnote in the account of his work to end the difficult and divisive war." While some have trumpeted the FBI reports as proof, as yet I have not seen any "smoking gun" evidence quoted from the reports. I recall seeing a source that examined the actual reports (unfortunately I can't locate the link), which indicated that the FBI report placing Kerry at the November meeting came from an anonymous confidential informant, who made no mention of the highly charged atmosphere at the meeting. This source mentioned another FBI report of the same meeting which did not have any mention of Kerry, but went into considerable detail about the proceedings and the militant atmosphere. I'd really like to see a further close examination of all the reports in context before deeming them as proving anything just yet. A single report from a possibly unreliable CI is a whole order of magnitude different from an actual survellance report by FBI agents. I'm not closing the door on this by any means, but until there are detailed analyses of the reports available, I'd like to hold off on citing this as proof positive. I agree that statements from Kerry's biographer are compelling, and lend considerable credibility to the claim, but I'd still like to see a wider examination of the evidence.
  • E) The suggestion to KILL was made seriously (this is admited by Camil, who made it)
    • Agreed, but this is a "so what?" Most reports indicate that, whatever Camil's intention, the suggestion was not taken seriously at the meeting.
  • F) There is NO EVIDENCE that Kerry reported to police this STK (suggestion to Kill)
    • Agreed, but another "so what?" First, there is no definitive evidence that Kerry was aware of the threat, and even if he had heard the suggestion, it seems clear that the group consensus was against enacting the suggestion. What sort of totalitarian nightmare society do you envision where one is obligated to report every discussion of illegal activities? This is going onto very thin first-amendment ice, IMO. Now if it had gone beyond merely being a dismissed suggestion, then yes, I would expect that any upstanding citizen to report such activity, but it is asking a LOT to expect one to report dismissed suggestions.
  • G) There IS EVIDENCE that Kerry was still claiming VVAW on leadership Jan 26th, 1972 - This is the NY Times article (http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/Dissidents.jpg) (about which, I am already compromising by leaving out this link).
    • Once again, Kerry makes no claim in this article to being a leader of the VVAW. The NYT attributes him as being a leader of the organization (which he certainly had been). What is not certain is whether we can assume that the NYT kept their file on Kerry perfectly up to date in that period. All that we can say with certainty is that this article has the NYT attribute Kerry as a leader of the VVAW.
  • H) These items, taken together, clealry show that Kerry's repsonse to a bona fide STK does not appear to be in keeping with what one reasonably would expect from a sensible man.
    • This is a matter of POV not fact. Yes, we can report some critics hold this POV, but it should be absolutely clear that it is a POV and not a fact.
  • I) Kerry is glossing over this episode and even the entire anti-war time period in his campaign BIO. Persons seeking full history about Keery cannot receive it from him.
    • I actually agree with this. The Kerry site is very light on this period. If we can agree on a non-polemical way of presenting the information, I have no objection to including it.
    • BTW Rex, I find your version 3 to be a considerable improvement over where you started from. Given the huge volume of verbiage that has passed from when the poll first began, I'd like to suggest that we start a new poll (on a separate page) and have people submit versions (as subpages) that they would like to have considered in the poll. I find the current format of the poll to be very confusing. older≠wiser 18:13, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Correction to Opening Paragraph

I've made a minor textual correction to the opening paragraph. It is nothing to do with the debate here and shouldn't be controversial. Saying Kerry had won the nomination and was now the nominee read alkwardly. We didn't have to say the 'n' word twice in the one sentence! I've tightened the phraseology. It looked like someone had simply amended the line when he was nominated and the combination of old text and new text read badly. Secondly, the phraseology, while clear in meaning to US readers, wasn't for those not au fait with US politics. Non-Americans may not realise that Senator for Mass . . . means senator for the state. If all you know about Mass is the city, you could erroneously think he was senator for the city. I've added in the word state of. And as is standard, when a major office is written about you give it its full title in its first mention. As it read the article clumsily could be read that Kerry, a Mass city senator, had been nominated for an office of president, of which there are thousands of types (government, private sector, education, etc) in the US. Rewritten, it makes clear that a state senator was nominated to run for POTUS and the presidential election is due in Nov 2004.

Given the row here over this page there is every likelihood that the page will be locked for a considerable time. As I am not a participant in the debate (I think I made one comment ages ago) I used my sysop power to correct what otherwise would be a badly written open paragraph that we could have been stuck with for days at best, weeks or longer at worst. We are a public encyclopaedia so it is important people are impressed when they visit. That they don't look at mistakes at the start of an article, go 'yuuch' and leave wikipedia altogether. I hope everyone is OK with that.

Re the debate above - Rex may not know it, but here as elsewhere capitals denote shouting. It is against wikettique to shout at others on the page. Most of us have done it at some stage, but it is something best avoided. FearÉIREANN 17:48, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd rather do underlining or italics but am behind on my learning as to how.
Also, you should not have "cleaned up" any text as a sysop. You making the slopiness go away in one section, only serves to underscore how badly the current VVAW section looks. Either leave the article as it was, warts and all, or open it back up and insert my VVAW v.3.
Actually sysops do do that. We regularly correct glaring errors in locked articles, by which I mean a sentence chopped off and left hanging, spelling errors, etc. What we don't do is intervene to change the substance of an article in any way. What we had here was a mucked up edit for the most important paragraph in the article - the opening one, the one visitors see first. I cleaned it up without taking anything out or touching in any way anything of controversy. It is the sort of automatic "oops" correction that would have been fixed ages ago if the article was not locked. As to the unlocking: I'm not getting involved in that. Other sysops can make a judgment on that if they want. FearÉIREANN 18:38, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Continued silence by past commentors in this dialog moots their concerns - speak up or your views will not count

It's been several days since I offered this and I have responded factually, politely and accurately to all concerns. No better suggested text for VVAA is currently be offered by anyone willing to defend their verion's validity other than me. For that reason, this discussion is now mooted - the others have effectively quit the dialog. I ask that you open John Kerry back up now. Rex071404 18:13, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Eleven people have voted for versions other than yours and have actively discussed and defended these other versions. I admire your recent attempt to achieve concensus, but the discussion is hardly moot. Gamaliel 18:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's mooted by the other's failure to stay involved and act on the leading edge of the dialog, which is here, at the bottom of the page. Also, a vote to delete the section entirely is not a vote for a version, it's a vote for no version at all. Please re-do your math Rex071404 18:20, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

An absence of a day or two shouldn't invalidate their votes. And whatever those 11 people did vote for, whether it was another version, no version, or pez, they didn't vote for yours. Despite your snide math comment, I still admire your efforts, but a consensus of one is no consensus, sorry. Gamaliel 18:26, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There is the proof in the pudding - even after complaints by your compatriots that I not use "names" or "insults", you are still calling me "snide". It think this proves my point, you are simply too emotionally involved to be NPOV on this. Also, would you have prefered that I say "re-check"? The fact is that you mis-stated the vote totals. Do you concede that a vote for section deletion is a vote for no section at all, yes or no? If you can't even admit such a simply mis-statement, I feel that your lack of intellectual honesty in that vein disqualifies your views on this page from having any validity. Rex071404 18:53, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
And by the way, under the section "Return to Rex's version(s)" above, I have three votes. So there you go again, mis-stating the vote totals. And FYI, your sarcastic "pez" comment contributes nothing to advancing this dialog. Rex071404 18:55, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Are you capable of a setting other than intensely hostile? Please calm down. I called your math comment "snide" because it was, as was my pez comment, but apparently you are the only person allowed to be snide around here. As for "intellectual dishonesty", if you look under "Rex '71 VVAW v.3", you will see only one vote, yours. Other people have voted for previous versions of yours, yes, but you can’t just assume they'll like version 3 too unless they vote for it. And, after all, by your standards since they failed "to stay involved and act on the leading edge of the dialog" their votes are invalidated. Thus you have one vote.
But I don't care, take all three if you want. That still leaves 11 votes for versions other than yours and no version at all, votes as you've repeatedly been told cannot be summarily dismissed just because you feel like it. Gamaliel 19:29, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regarding this section heading, no one has any authority to unilaterally declare that anyone's views are "moot" and "will not count". older≠wiser 19:10, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Authority" is not required to ingore non-participators. Good faith commitment to consensus building requires participation. If they don't speak up and justify their views, then their views, axiomatically, can not be counted towards the consensus. Rex071404 20:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You can certainly ignore anyone you please. However, their opinions are a part of the record and cannot be "axiomatically" discounted in determining consensus. older≠wiser 20:23, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Who accepts as a fact that Kerry was at the Nov 1971 VVAW meeting?

Rex071404 says: Ok, since we are doing nothing but going in cirles, all the while the Kerry page stays in it's unnacceptable state, we need to clear up the basis of this disagreement. As a 1st step, I propose we try to agree about whether or not we admit Kerry actually attended the disputed VVAW meeting. And since it has been "accept(ed)" as true, (read link) by Kerry's spokesperson that the FBI report placing Kerry in the meeting is valid, this is prima facia evidence that he was. Therefore, my question is, who will accept as fact that Kerry was there?

  • Yes, I accept as fact that Kerry did indeed attend the Nov 1971 VVAW meeting
  • No, I continue to deny that Kerry attended the Nov 1971 VVAW meeting. However since there is already a prima facie case that Kerry did attend, in addition to signing my denial, I cite additional links as proof
  • Other: This survey is ridiculous and invalid. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to ascertain facts, or make judgements; they are supposed to be reporting facts and judgement in a neutral, encyclopedic manner. And by the way, you can't prove a negative.
    • --Neutrality 20:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The only "fact" that can be stated with absolute certainty is that there are conflicting reports about whether Kerry attended the meeting. older≠wiser 20:19, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • What he said. Gamaliel 20:54, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • What they said. As for the practical question of how Wikipedia should present this subject, we obviously don't draw conclusions, but present the known facts. See John Kerry VVAW controversy for how I've tried to do this. JamesMLane 21:53, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • (formerly .204)Wolfman 21:04, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

FYI to older: Kerry's spokesperson, in accepting the FBI report as being accurate without dispute, trumps all so-called "conflicting reports". Surely you know that as a matter of proper process, facts admitted to cease to be in dispute, yes? Rex071404 20:52, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kerry's spokesperson did not accept the FBI report as accurate without dispute. As Wolfman indicates below and as I quote in a previous section, there is a big IF in the statement. And even the FBI reports are not in accord. The only report that I recall being cited so far was from an anonymous confidential informant who neglected to mention many other pertinent details about the meeting--there was no mention of the highly charged atmosphere. Another FBI report of the meeting contained many details about the proceedings and the militant atmosphere but made no mention of Kerry being there. Until there is a detailed analysis of the voluminous FBI reports, I'm not willing to concede this point. There is a world of difference in credibility between a report by an anonymous CI and an actual surveillance report by an FBI agent. older≠wiser 21:33, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Rex, do you have a link to that statement? I recall reading it was along the lines of '_if_ the FBI report indicates Kerry attended, we would assume that is correct'. Assuming that's what the spokesman said _and_ you can link to the FBI document showing he was there, I would think it is fair to state that Kerry did attend the meeting.Wolfman 21:08, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

FYI to Neutrality: Why are you now saying "prove a negative"? There is no attempt here to do that. Rather what I am citing is the fact that the FBI does report that Kerry did attend the meeting and the additional fact that Kerry's people have conceeded that the FBI is correct. Simply put, those two facts, read together, inargueably put Kerry in the meeting. Deny as you might, but you are simply wrong. Also, by your logic, Kerry cannot prove that he ws not there... Big deal, why are you all of a sudden chaasing for a 'proof of a negative'? You are not all of a sudden mistaking that term to mean that we are not allowed to enter any facts, even if proven true, that are "negative" against Kerry are you? Rex071404 20:52, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have not seen any official statement from the FBI reporting that Kerry attended the meeting. There have been FBI field notes about the meeting, some of which say Kerry was there and some that do not. An isolated field memo should not be interpreted as gospel--they are simply one source of information for analysts to evaluate. Someone with experience in evaluating such materials needs to evaluate the credibility of the different reports. older≠wiser 21:44, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality and wiser state that as composed, there are no "facts" in the John Kerry page. Therefore, entire page is opinion and should be stricken as utterly POV

Neutrality previously "recused" himself, now all of a sudden he jumps back in. What he is saying though, makes no sense. Is Neutrality now saying that we there should be no facts reported in John Kerry or is he saying that we should not try to agree on what facts to put in?

And yet, if facts are to go in, isn't better to reach consensus on which facts we agree on as true, if there has been dispute. How rational would it be for me to use Neutrality's logic and thereby decide that we can't even agree that John Kerry is from Massachusetts? Such reasoning makes no sense to me. Is Neutrality now contending that John Kerry as currently constitued contains no facts, not even ones we all agree are true? If so, what Neutrality is suggesting is patently false and absurd. Rex071404 20:26, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I recused myself from being a mediator in any case involving you or John Kerry, not from any involvement in editing this page. The rest of what you wrote is so incoherent that I'm not even going to attempt a response.--Neutrality 20:36, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Neutrality is starting a "revert war" again - stop it! And take notice that he is now insulting me again (called my writing "incoherent")! Rex071404 20:43, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Neutrality hasn't reverted anything. Gamaliel 21:01, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This has to be one of the silliest and most unwarranted section headings ever. Even though Rex has toned down his rhetoric a tiny notch, it looks like this rampage of verbosity is not going to end anytime soon. older≠wiser 21:41, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

He reverted my section title by removing the formatting which makes it a section title (I had to restore it). And yes, that section title probably is silly, but with you guys denying and/or refusing to give a y/n answer about even the most basic adverse facts on Kerry, this entire converstion has gotten silly. Rex071404 21:54, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Rex, on the "y/n answer" I think you are referring to whether folks accept as fact that Kerry was at the KC meeting. But, it looks to me like you didn't ask a simple "yes or no" question. You had some addendum about stipulating a prima facia case and providing additional links. That's why I voted "other". I don't yet accept his presence as fact, but I also don't agree to your addendum. If you want a simple "y/n" answer, don't ask a loaded question.Wolfman 22:08, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That's not a revert. A revert is when you return to a previous version entirely, removing all changes made after that version. He did not "revert" your title, he simply changed it. Gamaliel 23:12, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Does he remember to put the seat down

He has a yellow canary named Sunshine. His favorite food is chocolate chip cookies. His astrological sign is Sagittarius.

How much more trival infomation can we add

According to summarized reports of now missing FBI confidential informant reports, Kerry may or may not have used proper seat etiquette at some meeting in either Saint Louis or Kansas City by 1972, where 'by 1972' means either 'prior to the beginning of' or 'sometime during the early part of' 1972. He did, however, definitely wash his hands afterwards. I hope that answers your question.Wolfman

A prima facie case - Kerry did attend Nov. 1971 VVAW meeting

Definiton of Prima Facie: "Evident without proof or reasoning; obvious..." See link here.

  • 1) Kerry admits being there (see link and read quote which follows):
"Gerald Nicosia, author of Home to War
A History of the Vietnam Veterans Movement, obtained records that the FBI kept on Vietnam Veterans Against the War throughout much of the group's history. In poring over the records this week, Nicosia found reports stating that Kerry's resignation was accepted at the Kansas City meeting amid a heated confrontation with the group's executive secretary, Al Hubbard.
In a brief interview, Wade said last week's denial stemmed from Kerry's failure to remember the Kansas City meeting and the campaign's reliance on Home to War and two other books that all suggest he quit before November.
After new evidence emerged this week, however, the campaign spokesman said Kerry simply mistook his recollection of the Kansas City meeting for the one in St. Louis in June 1971 - when records show Kerry was re-elected to the organization's executive committee despite growing resentment toward his celebrity and his push for moderation.
  • 2) No one here is offering any more recent information beyond this Kerry admission.
  • 3) Since the evidence supplied is un-rebutted and does prove the point, for the purposes of our discussion, it is now an irrefutable fact that Kerry did attend.

Try as you may to escape from it, the truth is that Kerry did attend Nov. 1971 VVAW and for that reason, my v.3 is more on point than the other offered versions which omit that fact. Rex071404 03:22, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex, the link you provide is a story dated March 19. This article dated April 1 is more recent (see your point 2). It certainly contains no statement by Kerry that he was at the meeting, quite the opposite. It does however quote several participants, none of whom can verify Kerry's presence.
Thus, the only 'evidence' I have seen that puts Kerry at the meeting is the _claim_ of Nicosia that he possesses a report of an FBI informant that places Kerry there. (a) Nicosia has not made a copy of this document available for public inspection. (b) The penultimate paragraph of the story I linked states that the FBI considered informant reports to be unreliably 'at variance' with each other, requiring careful independent verification. So, I hardly view this 'evidence' to be a prima facia case.
Thus, your Point (1) seems incorrect, Kerry has not confirmed presence. Point (2) is incorrect, my linked article is more recent and disagrees with yours. Point (3) is incorrect because it simply claims that Points (1) & (2) are correct.
Got anything else prima facia?Wolfman 04:28, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thank you Wolfman--that is the article I had read and subsequently could not relocate. I might add that despite Rex's claims, there is no direct quote from Kerry or even from his staff "admitting" he was there. The portion of the article Rex cites which states this is the newspaper reporters language, not a direct quote. older≠wiser 12:10, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

John Rambo Kerry

Wow I was engrossed reading the accounts of this man on the swift boat, I thought we had found the lost episodes of Rambo.

  • extremely dangerous
  • aggressively patrol
  • devastating impact
  • hot shrapnel bore into his left leg
  • blood running down the deck
  • traumatic experience

Then i got to section of criticism and it went dry. What happened? --Buster 03:19, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

And your point would be what? That Kerry isn't a highly decorated veteran who served on several dangerous missions? Or that criticism of Kerry is not covered? If it's the latter, why don't you add some NPOV coverage of the criticism instead of complaining?Wolfman 04:33, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's the former. What is your suggestion? Buster 12:58, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

Believe it or not, I'll write a post on this Talk Page that is not about something highly controversial. I feel the page is too crowded with images. Could we rearrange and resize the pictures and maybe remove one or two less useful ones? Also, I think the picture of Kerry protesting the Vietnam war should not come twice. Finally, there should not be a surplus of pictures in the upper part and close to none in the bottom part, as it is now the case; it should be more balanced for the sake of esthetics. --Liberlogos 04:50, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: John Kerry - are you kiding?

I have been dialoging for days, with a rotating group of mostly pro-Kerry POV'ers who simply clam up and refuse to answer when true facts they don't like are dropped in their lap. Now, all of a sudden, you re-protect Kerry? This is just like last time - you guys put what you wanted in and then locked the page What a farce!

Rex071404 07:04, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The protection is as much a surprise to me as it is to you, but I guess it was inevitable given what happened over the course of the day. Sorry Rex, but the poll and today’s events clearly indicate that we have not achieved consensus despite your efforts to unilaterally declare it. Gamaliel 07:09, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You mis-state the facts: At no time did I declare that consensus was reached. Rather, I pinned the pro-Kerry POV group down on the prima facie evidence of the Kerry VVAW admission and they all ran in circles denying it. Even so, you know what Andrew Jackson said

"One man with great courage makes a majority." Andrew Jackson Rex071404 07:20, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You unilaterally declared concensus by posting a version that was not agreed upon by anyone besides yourself. Whatever language you use to describe your actions, they were inappropriate as no consensus has been reached. And I'm unimpressed by quotes from the man responsible for the Trail of Tears. Gamaliel 07:34, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Umm, Rex. I did respond to your 'prima facie' evidence. You never answered. Personally, I have no idea why it matters so much whether Kerry happened to be in Kansas City. But, inclusion of this alleged fact seems to be the main sticking point for you. The news reports we linked don't agree on the issue. How then can you expect us to include it in an encyclopedia article as incontrovertible fact? Currently both evidence for and against is presented. What could be more neutral?Wolfman 07:45, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: Ortega change lost in last revert before most current "protect"

I think this is more accurate for the "Meeting with Ortega":

Meeting with Ortega

Shortly after taking office in 1985, Kerry and Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa traveled to Nicaragua, and met the Communist leader of the Sandinista National Liberation Front, Daniel Ortega. Kerry and Harkins's meeting with Ortega was met with a storm of controversy back home. This is attributed to the fact that this meeting came at a time when US foreign policy was officially opposed to the Communist Sandinista Government. Kerry and Ortega

Comments please? Rex071404 07:12, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Calling Ortega a Communist is POV. It's also POV to present the main criticism against him (his political stance) without presenting the main defense of him (he won an election, the freest and fairest ever held in Nicaragua). Proposed alternative:
In April of 1985, soon after taking their Senate seats, Kerry and Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa traveled to Nicaragua, and met the country's President, Daniel Ortega. Although Ortega had been elected to office, the Kerry-Ortega meeting was criticized by those who considered Ortega's Sandinista movement to be radical and pro-Cuba. U.S. foreign policy at the time, under President Ronald Reagan, was decidedly hostile to the leftist Sandinistas. Shortly after the Senators returned from their visit, Reagan imposed a complete economic embargo on Nicaragua.
Belatedly adding sig -- JamesMLane 08:05, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Who made the above suggested revision comment? It's not bad, very good in fact. The only thing I would have to look into is that I am pretty sure that the form of government in that country under that man was decidely pro-commjunist at the least. A hallmark of the Regan era was anti-communist action. I am pretty sure "communist" fits in there somewhere. Even so, I would support immediately putting this above revised version in and waitng on the Communist question until later.
Rex071404 07:35, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry, forgot to sign it. Corrected now. As for the Communism thing, you're not going to find any source that will definitively establish that the label is correct (or, for that matter, that it's incorrect). The correct NPOV approach in such a situation is to report the position of each side. The thing that really got under the Reaganites' skin was Ortega's friendliness toward Cuba, so I mentioned that point. A further consideration is the level of detail that's appropriate in this context. We don't want to turn the John Kerry article into a rehash of the disputes about Nicaragua. Next thing you know we'll have a section on land reform under the Sandinistas, how the literacy rate among the previously oppressed peasants went up under Ortega, etc. We have links to Daniel Ortega, Sandinista and Nicaragua, so any reader who cares about the collateral issue of Ortega's politics can pursue it. JamesMLane 08:05, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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'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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/Talk%7EJohn_Kerry_July-August_2004_archive_5a8c.html"