Talk:John Kerry/April/May/Archive 4

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.

Contents

Terrorism

Someone has inserted a paragraph toward the end of the entry on the subject of Terrorism that doesn't seem to have any context to it. I'm not opposed to the item being there as long as it's true, but at the moment it doesn't seem to tie in with anything else in the article. Any idea on how this shoudl be handled? Damion

That paragraph was obviously partisan and is about as important to Kerry as it would be to include a paragraph "Bush and trouble with names" stating that George W. Bush once called the Spanish Prime Minister Aznar "Anzar". Get-back-world-respect 00:32, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, such a variety of persons make that mistake (Anzar or Aznar) that even I would forgive Shrubya that one. Or maybe that's your point.142.177.169.255

Have you looked up how many of your google results reported about Bush's error? By the way, did you know Bush also is said to have asked Fernando Cardoso, president of Brazil, the country with the biggest population of blacks outside Africa, "You have blacks, too?" Get-back-world-respect 23:40, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not blaming you personally on this one, GBWR, but you might be glad you didn't put that in the Bush article. Snopes calls this "undetermined" (as to validity) but the text of their article makes makes it seem extremely unlikely, unless, of course, you are predisposed to believe it.[1]

I would not add something like this to the Bush article because I think that man has comitted such serious crimes that wasting space on his ignorance of blacks in Brazil would shed too much of a positive light on him. I know that many Americans do not want to believe it, but the only counter argument I have heard is that the quote was only reported from one source. A friend of Cardoso. But I ask you, do you think Cardoso would confirm it officially in order to enrage America? Do you think any government would confirm that yes, "Our president is an idiot"? Get-back-world-respect 13:36, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to clutter Talk:John Kerry with "Bush is stupid" discussion? --24.0.226.177 09:28, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
Interesting that this section of the discussion that had started about an attempt to smuggle propaganda into the article has three unsigned parts. Since my argumentation was tried to be refuted by partisans twice I replied, but I agree that the discussion went off-topic. Get-back-world-respect 21:32, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Second Tour of Duty

Reddi, your changes are A) poorly worded, and B) remove attribution. This content is quotes from a Boston Globe article. As a consequence, we need to credit the Boston Clobe, or we're committing plagiarism. Furthermore, the attribution indicates who is making the claim, and allows the user to cross reference it. You've had several people now revert your changes; when it's you vs. several other people, you should probably accept that your changes (on this particular issue) are not wanted. --Rei

Reddi, You can't just slap an disputed POV notice on a section without explaining on the talk page what it is that you are disputing. If you do not respond, the notice will be removed. Bkonrad | Talk 17:31, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Second that motion. With the combination of this extremely politically contentious time (election-year 'opinioneering'), war, and this biography that both schoolchildren and regular adults will read, we need to be very, very careful to cite (hopefully trusted, independent, and authoritative) sources. It's not enough to quote a campaign website, methinks, nor hearsay. Rather, the standard should be (IMHO) either a major newspaper or news service source that is being regularly fact-checked by other parties (like their competitors). Justanyone Talk 14:40 13 Apr 2004 (CDT)

Senate Career

He "decided" to replace Tsongas? Come on, we can do better than that. Some mention of the democratic process would be in order, like:

  • campaign for the senate seat
  • date of victory
  • date he took office.

Or was he simply appointed by the governor, after Paul Tsongas died? --Uncle Ed 19:26, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

According to [[2]], in his bio there, it says John Kerry was Liuntenant governor first. Then, when Tsongas died/left office, he ran for the office against a well financed Reagan-coattails GOP candidate. I would like to see some corroboration besides JohnKerry.com. I believe the facts (was Lt.Gov, ran for Tsongas' seat) but would like corroboration on who challenger was, how traditionally democratic the seat was, etc. before writing this bit. Justanyone Talk 10 pm 13 April 2004 CDT.

Fingernail Scrape

It's just plain dumb to qualify the "fingernail scrape" comment by casting ulterior motives on the source (e.g. who is a registered republican and commented on the incident 36 years after it happened). It only verifies what we already knew -- that the injury was minor. We already knew that because (a) Kerry didn't have take any time off to get it treated and (b) Kerry and nobody on his crew has claimed that it was otherwise. Certainly if there were any stitch marks & scar tissue left behind, we'd have seen them by now. What's the big deal? Facts are facts. Mdchachi 18:31, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't see much point in characterizing the wound as a fingernail scrape in the first place, but if you want to include a detail like that, some context is appropriate -- I think a 36-year old memory of a minor incident is just little dubious. I'd actually like to see additional qualifications (from the same source that you cite) stating that it was very common for Purple Hearts to be handed out for minor wounds. Bottom line--even if it was only a "fingernail scrape", so what? And what about the detail that he recieved the wound on what was considered a dangerous covert mission? I say it is either an insignificant detail that is not worth mentioning at all or if it is mentioned it needs to be placed in context. Bkonrad | Talk 18:49, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Feel free to fill out the context further if you like. I think it's pertinent because people are trying to pass Kerry off as a bonafide war hero or something. When in reality, he tried to get a deferment, he pushed to get three purple hearts and then used that to get out of his tour early. I personally don't fault him for it. I wouldn't have wanted to be there either. But the spin-doctoring looks bad and it will cost Kerry the election if he lets it go too far. As to the "risky and covert" characterization. This is in the article but there is no attribution. It sounds like spin to me. What kinds of incursions in enemy territory were not risky and covert? Mdchachi 19:35, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do we really have to discuss that someone said one of the wounds was just a fingerscrape but on the other hand it is so long ago and he was republican? IS it not sufficient to comment that the Purple Hearts at the time were given for whatever wound? Get-back-world-respect 22:52, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

At the time the "three-purple-hearts" issue was well known as a way to get out of 'Nam fast. Some guys were even said to be having a buddy give them a minor wound and claiming it as a war wound to get that third heart. And (as I've said before) I don't fault Kerry one bit for using it for minor wounds; but it is an entry in the question of running as a "war hero." When the brass realized that there were too many three-hearters for minor wounds, they changed the policy.
But anyway, it is a supreme irony to me to see Democrats and U.S. liberals hailing Kerry as a war hero—has to be the first time any of them hailed any Viet Nam vet as a war hero, especially one who admitted he personally killed a Viet Cong. Cecropia 23:02, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'd prefer not including the "fingernail scrape" characterization or the admitedly awkward qualification of it. But it is a factual report that has been going around. If the CO's characterization stays in, I think some sort of qualification of the remark and circumstances of the wound is appropriate. Feel free to rewrite though. It is definitely not my best writing. Bkonrad | Talk 23:43, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The Toledo Blade recently won a Pulitzer Prize for revealing that the Tiger Force even did body count contests about "who will kill Viet Cong No. 327", cover-ups endured until last year's revelations. The fact that Kerry fought for his country bravely in the war but came to the conclusion that the war was wrong in my eyes is evidence for the fact that he knows more about warfare than many others, currently a helpful qualification. Are you Cecropia as a freeper as well? Get-back-world-respect 21:10, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There are six sentences given on how bad Kerry's wounds were. Do you think any encyclopedia with the honest will to give valuable information would cover this so excessively? <<He was treated for a small piece of shrapnel in his arm and he immediately returned to duty. The wound was described by his former commanding officer as resembling a "scrape" when asked about it in 2004, though Kerry disputes this. At the time Purple Hearts were often granted for even minor injuries incurred on the battlefield. (...) One of his three injuries cost him "about two days" of active service and the other two did not interrupt his duty. Faced with criticism, Kerry has pledged to release his Vietnam medical records; his presidential campaign spokesman Michael Meehan stated: "We have a military record we are glad to run on, not run from.>> I delete the scrape stuff, relevant is only that he had got medals and that they were given out for minor injuries as well. Get-back-world-respect 20:33, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It's relevant because this is a campaign issue that we probably won't see the end of. Anti-Kerry pundits are bleating crap about his minor wounds which led to his early escape from the war. So rather than hide the facts we should include them. The sentence you put -- that medals were given for minor injuries -- is not relevant unless you first mention that his injury was minor. Personally I didn't think that sentence looked very good there but I was courteous to you and left it in. I've been reasonable about this (left out the "fingernail" in my last version and tried to take peoples opinions into account). But if you want to have an edit war over it, I will. I've never been part of an edit war before so maybe it's time. Mdchachi|Talk 21:15, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Can anyone actually back up the claim that purple hearts were granted for minor wounds, or that Kerry pushed to get the purple hearts? If not, well, this kind of smells like smear. And we don't want that. --Rei
Rei, I'll back up that purple hearts were issued for minor wounds. Did Kerry push? I don't know. Many did, if for no other reason than to get another medal or to work toward the magic three. Smear? Two (maybe all) of the three would probably have been awarded on the later policy, but only the last would probably have counted toward an early out. It is as good or bad a campaign issue as many others being thrown around by both sides. After November, nobody will care where Bush was for a year, or if Kerry had a "fingernail scratch". Also see my two paragraphs below, which I wrote before I saw your comment above.
I haven't been active in editing the main article recently, but having been in service the same time as Kerry, I know the culture and what was going down. This is my short take on what Kerry's service was like: He entered service according to a tradition that was common in his social class (as did the elder Bush in WWII and many others) and before Vietnam had fully geared up to what we know today. During his first tour he was in no realistic danger. In his second tour he was able to get what he thought was a safe assignment, but (the vagaries of war being what they are) turned out to be very dangerous indeed. In that assignment he performed both admirably and bravely, exceeding the norm. But he also took advantage of the "three-purple-heart" trick to get out as soon as could (four months of a year tour, IIRC). He was perfectly entitled to use; many others did, and I would have done the same. The 3PH issue was so often used, that they subsequently changed the policy (not because of Kerry obviously) to mean three purple hearts based on more significant wounds than he apparently suffered in two of the three incidents.
In short, he went in voluntarily, didn't like it much and got out when he could, but when he was in the thick of it, performed with merit. That description is typical of a lot of 'Nam experience. Hey, I knew lifers who left service with 17-18 years to avoid returning to Nam. I have been loathe to criticize him because he did so much more than most of the time, including National Guarders such as GW Bush and Dan Quayle and, outstandingly, Bill Clinton. OTOH, if we're talking "war hero," he did much much less than his fellow Vietnam Ver and liberal Democrat Bob Kerrey. Take this FWIW. Cecropia 21:41, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I was asking for more than just "I'll back up..." I was wanting a reference. Do you have one? I've seen a number of people claim it, but never seen a single reference. I would appreciate it. By the way, I agree with your assessment of Kerry's service. I just want to get insinuation out of the article. --Rei
  • Regarding PHs for minor wounds, check out the Boston Globe article that broke the story about the fingernail scrape. That is where I recall seeing it. 'Course, some might not consider that an unbiased source. Bkonrad | Talk 22:20, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
A link? Or at least an article name so I can track it down? Also, I found the regulation for the Purple Heart, 600-8-22. The key points: 1) You cannot request a purple heart or even be recommended for it. It is automatic apon meeting criteria 2) The wound must have required treatment by a medical officer. 3) Examples provided of cases that deserve the purple heart: injury caused by bullets, shrapnel, other projectiles, mines, traps, WMDs, vehicle accidents caused by enemy fire, and concussion injuries from explosions. So, it would seem that if there was shrapnel, it would qualify, but it would have to be significant enough to require medical treatment. A "fingernail scrape" would not meet that; noone is going to go in for treatment of a little scratch. It may well have been minor, but it was significant enough for treatment. --Rei
Scratch reference (current and June 2003 article before he was an active candidate And I see you found the reg on purple hearts. As to the "significant enought to require medical treatment" means you went to the infirmary to have it looked at and something was done for you, even if it was a dressing and some APCs. Cecropia 23:27, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
None of those, however, said that Purple Hearts were being given out readily. They both have a quote (albeit, strangely, with different words) that there were a *lot* of purple hearts being given out, but that could just as well mean that there were a lot of people getting wounded (which, in fact, there were - esp. shrapnel wounds). It takes a lot to keep a person off their feet. --Rei
(Moving this out again as we're at the 8th level of indent or so...}
Rei, as far as I can see, the argument is not (or should not be) about whether the Purple Hearts were legitimate--I have no doubt that they were. The standard I remember was simple: a wound in combat, period. If someone was scraped by sharpnel, he got a PH. If he was more seriously injured in an action, and/or showed particular merit (as Kerry's stars) the PH and other citations as well. The controversy at the time wasn't really over how wounded you had to be to get a PH, but as to whether it was truly combat related--i.e., someone had too much to drink in someone's hooch, staggered out, scraped himself on a piece of equipment, and said that Charlie took a potshot at him. I don't think in anyone's wildest fantasy that Kerry got his injuries other than in legitimate combat.
The issue, if there is one, is his early out from 'Nam. That kind of thing required a "Personnel Action." The form of an Action would have read something like this in the Army (I'm sure it was something similar in the Navy). "I, PFC John Jones, having received three Purple Hearts in battle, requests reassignment to [something or other outside of the battle zone] as specified in AR 12.34, paragraph 36f. The Purple Hearts were awarded [dates and locations). [and so on and so on]. Then there would be a signature block for the soldier to sign and additional signature blocks for each commander up the chain of command to the one who actually would give final approval with the words "Approve" and "Disapprove" above each block. Have everyone cross out the "Disapprove" and sign it and you were in—or should I say "out."
Seeking such an out was an ordinary thing to do, though it would have negative career implications for a lifer, especially an officer; but I don't think there was ever any question of Kerry making a career of the service. IMHO the only question is simple: did Kerry ever pretend that his wounds were more than they actually were? Or that he was gung ho for the war? AFAIK I know the answer to each is "no" which makes it a non-issue for me. Frankly, I think any problem Kerry has with this is the comments others have carelessly made pumping up the issue, culminating in DNC chair Terry McAuliffe's bashing Bush by comparing his safe stateside service to Kerry's war service: "I look forward to that debate, when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL." That hyperbole, if it had come from Kerry himself, could have been very damaging to him, especially the "chest full of medals" which opens the door to the question: "how did he get those medals, anyway." With friends like McAuliffe (who never served and was Clinton's man) who needs enemies? Cecropia 03:00, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I cannot believe you want to keep such minor information in the article. All I see that is relevant is that he got three hearts for injuries and that a heart did not mean you had lost a foot or so. <<He was treated for a small piece of shrapnel in his arm and he immediately returned to duty. The wound was described by his former commanding officer as resembling a "scrape" when asked about it in 2004, though Kerry disputes this. At the time Purple Hearts were often granted for even minor injuries incurred on the battlefield. (...) One of his three injuries cost him "about two days" of active service and the other two did not interrupt his duty. Faced with criticism, Kerry has pledged to release his Vietnam medical records; his presidential campaign spokesman Michael Meehan stated: "We have a military record we are glad to run on, not run from.". is just not encyclopedia text but election campaign stuff. Get-back-world-respect 22:45, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'll second this. We might as well start shoving in the glowing remarks about Kerry's behavior by his comrades, and those of his officers in his recently-released records, if we're going to put stuff like that. --Rei
We treated this ad nauseam, Cecropia, why do you keep bringing this up? Will you next add a paragraph "John Kerry spent a lot of time in France, a country that opposed the Iraq war because of financial interests"? Get-back-world-respect 13:26, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hardly the point. This has become a curret topic in the general press in the US, and for the first time, since some medical records have been released, we have a direct reference instead of pieces and hearsay, with a citation. I will look it over to see if it can be better worded. An encyclopedia should have the most accurate description of an included topic, don't you think? Cecropia 13:42, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This is not an overview of the US press but an international enyclopedia. An encyclopedia should have the most accurate description of an included topic, I do think, but an encyclopedia should include valuable topics, not gossip. Get-back-world-respect 14:20, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
DId you read the reference? (New York Times, not right wing press, nor the Guardian of the UK). This is not gossip, it's Kerry's medical records. What do you mean by "this is an international encylopedia"--this happens to be the U.S. election for the U.S. President, not the European election for the U.S. President, not the Canadian election for U.S. President. The extent of Kerry's wounds is a current topic with the people who will be voting for the U.S. President. Does the word "buttock" bother you? It's a direct quote. Cecropia 14:27, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I do not question the accuracy of the information nor the source, I just think that it is completely irrelevant and that there was consensus about this for a while after the discussion. This is not an election campaign site but an encyclopedia article, where it is of NO importance whether he has something in his buttock or got a fingernail scratch. I repeat what I wrote above and what others seemed to have agreed with: "relevant is only that he had got medals and that they were given out for minor injuries as well". Get-back-world-respect 14:34, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, you did question the accuracy. You referred to the paragraph as "gossip." I'm sure you would take it amiss if I tried to micromanage what material is appropriate in an article about a figure in an election for a political post in Canada. Cecropia 14:55, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There was gossip in a British tabloid about chancellor Schroeder dying his hair. Schroeder even sued them an won, lots of journalists waisted our time with their coverage of "the affair". But since it is only gossip no encyclopedia would think about including it in an article about Schroeder. Get-back-world-respect 15:09, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Accurate medical records about the nature of wounds received to get an early out from combat for a person running as a "war hero" are rather more significant than a rumor of whether a politician is dying his hair. A more apt comparison to Schroeder is that there is a rumor that Kerry has used Botox or had plastic surgery since he looks decidedly younger than he did a couple of years ago, but it is a rumor, is not important to his campaign or competence and is not in the article. Cecropia 15:18, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Merovingian, if you see reverts, why do you not look at talk and history instead of claiming "I didn't know there was an edit war going on here"? Get-back-world-respect 14:40, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I had seen your most recent edit in RC, clicked "diff" and saw that you had deleted a paragraph. I rolled it back because you deleted material that was both neutral and appropriate. I saw no connotations in the removed text that would make the average person lean one or the other. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 14:48, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
Do not revert without checking talk if you see that there is a discussion going on. As you could see in history there were people with different opinions. First read, then think about it, then you can explain your own point of view and then edit. Get-back-world-respect 15:09, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Whenever I see this information, I can't stop wondering about how, if we have things like how Kerry's wounds were treated with bacitracin, how we can justify removing any irrelevant detail. Like, "When Kerry returned home, his first dinner was fried chicken, snow peas, a baked potato, and milk."
Also, if we're going to be putting information about the wounds in quotes, it should be taken straight from the medical record. Putting quotes about a NYT description of the medical records makes it sound like one is quoting the record. The NYT *really* summed up the treatment - for example, if you'll look at Kerry's file, the record described as a "fingernail scrape" wasn't just treated with bacitracin, but involved removing the piece of shrapnel that caused the wound first. Check out the records - they're on Kerry's site, under the D-bunker section. --Rei
Rei, if it's that important to you to obscure the fact that a "war hero" used two trivial (in terms of combat) wounds plus one slightly more serious wound to escape the field of battle, and that your judgment of what is significant is better than that of the New York Times' (hardly a friend of Bush), I won't bother to revert it, although I would note that, since you found the medical record, most Wikipedians would say you should have improved the paragraph rather than delete it.
I'm willing to specify that the current paragraph is good enough; I was trying to put in what appeared accurate information instead of the previous innuendo on the issue. In the long run it won't matter much. There are six months left of the campaign—we've already heard in great detail about a 30-year-old non-accident DUI, allegations of corrupt dealing, getting into Yale on a legacy, and all kinds of other stuff on Bush, but we've barely scratched the surface (no pun intended) on Kerry. The press is starting to look at his selective memory on the VVAW. Meetings where guys were proposing bad stuff (like offing U.S. senators) that he just can't recall being at--not saying he wasn't there--he just can't recall. Or the old man and the water buffalo. Nixon, anyone? Or that Kennedy aide Adam Willinsky, who Kerry was acting as a volunteer pilot for, coached him on his famous Senate testimony. Is this true? I wasn't there. But I have a feeling we'll find out. Cecropia 16:15, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Could you please at least keep your irrelevant stuff to the anti-Kerry campaign 2004? If Rei had found the record about what Kerry had for breakfast on September 11th, should he also have improved rather than deleted? Get-back-world-respect 00:05, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This is not what Kerry had for breakfast, and Talk is not the article anyway. But why do you and Rei think you are the last word on what is relevant? Cecropia 00:29, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
We do not think we are the last word, we just bring up arguments rather than buttocks and fingernails. Get-back-world-respect 01:06, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
As a compromise, I put a 1-sentence summary of the controversy, and provided two links: One directly to Kerry's medical records, and one to a WP article that, unlike the NYT article, gives the full medical treatment cites. Does this sound fair? If people want more than this, I suggest that a new article be created akin to the issue with Bush's Vietnam service. I doubt there's enough information to justify such a course of action, however. With the medical records linked, I think that pretty much deals with the issue. --Rei
we just bring up arguments Believe it or not, some of us aren't here to argue. Some of us want interesting articles with as little bias as possible. Like it or not, the nature of Kerry's wounds is (a) interesting and (b) an issue that has come up and will come up again during this campaign. So please stop deleting facts just because you don't like them or think they are extraneous. If you think something is POV or unbalanced than reword it. That's the basic rule of the wiki. If something is truly extraneous then nobody will complain when you remove it. Mdchachi|Talk 16:21, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
ARGUMENT 3b: a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion. The nature of Kerry's wounds is as interesting and what we know about it as much a fact as the dress Lady Di wore when she was killed. Appropriate for an encyclopedia? The only difference is that you are currently more influenced by the US media coverage of the presidential campaign than the British yellow press. If something is truly not extraneous then neither Rei nor I will complain when you include it. Get-back-world-respect 17:13, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You still don't get it -- this is an article not an argument. Therefore no premise or conclusion is necessary. This is, in effect, a mini-biography. Can you imagine having a biography of a war veteran and not throwing in basic details about their war wounds? This is exactly the kind of fact that would be included in a real encyclopedia.
Unfortunately for you and Rei, the two of you are not the last word on this article. Cecropia and I thought your inclusion about Radack in the GWB article was extraneous. Yet we let it stay because you felt strongly about it. I ask that you extend the same courtesy. It is factual and I disagree with your assessment that it's irrelevant. And why, pray tell, are you concerned about this particular wound yet were perfectly happy to leave the sentences about the wounds in his arm and leg in the article?
Rei, why did you object to the addition of "some" regarding the military records? The WP article referenced there refers to the "partial disclosure" of his medical records and said that he was not going to post them on the web site for full public view. What evidence do you have to the contrary? Mdchachi|Talk 18:58, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
My main objection to the line is simply that it's redundant - the military records are linked, as well as an article that summarizes them. It if *really* matters to you, I won't object, but it just seems kinda silly to start referencing the worst things from Kerry's military record. How can you justify referencing that, and not, for example, the heaps of praise placed on him by his commanders? I mean, if you can answer that sufficiently to yourself, I'll stop objecting, but it seems pretty silly to me.
As for the word "some", the Kerry campaign released his entire military records. He requested that the Navy give his campaign the entire file, and his campaign received 150 pages, which are all posted. Now, he also has his personal files which have not been completely disclosed (hence, since the Navy didn't have a doc for his Purple Heart, he posted a "Sick Call Treatment Record" from his personal files which had a hand written note, stamped from the naval support facility). However, everything that the Navy had on hand he has posted. There have since been some calls to release his personal files, but the calls haven't been as intense since the Navy's records more glorified than damaged his term in service.
At least, unless you think his campaign is lying, which is always a possibility, but I think it is below us to accuse as such without any evidence or even intensive challenges by the Right (outside of sludge dealers like Newsmax). --Rei
First of all I disagree that this is a particularly negative thing. It's human interest more than anything else. My main goal here is to prevent the article from being sanitized of anything remotely embarrassing because then it will seem to have been written by DNC lackeys and not to be taken seriously by the average reader.
I have no objection to summarizing or including comments from his commanders. But there are plenty of people around here quite willing to do that so it's not something I would spend my time on.
re: military records, wouldn't it be more accurate to say he released all records that were recently released to him by the Navy? After all, he didn't release his personal medical records except a 30 minute show-and-tell and he didn't ask the Navy to do so. Mdchachi|Talk 21:12, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
re: military records, wouldn't it be more accurate to say he released all records that were recently released to him by the Navy? -- That is exactly right, Mdchachi. I have no reason to believe that he didn't release all the [non-medical] records he had but anyone who's been in the service and especially dealt with military administration knows that there are a lot more records to be had. His release of records includes such insignificant trivia as the award of his National Defense Service Medal and his Serviceman's Life Insurance, but the pile of paperwork does not include the originating documents for any of his orders, such as the then-cuurent Naval equivalent of the DA2496 or (IIRC) DD96 ot 98 Disposition Form which constituted the original request for (e.g.) reassignment out of combat zone for the three purple hearts, since some contend that the request was filed without his knowledge and/or consent. - Cecropia 21:55, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think you're a bit confused, Cecropia. Who has claimed that Kerry didn't request reassignment out of a combat zone? I think you're confusing that with claims from some right-wing groups that Kerry requested his Purple Hearts. I mean, if Kerry was trying to deny that he requested duty outside of Vietnam, there would have been a scandal when this was released (LTJG KERRY REQ DUTY AS PERSONAL AIDE..... etc). --Rei
----BRING OUT BECAUSE OF MULIPLE INDENTS----
I don't read right wing publications, Rei, nor am I a "ditto head." In fact I agree with Al Franken that Rush Limbaugh is "a big fat jerk." However, I also think Al Franken is a big fat jerk. OK, now that we've dispensed with the pleasantries...
I don't know who wrote it originally, but this was in the Kerry article here (as of March):
On March 17, 1969, Commodore Charles Horne, an administrative official and commander of the coastal squadron in which Kerry served, filled out a document that said Kerry "has been thrice wounded in action while on duty incountry Vietnam. Reassignment is requested as a personal aide in Boston, New York, or Washington, D.C. area." There has been some debate about whether Kerry asked Horne to write the letter, or if Horne did so on his own.
I don't know who wrote that, but evidently either there was a story going around that Kerry did not request this himself, or else the writer felt they needed to cover up for Kerry by using the old "there has been some debate..." This now reads:
On March 17, 1969, Commodore Charles Horne, an administrative official and commander of the coastal squadron in which Kerry served, filled out a document that said Kerry "has been thrice wounded in action while on duty incountry Vietnam. Reassignment is requested as a personal aide in Boston, New York, or Washington, D.C., area."
If Kerry requested this himself, which I am quite certain he did, we don't need to know the name of the administrative official who submitted the paperwork. Cecropia 00:17, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I do not really see why you make such a noise about all this. I personally regard a person as a war hero much more because he fought for the end of the war that turned US soldiers into war criminals (My Lai massacre, Tiger Force)than because he got some minor or serious wounds. A wound is nothing to be proud of, nor is it a shame not to have lost a foot.

Mdchachi, you did not get it. This is an article, but arguments should be used in a discussion about how the article can be improved. I agree that a biography of a war veteran should have basic details about war wounds, i.e. in this case they were not extremely serious and the medals he got for them were given out not only to people who lost a foot. I can however not accept excessive statements about with which dressing they were treated, how many stitches were required to sew which of his buttocks, who compared them to what, and how many days they cost his service. I still think it is rather clumsy to have the last of these irrelevant pieces of information in quotation marks. Who stated it, where is the source, why is it needed and was there not someone else who debated this and why is that one left out? I still would like to know why his alleged turkey (not the plastic one) eating is not reported.

Fortunately for all of us, no one has a last word here but the articles develop according to what many editors think should be included, excluded or reworded.
I agree that Jesselyn Radack is not particularly important to George W. Bush personally, so I cleared that problem. She is still linked to from my page and most importantly from that of John Walker Lindh. In my eyes it is outrageous how such scandals can go hardly noticed in the US, but my personal opinion is not relevant to an encyclopedia. The sentences about the wounds in his arm and leg in the article were just facts - at least they looked to me as such - not nonsense about, I repeat myself, with which dressing they were treated, how many stitches were required to sew which of his buttocks, who compared them to what, and how many days they cost his service. I still think it is rather clumsy to have the last of these irrelevant pieces of information in quotation marks. Who stated it, where is the source, why is it needed and was there not someone else who debated this and why is that one left out? I still would like to know why his alleged turkey (not the plastic one) eating is not reported. Get-back-world-respect 01:21, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for seeing the light on Radack. Give me a few weeks and maybe I'll see the light on this issue and come back to remove references to his injuries. :) I have tried to address your other concerns about the quotation -- it was a quote from the Boston Globe that was attributed to Kerry (easy enough to find if you Google for "kerry about-two-days purple heart").
Rei, (Re: Who has claimed that Kerry didn't request reassignment out of a combat zone? ) if you read the mainstream papers you'll see plenty of subtle spin implicating just that. Like in

this article which says "After the third Purple Heart, the Navy was required to reassign Kerry out of Vietnam". The implication being that it wasn't something that Kerry requested and he had no choice but to leave combat. Mdchachi|Talk 14:28, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know where the "Charles Home" comment came from, but a google search of "Charles Home", "Kerry", and "Vietnam" returns no relevant results. "Commodore Charles Home" returns no results at all. Also, I couldn't find anything on a google news search indicating that Kerry claimed that anyone but he requested the reassignment, but perhaps you've seen something somewhere. As for the "After the third Purple Heart..." line, I can easily see how a person could misinterpret the fact that a person *can* be transferred out as meaning that a person *has* to be transferred out. Whoever wrote it should have been more careful; I doubt it was anything insidious. --Rei

Hibbard's Criticism

I've just made some edits I'd like to explain. I removed the "conspiratorial" sounding phrases "it is a little know [sic] fact that" and "a so-called 'injury' ". Hibbard's claims have been published and discussed in the mainstream press, and Kerry did, in fact, receive an injury. Secondly, I've removed the sentence "Whether Kerry did this in order to cheat on his military record, or simply because he was young and ignorant of the guidelines for genuinely earning a Purple Heart award, remains unclear." because I believe it presents a false choice by assuming Hibbard's claims are true to begin with. Besides, the Purple Heart article states, "The Purple Heart is awarded... to any member of an Armed Force who, while serving with the United States Armed Services after April 5, 1917, has been wounded or killed... [in] any action against an enemy of the United States..." It seems to me that Kerry's injury satisfies that criterion. Finally, I've added two points about Hibbard from (the Pensacola NewsJournal article): (1) that he gave Kerry a positive performance evaluation back at the time and (2) that he's a member of a larger group of veterans critical of Kerry's record during and after the war. - 216.61.33.185 21:33, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pershing photo

I am against including portraits of other people in an article about a person. If he is so important he should get his own article. Get-back-world-respect 23:11, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me, but at the same time it is not essential to the article either. So no arguments from me if you want to remove it. Bkonrad | Talk 23:54, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Family twice?

I do not like the splitting of "family background" in the beginning and then "family" in the ending part. That should be together at the top. Get-back-world-respect 23:30, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Active Duty Period

The Wiki article now says he was on active duty from 1968 to 1972. Yet according to this he received his honorable discharge on January 3, 1970. Is it possible to be on "active duty" after being discharged? Or is snopes wrong? Mdchachi|Talk 14:35, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I tracked down the discrepancy which was likely due to the fact that some biographies (& Kerry's own site) conveniently used to omit the fact that he was in the naval reserve while participating in his antiwar activities. His site used to say he was in the reserve from 1972-1978. Now they omit the reserve period altogether. Mdchachi|Talk 15:07, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Snopes is almost certainly wrong, but probably by misunderstanding, not intent. Kerry receives his separation from active duty in 1970--that's the DD214 form. He would have gotten his honorable discharge only when he was completely removed from service obligation, and not before. Also, it was common then to have long periods of inactive reserve duty if you served significant active duty. This was only technically "military service" and only meant something if you re-enlisted later, as it would count toward retirement. Cecropia 15:37, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Snopes had the dates right anyway. The Wiki was off by two years. Mdchachi|Talk 16:09, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Just as a trivium, whoever posted Kerry's records on his site doesn't seem to know what s/he was looking at. The link to "Honorable Discharge" shows his discharge from OCS school, not what you would expect to find. BTW, I can't find his military records on the "D-Bunker" section any more. [3] Cecropia 16:35, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ah, I found them [4] -- they were linked from "About," not "D-Bunker." I notice that Kerry (or his staff) have decided to go for broke on the Bush v. Kerry military history thing, going deep into minutiae. That's a really interesting strategy which could help or hurt Kerry a lot. The questions about Bush have been chewed over in 2000 and again this year, but there's a lot about Kerry that people haven't heard. Cecropia 16:45, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
My apology - I thought I had initially found them under D-bunker. I must have been mistaken. I bookmarked the page once I found it  ;) --Rei
"There's a lot about Kerry that people have'nt heard"? Do tell us, please. -6X 17:37, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've been watching Kerry on and off since I first became aware of him when I was at the VVAW march (by chance) in 1971. He had a reputation for self-promotion that rubbed some the wrong way.
However, the specific point I was alluding to above is that charges against Bush, whether politically valid or not, are mostly rehashing of material that's been going around for year—the understanding of Kerry is evolving, and newly found material usually has more impact than old material. I think the worst thing for Kerry (as I have said before) was Terry McAuliffe's "war hero with a chest full of medals" statement. That kind of hyperbole attracts interest and criticism, just as Bush's photo-op on the carrier did. So we shall see. IMHO Kerry's basic problem is not going to be "flip-flopping" per se, but the fact that he has seemed to take positions of convenience that don't mesh well. He was an Anti-War Hero, accusing himself and virtually every person who served in that era of "War Crimes" and throwing away the symbols of his service when it suited his persona, and now he is a War Hero who served his nation proudly, when he's running for President during wartime. Cecropia 17:53, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, Terry McCauliffe is a sharp guy, whos also a bit of a self-serving jerk. He should have chosen a more honorable profession; something which he might have to work at, rather than be naturally accustomed. If thats the worst of it, then your claim is more a read into the turns and tides of political perception. This does not take into account deliberate manipulations, mistakes, and Kerry's face looking too green on TV (No enough sun? Bad lighting? Too many veggies?) Flip-Flopper? I have yet to talk to a single Vet from either side who is not, so I don't really talk with any. ^_^ =SiX
Flip-Flopper? I have yet to talk to a single Vet from either side who is not. In what way? Cecropia 18:38, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I personally would prefer if we could skip the "Cecropia explains the world and especially why Kerry is a bad guy" sections. I do however not want to let it stand undiscussed that Kerry accuded himself and virtually every person who served in that era of "War Crimes". As we all know, the US forces did commit war crimes in the My Lai massacre, with the Tiger Force and in numerous other cases. That does not mean that every veteran is personally responsible for war crimes nor that Kerry is nor that he said so. He and his fellows are responsible for bringing this war to an end. Get-back-world-respect 23:44, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Please, I have to protect my trademark: Cecropia Explains It AllTM. -- Cecropia 04:49, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Archiving

This page is at 161K. I'm going to archive some of the older discussions. Please don't be alarmed. I plan to include pointers to some of the more contentious discussions, so that (hopefully) we don't have to rehash things if they come up again. older ≠ wiser 15:34, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The page is still at 65K or so, which is probably not such a problem. But I'd like to break with a strictly chronological archiving by month and move the several "Family History" sections into a separate archive and similarly move the "Fingernail scrape" discussion into a separate archive. Rationale: those two items by far constitute the majority of the page's current bulk. The family history discussion seems to have quieted down for now, but it looks like the Fingernail scrape is still being actively discussed. Is there any objections to moving these sections into separate archives? Thought I'd ask first, since these were two of the more contentious recent issues. older ≠ wiser 16:14, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I do not think it would be wise to put an active discussion into an archive. Newer users might get puzzled. But moving the family disussion is ok with me, except for the "twice" issue, which still has not been dealt with. Get-back-world-respect 20:23, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Grandfather's suicide and Kerry's depression

I don't think it's wise to hide grandfather's suicide like Get-Back-World-Respect proposes, as possibly Kerry's sometime depression could be genetic and inherited. That is not a NPOV criticism of Kerry's character, simply an observation (scary, a little bit) of his erratic behavior. Might he one day pull troops out of Iraq like the Spanish, in 3 days? Might he join a war, then oppose it? Might he marry, divorce, annul, and marry again? Might he have his finger on the button when N. Korea's dictator goes crazy himself? Kerry can't be blamed for his inherited personality, but can voters be blamed for selecting someone a little warmer, rooted in friends and family, and faith? Regs, Anon1453.

If the suicide were further back in Kerry's family history, I might omit it (even though it is at least as relevant as a lot of the more distant family past posted, such as a prominent Rabbi 400 years ago). Moreover, even if there is no genetic disposition issue, knowledge of the suicide of a close relative can be a significant influence in anyone's life, as is any other dramatic life event, such as Bush's loss of a young sister to Leukemia or Al Gore's son almost losing his life in a pedestrian accident, an event which Gore found life-transforming. Cecropia 16:11, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
Your argumentation just shows what an evil agenda you have. Yes, because his grandfather committed suicide he will blow the world up. Just as because George H. W. Bush already failed in Iraq and let Hussein murder the Shiites who had previously been encouraged to mutinize now George W. Bush had to fail as well, leaving Afghanistan in anarchy, Iraq close to a civil war and Guantanamo full of people caged in like animals without any rights. It is all genetic... No wonder you did not dare to write that nonsense after logging in. Get-back-world-respect 16:17, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Golum and Hanoi

Golum is no invention by a single person but originated in an old tale as described on its page. It also has no personal relevance to John Kerry. Furthermore, I oppose mentioning derrogatory nick names. They should be included in the campaign articles if at all. Or would you like to see "Opponents call him the chimp or idiot son of an asshole" at George W. Bush's article? An encyclopedia is no place for hate-speech. By the way, if you really need it, there is a Sandbox for fooling around... Get-back-world-respect 22:18, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

The Golum thing would be colorful is that particular rabbi was supposed to have created that particular supernatural being, just so it was presented as a legend—the original wording implied it was true. As it is, I don't think anyone beyond grandparents should be mentioned unless the subject person knew them personally. Once you get to great-grandparents you're up to eight ancestors, then 16, then 32, and so on (although at a certain point the lines of a geneology chart inevitably begin to cross. That Kerry had ancestors that dealt opium, or ate it, or cut people into little pieces, or were kings or world rulers, really doesn't belong, IMHO.
Just as a side point, both Bush and Kerry are full of blue blood, but the US constitution specifically prohibits titles of nobility for a reason. Suppose (one way or the other) Kerry is running in 2008 and his Republican opponent is Condoleza Rice or Colin Powell?—not likely, perhaps, but hardly impossible. Wouldn't people be embarassed to explain that it's important that Kerry is descended from Charlemagne (as someone put in an earlier version of this article) and those people aren't? -- Cecropia 22:48, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
I put back Hanoi John. This is not some vulgar cheap insult like idiot son, but a prominent appellation used by politicians. It's informative to note, I see no reason not to mention it. -- VV 19:52, 9 May 2004 (UTC) (edited VV 00:17, 10 May 2004 (UTC))
Do you have a reference of a politician calling him so? As I already told you when you asked me about what was going on between TDC and me, I repeat that I think trying to insult someone says more about the person who does it than about anyone else. So we might want to include it in the article about the politician who raised the comment. Get-back-world-respect 22:11, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
A specific person is named in the article as having said it; he's not the only one anyway. It may be true that insulting someone is wrong, but we are reporting an insult, not making it ourselves. This one is newsworthy, public, and relevant to the political scene. (For instance, we wouldn't suppress that that czar was called Ivan the Terrible by many.) -- VV 00:17, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
I very much doubt minor Congressmen will achieve their aim and get their label into the history books. I think we should not mention every insult in an encyclopedia, such smear should just be ignored. We would not have enough space to mention all the disparaging titles George W. Bush was awarded in worldwide parliaments. Get-back-world-respect 00:38, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
YMMV, but I hear this one a lot and so consider it part of the political discourse. Also, history books might be too high a standard; I doubt Chandra Levy will make that cut either, but she deserves an article here. -- VV 01:08, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Whether you hear this one a lot depends on your surrounding. I repeat that I very much doubt minor Congressmen will achieve their aim and get their label into the history books and that I think we should not mention every insult in an encyclopedia, such smear should just be ignored. Get-back-world-respect 00:50, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Kerry's maternal Northeastern ancestors owned slaves and merchant ships

To refute GETBACKWORLDRESPECT, Kerry's ancestors DID own slaves and were international merchant traders, in the Northeast. FACT: New York and many New England states were SLAVE states until a generation after the Revolution. FACT: the Hackett ancestors of KERRY owned slaves in New York. Others as well - shall I do the research on Winthrops, Cabots, etc? to prove this point more forcefully? CONCEDE or perish! Anon1453

Golems and slavers

I reverted the attempt to restore Golum and the new Slave owner items. For one thing, there are no such thing as Golums, therefore that rabbi didn't create one. And "slave owners"? If you can show me Kerry owns slaves, I'll listen. There's plenty of real negative stuff on Kerry, as on other politicians, why do people have to reach back to nonsense just for a smear? -- Cecropia 17:16, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, Golum is a figure important in literature. It just most probably was not created by a single person but evolved from an old myth people told each other. Regarding slaves, how many white Americans do NOT have ancestors who had slaves? I learned at school US segregation "ended" in the middle of the last century... Get-back-world-respect 19:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
The point is that Golum is a mythical creature. As to white Americans and slavery—the great majority now alive did not have slave-owning ancestors. The great immigrations occurred after the end of slavery in the south in 1865. Slavery ended in the north at various times. In New York State it was in the 1820s. Only the south had large numbers of slaves due to the labor-intensive nature of cotton and tobacco, and even there a minority ever owned slaves. It is rather like the modern question: "How many people employ transient workers?" If would be primarily farmers. No, I'm not comparing slavery with transient work--I'm pointing out the economic underpinning of slave-ownership.
However, all this has nothing to do with Kerry. If it turned out that one of his ancestors was Dracula, I wouldn't see the necessity of hanging wolfbane in my bedroom if he were coming to my city. -- Cecropia 21:55, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

If his father had created Mickey Mouse it would be interesting to know, although Mickey Mouse is not real either. About slave-ownership: Just because many immigrated to the US after slavery was abolished over there does not mean they do not have ancestors involved in slavery. Do not forgot it was old Europe that started shipping slaves from Africa to America. Get-back-world-respect 22:05, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to look at geneology charts, quite a few African-Americans would have slave-owning ancestors as well, since the majority have some "white"/European ancestry. As an aside, even though it has become common to refer to slavery as "America's peculiar institution"--"America" in that context meaning what is now the U.S., the great majority of enslaved people were shipped to, and used, in the Caribbean and South America, by British, Spanish and French colonists. -- Cecropia 22:41, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes, really pathetic, just as with DDT or child labour it gets ruled out in the "civilized world" but we keep selling it to or buying it from the less developed countries. Get-back-world-respect 00:26, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Kosher Kerry Cons Christian America - Crikey!
The author is an independent investigator working alone, and receiving only an inadequate disability pension which decreases in real value as each week goes by.
Help the mentally disabled... Get-back-world-respect 15 May 2004 (UTC)
For that matter, many Europeans arrived in North America as indentured servants, apprentices, and with various other restrictions on their activities. But what someone does is more important than what their relatives did. And let's not start in this thread a discussion about accomplishments -- design your own appropriate thread. SEWilco 20:32, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Saint Brieuc

In my opinion, Senator Kerry has no link with the small town of Saint Brieuc, but with the very small "Saint Briac", a part of the seaside resort of Dinard. Dinard was founded 150 yrs ago and widely appreciated by english wealthy subjects. Dinard Golf course, one of the oldest in France, is at Saint Briac. The Romanov family (of the former Tsars of Russia) also owns an estate there. In fact, being related to Saint Briac is in some way more cosmopolitan/english than french !!! But of course when Dinard was founded, every member of the high society, in Russia, England and maybe Boston was supposed to learn french. P.H. B. (Rennes - France)

Yes, you are probably correct. Thanks for the information. The Saint Brieuc and Brice Lalonde references were mostly added by an anon whose contributions typically have many errors, in fact and POV bias, as well as grammar and spelling. older≠wiser 23:07, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

my edits

I have made dozens of edits over the past few days. If you have questions about any of them, I am happy to defend them. Kingturtle 04:09, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Kerry's profession

This is a semantic point. Kerry's profession is politician; his current job is United States Senator. See same at George W. Bush. It's like the issue of a doctor; Dr. Jones' job may be Head of Pediatrics at City Hospital, but his profession is still physician.

He was a lawyer. Politician is not a profession since one can only be politician as long as one is elected into a certain position. What interests people is what the person would be if he did not dedicate himself to politics. Get-back-world-respect 18:48, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Was a lawyer. How much time has he been a senator, or running for office? His profession is politician. He happens to have recognized legal skills, but is he handling cases? Lawyer, in this case, is like a NASCAR mechanic saying he's a certified auto mechanic -- it's a skill but repairing ordinary cars is not the job. ...mental image of legal clients meeting in White House while preparing for court... (SEWilco 08:05, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC))
For sure he does not practice it any longer. However, it is his learned profession. Everyone knows he is a politician and it is already mentioned that he is senator up to now. What people want to know if this category exists for politicians is what they would do if they were not into politics. Get-back-world-respect 10:56, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Look at the other Presidents. Jimmy Carter: peanut farmer, US Naval Officer. OK. Bill Clinton: politician, lawyer. Use that for Kerry. I think we can agree that Clinton doesn't seem to be using his law degree professionally, and in that respect sets a precedent for a similar entry for Kerry. SEWilco 09:03, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
How about: "Self Employed, Type of Business: Writer". October 16, 1970, Annual Qualifications Questionnaire, Inactive Duty Reserve Officer http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/qlfyquest.pdf SEWilco 17:00, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)


"Divorced"

The marriage bit says, next to his first wife, divorced. Technically, his first marraige was annulled, not divorced. Is it that way just because someone didn't know the details, or by conscious choice? -- Jake 18:14, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It was annulled by the Catholic Church, perhaps, but I assume he was civilly divorced - the state doesn't grant annulments for marriages that result in several children. john k 18:16, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It says divorced because they were divorced (25 July 1988). The marriage was annulled, apparently in 1997 after the divorce (that's the way it happens most of the time: in fact some tribunals will not hear a case for annullment until after the divorce) but also after his second marriage (1995). That last part is a bit unusual, as the annullment is usually obtained prior to a second wedding. - Nunh-huh 22:15, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Table

Why does Kerry get a table (the one with his picture, spouses, birth info, etc.)? It looks rather presidential and as such, it seems to violate neutrality. We don't do this for other presidential candidates.

You get the point from this list (the winners obviously got tables since they became president). Chrisn4255 07:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The Kerry infobox should be removed unless someone makes a serious effort to add infoboxs to all Senators and Congressman. In the mean time it's not neutral and should be removed ASAP. State goverenors don't appear to have a fancy infobox either. ref: List of United States Senators and List of members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Buster 09:43, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

This is nuts. Some articles are more complete than others and have more features than others; this is a natural result of a project like this one completed over time instead of released as a finished product. The solution is not to remove information from this article but to add it to others. Gamaliel 15:50, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps Gamaliel, but is it neutral? I think not. Anyways the information in the infobox is redundant, on those grounds alone it should still be removed ASAP. Buster 20:53, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm, neutrality is in the eye of the beholder. In this case it depends on what you compare this to. Is it neutral for GWB to have an infobox and Kerry not? I suppose you could say it is one of the perks of incumbancy. I'd argue that it is irrelevant that previous presidential candidates do not have infoboxes. If Kerry loses, I'd be perfectly happy if the infobox were removed. In fact, in the interest of neutrality, I think Ralph Nader (and perhaps some of the other semi-serious candidates) should also get an infobox. Perhaps the infobox could be tweaked to make it clear that it is a "presidential candidate" infobox? older≠wiser 21:14, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
OK, In the interest neutrality and consistency, I would rather see this infobox moved to Kerry's campaign page and not on his bio page. Unless of course a wikiproject is started to add an infobox to all Senators and Congressman. (I suspect I will see this infobox in both places after someone reads this.) Buster 22:07, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

I was the person who originally created the Kerry table. I see it's gone now. Don't matter to me-- I just thought it looked purty. Anyhow, in a few months the table will be back! (One of the big perks of the presidency, I guess... you get a table at wikipedia!) User:Damion, 7-11.