Talk:John Kerry/Mar 2004 archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Hey everyone, I just wanted to say I think you're doing a fantastic job with the Kerry page. This has got to be one of the most well-written and informative pages in the entire Wikipedia (which isn't saying much, but in this case I mean the article is very well-written and informative). Looks like people who track John Kerry actually know how to write. Thank God for that. -- 160.39.193.218 10:16, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Vietnam Split

Does anyone else disagree with the removal of the Vietnam War material from this page? jengod 23:25, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

I certainly do, but I have been swimming against the current with regards to spinoff articles like this. See discussion under Article Length here. Jgm 23:34, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Jgm, forks and splits are quite natural. In this case, it may be temporary - the real issue is that this section is a controversial one, separate from the rest of the bio material, and as such should be handled a bit differently - I noticed a few POV written sections that are easier to handle if the article is split. Of course, a split is warranted any time an article gets very large, as this one had. Forking articles happens naturally when enough material exists to warrant it - rather than just cutting it down to fit a length-limit, or making articles longer than is readable. -S 23:54, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Um, er, length-limit? To my knowledge, no length limits is one of the earliest and most basic tenets of Wikipedia. [1]. If there has been a discussion resulting in a new consensus about this issue please point me to it, and see about modifying the referenced page to reflect it. Some of the other reasons you posit (quarantining controversial sections while they are in flux) are reasonable, but I don't see length as an issue. That's what sectioning/TOCs and News Style are for. Jgm 03:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
My concern is the political implications. Kerry's Vietnam services is one of two poles of his bio--the other being his Senate service--and I feel that removing it basically takes it out of the spotlight which could be viewed as diminishing him and therefore enhancing the other guy. There's no reason in the world that the POV, has to be removed in some separate domain. It can be removed here. jengod 00:23, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
I think moving the Vietnam stuff makes sense because of the size of the article, but it is so central to Kerry's political career (which really began in earnest with the exposure the Senate testimony afforded him) that it should really be in the main article. Cecropia 00:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have considered all of the above comments. One, I disagree that moving it to a separate article (especially one with a high level banner headline "John Kerry and the Vietnam War" - which matches the target article) is somehow too far removed from the original. Also, take a look at how much easier to read the TOC is! Two, I disagree that other political contexts on article one are bound to reflect a polarity between past and present - this would be a typical way to desparage Kerry, and that would be POV. Keeping things clear and distinct makes things more or less easier to deal with. So, those wanting malign Kerry by confusing reference to his anti-war and "tell the truth" (yesterday's speech) philosophy regarding the War, will no doubt be irked by Wikipedias ability to refactor articles to make them more clear. There are exceptions - certain highy-contentious articles suffer from "excess detail" in many cases.
Your arguments are confusing at best. I am reverting. I look forward to the inevitable revert war, but I believe that you are the only one advocating the split and that the encyclopedia article about John Kerry is much more encyclopedic with the Vietnam/antiwar material included. TOC clarity issues can be solved in the other ways. jengod 01:20, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
You "look forward to the inevitable revert war?" is that a civil way to approach the article? Maybe you are right, but your ill-mannered defense of your unfounded and ill-reasoned assertions only indicate that you are unwilling to admit you are not. -S 01:54, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Loosen up? jengod 01:57, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
Is your two-word nonsequitor supposed to mean something? -S 02:05, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Peace, man. jengod 02:09, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
Sure, I got no problem with peace - but dont start undoing my changes without getting at least some consensus. Two people a consensus doth not make... holler on the WP:VP if theres something needing attn. Peace is nice, sure, as long as you follow the rules of conduct. That said, the subheaders look better now -- the only really annoying format thing I see now is the one line paragraphs althroughout. Separate by bullets for lists or use real pghps. Since I would be inflaming "a revert war" if I did it, Ill let you do it. Pax. -S 02:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Okay, but by the same token, don't go ripping whole sections out of well-formed articles without talking to anybody about it first. Doing the bullet thing now. jengod 02:27, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

I also see no reason to split this material off. john 05:34, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

Well, when you say "well formed" I get the joke. Quite a sense of humor, you have there, god. S 07:50, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is "nominee-elect" the right term to use? Kerry doesn't have 50% of the delegates yet. How about "nominee-apparent"? Molinari 21:40, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The use of the word "presumptive" in the article already takes care of the "apparent" part. There's no such term as "nominee-apparent" or, if someone finds a reference to such a term, I'll say it sounds really awkward. "Presumptive" is better, in my opinion. Moncrief, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The new edits vis a vis vietnam vets against the war

There are a few things we should consider--while I will not argue with the substance of the edits (although some substantial POV evaluations are included--and BTW, Jane Fonda was a major contributor to VVAW, though Kerry knew to distance himself from her), the VVAW (if not Kerry himself) and its Winter Solider Investigation is substantially whitewashed. Subsequent investigation showed that a great deal of the claims (not under oath, as implied by "testified") made by participants ran from hyperbole to outright lies. Other charges at Winter Solider, especially involving use of minority soldiers, are outright fabrications as seen in everything from films of Vietnam action to troop strength statistics to casualty figures, which show African-American soldier deaths were in the same proportion as in the general population.

Having lived through the era, I will argue with the general assertion that VVAW or even most of the anti-war movement ended the war earlier. If that was the aim, they did a piss-poor job, since the major combat for Americans lasted from 1965 to 1973, many years after the biggest protests. In fact, the pictures of long-haired protestors hardened the opinions of many of the older generation, who had the real power to do something but saw evidence that the protestors were ungrateful brats who wouldn't fight for their country "like we did, in World War II." What brought the war down? Tactically, the Tet Offensive was a huge blow to the strategic assumptions of the war policy. But emotionally, it was when short-haired boys, not long-haired protestors, began coming home in body bags in even small towns in mid-America.

If Kerry committed one sin, knowingly or not, in his Senate testimony, it was that he did as much as anyone, and more than most, in improperly, inaccurately, and ignorantly portraying the typically US soldier as a war criminal and "baby killer," a charaterization that I, and almost every other veteran of the Viet Nam era, has been dealing with ever since. Cecropia 00:02, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jane Fonda was a contributor to VVAW. We agree. So what? What am I, the average reader supposed to infer by a Kerry-Fonda connection? Am I, a post Gen-X'er supposed to automatically see "traitor" and "Commie-lover" when I see Fonda's name? Fonda's integral support is mentioned in the article. If you want to talk about debunking Winter Soldier, you should probably start with writing the Stolen Valor article.
I was not yet born when all of this is going on, so its all pretty new to me. I can only hope that more people have the courage to stand up and tell history as it was, so that the same mistakes are not repeated, and repeated... What mistakes? I dont know, really. I wasnt there. Maybe you do? If you want to argue that anti-War protests had no effect in ending the war... I dont know... It seems like a real no-brainer that they did. Maybe you know of some more complex and fancy math that calculates otherwise.
So little of popular American history seems to reflect the Winter Soldier testimony, for obvious reasons, so I have a hard time understand you when you claim to know persecution as result of it. Even now that I have read the documents, I am in no position to make personal judgements. I'm sure that the testimony is not 100 percent flawless, and likewise I'm sure that it doesnt reflect on the majority of soldiers put there. So I, in my easy youth am privelidged to say that: What remains clear is violence in the name of some ideal (under which is only a philosphy of selfishness and self-ism) is bound to come into a moral question. It is the moral questions, many of which in your lifetime were completely ignored and ignorable, that are what finally brought 'the War' to an end. Can we agree that regardless of what the facts were about Vietnam or the Cold War in general, that the War on Terror not be a similar one? (By "similar," I refer to the conduct and deception, not the "losing." Perhaps I need to do a little more reading... the whole Pentagon Papers text, maybe. Finally, your opinions are not NPOV either. Any corrections to the "POV" in the article should raise the NPOV bar. -V
To get rid of the most minor item first--my mention of Jane Fonda was to point out not that Kerry was buddy-buddy with her, not even that he liked or was sympathetic to her--just that the general trend is to try to go completely the other way and claim that they were like "two people who just happened to be in the same city at the same time." I'm just saying Fonda was a big bankroller of VVAW, which says something of the bent of the organization.
I appreciate your opinions and perspective, and I wasn't trying to say my opinions are NPOV--I just try for it in my writing. I'm just trying to clue people in to the fact that there are other perspectives than what you read in the press and I'm trying to let you ("royal you"--not only you personally) know that the Vietnam-era soldier is a social pariah among those who didn't serve, which includes most of the power structure of the country. Haven't you ever heard of "the crazed Vietnam Vet?" It's very hard to express to someone who wasn't at least alive at the time, because whether you were in the service or not, you kind of need the "hook" of being able to connect with he passions and personalities of the time.
If you really want to get a bit of a feel for what it was like in the Army at the time, get your hands on some copies of "The 'Nam" comic book--they're pretty cheap on eBay. Strange commentary about a strange era in American history that the most ralistic portrayal of the soldier's POV is in a comic.
I think Kerry was kind of duped with VVAW--he was the presenter for a POV that was not really his personally--he was a boat operator who engaged an enemy in a much different fashion than those on the ground. He didn't have the personal experience to tell whether the people who spoke at Winter Soldier were lying or telling the truth. There is more testimony, or oral history, of Vietnam, than what was at Winter Soldier. Cheers! Cecropia 03:42, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Addition addressed to Stevertigo (and anyone else interested) I appreciate your open mind in understanding there is more to know about Vietnam than what was (and is) in popular culture. Soldiers were very aware of the moral issues of Vietnam and the war, but there wasn't much to be done. People wanted to stay alive, you spent your time in the Army watching the calendar. You had at ETS--the day you would get out if you stayed alive--you didn't havethat in, say, WWII. If you went to 'Nam, you were there for a year tour. If you were a combat soldier in 'Nam (I wasn't) you were supposed to be in combat danger for six months of those twelve months, and you had R&R to look forward to. That's what kept people going. That's what kept Kerry going. He did his job as best he could--so did almost everyone else--and when he had a chance to get out, he did it! More power to him!
It is impressive that the people who "testified" claimed that they personally committed these atrocities. What was up with that? If they really did that, they, personally, were war criminals, not people who were entitled to point fingers at anyone else. Cecropia 07:15, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I didnt see your other comments on the page. Ill be brief: 1. 'Photo' C'mon, your meaning was to insinuate something about Kerry, by associating him with Fonda - not an NPOV edit. 2. 'Passions' - I cant even imagine - maybe when the "War on Terror" becomes a full fledged war... wait a minute... You seem to be saying that you can associate more with the Jane Fondas than you can with those of us who born later - that at least seems interesting, if only natural. 3. I try not to confuse comix with history, but I think I had one of those, way back in the day... But I understand: SPOV. 4. "I think Kerry was kind of duped," Back then, who was'nt? 5. 'Ability to tell lie from truth' - I imagine it was hard for anyone, including the Prez, to tell the difference - everybody went 'on instinct,' I suppose. (BTW, You ever read anything about Vasily Arkipov? Talk about loyalty...) 6. 'There wasnt much to be done' - Canada or Vietnam. The choice is rather hard to imagine, I'll admit. 7. 'staying alive in 'Nam.' Seems like Canada would have been easier. 8. "What's up" Maybe some Hamlet would be quotable. Briefly,-S 22:25, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Guess you didn't get much out of my attempt to communicate something sincere to someone who wasn't, as you say, even alive yet. Cecropia

Article split needed

This article is twice the "should-be limit" - I suggest moving the Vietnam section, John Kerry and the Vietnam War or split it by biography/campaign. So, the John Kerry presidential campaign article would have all the current campaign stuff, with some tie-over to the history. -V

I oppose a split. If the consensus is for a split, I support splitting off the campaign-related materials. jengod 04:01, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
I support a split of 2004 Presidential campaign, Views of Kerry, and Issue stances. Especially 2004 Presidential campaign, since that will be irrelevant in a few years anyway. But of course these need to be summarized on the main page. Alternatively, maybe split off all the sections. Anthony DiPierro 04:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'll cast my vote in opposition of a split. Rei
I also think it would be better to keep the article as one piece. A story needs flow. Cecropia
Flow at 65KB? Sorry, ain't going to happen. What is needed is for somebody to summarize some of the longer sections and split the detail off into daughter articles. Then the reader has a choice between reading the summary here or the detail on the daughter articles. --mav 06:34, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, in a truly just world, all the really relevant stuff would be the main article, then you would click links if you wanted to read the gossip and innuendo. :) Cecropia
I agree with mav. For an example of this, see the Malaysia article. There's a summary for several sections, and links to the full-fledged daughter articles under the summary header. I support this split, partially because on my slow connection, both the page and its edit page take ages to load. :-p --Johnleemk 08:02, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Splitting is different from refactoring, which is what Mav suggests. There isnt really enough to warrant "daughter articles," for multiple sections, but there is enough to simply split the bio from the possible political future, etc. Doesnt that make some sense? -S 21:30, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sincere request: please tell me where the "should-be limit" is documented. Jgm 21:59, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree it should be split up. Especially with all the details and nuances in each section, the page as a whole is getting rather unwieldy, and it's only going to get worse in the coming months as the fight kicks into high gear and the edits get more frequent and heated.

May I propose a split along these lines? (1) Keep the biography and "Personal Life" sections in the current article. (2) Put "Presidential Campaign" into a separate article. Or maybe (1) and (2) should be reversed? Any other ideas?

-- 160.39.193.218 22:32, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes - the campaign stuff is really a subject onto itself and should have its own article. A 2-3 paragraph summary should be in this article and a prominent link to the daughter article should be given a la the "Main article" links on the country pages (see United States). This was done to the Gray Davis article once the recall stuff got too long. --mav
I think this article should primarily be biographical and agree with splitting off the current campaign stuff. (And, since, somebody's already done it we may as well go with it.) I think any of the current-issues should be moved to the campaign page -- things like the fonda photo hoax and the parts that say "Bush's campaign says this...". I would try to keep things that will be relevant years later in this article. Mdchachi 21:46, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vietnam war and the current campaign

This entire section is an editorial putting a spin on Kerry's actions and their current meaning. It is attempting to "refight the war" as part of a (hopefully factual) article. Many of the assertions are doubtful or wrong. Saying his past places him at odds with "conservative anti-Communist ideology" presupposes that noone else except this small groups has a negative opinion. Again, doubt on Kerry's record is acribed to "Bush allies or pro-war activities." There are some substantive problems with Kerry's actions besides "old bitterness." Anger against Kerry is not so much "aiding the enemy" (that was Fonda's thing) but defaming the bulk of troops in Vietnam. Where does the author get that there are no "credible" disproofs of Winter Soldier. There are many, including the fact that congress was so incensed at the charges that they investigated some of the "war crimes" and found some bogus, and others where the people who reported them refused to testify, when it would be under oath. Please cite a source for Kerry's popularity with veterans.

And finally, try to understand that it was commonplace for a Vietnam-era soldier to be anti-war, anti-US policy and still doubtful about Kerry's actions. The deleted section follows:

***

Vietnam and the current campaign
Kerry's Vietnam War past currently places him at odds with political conservative anti-Communist ideology, and some attempts have been made to tarnish Kerry by associating him with "radicalist" agenda of the Anti-war movement. Because of the political divisions surrounding the Vietnam War, some, either Bush allies or Pro-war advocates, have chosen to attack Kerry for his Vietnam stance. In February of 2004, after comments by Bush officials, Kerry accused Bush of trying to "reopen the wounds" of the Vietnam War and its history.

To a limited degree, the Vietnam War remains a controversial issue in the US —because "the War" is recent history, the acceptance and interpretation of the history and events remain somewhat in flux. In the US, there still remain some of the old bitterness—such as the accusation of "betraying his country," or "aiding the enemy," for opposing US policy. While many have criticized Kerry and the anti-War movement for "bringing dishonor" upon the Vietnam War Veteran, by protesting US policy, and for supporting the disclosure of controversial events, very few credible criticisms have surfaced to discredit the Anti-War movement in whole or in part, or the claims made at the Winter Soldier Investigation. (See Stolen Valor)

Veteran support for Kerry's presidential bid appears high, but some who oppose Kerry appear to do so for his Anti-war stand of over thirty years ago. Kerry's strong showing in polls against Bush appears noteworthy, in light of the 30-years of largely one-sided popular history regarding the Vietnam War, along with an deep-rooted cultural defensism for the anti-Communist Cold War policy. The Pentagon Papers were the keystone for the Anti-war movement, which substantiated it's claims that of US government deception, and would lead to Nixon's resignation. The documents showed that each US administration back to Truman was actively and deliberately decieving the American people about its involvement in Vietnam's conflicts. The philosophical debate continues regarding the merits of US Cold War policy. Candidate Kerry, who decades ago spoke in opposition to the then US war policy, recently compared the current Bush administration's Iraq War policy, to the "deceptive policies" of administrations during the Vietnam War.

***

Sr Cecropia,

While much in the above section indeed needs a rewrite, (rewrite, rather than remove - remove is lazy) it's not "editorializing" for Wikipedia to contain material which explains a debate of political ideology, if such a debate exists. Is there a debate? Yes - in fact, what else is there left of all that? Yes, removal of some of the minor POV ("old bitterness") is warranted, but then you go on to say "anger against Kerry is not so much 'aiding the enemy' (that was Fonda's thing) but defaming the bulk of troops in Vietnam." Is this POV "true"? You also say Fonda was "more" 'aiding the enemy,' than Kerry. Where's the beef? Both these claims may be correct from your POV - call it a POV. However asking the reader to swallow a pre-supposed definition of who "the enemy" was, and what side Kerry and Fonda 'should have been' playing for - it's an international wiki, sorry. That said, there is a legitimate place for your experience in the related articles - I or someone else will call you on it if its too partisan.

Do (certain) people still feel like they must defend a US state policy of two generations ago? Did'nt the Pentagon Papers make it clear that all involved adminstrations were truly flying blind, decieved, and deceiving - many thought all the things they were saying were true? "...try to understand that it was commonplace for a Vietnam-era soldier to be anti-war, anti-US policy and still doubtful about Kerry's actions." 'Against the war,' but 'doubful about Kerry' and 'despise Fonda?' Someday, for the record, these utterly paradoxical contradictions will need some clarification. It seems to me like just another 'blame famous girl and rich boy for breaking (fearful Cold War) social protocol...' Whether it's a case of rehash or the same old sentiment, I dont know. In any case, I sincerely appreciate your critique, and want to see some substance for your claims as well - like who exactly thinks negatively of Kerry and why. But there's plenty of time to write history, and I won't be working on this for a little while. Onto yet-uncovered country... Sincerely, S 21:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Friend Stevertigo,
I see your point, and will engage it. First, this is "Talk"--I would not write in the article what I write in talk, because a POV (which may or may not be accurate) needs explanation or moderation.
Yes, this is a debate, but the section I extracted was one side only. It was not a debate, it was, as I said, an editorial. Further (and maybe most important) as a debate it should really be in a separate section, since making it part of John Kerry unfairly (to him as well as to facts) connects the truth of the vietnam agrument to his actions, and they are not necessarily the same thing. IOW, if Vietnam was "right" for the U.S. to do, he could still have sincere objections which were well founded. OTOH, if Vietnam was "wrong" it doesn't mean that any assertion against the war is fair.
you go on to say "anger against Kerry is not so much 'aiding the enemy' (that was Fonda's thing) but defaming the bulk of troops in Vietnam." Is this POV "true"? Yes, in that Kerry relayed information, without nuance, claiming widespread atrocities that simply didn't occur. Those in service at the time had a good idea what did and didn't happen and how widespread. Kerry was not on the ground in the situations he desribed, so he took Winter Soldier as true coin, and was wrong.
You also say Fonda was "more" 'aiding the enemy,' than Kerry. Where's the beef? Both these claims may be correct from your POV - call it a POV. However asking the reader to swallow a pre-supposed definition of who "the enemy" was, and what side Kerry and Fonda 'should have been' playing for - it's an international wiki, sorry. That was an aside, but I'll answer it. The "enemy" is country-specific. Jane Fonda is an American citizen so the enemy is a country at war with the U.S. If I said that Rudolph Hess, the Nazi who parachuted into Britain in WWII, supposedly to make a peace treaty with "the enemy" everyone would understand that I meant that Britain was Germany's enemy, not the world's enemy. Except for the fact that Vietnam was not technically wartime in the United States, Fonda could have been tried for treason, as defined by the United States Constitution.
What I'm trying to convey, perhaps rather clumsily, is a little-appreciated truth—there was a large body of Americans (including many in the Army, including career soldiers) who were opposed to the Vietnam War, but were also opposed to the Viet Cong and North Vietnam. Their take was that the U.S. shouldn't be there and many blamed the soldiers (in effect) as part of the pro-war camp. This was the symbolism of Jane Fonda on the anti-aircraft gun. Not too long ago, a college acquaintance of my wife's started arguing about Vietnam with me (I was, and am opposed to that war) and told me I wasn't against the war because I wasn't for Ho Chi Minh. He said it is only logical you had to agree with one side or the other. I don't agree with that statement. Do you? Cecropia 22:04, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
"The enemy," contrary to all lesser belief, is not country-specific. S 22:35, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Unlike Cecropia, I refuse to define an entire race of people as my enemy due to the random happenstance that their birth was in a particular country. Categorizing everyone in a country as "enemy" is little more than racism. Rei
Yes, in that Kerry relayed information, without nuance, claiming widespread atrocities that simply didn't occur. Those in service at the time had a good idea what did and didn't happen and how widespread. Kerry was not on the ground in the situations he desribed, so he took Winter Soldier as true coin, and was wrong.
Care to back that up, or are you just going to assert it as fact? Rei
Kerry was in a specific spot in which we was not in contact with US ground troops while in-country. I think that is undisputed. My Lai is famous, but if you're going to claim widespread atrocities, sources other than Winter Soldier need to be cited by those that believe they happened. That soldiers in service at the time knew what did and didn't go on to the amazing extent that Kerry claimed, I was one of the soldiers with contact with the troops that Kerry did not. What more can I say? Remember that Kerry never said in testimony that he committed atrocities. He never said that he witnessed these things. Read his testimony. He only said that others asserted these things at Winter Soldier. He was an unknowing front for others.
From the Chicago Tribune: In a 2001 interview with NBC's Tim Russert, Kerry said: "I don't stand by the genocide. I think those were the words of an angry young man. We did not try to do that. . . . But I stand by the rest of what [I said] happened over there."
Nothing seen firsthand
In a recent Tribune interview, Kerry said he and the men with whom he served had no firsthand experience with atrocities.[2]
From the Washington Post: Although many of the alleged atrocities have never been verified -- and some have been disproved -- Kerry told the Senate that such stories were not isolated occurrences but had happened "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." [...] "[What] Kerry did after leaving the Navy constituted a breach of trust with his fellow veterans, because, to protest the war, he cast aspersions upon their conduct," Mackubin Thomas Owens, a former Marine in Vietnam and a professor at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., wrote in a recent issue of National Review. Kerry's actions "went a long way toward cementing in the public mind the image of Vietnam as one big atrocity." [3] Cecropia 22:40, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hello, have you ever heard of Operation Phoenix? Seen the pictures of *our* tiger cages? Are you aware of the scale of it? Have you ever heard of the bombing of Cambodia? Haven't you ever bothered to look at the prolific pictures? Are you even aware of the rates of rape against *our own servicewomen*? It's usually around 30% - no kidding [4] [5]. You think somehow we'd treat the Vietnamese better, seing as we killed about 2 million of them? Ever heard of Tiger Force? Remember their habit of stringing ears on necklaces? I personally have met enough Vietnam veterans who left that place f'ed up from what they saw that it's almost laughable that you'd try to pretend that atrocities weren't widespread. It happened. Deal with it.
By the way, in case you didn't *read* the quote, Kerry never said that he or his crewmates saw it firsthand. He stated that the members of the winter soldier group did. Please read better next time. Rei
Please don't use "Hello" like that; you'll sound like Dennis Kucinich. Next thing you know you'll be forgetting to bathe. -- 160.39.193.218 23:28, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Naturally, we get a response which doesn't actually address the post, and instead resorts to petty childish insults over styles of writing. Rei
Hey, I'm just pointing out that your snide attitude isn't doing much to help your cause.
By the way, I agree with Cecropia that who the word "enemy" refers to is clear in context. If you want to start debating "enemy," I think you might as well go about rewriting the entire document, since so much of the article demands a basic understanding of social and literary convention (such as the meaning of particular words).
-- 160.39.193.218 23:37, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There you go again. This is your third time in three posts to avoid debating substance and instead focus only on insults; will you please stop? The closest thing that you've said to substance so far is your line, By the way, I agree with Cecropia that who the word "enemy" refers to is clear in context., which is really just an assertion. For your information, not a single of Merriam-Webster's four definitions of "enemy" involve an entire country vs an entire country. The primary definition is "one that is antagonistic to another; especially: one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent." The Vietnamese were not trying to harm Fonda, and she was not trying harm them. Consequently, they weren't enemies. Rei
Dude, I had no idea what you were debating--something about Vietnam?--and to be honest I didn't, and don't, really care. But your sarcastic "Hello?" caught my eye as I was scrolling down the page and I thought I'd offer some constructive criticism regarding your attitude. Whatever. It's cool. -- 160.39.193.218 00:16, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Are we in the habit of putting double quotes around text that's already block quoted? I don't think that conforms to any traditional style guide, but I don't know... -- 160.39.193.218 22:15, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

coup de grace?

A agree with the edit that substitutes "killed" for "coup de grace" but the term was used in a major newspaper profile, and simply means that he fired the shot which killed someone already wounded.

But ... as I said, I prefer the simple "killed" to the phrase "coup de grace," which was usually used to describe the shot fired by an officer at an execution to make sure the person was dead. Cecropia 05:46, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My main issue with that paragraph was the ambiguity; as mentioned, there's a mail doing the rounds that suggests that Kerry "finished-off" a fatally wounded Viet Cong, which is not the case. We need to watch this stuff at election time. The "coup de grace" stuff was just the icing, with hints of taking pleasure in the killing. Expect more of this stuff, from both sides. Tarka 06:35, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Excommunication?

Excommunication? I can't find anything on an explicit excommunication on the web. Kerry would be eligible for excommunication based on his pro-choice stance, and there's a 1998 vatican decree regarding automatic excommunication of anybody engaging in abortion, up to an including some forms of birth control. This bit strikes me as partisan, unless anybody can come up with something concrete I'm removing this. Tarka

Concentrate on the phrase "latæ sententiæ" which means "self-inflicted"--i.e., no "bell, book and candle" but could not receive communion because of sins in opposition to church teaching. A commonly understood phrase (if true) such as "does not attend church," "considers himself Catholic, but non-practicing," "not eligible to receive communion by action of some bishops," etc. would be less mystifying. There was a church ruling at least in some places a few years back that the church should deny communion to politicians who openly advocate abortion. Cecropia
Sorry I should have brought this up here first: the Catechism of the Catholic Church states in canon 2270nn that Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life In case you don't have a copy here's a link in english [6]
I also recall reading in local press about several bishops stating Kerry will not recive communion. I can't find any good links about this [7], but I'm sure someone has a good link. NN 20:57 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think it is inflammatory to state as a fact that Kerry is in a state of excommunication (self-inflicted or otherwise) if that is not in any way officially documented. I mean, until he is actually excommunicated, it is just a matter of opinion as to whether he is or is not. I am deleting the statement again. Bkonrad 20:16, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't think his negative status with the Church is relevant unless he, for example, makes a big positive issue of his Catholic faith. Cecropia 20:54, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Neither is the fact that his maternal grandfather traded opium or that he saw the ruins of Hitlers bunker and camped in Sherwood. I think we should include this, if You find it out of place in the early life section we can move it his stance on abortion or views of Kerry, as for Bkonrad: the closest you'll get to an official statment are the news stories, canonical law does not document such cases. N.N. 21:34, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The indents are getting to hard to read, so I'd going back to left margin. My main objection is that stating as a fact that Kerry is excommunicated is simply wrong. Until he is actually excommunicated by an act of the church, then he is not in fact excommunicated. With one sentence, you are actually presenting the conclusion of a somewhat questionable chain of logic. Something like:

A) All Catholics (who are politicians) who do not oppose abortion are (or should be) excommunicated
B) Kerry is a Catholic (politician) who does not oppose abortion.
C) Therefore, Kerry is (or should be) excommunicated.

If you want to make this argument, fine -- just spell out all of the premises and don't just give the conclusion. And I'd prefer to see such an argument not in the introductory section.

About self-inflicted or voluntary, well, I am not up on canonical law (heck, I'm not even a Christian, let alone a Roman Catholic) so I don't know about the finer points of "latæ sententiæ" or whatever Latin jargon you want to throw around. I'd be willing to bet that most people (including a lot of rank and file Catholics) don't know much about it either. So if you do want to include anything about it, you'll need to explain exactly what it means in lay language.

Even given all that, I'd still say that the notion of self-inflicted or voluntary excommunication is a pretty subjective thing. So I'd expect any such statements to be qualified as such.

Now, if you want to simply say something to the effect that Bishop X and Bishop Y have said that they would refuse to give communion to Kerry because of his position on abortion -- well that would be a factual statement which could easily relatively uncontroversial to report here. But to conclude that Kerry is excommunicated because of his actions requires a lot more explanation and justification. Bkonrad 22:23, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Top of article header

Has the "This article is not worth reading" (I paraphrase!) header at the top of the article been discussed anywhere? If not, I propose to remove it. The article is good, why are we doing ourselves down by saying it is not? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:51, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The header is a MediaWiki: msg and is included in four articles, so it may be appropiate to discuss whether should be in any, some or all of them. George W. Bush gets vandalized relatively often for example, but that is not so much because it is election year. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:23, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The header has been modified from the original and I believe it accurately reflects what the outside reader should know, which is that the emotions and volatility concerning the issue require more care in reading than your usual Wikipedia article. Put it this way, you might read completely accurate information on the Democratic National Committee website and on the Republican National Committee website, but you are conscious of where you are reading it, so you've been warned if something seems a bit over the top one way or the other. I view this as a matter of letting people know these articles may be different from what they expect on the rest of Wikipedia. Cheers! Cecropia 16:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I accept what you are saying to an extent, but I don't think this article is dramatically different from the rest of Wikipedia. People are capable of being non-neutral about all sorts of things. If anything, this article, which is heavily watched and so kept in line, is much more likely to be neutral than plenty of others that are the product of one or two people. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:25, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I see your point, but would argue that the articles are neither balanced nor neutral in the sense of what you want in an encyclopedia. They do tend to represent both points of view well, but that's a debate, not an encylopedia. Perhaps we could look at it this way. It's a year after the election and somebody's in and somebody's not. Will a high school student writing a report on Bush need a long page on where he was for a year of Guard service? Will that be an accurate representation of its relative importance in Bush's presidency? At that same time, will anyone really want to know (except to play Trivial Pursuit) whether Kerry tossed ribbons or medals, or his or someone else's? At least that bit is only three paragraphs. But be that as it may, the Wikifans seem to have settled in on the notices, so I think most of us are happy with (or at least accepting of) them. Cecropia 16:43, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes I agree that the notices are there firmly for the benefit of Wikipedia editors, rather than our readers. I think we should target the latter. In a years time this articles will be refactored, and things that seem important then will be kept in prime position, other stuff will be re-titled and may even be dropped completely. I re-iterate that the problems you are concerned with here, are true of all current event topics... I have re-written London congestion charge three times to give the proper perspective as it has become less in the media and more just one of those things. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:54, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Recent Changes

I removed a lot of (IMO) garbage added by an anonymous user, essentially reverting page to previous version. Some of the changesd were vague, unsubstantiated claims, such as "VVAW was founded by several Hollywood personalities, including Jane Fonda. A number of the members and leaders of VVAW were subsequently found to have fabricated their claimed service. Some had never served in Vietnam at all." -- This may or may not be true -- I can't tell. It needs to be more specific about who founded it and provide verifiable citations. Same goes for "Subsequent investigations by military authorities and a reporter were unable to substantiate ..."

The stuff about Jane Fonda and comments by NV general strike me as irrelevent, since there is no close link between Kerry and Fonda. And I very much doubt that the books that were added to Further Reading mention Kerry at all. Bkonrad 14:25, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Being new to Wikipedia, I didn't realize I should create a usership. I am the Anonymous User who added the "garbage." I am not sure what citations you want. I added two books, one of which specifically discusses Kerry and VVAW, the Jane Fonda relationship, the information about the unreliability of the Winter Soldier investigation personnel. I am curious what your assertion that there is no close link between Kerry and Fonda is based on, because the first book describes the link. You removed that well known reference called "Stolen Valor" because you "doubt" that it contains relevant information, but Kerry is the subject of two entries in the book. The second book discusses internal COSVN/PRG/NLF/NVA strategy and how it related to the US anti-war movement, and hence provided source for some of the other information. It was written by the Justice Minister of the NLF, who was also a founder of that organization. The Kerry story is incomplete without a fair description of both his honorable service in Vietnam and his activities just after he returned, including the impact on the treatment of veterans and the subsequent conduct of the war. The current version implies that the Winter Soldier investigation was authoritative, which is incorrect.

Please advise how I can provide references for the material you didn't like and deleted? What is the criteria? Gustnado 23:49, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes deletions are justified, sometimes they are removed by someone who simply doesn't agree with or like what someone says. If you feel your material is factual and well-documented, just restore it (and the citations). In the summary briefly explain why your material is valid. You might even say something like "this is valid and relevant information (see talk)" and then in the talk, explain why you think its "valid and relevant" :) OK? Good luck. Cecropia 00:09, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I looked at your revisions and think they are reasonable if they can be backed up. Cite specifics: not just "a reporter", name him/her. If military officials reviewed the claims, cite a source given in the book "the Department of the Army in 1972 examined the names of soldiers who partipated in the investigation. "Out of about 150 who claimed to be Army veterans, the names of 30 can't be matched to any Army record. [Stolen Valor, p.242]" (Not a real quote, just an example).
Of course, some people may complain that you're putting in too much detail. You can revert and maybe put excess material in talk. Cecropia 00:18, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
My apologies if I offended you Gustnado. I was a little cranky this morning when I came across what you wrote. It is certainly not necessay to have a Username to contribute to Wikipedia, but sometimes it is hard to distinguish "hit-and-run" anonymous contributions from serious ones. Like I wrote above, what you said may well be true--I can't tell. I think Crecopia has given good suggestions about how to revise. (Even though we probably come at this from diametrically opposed positions, I respect Cecropia's contributions and it is helpful to have different perspectives involved to keep things from tilting too far in any one direction.) I'll admit I'm not familiar with either of the books you mentioned. There was nothing in either title to suggest any direct connection with Kerry. Perhaps you could include a very short statement about how the book pertains to Kerry along with the title. One other thing I would suggest keeping in mind is that this is an article about John Kerry. It is not about Jane Fonda, or about the Viet Cong, or the Vietnam War, or the VVAW. Each of those have their own articles to which you can contribute if you have information pertinent to them. Anything in this article should have some direct relevance to Kerry -- and not simply try to discredit him by association. Again, I'm sorry if I offended you and hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Bkonrad | Talk 01:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Nice response, Bkonrad :) Cecropia 02:47, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Balance between Bush and Kerry articles

We have a problem here which, IMO, threatens the integrity of the Wikipedia. Editors (especially anonymous editors) are letting no positive comment on Bush pass unchallenged; no explanation or modification is allowed to stand without deletion and/or complaint, sometimes even when links are provided, and the entire tone of the article reads more like an indictment than an encyclopedia article. Editors are even removing fully documented information refuting specific charges on the basis that it is too wordy.

On the other hand, the Kerry article reads like a campaign biography put out by the DNC, at least until you get well into his war service, and even any factual negative assertion ends with a stronger positive spin. We learn about how he liked to play "kick the can", how competitive he was riding his bicycle, how he cycled into Berlin to look at Hitler's Bunker, and how Scaramouche is his favorite movie. We hear about his rock band and how he sailed with President Kennedy. What an idyllic life! We move right along to his accomplishments (many) and his relationships (admiring). All in all, we get 13 paragraphs mostly of unabashed praise and admiration.

Bush gets four short paragraphs for his personal ife. At this writing, the first one is simply "who was born when". I'm surprised there is no assertion that his little sister was "supposed to have died of leukemia" and that Bush didn't murder her.

In the second paragraph we learn that he earned a BA from Harvard and an MBA from Yale, but it doesn't matter because Daddy got him in college and he's a moron. The information I placed to point out that his SAT score of 1206 put him at the 79th percentile was removed because the statistics for 2003 might not be the same as when he went in, but the combined SAT is scored on a 1200 point scale of 400 to 1600 which makes 1206 about the 67th percentile (still not moron quality) if SAT were a flat scale, but its not, it's a bell curve.

We had material removed that Bush was successful in business because it is alleged to be arguable, but later he's attacked as being successful in business but only because he's crooked.

OK, so now we move on to the third paragraph. where we find out that he has daughters (no charge of incest, how generous) but that he's a war criminal, though he can't be tried because he's making sure the US doesn't ratify the international criminal court.

Pargraph four is just the mini-fact that he and his father are only the second father-son presidential pair in U.S. history.

Come on, people. Are we so partisan that we have no shame as to allow such obvious bias toward the candidates? If someone posted information that Bush has always loved dogs, someone else would post a statistic on how many dogs were killed in the Iraq War.

I don't hate Kerry, and as a veteran who served at just about the same time, I honor his service. I suspect I respect it a lot more than many of his supporters, who have generally not characterized Vietnam-era veterans were well, until just now when it is useful to hail him as a "war hero." I can't remember the last time I heard a Vietnam Vet characterized by the left as a war hero. Take the case of another very liberal (now former) Senator named Kerry (or to be exact Kerrey). Bob Kerrey was (among other things) chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for the 104th Congress. Like our Kerry, he was in the Navy in 'Nam, and was an aggressive commander as a Navy Seal. He lost part of a leg in action. He was involved in similar operations as Kerry (but more of them, since he was in-country way longer) and came out with the Congressional Medal of Honor, I think the highest award possible. Did this save this liberal senator from anti-Vietnam Vet hatred? Not nearly. Check out this article from the liberal website FAIR. Note the date. As part of this storm, The Vietnamese Government accused Kerrey of war crimes. The liberal attack then targeted his being the President of the Progressive New School for Social Research in New York and demanded his removal. [8]. I live in New York and I remember that some of the leftist elements in the City and the University wanted to mount of a mock trial of him as a "war criminal" with the result being his removal. Inconveniently for them, this was still going on on September 11, 2001 and suddenly no one was nearly as interested.

What if Kerrey had been the candidate instead of Kerry? Both Democrats, both war heroes. Would Kerrey then be the war hero and Kerry the "baby-killer"? Or does one judge the quality of Vietnam service by whether or not he can beat Bush?

I shouldn't give up, but I'm almost inclined to let the Bush-haters have their way and let the article stand as an embarassment to Wikipedia. Cecropia 17:41, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kerrey was probably involved in war atrocities. There is no evidence that Kerry was involved in anything similar. Don't want to comment on the other stuff. john 19:00, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Make that "possibly" rather than "probably". There is indication that John Kerry was involved in things that *I* would argue against being considered a war crime or atrocity (beaching his boat against orders and procedure to pursue and kill a fleeing Viet Cong teenager, the incident of the old Man and the water buffalo, firing on positions from which fire was issuing when he knew there were civilians in the area) that those who wanted to try Bob Kerrey for could easly try John Kerry for, but are silent or support Kerry as a "war hero with a chestful of medals" because he can beat Bush.
Consider also that, AFAIK, Bob Kerrey is not accused of personally doing any of the doubtful actions in that village incident, but being in command of those who allegedly did. If they're using that standard, John Kerry is responsible for anything his crewmen did when he was their commander. To reiterate, I'm not accusing John of anything. But there is a significant hypocrisy problem for liberal and leftist critics of Bob and all those who consider Vietnam Vets baby killers but John Kerry a war hero. Cecropia 19:24, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep up the good fight Crecopia. IMO, the GWB article should be able to present all the factual info about dubya, both good and bad. (I'm tempted to make a snide remark about how perhaps the articles merely reflect the relative good and bad qualities of the two men, but that would be uncalled for as well as unfair.) Comparing the two, I agree that the Kerry article has a more soft-pitch presentation of his early life. I would support that approach for the GWB article as well, and leave the criticisms and controversies for later in the article. I've stayed away from the Bush article (largely because I have no interest in him, but also because I know that I would have a hard time remaining unbiased). I suspect that part of the relative imbalance at this point is due to the fact that Bush has been under close scrutiny for many years already and the close scrutiny of Kerry has only just begun. Just as I don't like to see the (IMO) unjustified talking points served up by the RNC included in the Kerry article without rebuttal, I think the same standards should apply to the Bush article. Bkonrad | Talk 19:10, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Bkonrad - a more soft pitch Bush article is fine with me. For instance, I don't think there needs to be any mention that his SAT score was below Yale average, and that he got in because he was a legacy. As to the other points, I will admit I'm not completely familiar with all the details of Kerry and Kerreys' war records. However, I would note that there is surely a difference between saying that some American soldiers committed atrocities in Vietnam and saying that all Vietnam veterans are baby killers. john 19:29, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with the SAT score. It's factual information. And it's relevant. Some people are going to identify with it and say Bush's my kind of guy, he's got common sense not book smarts and others will, of course, feel the opposite. Write it NPOV as much as possible and let the people decide. But don't omit facts. Mdchachi 20:05, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense, we omit facts all the time. There is a question of the relevance of any particular fact. And I'm not sure why somebody's SAT score is relevant to anything. john 02:25, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As I've contributed much of the information that Cercopia feels is worthy of a DNC press release, I guess I should respond. First of all, I'd point out that the information does not come from the DNC or the Kerry campaign, it was compiled from numerous sources. Is all of it relevant or not? But it depends on your philosophy of what wikipedia is for. I think it should all be put in because you and I simply don't know what's going to be relevant to the reader, who could be anyone in the world. Don't assume the article is just being written for some child doing a report for school. SAT score? Favorite color? Astrological sign? Bring it on! It can be relevant in ways you and I simply would never know. As for the Kerry article having much more detail about his youth than the Bush article, there's at least one answer for that: I haven't written much for the Bush article. But here's another reason, and a more important one-- Kerry had a very interesting childhood and did a lot of interesting things in his youth. You may not think it's interesting that he visited Hitler's bunker as a child, but if Kerry becomes President I am certain it will be an important point in his biography, due to the fact that his grandfather's family died in concentration camps. -- Damion
Damion, I have no complaint whatever about the material you've included about Kerry. "Warm and fuzzy" personal stuff is fine with me--still it reads like a campaign biography. My point is not that the Kerry article is too positive, it is that any similarly positive information about Bush is either taken out with someone's ingeuous complaint that "we need to stick to the basics," "this belongs someplace else," and so on, or has to have something negative attached to it, even if its irrelvant. His eight years as governor of Texas (first ever to win two terms) where he earned high marks for bipartisanship from both sides of the aisle gets one sentence. All that is left in about his early life is that he drank. Do you really think Kerry is so squeaky clean? A lot is made of Bush's being helped into Yale as a "legacy" (frankly implying he's stupid), but he not only graduated but went on to become a Harvard MBA. Do you really think that Kerry, who was born rich has never benefited from privilege? But I don't go trying to stuff that into his biography. Obviously (I hope) I'm not implying that you personally are trying to pump up Kerry and bash Bush--as I said, put anything you like into Kerry's bio--if you found out he spent a month when he was nine years old helping hungry puppies, put that in too! I'm complaining about balance, not whether to include individual specifics. Cecropia 03:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well then, the solution would seem to be finding someone who can soften up Bush's bio. I agree, this would be a good step. The Kerry article is, I'd say, quite good and pretty thorough--the solution to this is to add some soft-focus to the Bush bio. Know anybody who can? 'Cause I have no idea. Meelar 04:01, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I posted this in the Kerry talk in the first place because I hoped that POV but fair-minded Kerry supporters might be interested in seeing some balance, or at least be aware that what has been going on with the Bush article is an embarassment. If anyone paid money for an encyclopedia and compared the two articles, they might assume that the editing was so biased that the rest of the encyclopedia is too. I don't see how to "soften" the Bush article, because we have a virtual vigilence committee (often anonymous IPs) continually reediting to suit themselves. A small example is a paragraph which places the positive information that Bush was nominated for a nobel prize for getting rid of Saddam with a comment that he won't get the prize because "law experts" want to try him for war crimes. Now that may seem like "balance" to some people, but none of the three citations appended to the paragraph connects the two. I've tried several times not to excise the war crimes business, but separate the two items. Each time they get stuck back together. Others (including some non-Bush fans) have tried to make the article less of a polemic, and they get reverted too. Cecropia 04:18, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Nobel Prize thing is nonsense. Anyone in the Norwegian parliament can nominate whoever they like, and there's some crazy right wing Norwegian MP who keeps nominating Bush. I don't a "Nobel Prize nomination" is a fact particularly worth mentioning, unless you feel that, say, the stuff that Congressmen submit in proposals for resolutions ("Our country has always been made great by the contributions of lighthouse keepers. This resolution expresses the House's support for the grand tradition of American lighthouse keepers) is worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. That said, it's stupid to say he won't win because "law experts" (what kind of English is that) want to try him for war crimes. The whole "nomination" thing is silly (and implies a formal process like for the Academy Awards, which is not the case), and should just not be discussed in any way. I've removed the whole bit. john 04:40, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vote!

I seek your input at Wikipedia:WikiProject POTUS Campaigns. Please come weigh in. jengod 23:05, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Kerry's sequence number

Normally, we count George Washington as the first President, and John Kerry will be the 44th. However, according to a rectangular box at the bottom of George Washington's article, I now see 8 Presidents of Continential Congress, making George Washington the ninth President and John Kerry the 52nd. User 66.32.68.243

First of all, John Kerry will have to be elected before he becomes any number president. Second, we do not count Presidents of the Continental Congress in the sequencing, since they were presidents of that Congress, and not the executive of the United States. Cecropia 21:16, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You saw a box that told you that Kerry, if elected, will be the 44th President of the United States and that George Washington was the 1st President of the United States. - Woodrow 01:09, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Was Kerry justified in killing the fleeing soldier?

Relative to the sentence added (I put in bold) to the "Combat wounds" subhead:

Kerry chased down and killed a wounded Viet Cong, who had been shot in the leg by a crew-mate and was fleeing with another B-40 rocket. Kerry came back to the boat with the rocket and launcher. He was awarded the Silver Star medal for his actions. There is some controversy about this, as the Geneva Convention is clear about the treatment of wounded enemy soldiers not engaging in combat (and Kerry was himself the commanding officer, recommending the award).

In general, the question would be whether the fleeing soldier was "not engaging in combat." He was still a fair target, especially if he was fleeing with his weapon. The soldiers option at that point would be to surrender or risk death. This is not like a criminal fleeing from the police. The further question (in determining whether Kerry was right or wrong) would be whether Kerry might have stopped him in an disarmed state in which the VC could have unresistingly been taken as a POW, but Kerry shot him anyway. AFAIK, there is no evidence of this. Cecropia

None of us was there and therefore none of us can answer that question. RickK | Talk 15:59, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Understood. That's why I wonder whether the added sentence needs modification. Cecropia 16:15, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Some clarification would be helpful, though I don'd feel qualified to parse the situation. I'm actually more interested in the implication that Kerry as CO recommended himself for the medal. Is this really possible? I know military beauracracy can be strange at times, but I'd think there would be some sort of check on this type of self-promotional action. Bkonrad | Talk 16:24, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I also find the medal thing curious. My own memory (Army not Navy) is that, if someone was comfortable with the commander above them, they could "hint" that a recommendation for a medal would be nice, but I didn't know you could recommend yourself, if that's the way it happened. OTOH, the assertion made elsewhere in the article that Kerry's superior prepared the paperwork for Kerry's early out from 'Nam on the superior's own initiative (not Kerry's) would also be unusual, in that you ordinarily put in your own request for a personnel action. Actually, the latter would be easy to check, if they could find the original paperwork (as with the Bush ANG thing) Cecropia 16:39, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I say we take the medal thing out until a reference can be provided; that just seems way too suspicious. Also, I suggest that the Geneva Conventions part be removed since the enemy was still armed. If he had been unarmed, there would be a Geneva Conventions case, but not if he was carrying a rocket as he fled. --Rei
The whole thing is "curious" if not fishy. [9] Mdchachi 18:28, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/Talk%7EJohn_Kerry_Mar_2004_archive_dde2.html"