Talk:John Kerry/Archive 18

Navy Discharge
John Kerry's discharge from the Navy deserves more discussing and correcting. He was technically discharged from the Navy on February 16, 1978. John Kerry's own website reveals he was in the Navy Reserves from 1970 until 1978.

This means Kerrys anti-war activities, protest, and negotiations with foreign powers in foreign states took place while he was an officer of the United States military. The affects of this action is very serious and one cannot deny these facts.
 * And who has? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry, Jewish American?
I respectfully submit that unless John Kerry identifies himself as a Jewish American, then he not be categorized as a Jewish American. John Kerry's grandparents were Jewish converts to Catholicism; I presume that after their conversion they no longer identified themselves as Jewish. That means his most recent Jewish ancestors were three generations back.

By that standard, I myself am an "ethnic" "German American," since my great-grandfather came from Germany. Hopefully anyone who knows me agrees that is nonsense. I'm an all-American mutt.

Even by most standards of Judaism Kerry would not be Jewish since this is on his paternal line.

IMO, this has only been inserted by someone trying to make trouble and stir up the idea that the whole world is run by Jews or some such nonsense. No sense humoring it; just revert.

I take all of this back if Kerry actually identifies himself as Jewish.

Jdavidb 23:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Look at the description of the category: Americans of Jewish ethnic descent. Kerry certainly qualifies; his great-uncle Otto Löwe died in Theresienstadt; his great-aunt Jenni Löwe died at Treblinka. - Nunh-huh 00:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If that's the scope of the category per its description, then the category should be renamed. Most people who see "Jewish Americans" among the numerous categories at the top of this article won't click through to read the description.  They'll assume it has its natural meaning -- that the person is Jewish, in the normal sense of the term, the sense in which Sammy Davis, Jr. was Jewish and Kerry isn't.  Kerry could go into a category for "Americans of ethnic Jewish descent" if one were set up (though I'm not recommending that because I don't see much value to it).  Unless and until that happens, though, putting "Jewish Americans" on this article is misleading and a disservice to the reader.  The body of the article already include Kerry's paternal grandparents' Judaism and conversion, and his great-aunt's and great-uncle's deaths in the extermination camps. JamesMLane


 * We need to create some more distinctive categories. It is a mistake to include people who practice Judaism and people who are of ethnic Jewish descent into one category.  Their religous belief system and hether they are descended from ethnic Jews are two different things (which often, but not always go hand in hand).  One category should not be so broad as to fit John Kerry (who has Jewish ancestry but considers himself Catholic) and Madonna (entertainer) (who was born into a Catholic family, but who now is embracing Kabbalah) and Sean Penn (who was born Catholic for formally converted ti Judaism). Johntex\talk 02:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The category "Jewish Americans" says exactly that - "people of ethnic Jewish descent". I find it silly to keep Kerry under "English Americans" but not "Jewish Americans". Both are ethnic backgrounds that he shares equally. Madonna would not be listed since she has no ethnic Jewish descent, and she never formally converted to Judaism. You made a mistake about Sean Penn (check his Wiki entry). His father was Jewish and his mother Irish/Italian (Catholic). He was raised secularly, and he does not practice any religion. He never converted into Judaism and was never raised Catholic (you can see the "Jewish Americans" and "irish-Italian Americans" categories on Penn's page. Madonna is not included under "Jewish Americans", only under Italian and French Americans, par her ethnic heritage. As for "Jewish" meaning "Jewish mother", that is a Jewish RELIGIOUS law and we would be taking a religious Jewish POV in following it, rather than a non-POV ethnic-based view.

It would be one sided to list Kerry under "Jewish Americans" ONLY. BUT! He is also listed under "English Americans", meaning his ethnic heritage is mixed, which is the case. In a country as multi-cultural as America there are plenty of people who can fall under a large number of ethnic-based categories. As long as all of them are listed I don't see a problem. He is Catholic by religion, and Jewish and English (with mebbe a little Scottish and Irish) by ethnicity. Seems pretty simple, doesn't seem like there's a need to exclude any category, especially since he is 50/50 when it comes to his ethnicities. A reader can obviously see the whole thing explained under his "Family Background" paragraphs. -User 24...something...something


 * "English" and "Jewish" are both ethnic heritages. The difference is that "Jewish" is also a religion.  Many readers (probably most readers, but certainly a substantial number) would take the category "Jewish Americans" to refer to the subject's current religious beliefs or practices.  You didn't address the example I gave: Sammy Davis, Jr. is included in Category:Jewish American actors, a subcategory of Category:Jewish Americans, even though he has no ethnic Jewish ancestry.  He's included because he converted.


 * If there were two categories, "Ethnically Jewish Americans" and "Religiously Jewish Americans" or some such, then Kerry could be included in the former (only), Davis in the latter (only), and most American Jews in both. As the category is now named, though, it's a disservice to the reader for us to include Kerry in that category. JamesMLane 07:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur with JML. Gamaliel 07:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes JamesMLane, and it's an annoying difference, isn't it? And yes, I agree on who would be included if we split the categories. Makes perfect sense to me. I think they should be split. Where do we go and who do we talk to about splitting them? (thought I think you missed one of my points, which was at the moment the "Jewish Americans" category described itself as being ethnicity based, even if people glancing over the name wouldn't necessarily notice) At the moment, I have removed him from "English Americans" (heck, I was the one who added that one in the first place, in my attempt to increase the English Americans category and give it some legitimacy). It's a disservice to list him under one ethnicity but not the other. But yeah, I think good names for the categories would be "Ethnic Jews" and "Religious Jews". We also have "Jewish American actors" hanging about (not to mention "Jewish film directors"). There used to be an "Ashkenazi Jews" category, maybe we should use that name for ethnic Jews? "Ashkenazi" signifies ethnicity, since it is a major ethnic difference but not really a religious difference. Whaddya think? -User 24...something...something


 * "People with Ashkenazi heritage" and "People with ethically Jewish heritage" are not equivalent categories. - Nunh-huh 07:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I know they're not. But frankly 80% of the world's Jewish population is Ashkenazi (according to Wikipedia's Ashkenazi page). It would make it a more interesting split if we made two Jewish ethnicity based categories (Ashkenazi and Sephardic). -User 24...something...something


 * I didn't miss your point about the definition. I rejected the argument because my primary perspective is informing the readers.  Here, large numbers of readers would form a false impression from looking at the article and wouldn't click on each of more than a dozen categories to make sure they weren't being blindsided.  To take an extreme case, if there were a category for Americans who've visited Israel, it couldn't be called "Jewish Americans" or "well-traveled Americans" or anything along those lines, regardless of how carefully the criteria for inclusion were spelled out on the category page.  Readers would be misinformed; as far as I'm concerned, that ends the argument.  As to where to discuss splitting the category, a discussion has begun at Category talk:Jewish Americans, which seems like the right place for it.  On the current state of the categories, I think Kerry should be included in "English Americans" but not in "Jewish Americans".  Still, as long as the misleading "Jewish Americans" isn't on there, I'll hold off restoring the English one in the hope that something will come of the category talk discussion. JamesMLane 08:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

This Edit War, Lame?
I think so. [ +t, +c, +m ] 07:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not even the lamest we've had on this page. Although we described the wound that led to Kerry's first Purple Heart, we spent many kb dealing with one editor who kept re-inserting his opinion that the wound was minor.  By contrast, there is at least some substance to the different interpretations of "Jewish". JamesMLane 07:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, I remember that guy. He perfected the art of edit warring, with his "requirement to discuss before reverting him" and his "baseline version". Ah, memories...   [ +t, +c, +m ] 08:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

You wouldn't believe some of the arguments I've been in. In and out of Wikipedia, that is. -User 24...something...something

The 1st wound was minor
According to this JamesMLane thinks that calling a minor wound minor is editorializing. If so, then we can't call Katrina a large or powerful hurricane. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 05:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * We dealt with this a year ago. Let it go. Gamaliel 05:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is editorializing. It's an opinion, not a fact. How many more arbitration cases do we need?   [ +t, +c, +m,  +e  ] 05:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The severity of a wound can be gauged by the objective evidence. The undisputed evidence supports describing this wound as minor. Are you saying the severity of the wound is unknown? Rex071404  216.153.214.94 05:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What Gamaliel said.   [ +t, +c, +m,  +e  ] 06:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Prior discussion on this "issue" can be found on the talk page referenced in my edit summary. The specific section is Talk:John Kerry/August 2004 archive 1.  I don't recall whether there are any other sections with such talk; I didn't search the whole archive.  Having reread that particular thread, I'm of the same opinion now as I was then. JamesMLane 09:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Wiki link to wound should be restored
Merovingian removed a wiki link to the word wound. I do not agree that his rationale as posited in his edit summary suffices for that unilateral, non-discussed deletion. I am asking for group comment about that here. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 07:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My comments:
 * Substance. I have no strong opinion about whether to link the word.
 * Procedure. Rex chastises Merovingian for a "unilateral, non-discussed deletion".  Rex himself added this link, unilaterally, without having discussed it on the talk page.  His edit summary read: "→First Purple Heart - add wiki link to wound".  Merovingian, in removing the link, gave this edit summary: "I don't think it's really necessary to link to wound, as it really doesn't need an explanation."  Thus, Rex's ES merely said what he was doing, while Merovingian's gave some explanation of his reasoning.  Despite this, Rex returns to his old pattern of demanding that everyone else be held to a standard that he's free to ignore.  He can unilaterally add a link, without discussion, and then, in his mind, for anyone else to remove it is somehow objectionable.  This particular change -- Rex's linking, and Merovingian's unlinking -- doesn't seem to me to call for prior discussion, but if the deletion does then the addition does. JamesMLane 08:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the discussion James. As you know, I have asked you a question regarding this issue about a dozen times over the previous year, and each and every time, you have (as I see it) either not answered me or given an answer which was non-responsive to the question. That being the case, I am going to ask you again, this time with extra precision: Please answer yes or no: Do you concede that there is enough undisputed factual evidence in the public record regarding this so-called "wound" that we as editors can correctly refer to it as being "minor"? And if not, are you saying the "wound" was more severe than "minor"? And if so, would the term "moderate" satisfy you? And if not, are you saying that John Kerry was "severly" wounded? In any case, yould you at least concede that John Kerry's "wound" was less severe than Robert Dole's? I await your response. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 17:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Rex, you are yet again misrepresenting a prior discussion. I and other editors have spent hours upon hours trying to discuss this subject with you, and it appears that we might as well have been talking to the wall.  Go back and read the 2004 discussion that I linked to in the thread about "minor".  The short answer is that, if the facts about the wound would lead to the indisputable conclusion that the wound was "minor", then we can simply state the facts without drawing the conclusion for the reader.  If, on the other hand, there is a dispute, we shouldn't take a position.  I have asked you what fact about the wound is missing from the article.  You've never supplied one.  The medic slapped on some Bacitracin and a bandage and Kerry continued his regular duties, going out on patrol the next day.  Those are facts.  Calling the wound "minor" is editorializing on your part.  It adds nothing to the information given to the reader; it serves only as an attempt to highlight a point that you want emphasized because it suits your POV.  Therefore, the answer to your question, as I have made abundantly clear in prior discussion, is no.  Also, I warn you that, during your enforced sabbatical, I've come to the conclusion that I was wasting too much time trying to explain such points to people who weren't genuinely interested in improving the encyclopedia.  Please don't expect me to respond to every misconception you voice (about this article or any other), and please don't take my silence about anything as agreement with you. JamesMLane 18:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

James, are you saying that the wound is more severe than a "minor" wound or are you saying that based on the available facts, you are unable to conclude how severe (or minor) the wound was? Rex071404  216.153.214.94 23:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry's 1st wound
I object to your removal of the wiki link to the word wound which I had only recently added to the John Kerry article. Furthermore, I feel it's unfair of you to act unilaterally the way you did. I ask that you restore that wiki link, review the talk page for that article and better explain your action there (Talk:John Kerry). Thanks. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 07:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello. I don't think it was necessary to link to wound because the average reader is not necessarily going to wonder what a wound is.  On the contrary, most already know, and a link may be superfluous.  Wikilinks are primarily used to link to something that is too complex to explain in an article that is only somewhat related.  As a counterexample, one would not link to son on the article about George W. Bush, even though he is the son of George H. W. Bush.  An overabundance of links is just that.  --Merovingian (t) (c) ( e ) 07:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with your justification as to why you removed the wiki link from John Kerry. You have left out of your calculation the very real edititorial disagreements at that page over how much attention to draw to the minor nature of Mr. Kerry's 1st wound.  My view is that readers DO benefit from a wiki link which informs them about wounds, especially since many critics of Mr. Kerry have many times very publicly criticized him for "puffing" in regards to his wounds. If it's not a big deal to you, I ask you to please restore that wiki link. I think it's important and I think it makes the article better, not worse. Also, if you notice, in the Kerry article, the word shrapnel which immediately precedes the instance of the word wound from which you removed the wiki link, links to a page which talks in very broad terms about shrapnel. By including the 1st link, but not the 2nd, the editorial result is to confuse rather than clarify, expecially since the shrapnel page closes the section on World War 1 with "Shrapnel can cause light or heavy wounds (or damage)". I see no reason why John Kerry should link to shrapnel which then links to Physical trauma (though the link is named "wounds"), if John Kerry is not going to link to wound. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 07:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * While there is an editorial debate over the exact nature of the wounds, there is not a debate over the definition of a wound. "Wound" is very straightforward; it means "injury".  There is no need to link to wound because it is absolute.  "Shrapnel", on the other hand, may be difficult to understand for a person who has little knowledge of such military terminology.  As for the linking of "wound" at shrapnel, that is most likely because wounds are directly relevant to shrapnel, and much less to John Kerry.  In other words, this is an issue of context.  What a wound is is much more well-known than what shrapnel is.  The question I asked myself when reading the paragraph was "Why is a link to wound necessary when the definition of them is already known?"  The answer is: "It isn't."  --Merovingian (t) (c) ( e ) 08:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your conclusion (regarding this particular article) that there is agreement on the proper usage of the word "wound" . Rather, if you were to read the full history of the talk page for that article, you will find that the exact opposite is true - there is great disagreement as to whether or not Kerry was actually "wounded" at all by whatever it is he claimed was the rationale for his 1st purple heart. In fact, there is much in the public record by many who did not support Kerry to suggest that he was NOT in fact "wounded" at that time. On the other hand, those who support Kerry, want this issue swept under the rug. By expunging the wiki link to wound you are taking sides in a long running editorial debate and putting your finger on the scale in a mannner which results in pro-Kerry POV. Truely, there are many opportunities on the wiki where you could remove wiki links without causing turmoil, but this is not one of them. Simply put, your rationale does not hold water and unless you can come up with something more convincing, I am not persuaded by your reasoning. By selectively including the unannotated mention of a "shrapnel wound", without the more acurate qualifier of the word "minor" or at the very least, a wiki link to the wound page, the entrenched editors of the John Kerry page are in fact putting out hagiographic material, not biographic  material. This is the crux of the long standing editoral issue on that page and you have injected yourself squarely into the middle of it. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 17:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Whether or not he was wounded, and regardless of the nature of the wounds, the link to wound is unnecessary in this context. --Merovingian (t) (c) ( e ) 18:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it's "unnecessary". In fact, I assert that in the context of what is clearly a hagiographic article, some perspective is sorely needed. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 19:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rex, isn't there an official document that we can quote than leave it up to our individual interpretations? Clearly either side is going to accuse the other of POV. Isn't there an official documentation accompanying the award that describes the wound that we can just simply quote verbatim and put this issue to rest? --kizzle 18:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I contend that without some clarification regarding Kerry's 1st "wound" we are publishing hagiographic material, not biographic material. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 18:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you want to respond to my above point? --kizzle 18:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * My response is: "I contend that without some clarification regarding Kerry's 1st "wound" we are publishing hagiographic material, not biographic material." Rex071404  216.153.214.94 19:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "Clarification"?? The article describes in detail his wound and its treatment.  Frankly, I think we've indulged you enough here.  This was settled last August and you haven't added anything new to the discussion.  Move on to something else. Gamaliel 18:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * (After an edit conflict) I respectfully disagree, Rex. The requirements for receiving a Purple Heart are that the recipient is wounded, a wound defined for this purpose as an injury to any part of the body caused by an outside force or agent; the degree of the wound is immaterial so long as it required treatment by a medical officer. He was wounded by shrapnel; he was treated; he was entitled to a Purple Heart. Adding "minor" to this, though accurate, is also POV; it implies somehow he was not deserving or not very deserving of the award. (I also know that freepers and other POV warriors will try their best to put negative spin on any aspect of Kerry's life. Get over it; he lost.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The issue at hand is that the entire article is too hagiographic and ought to be toned down considerably. Adding a wiki link to the word wound is a good place to start. As is adding the clarifying term "minor" in front of "wound". As to a reader thinking something is deserved or not, the Purple Heart page has ample details to make clear that even minor wounds can qualify. The simple fact is that by omitting detail, we are distorting history in a pro-Kerry fashion. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 19:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No, that's your simple opinion. My simple opinion is that by including unnecessary detail, we are distorting history in an anti-Kerry fashion. It's only Kerry-haters that want to make a big deal about his wound being "minor"; most other editors understand that a neutral point of view requires no modifier whatsoever to "wound", since all that's being stated in the article is that he got enough of a wound to get a Purple Heart. Anyway, as was said above, this issue has been hashed out to death here; if you have something new to add to the discussion (other than repeating "hagiographic" three times, as if we're too stupid to either know what it means or to follow the link the first couple of times you included it), please do so.--jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sigh... Rex are you ignoring me or something? I've posted several comments to your talk page and here without a reply.  I'll repeat:


 * Rex, isn't there an official document that we can quote than leave it up to our individual interpretations? Clearly either side is going to accuse the other of POV. Isn't there an official documentation accompanying the award that describes the wound that we can just simply quote verbatim and put this issue to rest? --kizzle 18:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that I have answered you both. In fact I know I have, so I will repeat: the entire article is too hagiographic. As to Kizzle specifically, that's not my concern. My concern is that "minor" is truthful, fair and accurate, which is the standard for journalism and it's no less a valid standard to reach NPOV, which this article currently does not. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 19:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC) Correct in what regard? Are you saying that the John Kerry article is not less harsh on Kerry than the George W. Bush article is on Bush? If that's what you are saying, give me until later tonight to post a comparison of some salient elements of both for your perusing. On the other hand, if there is (and there is) an un-evenhanded approach between those articles, that must not be allowed to stand. Now then, regarding Kerry, you might not agee that the entire article is too hagiographic, but I do. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 20:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see! You've mistaken Wikipedia for journalism! (That makes four times you've linked that? Five? Oh my gosh, it's seven! Any particular reason?) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If I were to say that in many business environments (not just banking), the concept behind the Prudent man rule is a valid approach to things, it would not mean that I am "mistaking" one of those other businesses for banking. Likewise, saying that a rule which is good for reporters can also be good for encylopedia editors does not mean I have "mistaken" that distinction either. Now, as for why I keep saying this "the entire article is too hagiographic", it's because it's true, it's the Elephant in the room and none of the pro-Kerry editors here will admit it. Furthermore, that refusal to admit this, is part and parcel to the opposition to all my edits here, no matter how minor. They've even edited out the wiki linking of their "preferred" text!. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 20:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah. The rhetoric of repetition; say it often enough and somehow you'll convince people that you are correct. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't see how you could possibly justify using your own interpretation of Kerry's wound over an official report of the wound. Thus, it should be your concern Rex. Clearly in a case where two different editors viewpoints conflict, we should find an official document so that its not up for interpretation, and I do believe there are official sources we can quote to describe the wound.  James, Derex, Rex, anyone know of such a source? --kizzle 22:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Kizzle, your reasoning in this matter skips over the available facts. Here again for you, are the available facts: #1) Kerry received no stitches. #2) Kerry lost no duty time. Do you deny that these are true facts?


 * In my view, the use of an adjective to summarize the available facts, is not in and of itself POV, provided the word choice is not over the top. In this case, in the context of injuries incurred while in military armed conflict, a small abrasion which required nothing more than bacitracin, surely is a minor wound. Also, this guide here makes clear that the type of wound reported in Kerry's records, was minor. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 23:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt either of those two facts, what I was saying is that given a conflict between two editors interpretations of kerry's wounds, we should find an official source so that it is no longer left up to our individual interpretations. And yes, a single adjective can insert POV quite effectively. As for that guide, they don't mention shrapnel wounds. --kizzle 23:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Huh? - please go re-read the wound treatment guide. Specifically, re-read the section which is titled "TREATMENT FOR YOUR MINOR WOUNDS". Any plain reading of that section, when correlated to the known facts about Kerry's 1st wound, makes clear that the 1st wound can be accurately and fairly described as "minor" and that this can be done without "opinion" or "editorializing".

Also, if adjectives are so bad, then why is it that as of 10.19.05, the Kerry article tells us "he became deeply interested in politics.", we are also told that "Kerry and several other officers had an unusual meeting in Saigon with Admiral Elmo Zumwalt", that he had an "important role" (in VVAW). Also, we are told that Kerry "won convictions in both a high-profile rape case...", that "He won a narrow victory" and Kerry himself is quoted as saying the people of Massachusetts "emphatically reject the politics of selfishness..." and that "Kerry is also known as an avid cyclist". Finally, we are also told that he was "successfully treated for prostate cancer". Could it be that each of the adjectives which are currently in the article (as shown above) have a hagiographic effect? I contend that they do. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 00:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of those were disputed before, why don't you bring up if any of those should be changed? As for the current example, I still affirm that we should use an official source to describe the wound precisely so we don't have to repeat this argument of interpretation ad nauseum. --kizzle 00:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, if anyone wants to be part of the newly formed Liberal Editors Cabal, simply disagree with Rex on this or any other talk page and he'll add you to the group here: User talk:Rex071404/Liberal Editors Cabal. --kizzle 00:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, who finds it creepy that in every single one of those listings, he refers to himself in the 3rd persons?--anon editor 03:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, what is it about this guy?
Hey, what is it about this guy? This page seems to have non-stop wars over content. Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam and Stalin combined on Wikipedia see less edit wars than this page? What is so special about this guy that makes people want to fight over him here day by day? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not that Kerry himself is "special", rather it's the unambiguous nature of the critical information which is available about him, but which those who tend pro-Liberal, resist allowing into the article. As for the "wound" issue, it's a small word "minor", but has great import.
 * The simple fact is that many on the Left want to slam Bush for having a cushy National Guard billet during the war, and for this reason, they want to keep one of the Liberal Icons (Kerry) from appearing to have gotten out of the service too easily himself (which he did). Kerry got out early on the basis of "three and you're out". That being three Purple Hearts. However, when examined in the light of the 1st so called "wound" being nothing more than a small scratch, it's clear that Kerry gamed the system to win early release from the service. And if that's true, then this undercuts criticism of Bush, (got off easy) because Kerry did the same thing (got off easy). And because the Left in America is anti-Iraq war, they need to undercut Bush whichever way they can on Military related issues. Bush's service record is a military related issue and as such, the Left needs to make it look singularly bad (see Killian documents). Because of this (and because Kerry is making noise about running again), the Left wants to accomplish the dual goal of making Bush look bad on personal military history, while making Lefties (such as Kerry) look good. got that? Rex071404  216.153.214.94 02:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What military service are you refering to? I don't think there's anyone claiming Bush saw active duty--anon editor 03:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you contending that the Air Force National Guard is not part of the US military? If so, you prove my point about the anti-Bush, pro-Kerry bias around here. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 03:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Bush never served in active duty, I don't see how that's biased, the national guard was never deployed, anywhereb, what bias is that? Is it as pervasive a bias as the one that told us his favorite type of chocolate chip cookie?--anon editor 05:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Some people in the U.S., on both sides of the aisle, can't stop talking about the 2004 election. In the first post-9/11 election, with the country fighting two wars, it was inevitable that the election would polarize the country. It didn't matter who Bush ran against - his opponent's name was going to get dragged through the mud no matter what. Nothing special about Kerry - he's just another politician. Rhobite 02:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Odd Edits by Rex071404
Removed almost all adjectives from the article, then labled then as POV removal, also removed reference to John Kerry owning a dog, as a blatent POV issue along with Favorite Food, and reference to him being a cyclist.. I could be missing something, but those don't actually seem like POV issues, unless of course this editor's idea of NPOV, is to remove anything that isn't negative, including what seem like rather neutral statments like John Kerry Owns a Dog, I'm going to rv the whole thing to back before the edit war--anon editor 02:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * More than a year ago, Kerry's campaign people leaked details about pet ownership. Any current status on the dog? Also, who says that Kerry is an avid cyclist? There is even less proof of that, than there is that his 1st wound was minor (please see above). Also, rather than just complain, why don't you ask me my line of thinking and see if we can agree on some edits? Also, when was the last time anyone had a current referrence that Kerry's "favorite food is chocolate chip cookies" and why should such minutiae even be in this article? Do we have such detail about all US Senators? Rex071404  216.153.214.94 03:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So, what makes his pet ownership POV? or favorite cookie? I just dont' see any connection what so ever between your edit summaries, and the things you're re-writing--anon editor 05:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The connection between the deleted "cookie" referrence and POV is that such fawning minutiae, by being in this article, serves no editorial purpose of import. Rather, what it does is turn a biography into a hagiography. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 05:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what does hagiographic mean? --kizzle 05:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

POV check tag for John Kerry
According to the edit summary by Szyslak for this edit, which states "rv {NPOV} - the tag is for disputes that can't be resolved after discussion; also removed gratuitous "See also" link)", it is clear that the correct course of action, on a disputed page (when issues can't be resolved after discussion) is to add an NPOV tag. This being the case, I am adding a POV check to this page and am reminding the other editors here of important details from the wiki article on "Consensus decision-making", which are: '''"Rather than simply list known alternatives, debate for a short time, vote, and then accept or reject by some percentage of majority (ex. over 50%, over 2/3), a consensus decision-making process involves identifying and addressing concerns, generating new alternatives, combining elements of multiple alternatives and checking that people understand a proposal or an argument. This empowers minorities, those with objections that are hard to state quickly, and those who are less skilled in debate. Therefore, consensus decision-making can be seen as a form of grassroots democracy."'''

I ask the editors here to take note that "combining elements of multiple alternatives" is an essential part of consensus decision-making and yet, the editors here have been reverting and deleting every edit I make to John Kerry (and has been doing so for well over a year and again, many times in the last few days). For this reson, it cannot be said that there is any valid consensus among the active editors on this article. As with that as my justification, I am adding the POV check tag to the article.

Rex071404  216.153.214.94 20:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Comparison of George W. Bush and John Kerry outlines
Here are the 1st (5) sections of each outline from each article. It's clear that the Kerry article goes into much more personal detail, the net effect of which is to "sell" Kerry to people. It was forced on us by the pro-Kerry editors during election 2004 and it remains the same way today. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 21:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? If you think the GWB article lacks information, go add it to that article. Gamaliel 21:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My concern (as I have made abundantly clear - see above) is that this Kerry article has too much fawining detail. And, the few less flattering things which go in are immediately taken out. The outline speaks for itself - Kerry's article is imbalanced and there is no realistic correlation on the personal history outline between Kerry and Bush. Gamaliel, do you deny that Kerry's page has much more personal detail than Bush's? Also what is your justification for reverting at multiple pages on the Wiki - reverting me multiple times on political related articles? Do you deny that you have been reverting me multiple times, without talk page dialog and often with no justifying edit summary? Do you disagree with the details I have posted above regarding consensus decision-making? If not, please point me to the any edit I made in the last few days you (or one of the other Rex-reverters here) have allowed to my edits be "combined" into a poltical article, without being reverted or edited out. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 00:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex, John Kerry is a senator and a veteran while George W. Bush is a two-term president. Why do you expect their articles to be laid out in the same way? Rhobite 22:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Because disagreeing with him, according to his new page at User_talk:Rex071404/Liberal_bias constitutes a liberal bias. --kizzle 23:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The Kerry article was taking most of it's current form starting back in Summer of 2004. Between then and now, the pro-Kerry editors at this page have done all the can to keep embellishing it. And, Bush was not yet re-elected in July 2004, which is when I joined this Wiki - in part, to try to get some even handed treatment of the two pages. There is no denying the truth about the above outline comparisons: Kerry's has way more personal detail. And, now that Kerry is very well know, there no longer is any excuse for it. I am asking you other editors to please be more flexible on edits to this article and please allow some of my edits to stay in without reverting them. And as for Kizzle's comment - I'd prefer that he keep his personal taunts off of the talk pages of articles. He's welcome to criticize me on my personal talk page, but I feel that his comments such as that above are counter-productive here. Also, I'd ask that he stop stalking my personal scratch page list - it's not any of his concern that I am keeping a log of various edits, and by repeating my scratch page links all over, he's causing needless controversy. Rex071404  216.153.214.94 00:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Rex, I believe that adding to some liberal hit-list everytime someone simply disagrees with you is the very definition of counter-productive. It definetely doesn't help foster a sense of collaboration.  As for your comments, I don't see a need to excise comments about a former presidential candidate simply because the election is over.  I believe a policy of removing information when the subject steps out of the limelight is a bad way to go. --kizzle 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The only excuse there ever was (and a poor one at that) for having so much Kerry details, is that he was a national candidate and was perhaps not then well known around the country. However, that election is over and frankly, you know as well as I do that the ArbComm has already had a finding that election 2004 did intrude into this article. I contend that there is simply no justification for such copious detail remaining in this article. Especially since such simple things as a wiki link on the word "wound", the actual number of bills which became law "11" and an acccurate adjective applied to the 1st wound "minor" are kept out. Now as for your characterization of my log as a "hit-list", you are free to think what you may, but again I will ask you to keep your comments and suppositions of that nature off the article talk pages. I am asking you nicely and I believe that you are causing trouble by refusing to stop. Also, I do indeed contend that there is Liberal bias here and yet, I have softened the name of my log page to address the fact that there are some (such as you apparantly) who will offend themselves by snooping into my personal pages. That being the case, I went to a new page name which has less potential to offend uninvited perusers.Rex071404  216.153.214.94 00:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as "stalking" is concerned -- every page on Wikipedia is for public consumption. If you want a private scratchpad, do it elsewhere. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You miss the point - Kizzle is complaining about something that he alone has been advertising. I did not point anyone to those page(s). If he kept his complaints about them to himself, there would be no controversy. And Kizzle's ad-hominem criticisms about me/my logs do not belong on this page - they are detracting from the dialog here. Also, have you read the above points about "consensus decision-making"? What about the fact that every edit I make to John Kerry gets reverted? How this that anything but bias? And what about Kerry's 1st wound, was it "minor", yes or no?Rex071404  216.153.214.94