Talk:John Kerry/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about John Kerry. 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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

I just archived everything up till the 10th. — マイケル ₪ 17:26, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality has come in behind me after less than an hour and changed my edits again - 08.10.04

Here is what I edited in earlier today (but yet again, Neutrality made drastic, close on my heels changes):

"These Swift boats (an abbreviation for "Shallow Water Inshore Fast Tactical Craft") were fast but lightly armored. Along with boats commanded by others, the two Swift boats which Kerry commanded in succession, took part in Operation SEALORD, the brainchild of Admiral Elmo Zumwalt. The plan was to have Swift boats patrol the narrow waterways — inlets, canals, and coves — of the Mekong River delta, to invite attack and draw out hostile forces. As a boat commander, Kerry led five sailors on various patrols into areas controlled by the Viet Cong near the Cua Long River."

I fail to see how Neutrality can honestly be said to be aiming for consensus, when he will not dialog with me on this page, does not comment wwhen I ask the group for comments and does not discuss his changes even when they are questioned. Comments anyone? Rex071404 23:45, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex does not have a monopoly on editing. And my changes were not "drastic." Neutrality 23:53, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality, please make more of an effort to engage in the ongoing dialog(s) prior to simply jumping in and deleting my edits. Thank you. Rex071404 00:03, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I guess I shouldn't butt in on your guys to and froing, but I'd guess that if you are deliberately patrolling with the deliberate pupose of drawing fire from the enemy, you are being aggressive. Unless there's another way. Moriori 00:12, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point for me. You said "I'd guess", which is of course POV. Your guess byt itself is not self validating. You need to verify. It just so happens, that most patrols are not "aggressive". Most patrols are to reconnoiter and gather information about enemy strength and position. This is a well know fact about US Military strategy in Vietnam.

However, since it is entirely possible that Neutrality could be right about "aggressively", I am not objecting to that per se. Rather, it is the inclusion of that word without more verified data about the specific mission plans which were followed on those patrols. Without verification, "aggresively" is only supposition from our perspective. And since there were a variety of patrol methods and types used by USA forces, "aggressivly" can not be rationally supposed without being POV. Rex071404 00:28, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you actually ever comprehend what anyone else writes on wiki? It was wartime. It was a planned patrol into enemy territory. It was deliberatly designed to cause a fire fight. If it wasn't aggressive, then it must have been non-aggressive, which you no doubt could add to the article. You were extremely disengenuous where you said And since there were a variety of patrol methods and types used by USA forces, "aggressivly" can not be rationally supposed without being POV . We were not discussing a variety of patrol methods, but the patrol actually carried out. In case you missed it, it was a deliberate wartime patrol into enemy territory, designed to cause a fire fight. That's fact, not POV. Incidentally, I'm not pro any particular bias in the Kerry article, or any particular wiki editor. But I can see why you complain that someone "will not dialog with" you. Cheers. ):-Moriori 01:55, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Moriori, please do not belittle my level of comprehension. The section of text in dispute is this:

The two Swift boats that Kerry successively commanded took part in Operation SEALORD, the brainchild of Admiral Elmo Zumwalt. The plan was to have Swift boats aggressively patrol the narrow waterways — inlets, canals, and coves — of the Mekong River delta, to invite attack and draw out hostile forces.

Please notice that what I am objecting to is the chracterization (unverified) that all the patrol missions envisioned under the original plan of SEALORD (which is a long-term, multi-operational effort) were intended to be "aggressively" carried out. Ssuch an assertion simply does not jibe with the reality of how USA forces then (and now) operate. It is patently false to assert tha all patrols are carried out in an agressive manner. And further, there is no source cited to suggest that this was the actual plan for SEALORD. What I am objecting to is the supposition by some that we ought to presume that all patrols were aggresive. Please read up on the concept of reconnoiter patrols [1]. There is a BIG difference between Reconnaissance patrols and Combat Patrols. See this example. All I am asking is that the editors here not leap to conclusions about all of the patrols of SEALORD. I am asking for proof, not speculation or supposition Rex071404 02:17, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't belittle your comprehension, you do it yourself. I addressed ONLY ONE WORD -- the word aggressively. I have NOT addressed any other point. I have already mentioned your deliberate obfuscation, yet you do it once again. NOBODY SAID ALL PATROLS ARE AGGRESSIVE. That particular patrol was aggressive, because it deliberately set out to cause a firefight. What was that about comprehension? Moriori 03:38, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Rex has a good point here. Might it be better to use terms like "actively" or "regularly" patrolled, rather than aggressively? It also sounds contradictory, or at least logically unsound, to give the impression that the forces aggressively induced fire, which is the impression of the sentence as it is now. Fuzheado | Talk 03:07, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Then change the sentence structure. All patrols are active, some of them are regular but not all (such as recce) are aggressive. When combatants deliberately seek out the enemy to deliberately cause a firefight, that is an aggressive patrol, mission, whatever. I am surprised anyone would try to argue otherwise. Moriori 03:38, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Moriori, I appreciate that you actually are dialoguing. Having said that, am I misreading you, or do you now concede that recon patrols at least, are not necessarily "aggressive"? If so, I am not sure why you and I are crossing wires here. The sentences I posted above, clearly refer to more than a single patrol. They refer to the intent of the entire master plan - SEALORD - as currently being reported by this Wiki. That being the case, unless we have proof, it is not proper to say that the plan (SEALORD) called for all of its patrols to be "aggressively" executed. Surely you must be willing to concede to the common knowledge that in any large scale military operation, a significant number of patrols are conducted on a stealth basis. In fact, even many search and destroy missions are carried out on a stealth basis. It is simply misleading to the reader to suggest that all operation SEALORD patrols were carried out "aggressively". Going further than that, we don't even have any proof or reference linked which shows that the particular patrols which Kerry and his "Swift Boat" team went on, were planned by SEALORD to be "aggressive" patrols. Are there no "defensive" patrols? Are there no forward post inspection patrols? Are there no recon patrols? Do we have any proof that Kerry and squad went out only on "aggressive" patrols? the answer is we don't. Regardless of what you wish to expect to think Kerry's patrols were for, without proof about the plan for them, "aggressively patrol" is a misleading term in the context of those sentences. And more so, even if we said "At various times, Kerry's aggressive Swift Boat patrols did this, that or the other thing..." this would still then raise the question; was Kerry being "aggressive" at times that his orders did not call for it? Unless and until I see proof about Kerry orders, I will not accept that he was supposed to be patrolling "aggressively" and for that reason, even if he was patrolling aggressively it is improper to say that the plan for operation SEALORD called for Swift Boats to patrol "aggressively". Final note, we do not actually have corroboration of whether or not Kerry and crew actually had orders to "to invite attack and draw out hostile forces". Rather, as I mentioned above, that text arrived in the article as a less sloppy filler than what was in there previously, which was "smoke out". More to the point, since we actually have no proof of orders, so we should not be representing that the patrol purpose was this or that. As it stands, there is enough unverified assertion in those two sentences already. If we allow "aggressively" in, we are only compounding our deviation from verified sources. This is not scholarly and it is fraught with risk of error and POV. Those who want the word "aggressively" included ought to meet the burden of actually finding that mandate in proof of Kerry's and the overall mission's (SEALORD) orders. Rex071404 06:21, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It distresses me greatly that I need to inform you that I believe you have no integrity whatsoever. I have never ever previously been motivated to say so to any wiki person. Moriori 08:44, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

That's a personal attack on Rex071404, and a quite illogical one at that. He argued his case quite well. If you think otherwise, provide a source or a quote that corroborates your view. Otherwise, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view dictates that the article stick with facts and not embellishment. And Wikipedia:No_personal_attack means an apology is owed someone. Fuzheado | Talk 09:59, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am similarly puzzled and dismayed by Moriori's comment. V V 11:17, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While the timing of Moriori's comment is unfortunate, since Rex071404 does appear to be making efforts to improve his behavior, I can very much sympathize with and understand the remark. However, as personal attacks go, it is pretty mild, although it is still unconstructive. Rex's style of argument can be more exasperating and aggravating than it is persuasive, which is unfortunate because there are times when Rex does have valid points. I'm not sure that this is such a case--I'll defer to those more familiar with Vietnam War era tactics. I hope that Rex will continue to make efforts to be less confrontational and antagonistic with his comments, so that we can sort out disagreements over content based on merits rather than escalate conflicts due to miscommunication and personal resentment. older≠wiser 11:45, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd just like to second all of your comments. Lyellin 11:54, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I don't feel that the facts, as evidenced by my comments on this page, support Moriori's belief that I have no personal integrity. Perhaps there is a language barrier - I do know that many Wiki's are overseas. Once in the past, I heard a woman from India mis-use the word "scheme" in a sentence as-in "involved plan" when she was aiming for "interesting method" which should have led her to the word "idea". She did this not knowing of the negative connotaions American place on that word. More than likely, Moriori was trying to convey the his view that by focusing on this one word, I was gumming up the process. Frankly, I can see how some others might feel that way. It is indeed true that my writing style tends towards detail oriented verbosity of a sometimes exasperatingly or excruciatingly focused or even perhaps a vexingly over-parsed analytical nature, which as we all know, can be something which does not appeal to all persons at all times. However, let me assure you all, that I am aware and mindful of critizisms of that nature and I do make the effort to avoid forcing readers of the John Kerry page itself, to get bogged down in minutiae. On the other hand, it is also true, that I am highly interested in the logic of key sentences in the John Kerry page. To me it is of the utmost importance that we not have false premises as part of any key sentences or ideas on that page. Frankly, I am guessing that the relentlessnes Moriori felt coming from me in the dialog, which he took as evincing a lack of integrity, is the cause of his feelings. Even so, while my feelings about where or if the word "agressively" should be in that section are strong, I do feel they are backed-up by sound logic. Having said that, I am hoping ala Rodney King that we can "all get along". Please, let's stop the personl invective. After I was banned by Snowspinner for 24 hours, I have quit it, I ask that the others do also. Final note (grin): As I was saying, ...... zzzzzzz Rex071404 15:44, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex, the problem is that you DELIBERATELY failed to address my single point. So let me say YET AGAIN -- I addressed ONLY ONE WORD -- the word aggressively. I have NOT addressed any other point. I have already mentioned your deliberate obfuscation, yet you do it once again. NOBODY SAID ALL PATROLS ARE AGGRESSIVE. That particular patrol was aggressive, because it deliberately set out to cause a firefight. You have repeatedly sidetracked that single point and responded with irrelevant obfuscation. I considered that a lack of integrity. Some of the other contributors think it was a personal attack, so in that case I withdraw it and support your hope that we "all get along". On that basis you won't mind , me saying it must be reassuring to the Vietnamese man who was killed by the Kerry patrol to know that he was killed by kindness, and not by aggression. Final note (grin) Moriori 22:47, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality just reversed me again on the same section - this time after only three minutes

Neutrality, I am asking you nicely again: Please dialog 1st before immediately attacking my edits. About these Patrols, you have not supplied enough information to support your insertion of the word "aggressively". Without more support for that word, it is plainly POV - merely your opinion. Please desist from attacking my edits. This is the same pattern you have engaged in for weeks and I find it very troubling Rex071404 00:37, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have never attacked your edits. You have only attacked mine. Neutrality 00:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I made changes which I have explained. You quickly reverted and changed my edits without discussion. By not dialoging, you are not making any efforts towards building consensus. I object to your behavior. Rex071404 00:47, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality just reversed me again - this time in only 2 minutes

I am at a loss. I simply cannot understand why Neutrality will not dialog befor attacking my edits. Rex071404 00:47, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality just reversed me for the 3rd time tonight over single word - this time in six minutes

Rather than dialoging, Neutrality simply asserts the cirmcumferential statement of "The mission of the boats was to DRAW ENEMY FIRE -- it's quite clear". Indeed, our Wiki states that "the mission" (singular - even though each patrol is a separate mission) was to "draw enemy fire". However, lest he forget, it was me who put that phrase in the replace the patently misleading term "smoke out". Undoubtedly, there was no official mission goal of "smoking out". In fact, there is not even any proof that "draw enemy fire" was indeed the main objective of all the missions. That phrase was left in there by me earlier, simply because the "smoke out" language was so sloppy. Also, even if "draw enemy fire" was the objective of all the patrols (and there is no source cited which shows that), patrols that "draw fire" and not necessarily "aggressive". Aggressive refers to the response, not the movement. If it were the movement, it needs to say "sail in an aggressive manner". Military troops have carefully constructed orders, Chief among them, is how forcefully they can respond when challenged by the enemy, Without a verifies source that the Patrol craft were under orders to deal "aggressively" with suspected enemy units, it is simply bald-faced speculation to insert that word. I strenuously object to Neutrality leaping to insert his own personal suppositions about this. Rex071404 01:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If the three-revert rule is broken, this page will be protected. Also, by the way, the word is spelled dialogue/dialoguing/dialogued. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality changed my same edit three times. Does that count? BTW: I stopped defending it at two times Rex071404 01:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think everything will go smoothly if you can relax, and not expect anything in particular from Neutrality. The key thing is that we discuss the issues, not the personalities. Sam [Spade] 06:36, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To show that I'm not totally biased against Rex personally, I'll side with him against blankfaze on the spelling question. The shortened form dialog is acceptable, indeed more common, in American English, even though Commonwealth English would recognize only dialogue. See American and British English differences#... -gue / -g. JamesMLane 06:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The odd sound of it is not the spelling of dialog but its use as a verb. V V 20:11, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition: "Usage Note: In recent years the verb sense of dialogue meaning 'to engage in an informal exchange of views' has been revived, particularly with reference to communication between parties in institutional or political contexts. Although Shakespeare, Coleridge, and Carlyle used it, this usage today is widely regarded as jargon or bureaucratese. Ninety-eight percent of the Usage Panel rejects the sentence Critics have charged that the department was remiss in not trying to dialogue with representatives of the community before hiring the new officers." neatnate 21:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can we not spend item over analyzing the comments on the talk page please? We are having enough difficulty agreeing on text that can go onto the subject page. There is no need to point out what is arguably minutiae regarding a persons commentary skills on this page. If you don't like my subject matter edits, that's one thing, but getting hung up on this page is in my view conter-productive. Rex071404 19:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Drawing enemy fire

was that actually what this swift boat was doing? Because that’s not aggressive, that’s... not far from suicidal! Excuse me please if its already been addressed, but is there consensus that the entire purpose of this particular mission was to get shot at? Because if that’s the case, I'm a whole lot more impressed w John Kerry and his "purple hearts" than I ever was before. Incidentally, did everybody see http://www.jibjab.com/ yet? Excuse the pop ups, but that’s one funny political video. Sam [Spade] 06:51, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The sentence in dispute refers to the mandate of the entire SEALORD mission which was much more encompassing than the sub-set of the total SEALORD patrols that Kerry himself was on. Also, there is not consensus that the purpose of Kerry's patrols was to "get shot at". Indeed, I have explained this at length above and have just now clarified the text which desribes the broad mission of the Swift boat patrols. FYI: There was just a History Channel episode on this and it was interesting - even mentioned Kerry and showed his photos, but from that and the other things I've read, there was much more to the total patrol duties of Swift boats than only "aggresively" patrolling to "get shot" at. And once again, if you are going to suggest that patrolling "agressively" was in fact Kerry's orders - we'll need some proof of that. Until then, generic blather must suffice. We must not assert particular and narrow specifics without more proof. Rex071404 07:18, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Request

Guys, let's calm it down a bit, please. I think the latest revert war was A- unfounded. Neutrality, it's one word, and it's a word we could discuss on the talk page. As much as I agree with you, with the high level if problems on this page already, I think it would be better if we could step back and talk about it. Why do you refuse Rex's wording?

Secondly, Rex, could you cut back on the verbiage? There were something like 3-5 headings all regarding the various reverts, which is, IMHO, too large, and makes reading this harder.

Thirdly, can we possibly know what the intention of the orders were? How they were interperated by the swift boat commanders? By their commanders? I'd suggust trying to tone down this sentence completely (besides the fact that I don't think it's as important as some debates we've had), to remove as much as possible, and just say the bare facts. The next time I come back to this page, I'll see about writing something up like that. Lyellin 07:32, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

I second all of that. Sam [Spade] 07:33, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please review my most recent edits to that sentence and see what you think.Rex071404 07:52, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To answer Sam's question, already several paragraphs back: As to SEALORD, yes, a significant component was to draw enemy fire. Another significant component was to "show the flag" -- to have a highly visible U.S. military presence in areas that had previously been much more of a Viet Cong fiefdom. That kind of operation would also qualify as "aggressive," in my view.

The suggestion that the comment somehow might be taken to refer to every single patrol being run seems to me to be completely without merit. Nevertheless, rather than go on and on arguing about it, I think we can accommodate that concern. An important substantive point, not made clearly enough in either Neutrality's version or Rex's, is that SEALORD represented a significant change in the way the Navy configured its actions in the Mekong Delta. Without getting into the question whether every single action was sufficiently macho to warrant being called "aggressive", it seems undisputed that there were more such actions after SEALORD began than there had been before. The phrase "more aggressively" better conveys the important information about the change in tactics. I think it also addresses Rex's concern -- it should make clear that there's a continuum and that, even under SEALORD, there's no warrant that every single action will be "aggressive." JamesMLane 08:02, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The text in question, as currently composed after JML's edit of 07:59, 11 Aug 2004, is satisfactory from my perspective. Rex071404 19:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm a critic of Kerry's service in Vietnam. I also think Kranish has misrepresented George Elliot's remarks and has yet to follow up on developments in his own reporting. However, I think controversy dealing with Kerry's tours in Vietnam should occupy their own article. It would be easy enough to link to this one.

--Rev Prez 14:31, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: Neutrality / John Kerry

As further evidence that I am trying to work things out collegially, I cite my Request for Mediation which I asked for today and which is titled "Rex071404 requests Mediation with Neutrality". My apologies, but I do not know how to find the specific URL for this section and cannot link to it. It can be found on the request for mediation page. [2] Rex071404 16:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex's request is at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Rex071404 requests Mediation with Neutrality. There was a prior request for mediation iniitated by Gamaliel -- see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 9#User:Rex071404 and User:Gamaliel. Rex's response included the statement, "I object to 'mediation' as being not ripe at this point." In the absence of consent to mediation from both sides, the Mediation Committee took no action. The current Request for Mediation by Rex does not change my support for the pending Request for Arbitration. In particular, I still favor a temporary injunction. JamesMLane 17:52, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

JamesMLane, please be advised that I invite you to dialog with me, at length if you need to, on my personal Talk Page. I am open to and am interested in addressing and satisfying your concerns so to as to enable you to desist from pressing for my expulsion from the pool of editors on the John Kerry page. Rex071404 19:16, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Missing info

Please, could someone add a mention of the work Kerry and McCain did regarding Vietman MIAs? Kingturtle 00:26, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex answers Neutrality's Edit Summary request of "please explain the reverts"

Re: Elliott quotation controversy - John Kerry 08.11.04

Please take this in the good faith which it is offered:

1) The 1st revert about "West Wing" was and is plain enough. Kerry is using that as a catch-phase in his stump speeches. Since he has already laid claim to that phrase, it is clearly Kerry campaign jargon/rhetoric and as such, is POV. Also, were it not for the fact that Kerry is using that phrase, it would be pure minutiae to include that factoid. It is not relevant, no one cares what wing he was bron in and it's POV.

2) As for the rv against you just recently tonight; this is a restoration of my Elliott edits which you keep deleting. Your version of Elliott has problems:

It leaves out details
It uses incorrect links
It uses POV phrasing such as "Elliott apparently changed his story". In fact, that particular phrase is gallingly POV. You are taking sides on the crux of the matter. Elliott has filed two afidavits, the second of which expressly confirms the continuity of his opinions on Kerry. Elliott's public statements about this are clear: Elliott contends he was radically misquoted by Boston Globe Reporter Kranish. Therefore, for you to say it's "apparent" is POV. It's not apparent to me. In fact, Kranish is the same person who is writing part of Kerry's new campaign book.
I wish to turn the question around now: Neutrality, what objections do you have with my version?

Please advise. Rex071404 02:12, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand the part about the "west wing", but no matter. I can confirm that Neutrality reverted this edit with virtually no comment, in fact in this case none at all. I have restored Rex's edits. Neutrality should explain his objection to the edit or leave it alone. V V 03:24, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Elliott's latest statement is highly misleading because it sets up and knocks down a straw man. The straw man is that Kerry deserved the medal for dispatching one enemy soldier. Elliott now says that he doesn't think dispatching one enemy soldier merits a medal. It's a straw man because the medal citation doesn't even mention that particular aspect of the action. The medal was actually awarded because Kerry attacked rather than fleeing from two successive ambushes. See the explanation from FactCheck.org.

One issue is whether Elliott's varying statements are important enough to be mentioned here, or should be in a separate article as someone suggested (maybe the SBVT article), or should be dropped entirely. People could disagree about that choice, but it's absolutely clear that it's blatant anti-Kerry POV to give so much attention to Elliott's attacks without even mentioning the facts that show him to be distorting what happened. Yet Rex and VV keep reverting any edits that contain those politically inconvenient but indisputably accurate facts.

VV, you explain one of your reverts by saying "(rv - no explanation given for elimination of rex's edits)." This seems to cater to the principle of Rexian Exceptionalism that has so bedeviled this page -- the implied claim that the article must reflect Rex's views unless and until someone else provides an appropriate explanation for any change. The facts of the edit history appear to me to be as follows:

Elliott's misleading statement -- "I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single wounded, fleeing Viet Cong" -- was apparently first added to the article by Rex in this edit of 06:32, 10 Aug 2004.
Neutrality responded about five hours later with this edit, in which he left in Elliott's misleading statement but added the fact that the citation didn't mention the killing.
Less than an hour and a half later, Rex rewrote Neutrality's text (or, as Rex would put it if the shoe were on the other foot, he "came in behind" Neutrality) with this edit, in which he deleted the reference to the actual contents of the citation.
Various subsequent edits alternately restored and deleted the facts that undercut Elliott's attack on Kerry.

Now, given this history, there is absolutely no basis for reverting just because no one provided Rex with an explanation he finds satisfactory. Neither Rex nor anyone else has ever provided an explanation for deleting this information in the first place (or on any of the multiple subsequent occasions when it was deleted). Its factual accuracy is indisputable given that the text of the citation is a matter of public record. (Read the citation -- it says only that "ten Viet Cong were killed," not who killed any of them.) That this information is relevant to Elliott's comment is quite clear, given that he purports to be characterizing the basis for the award of the medal but is actually mischaracterizing it. VV, I know you're only lately getting into this fray, but I've been dealing for weeks with this attitude that anyone who changes anything Rex writes must first explain it, but Rex is free to make changes, such as deleting the factual information about the citation, without any explanation for the deletion, either in the edit summary or the Talk page. JamesMLane 05:23, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I didn't know what the controversy involving Elliott is about or even who he is, or what it has to do with Kerry. What I did do was look through the page history and see Neutrality reverting without any comment and reverting again saying he's only reverting a revert - which is dishonest. He reverted again while logged out. By no explanation I'm really referring to none, not even a few words in the edit summary, the first time round at least.

Since there were a large number of changes made, Neutrality and/or Rex should make it clear where they agree and where they don't agree. In general, when I see a large edit reverted, I assume someone is acting in bad faith, because there is seldom a reason to eliminate all of someone's changes, the exception being if it's systematic nonsense. This is not "Rexian Exceptionalism". My own experience with Neutrality on FOX News is that he would engage in reverts without even bothering to check what he is reverting (such as being aware of attempts at compromise), so my gut is that something similar is happening here (perhaps this is me being biased, of course). I also see Rex using the Talk page far more than Neutrality.

But let me break down the issues which seem to be under dispute between these two (not things they may agree on, such as having the quote):

This incident has become controversial in the past two years. / The details surrounding Kerry's Silver Star award have recently become somewhat controversial. (another incident/silver star alternation later occurs)
- Don't know what this is about. The latter seems to be more specific as to what incident, rightly or wrongly, the former as to the time.
However, Elliott apparently changed his story in August 2004, signed an affidavit that stated... / More recently, in August 2004, Elliott signed an affidavit stating...
- Hm, I'm wondering what purpose "changed his story" serves. It sounds loaded to me, can't the reader decide?
... a statement made despite the fact that the killing was for the rescue of the boat and the killing is not even mentioned in the official citation. / ... This August affidavit was released in support of his July 2004 affidavit which stated in part "When Kerry came back to the United States, he lied about what occured in Vietnam..."
- The first seems to be telling the reader that Elliott is talking nonsense. Can it be said in a more NPOV way? The second seems to provide helpful context.
After this affidavit was released, Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe quoted Elliott as having retracted his prior statement, saying... / It was after the release of this 1st affidavit, that Michael Kranish, of the Boston Globe quoted Elliott as having said...
- Well first should be spelled out, but the second may be more neutral, in that it doesn't tell the reader Elliott has retracted his statement, although since he's only quoted as such, perhaps it's alright.
Elliott contends that the reporter substantially misquoted him. / It was the release of these two affidavits and Elliott's contention that the Globe reporter substantially misquoted him which resulted in controversy. While there has been contention from some Kerry supporters that Elliott's story has changed as the 2004 presidential race has evolved, for the most part, neither the Kerry nor Bush camps have commented about Elliott's statements or the press reports about them.
- The second seems to give far more information, although the claim that this "resulted in controversy" may or may not be true (I don't know). Also, it's stated that there is a contention that his story has shifted.

These are the only differences, save the "west wing" part which I'm passing on. I'm not sure what you're referring to as "deleted" in Rex's version. I agree that the talk of whether killing was considered is relevant, so on that point Rex does I feel say too little. But I don't see the justification for the amount of revert battling we've seen, nor what's so great about the version Neutrality is defending.

V V 06:01, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What I'm referring to as being deleted is the fact of what the citation actually says, as opposed to the false impression that Elliott tries to give about what it says. The citation text certainly undercuts Elliott's comments, but I wouldn't exactly say that he's "talking nonsense" -- politically motivated smear job is more like it, although of course I'm not advocating that we say that in the article. As I noted in my addendum at 5:50, below, I agree that the version Neutrality is defending needs much work, although it's better than Rex's version. JamesMLane 06:13, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As an addendum to the above: I'll confess that, until this Elliott flap developed, I had never bothered to read the medal citation, though it was linked in the article. Now that I've read it, I see that, Elliott or no, our current text gives a misleading account of the award of the Silver Star. That passage should be rewritten, regardless of what we say or don't say about Elliott. JamesMLane 05:50, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Now that I'm going over the citation in more detail, I see that there's a mention of the killing, though it's buried in the middle. Reading the citation and either version of the Wikipedia article is almost like reading about two different incidents. JamesMLane 06:33, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Summary of Silver Star - Kerry / Elliott facts

To summarize all the known, generally uncontested facts about Kerry's Silver Star:

Kerry's boat was fired on from shore (some say heavily - others not)
Had Kerry followed training, he would have turned the boat from shore and retreated
There are no accounts which state that a safe retreat route was unavailable
Rather than safely retreat, Kerry either personally piloted or ordered the boat to shore
At the river bank, they encountered light resistance
One crew member shot a Vietnamese teenager with a .50 cal machine gun and wounded him
Kerry has been credited with subsequently killing that teenager by shooing him with a rifle
Kerry did this shooting virtually immediately after the .50 cal MG jammed and could not finish off the teeanger
The teenager was attempting to run away, when he was shot by Kerry
The teenager had a rocket launcher (RPG) - reports differ as to whether or not it was still loaded (they are single shot devices) or had already been fired and was therefore not capable of being fired again - these devices are not reloadable in the field
Elliott relied upon Kerry's representations of these events in order to make the original recommendation for the Silver Star
Elliott now says that he was unaware that Kerry's action in this event consisted of "simply pursuing and dispatching a single wounded, fleeing Viet Cong".
Elliott now says that had he known that back then he would not have recommended Kerry for the medal.

If anyone want to put all these facts in, please be my guest. As I have said before, my research indicates that Kerry's deserved medals are the 2nd Purple Heart and the Bronze Star. To me it's simply sad that for all these years, Kerry has exagerated the details of the other events. Had Kerry given more factual accounts of the other events back when thay happened, he would not have a trail of discrepency following him now. And while I cam sympathize with the motivations of a young sailor (Kerry) to get credit for each and every "wound", a Silver Star is generally (and ought to be) reserved for more meritous action than disregarding your training and turning towards shore when safe retreat was possible. And then when arriving there, shooting down and killing a single wounded teenager, who, had it not been for Kerry directing the boat towards shore, would not have been within range with the RPG, to begin with. In essence, Kerry got a medal for killing a teenager who would not have to have been killed if Kerry had followed is training. If anyone on this page thinks they want our readers to fully appreciate that fact - I am more than happy to accomodate everyone with voluminous and copious details, links and referrnces. On the other hand, if certain editors here would stop trying to paint John Kerry as some type of Military super-hero (rather than the reasonably comptetant and reasonably brave sailor he was), I feel we would have less editorial conflict. Rex071404 14:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Then let me ask if there is any difficulty with the addition of the following line in the criticism of Silver Star paragraph:

Elliot also avers in the second affidavit that he has no personal knowledge of the circumstances of the shooting, but rather relied on passages from Kerry's biography for his initial statement that Kerry had been dishonest.

Important link

Pro-Bush website opinion on this article

Sam [Spade] 07:09, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This was cited on the mailing list too, and a few other places. This may mean no more than our article is complete, so people from either side could cite favorable facts from it. V V 07:46, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I take it as a compliment to the wiki in general, and this article in particular. Sam [Spade] 16:42, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The "Saigon Summit"

Brinkley uses this term to describe the January 1969 meeting involving Abrams and Zumwalt. [3] He's using it in a somewhat metaphorical sense in that Reagan et al. weren't there, which is one reason I put it in quotation marks. "Summit" is frequently used in this way to refer to meetings other than those involving heads of state. JamesMLane 14:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If Brinkley called Kerry "Ultra Leader" would you put that in too? No, of course you wouldn't. Using that quote is simply too POV. I strongly oppose using that quote as section title. Brinkley's book is clearly pro-Kerry. Also the word "Summit" has loaded connotations. It implies high leadership. Kerry may be aiming for high leadership now, but he was not a high leader back then. I very vigorously object!

By the way JamesMLane, I am still waiting to hear the details of your unresolved complaints against me regarding John Kerry and I have invited you to place them on my personal Talk page in a succinct manner. If you do not do that soon, I will interpret that to mean you have no complaints and all is resolved. Rex071404 14:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Beginning with your "by the way" comment: I've already told you that I do not adopt your statements of what you'll infer if I don't drop everything and respond to some particular issue framed just as you want. In fact, I'll add that I find such statements extremely annoying. You may interpret my statements any way you please, but my interpretation governs, not yours. All is resolved? In my opinion nothing is resolved. You will find detailed statements of my position at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence. I'm not going to repeat them over and over again here. One thing this page does not need is more endless repetition. You can also have a look at this comment of mine, which you deleted without responding to.

Not true - those points have been addressed on the appropriate pages. Also, if you focus on that, you are living in the past. As I have stated, since my 24 hour ban by Snowspinner, I have improved myself. As my comments on this page (and the considerable support from others about those comments) show, I am focusing on building consensus. On the other hand, you are focusing on trying to give me the boot. I am trying to satisfy your concerns, but your apparent insistance on living in the past, makes that challenging. Rex071404 16:13, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The link I provided just above included a detailed section Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence#POV inclusions, deletions and modifications that specifically noted it was about your actions after returning from the block. I don't understand why you keep raising these points here on the Talk:John Kerry page when you apparently haven't read everything on the Request for Arbitration page, where it all belongs. JamesMLane 17:00, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for conceding that the vast majority of all your complaints against me stem from the fact that you disagree with my edits. This supports what I have been saying; more dialog on this page is needed. I am adding to the dialog here in great detail. On the other hand, you are focusing much of your efforts at trying to get me kicked off. On top of that, when you are proven wrong - as in your intentional re-insertion of the inappropriate term "summit" into a section title, you simply won't acknowledge it. The fact is that "Summit" is misleading and whether or not you are quoting an author does not change that fact. Additionally, try as you may to characterize our disagreement here as a "war", I will not respond in kind. I have learned my lesson and am improving my efforts. Perhaps you may want to consider following my lead in that regard. Rex071404 18:33, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As for the "Saigon Summit" phrase, the section makes clear that Kerry was then a Lieutenant j.g. A big part of what made the meeting noteworthy was precisely the point that "high leadership" like Abrams and Zumwalt were meeting with a bunch of officers of that rank. JamesMLane 15:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Once again, I will re-state: A "Summit" is a meeting of high leaders of equal rank. Kerry's meeting with the military brass does not conform to that definition. In the context of describing a military meeting, using the word "Summit" in relation to Kerry's meeting is simply too POV and not supportable. However, please notice that I am leaving it be for now, until we can get more comment from others. Rex071404 16:13, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not all of Kerry's crewmates support him

According to Boston Globe [4], former Kerry crewmate Steve Gardner does not support him. I have read this in many other places on the Internet as well. I am changing the article to reflect this. Rex071404 14:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Treatment of Silver Star (incident, criticism)

I’ve rewritten the Silver Star section in the hopes of ending the latest revert war. This version relies less on Kerry’s crewmembers’ comments than on the official citation. The comments are less authoritative and are more properly introduced in the context of Elliott’s comments, so that both POV’s can be represented. Also, I put the Elliott passage in chrono order to make his position less confusing. The whole Elliott thing is still obviously live and there’s a lot to be said for holding off entirely on trying to summarize it, at least for a few weeks, until we see what emerges in the press, but for now I’ve confined myself to rewriting it. The “Criticism” section also includes a return to one of our old revert wars, namely Rex’s desire to emphasize SBVT and plug their book here. All that stuff belongs in the SBVT article. I’ve restored the prior version of that paragraph, but with the modification concerning Gardner. Rex, you should note that the result of my earlier edit is that SBVT is now identified in a subheading, giving them more prominence than they had before. Finally, the “Criticism” subsection should start with that word, because starting with “Military service” naturally suggests that the section will contain facts about military service. I think “Criticism,” standing alone, was a perfectly adequate headline, but if Rex insists on including “military service and awards” I can live with that as long as it’s not the beginning. JamesMLane 16:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Two quick points:

There was no "latest revert war". Rather, there has been an ongoing discussion which some of us have participtated in.
The edits you describe are not appearing, even when I refresh and reload. I will watch for them and address them as needed later.

Rex071404 16:23, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's because I didn't want you to go off on yet another "he reverted me without discussion" binge, so I waited to save the Talk edits first. As for SBVT, the paragraph that was inserted used normal wikilink style (wikiling the first occurrence of a term, don't duplicate the link). You kept changing the paragraph so that it called particular attention to the separate article. Other people kept changing it so that it used normal wikilink style. If you don't want to call it a revert war, fine, whatever term pleases you. The point I'm making is that I'm not going to re-address this issue when I've already commented on it. JamesMLane 16:36, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

JamesMLane, for the sake of civility on this page, I ask that you refrain from characterizng my comments as "binge(s)". Thank you. As to my edits on the SBVT and the Silver Sstar sections, I am posting them here so that the others may easily see what it is you have taekn issue wiht. Personally, I think my edits are far more accurate and succinct than what you came in afterwards with. Even so, since this obviously needs more discussion, her is what I though should go in today Rex071404 18:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) :

Silver Star

The details surrounding Kerry's Silver Star award have recently become somewhat controversial. In June 2003, Elliott was quoted as saying the award was "well deserved" and that he had "no regrets or second thoughts at all about that." [5] More recently, in August 2004, Elliott signed an affidavit stating "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single wounded, fleeing Viet Cong" [6]. This August affidavit was released in support of his July 2004 affidavit which stated in part "When Kerry came back to the United States, he lied about what occured in Vietnam...". It was after the release of this 1st affidavit, that Michael Kranish, of the Boston Globe quoted Elliott as having said "It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here ... I knew it was wrong ..In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake." [7]. It was the release of these two affidavits and Elliott's contention that the Globe reporter substantially misquoted him which resulted in controversy. While there has been contention from some Kerry supporters that Elliott's story has changed as the 2004 presidential race has evolved, for the most part, neither the Kerry nor Bush camps have commented about Elliott's statements or the press reports about them.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

As the presidential campaign of 2004 developed, a group of over 200 Vietnam Era veterans who themselves are by and large, also Swift boat crewmen and officers, formed a group which they refer to as "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" or "SBVT". This group has conducted press conferences and has also published a book [8]. This particular group of veterans, while opposing Kerry, does not speak for the bulk of Kerry's former direct crew mates. Of the living members of Kerry's direct former crew mates, all of them excepting one [9], currently support him. For a more detailed discussion of this topic, see Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

JamesMLane's edits of today 08.12.04

I would like to draw attention to JML's edit of today and invite group comment. In my view, JML has taken the "criticism" section and turned it into a "criticism rebuttal" section while at the same time, deleting most of the criticism. I think he either needs to make a new sub-age titled "Kerry's crew mates defend Silver Star" or he needs to back off from this section. In my view, JML has hijacked the "criticism" section from it's agreed upon purpose, which was to allow those editors who don't agree with the pro-Kerry BIO tone, a section to factually list criticisms. If JML wants to put text in that defends against criticism, he should do that in a separate section or on a sub-page. Comments, anyone? Rex071404 18:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Per my Edit Summary, this is the text which was inserted by JML which I removed as per above Rex071404 19:20, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC):

On the specific issue of the death of the lone Viet Cong soldier with a rocket launcher, Kerry’s crew members who were there that day do not agree with Elliott’s characterization of the event. They contend that the enemy soldier, although wounded, was still a threat. Fred Short said that the Viet Cong had only been “winged” by the boat’s .50 caliber M-60 machine gun. "But the guy didn't miss stride. I mean, he did not break stride." The Viet Cong had passed up a chance for an initial shot at the boat, possibly fearing that he was too close and would be injured himself. As the Swift boat reached the shore, he was running away, but still had a loaded rocket launcher and could have turned and fired. "If this guy would have got up, and he had a clear shot at us, we would have been history," crewmember Gene Thorson said. "Wouldn't have been no doubt about it." Short said, "The guy was getting ready to stand up with a rocket on his shoulder, coming up. And Mr. Kerry took him out …… he would have been about a 30-yard shot. ... [T]here's no way he could miss us." Del Sandusky, Kerry’s second in command, described the consequences to the lightly armored Swift boat: "Charlie would have lit us up like a Roman candle because we're full of fuel, we're full of ammunition." It is the crew members’ opinion that Kerry had to kill the Viet Cong soldier to save his boat and crew.

Rex writes, 'In my view, JML has taken the "criticism" section and turned it into a "criticism rebuttal" section while at the same time, deleting most of the criticism.' It was certainly not my intention to delete any of the criticism. I was cutting and pasting and I was tired, so I might have accidentally dropped something that Elliott (or someone else) said. If so, I invite Rex or anyone to point out what it was. There might be some criticism that's not worth including, but I don't remember reaching that judgment about anything in the course of my latest edit; any deletion of criticism was inadvertent. Rex's version of Elliott's comments omits his 1996 comment when Kerry came under attack on this issue. I added that fact, but the only other change I intended to make concerning Elliott was the one I mentioned, the order of presentation. Looking at the more recent statements, Rex's version begins with the second affidavit, goes backward to the first affidavit, then forward again to the Globe story. I think straightforward chronological ordering is easier to follow.

Rex writes, 'In my view, JML has hijacked the "criticism" section from it's agreed upon purpose, which was to allow those editors who don't agree with the pro-Kerry BIO tone, a section to factually list criticisms.' This history of the editing of the section is not accurate. Someone at some point put in a "Criticism" section. That doesn't mean that its "purpose" was the subject of any agreement. In fact, not even its existence is cast in stone. If changing the title to "Controversy" or some variant would better describe its content, fine. Furthermore, I did not agree and would never agree that the correct approach to the article is to allow a pro-Kerry bias, but to make up for it by giving anti-Kerry people a little corner of the article where they could make misleading attacks on him. Instead, each and every section should be as free from bias as humanly possible. In this instance, Rex's version would present Elliott's current opinion that's critical of Kerry, but would give no report of the opinions of the crewmembers, who after all were there. I think the NPOV approach is present both, as my version does.

One of Rex's edit summaries reads, "(Silver Star - reinsert baseline version - please dialog on talk page before you again revert or massively edit this - thank you)". This is the same underlying attitude that has been the fundamental problem in one particular dispute after another. Rex, there is no "baseline version." There is no doctrine that says the version you prefer must remain in place unless and until some unspecified level of "dialog" satisfactory to you has been reached.

At this particular moment, a RL commitment requires me to sign off and prevents me from answering everything else that might need answering. Particular substantive points that Rex or anyone else favoring his version should explain are: Why delete the fact about Elliott's 1996 statement, surely relevant to his current criticism; and why delete the opinions of the people (other than Kerry) who, unlike Elliott, were present at the incident. JamesMLane 22:01, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The concept of a "baseline" version is valid. It refers to the idea that while discussions are underway on a disputed section, people should dialog before they make large scale changes. I have been doing that. Some others, less so. In order to avoid a constant churning of text, it makes sense that editors discuss their changes on this page before upsetting the apple cart. If not, how do we differ from vandals? Rex071404 00:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex, this would be valid, if you did it as well. For instance, the issue with the one Swift boat crew member. You found the link, posted it on the talk page, and then IMMEDIATLY changed the John Kerry page (I was watching RC at the time), with an edit summary of something like "please don't edit with discussing on talk page". How about finding something, posting it on talk, and posting hte proposed change on talk, which is what you want the rest of us to do, instead of claiming one version as baseline.. let's discuss EVERY change, James's, your's, etc. Lyellin 07:19, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

The plan of waiting for comment is a good one and you will see that for the most part, I do that. Other times though, it makes no sense to wait, because the person whose comment is most needed (since I am changing his edit) is Neutrality has as of late, stopped dialoging on this page and in any case basically completely ignore my invitations to dialog. The fault on the current crisis, lies with Neutrality. Rex071404 14:30, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that Rex is demanding that everyone else be constrained by requirements that he's unwilling to follow himself. His position is wrong, because everyone should play by the same rules. Whether the uniform rule should be "discuss every change before implementing" is another matter, though. That can get cumbersome. On other articles that generate much intensity and controversy, but where none of the editors act the way Rex does here, it works out better to have the understanding that quite a few edits, at least, can be made without prior discussion. People often edit in a collaborative fashion despite their differences. JamesMLane 09:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I think it would be cumbersome, and unwieldly. I'd just like to treat all edits the same. Either discuss them all, or stop the intense long-winded arguements about whether or not something has actually been discussed. Lyellin 09:33, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel please read this 08.12.04

Re: John Kerry

The "duplicates" of which you speak, are TOC name duplicates only. They actually are differing sections. The second set, is the "criticism" section which keeps merging with the bio section due to edits of others who keep reverting me and removing the "line" which separates sections

Rex071404 21:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you say so. I'm not going to wade through 50 edits to find out who did what. Fix it before you hit save and I won't revert. Use the "show preview" button. You should employ it more often in any case; maybe it will stop you from making a dozen edits at a time. Gamaliel 22:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rocket propelled gernade

In regards to JML's efforts (see above) to insert the personal recollections of Kerry's crew as a defense against criticism in regards to his Silver Star, I point out these facts:

The crew mates quotations contradict the narrative, which is that the enemy soldier was running.
The crew mates quotations contradict each other
The alleged life and death risk of the boat possibly being hit by RPG round is overstated - this is evidenced by text in the "Second Purple Heart" narrative (see John Kerry), which plainly states "As the Swift boats reached the Cua Lon, Kerry's boat was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade round, and a piece of hot shrapnel hit Kerry's left leg".
Since it is quite clear that Kerry's boat was more than able to survive an RPG round, to include the rhetorically rich quotations of the crew mates in the manner in which JML wants to, is clearly POV.
And of course, since the quotes contradict each other and the narrative, they must be excluded on the basis of good writing.

As I suggested above, if JML is bent on inserting a defense to each and every criticism of Kerry, he in effect neuters that criticism. If we consent to this, why bother having any criticism? I say if the criticism is factual, not on it's face extreme and does not on a word count basis, dominate the article, it's not POV and should be left be against attempts to water it down. Rex071404 00:24, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Because it's not factual, as it doesn't tell the whole picture. As it reads, it implies that Elliot's assertion that Kerry lied about his conduct in Vietnam is based on his own personal knowledge, which it wasn't (as Elliot admits in the 2nd affidavit). It also implies that Kerry was cited for the Silver Star because of his actions in shooting the fleeing VC, which the citation does not mention. To present the facts in the way you have written them puts Elliot's criticisms in a stronger position than it would if the above facts were known - that is a POV issue. Arguments and rebuttals should be presented to give the readers enough information to decide for themselves. --khaosworks 04:36, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps in theory that might be a pure way, but in the context of the current extremely pro-Kerry bias of the article, giving more and more breathing space to those who want pile on fluffy excuses to mitigate Kerry's faults just keeps adding more rosey glow to the article. Rex071404

That's silly - if you feel that the other areas of the article need POV editing, go for those other areas. You don't "balance" POV violations in one area with POV violations in another. That means both sides are skewed, not rendered neutral. These are facts, not "fluffy excuses". If you fail or refuse to recognize that then that is evidence supporting your own bias. --khaosworks 07:14, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely with Khaosworks. Rex has mentioned this theme before. It seems to be his fallback position as a justification for the incessant injection of anti-Kerry POV material. JamesMLane 09:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do not agree that I am saying we should intentionally insert anti-Kerry POV material for balance. Rather, what I am saying is that in light of the exreme pro-Kerry nature of the whole article, I oppose the intense extra scrutiny some are applying to my edits - when they don't allow the same to their own. I too think there are POV editors here - pro-Kerry editors that is. Chief among them in my view are JamesMLane and Neutrality. Until those two begin to desist, it is unreasonable to expect that others such as myself will just throw in the towel. To me, it is 1st and foremost a goal that the truth be told. And in that vein, go back and look at how hard those two tried to prevent me from getting the truth about Kerry's 1st "wound" edited correctly. And what about the fight others made about the word "aggressively" being mis-inserted and emphasizing the wrong point? I lay the blame squarely at their feet. Rex071404 14:49, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Senator chokes on an apple

I object to the inclusion of this sentence "To this day Hecht calls Kerry every Christmas to thank him. Though a conservative Republican, has said he plans to vote for Kerry." as being to POV. Commets, anyone? Rex071404 00:56, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, bullshit. It's true: [10]

No. It is not true. Here is what is actually in the article, "Hecht won't, however, say who he would vote for in November if Kerry wins the Democratic nomination.

"Only the Good Lord and myself will know how I'm going to vote," he said.

Goto [11] and read to the bottom of the page. Fred Bauder 13:18, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

True or not, there is a question as to whether this little story warrants a whole section of an encyclopedia article on Kerry. If so, though, we might as well add the other information. V V 01:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have edited Neutrality's unsigned "BS" insult by inserting a "*". Neutrality, please be more civil. Thank you. Rex071404 01:15, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Never edit my comments again. And don't lecture me about being "civil." Neutrality 02:03, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality has just now restored the vulgar term which he previously posted. And please take note, he still is not dialoging about the issues laid out above. Rex071404 02:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I propose the addition of a link to the Lunch Room Veterans for the Truth page.

"Kerry knew one day he'd run for President," said Trick O'Neal, a Republican staffer who was in the lunchroom at the time, "He wasn't choking at all. Chic just had a tickle in his throat, that's all, and Kerry has blown the whole thing into some kind of heroic deal. I was just 50 yards away, and Kerry's version isn't the same as my recollection now, 16 years later. As I recall it, Kerry ran away because he was afraid to perform the Heimlich, and Chic wasn't in any danger because he wasn't choking anyway."

http://martinirepublic.com/item/313

AlistairMcMillan 01:26, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On a serious note, Hecht says that he will "support" Kerry. In both the VegasSun and Roll Call articles he declines to say which way he will vote.AlistairMcMillan 01:52, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While an interesting factoid, it gives the appearance of cherry picking tiny stories that paint Kerry in a positive light, which in itself is POV. Perhaps we can move this to a "Trivia" section or something like it? It's not good for Wikipedia credibility to have such a fawning story about Kerry as its own section. Fuzheado | Talk 02:28, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

FYI: Effective 08.11.04, Neutrality has declined my request for mediation

Those of you who are following this page may wish to take note that Neutrality, who was today intimately involved in repeated (6 times!) reversions of the same section of John Kerry which contained my edits, has has expicitly stated that he does "decline" my request for mediation [12]. He also accuses me of "lying". I also ask you to take note that he left an unsigned, vulgar comment about my objection that his particular edit was POV - see above. Rex071404 01:28, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have to laugh. You declined my request for mediation and mocked my complaints about your behavior. Now you want mediation, possibly to head off the Rfa, and complain when he declines. I'm sure you'll post some lengthy, verbose, and unintelligible discussion now about how you aren't a hypocrite.

Your version isn't the "baseline" - there is no baseline. You've literally made hundreds of edits without discussion, and then whine about edits made by others without pages of "dialog". You take out documented facts which you think favor Kerry calling them "POV" and then add random freeper smears about Bill Clinton. You claim that you haven't insulted anyone since your ban by Snowspinner, but the Rfa documents the same behavior before and after this ban. When does it stop? Somewhere in there might be a helpful, contributing editor, but that person won't emerge until you stop the endless complaints, accusations, confrontational and insulting comments, and 30 edits at a time. Gamaliel 03:27, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

False. False. False. The complaints against me were divided into two types: My use of personal invective and characterizations of my editorial work as POV. My method no longer includes invective (not so for others such as Neutrality who said my view was "BS" just yesterday). And if there is no "baseline" about anything at any time, I suppose that frees me to delete all the absurd '55th cousin 85 times removed' minutiae, yes? As for mediation with you, I did not decline. Rather, as the record reflects, the issue was tabled after I said it was not "ripe" and that I had not given up dialoging yet. Gamaliel, I have no problems with you and am happy to hear your succint concerns - please put them on my talk page if they are specific to me and I will answer ASAP. And as for "invective", is inferring that I am an "unintelligible" "hypocrite" really the right way to go about getting me to agree with you?Rex071404 06:46, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You either accepted mediation or you refused mediation. You can’t have it both ways.

As for you having nothing against me, how does that jive with two weeks of personal attacks documented on the RfA? I’d hate to see how you treat people you do have something against. Gamaliel 18:41, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The explanation is simple: When I first joined here, I mistook the dynamic to be less erudite than it is. I mistook it for a blog, which it is not. I am accustomed to being able to speak bluntly. Since I have learned the ropes here, I have moderated my tone. That simple fact is not in dispute. Sorry for any past hurt feelings Rex071404 18:52, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You can speak bluntly without accusations and insults. Those aren't signs of bluntness and outspokenness, they are signs of rudeness and boorishness.

Despite what you've claimed, you have engaged in personal attacks after that 24 hour ban. I hope you are sincere when you claim that you are making efforts to moderate your behavior. Gamaliel 19:20, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the fact that this is on Rfa already means that mediation did not work; I think Rex should have tried mediating this a long time ago instead of escalating this edit war to the point that it has to be arbitrated. Mediation is better when two users are battling each other; in this case, a number of users have issues with Rex, so arbitration is proabably, alas, appropriate. Samboy 06:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Samboy, please don't point the finger at me - it was Neutrality who went hog wild with reverts yesterday and caused the page to be protected. He has also been involved in each and every previous revert war since I started editing this page and he has also been invoved in previous revert wars at the George W. Bush page (none of the ones there included me). Futher, he is the only editor who refuses to dialog on this page, he also declined to accept my request for mediation with him, he is also using vulgar language and he is leaving misleading, false, inadequate and cryptic Edit Summaries. Rex071404 14:25, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Senator's endorsement

I've been trying to stay out of the Kerry dispute in the last few days. I prefer to help resolve disputes, rather than being involved in them. And you seemed to have cut back on the most egregarious POV material, which was why I became involved here at all. I've been pretty close to taking the article and the arbitration request off my watchlist and being done with it. But I see that you're still making edits which are completely not neutral.

With your last edit, you deleted a fact simply because it favours Kerry, on the accusation that it was "POV". It was simply a two line description of a fact, although if you consider that it could have been worded more neutrally, go ahead. However, there was no grounds to remove it. If you feel that it isn't relevant (which you didn't state), then make a case for that. Otherwise, don't remove material just because it doesn't support your case. In addition, you might want to watch your own reverts, as you've violated the three-revert rule yourself more than once. Ambi 02:02, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see what can be said to be POV about that. He's a Senator. He's a Republican. He's a conservative. He's said he'll vote for Kerry. What exactly about that do you dispute? Ambi 02:39, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1st read the links - he did not say "vote". 2nd, please put these comments on the Kerry talk page. 3rd, it's a cross party endorsement being highlighted during a close race - that makes it POV. 4th, I am copying this to Kerry talk Rex071404 02:43, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1) Well, support then. 2) Fine. 3) That does not make something POV. It's a statement of fact. Zell Miller has endorsed Bush, and if that isn't in the Bush article, then it probably should be. And same in this case. Ambi 06:42, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, it should not. Statements of that nature are too campaign related and belong on the repsective candidates campaign pages, not on the personal BIO pages. Rex071404 06:53, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Creation of sandboxes for editing

Sometimes, when an article is protected, editing can go forward in a "/Temp" version of it. In this instance, there are so many different controversies over so many different topics that I think such an overall temp version would just degenerate into a useless barrage of edits, reverts, etc. -- sort of like the real article.

I want to make the problem more manageable by breaking it down. We can do that with separate temporary versions for each disputed area, so that each one is subject only to the edits that relate to its subject. To begin that process, I've set up a "sandbox" (a temporary page) of my version of how to present the Silver Star information.

The round of reverts before the latest protection involved three different ways of treating the subject: Neutrality's, mine and Rex's. Editors who agree with my basic organization, but who want to improve the draft, are invited to edit John Kerry Silver Star-JML version.

Neutrality and Rex have each made clear their support for significantly different approaches. Therefore, I respectfully request that neither of them edit this sandbox, although their comments would be welcome on its Talk page. I think it would be very helpful if each of them would set up an appropriate sandbox for his version. I promise not to edit either John Kerry Silver Star-Neutrality's version or John Kerry Silver Star-Rex version. :)

I have two purposes in setting up this sandbox. First, although we never know how long this article will stay protected, it could well be that the current spell of protection will last much longer than the earlier ones. A sandbox will enable us to make some progress during the protection. Second, even if the page were to be unprotected very quickly, we might find it useful to have a poll on how to handle the Silver Star and related information. Ideally, each of the three versions (and any other that might surface) would have been refined in its own sandbox and would be in the best shape to compete against the others in a poll. JamesMLane 13:12, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, would it have been better to set these up as sub-user pages, with associated talks, to not crowd the main article space? Lyellin 13:23, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

I can't give you my reasons for rejecting that alternative because, truth be told, I didn't think of that alternative. I'll keep it in mind as a fallback in case someone lists the sandbox on VfD. JamesMLane 14:49, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

*chuckles* Just wondered. Not a big deal, but I could see it possibly being an issue with someone. Lyellin 14:52, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

I long ago suggested that we discuss each disputed section as needed on this Talk page. Neutality is refusing to particpate. I reject any plan which allows him or any other active editor, to evade dialog. Rex071404 14:56, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex, how does the plan allow him to avoid dialouge? If he doesn't participate, AND we all vote to include a specific section, then if for some reason neutrality starts reverting THAT, there are a whole bunch of us, on all sides of the issue, who will be having problems with Neutrality. Lyellin 14:59, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

If Wolfman, Gamaliel and JamesMLane all second your view that they too will help rv Neutrality if he goes on a revert spurt again, then I'd feel more comfortable. Until then, I'd like to hearr directly from Neutrality. I think his frequent edits obligate him to dialog on this page. Rex071404 20:37, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A 1st step

As a 1st step, I would like group agreement that this SBVT section is acceptable Rex071404 14:58, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC):

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

As the presidential campaign of 2004 developed, a group of over 200 Vietnam Era veterans who themselves are by and large, also Swift boat crewmen and officers, formed a group which they refer to as "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" or "SBVT". This group has conducted press conferences and has also published a book [13]. This particular group of veterans, while opposing Kerry, does not speak for the bulk of Kerry's former direct crew mates. Of the living members of Kerry's direct former crew mates, all of them excepting one [14], currently support him. For a more detailed discussion of this topic, see Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

I have issue with the statement "a group of over 200 Vietnam Era veterans who themselves are by and large, also Swift boat crewmen and officers." Are they actually all still crewman and/or officers? I would think not... — マイケル ₪ 15:56, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

You are correct, that should read "...who themselves were by and large, also...". Change "are" to "were". Also, the "by and large" is needed because the exact composition is not all, only mostly SB vets. Rex071404 16:24, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also, I'm not comfortable with the statement "This group has conducted press conferences and has also published a book [15]." Who actually published the book? From what I have read, it's my impression that very few people in that group actually worked on the book, and maybe it would be better to say the group endorses the book? — マイケル ₪ 17:18, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

On this point, I disagree with you. The group and the principal authors take joint responsibility for the book. Authors often say "I've just had a new book published". It may be clumsy english, but any other way would probably be worse. Also, no reader will reasonably be misled because a link to the book is immediately there. Rex071404 18:56, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You don't seem to get my point here... Did the group actually publish the book? The answer is either yes or no. If yes, the phrasing is ok. If no, then the phrasing should be changed, since it is false. This book was written by 2 (maybe only one, I can't find any information that shows Corsi is a SBVT member.) very partisan people (Corsi is EXTREMELY conservative). It was published not by the SBVT, but by a company called Regnery Publishing which is, according to disinfopedia a "publisher of conservative books based in Washington, DC." Now, it may be true that SBVT stands behind the book, or endorses the book. However, it certainly in NOT true that they published it. Lets change this statement to read "This group has conducted press conferences and also has endorsed a book written by some of its members [16]." I think this is a much more trhuthful statement, and it doesn't lead to any false conclusions about who wrote/published the book. — マイケル ₪ 20:18, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds good, both logically and linguistically. Rex071404 20:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

PS: Kerry is equally Liberal (if not more so) than Corsi is conservative. Rex071404 21:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - 08.13.04 v.1 - (please comment)

As the presidential campaign of 2004 developed, a group of over 200 Vietnam Era veterans who themselves were by and large, also Swift boat crewmen and officers, formed a group which they refer to as "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" or "SBVT". This group has conducted press conferences and also has endorsed a book written by some of its members [17]. This particular group of veterans, while opposing Kerry, does not speak for the bulk of Kerry's former direct crew mates. Of the living members of Kerry's direct former crew mates, all of them excepting one [18], currently support him. For a more detailed discussion of this topic, see Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Using ₪'s suggestions, I have redone the above section. I am asking that the rest of the group please comment Rex071404 20:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex, this illustrates one reason I have trouble taking seriously your incessant calls for "dialog". I commented above (under "Treatment of Silver Star (incident, criticism)" when I explained my edit), although I was merely repeating a comment that others had made. Now it's as if none of us had ever bothered to say anything. The section on SBVT that you keep proposing doesn't follow standard Wikipedia rules for linking. You depart from those rules to use instead a form that highlights and calls particular attention to anti-Kerry material, which renders your draft is unacceptably POV. Furthermore, after your long efforts to lard this article with all kinds of pro-SBVT material, including a plug for their book, we finally got it set up the way it should be, with the SBVT material in the SBVT article. Now you've started re-adding parts of the extraneous SBVT material. I don't know whether you have some contorted reasoning for calling what your proposal the "baseline" version, but I don't care what terminology you choose to use; I'm going to restore the original version of the paragraph, subject only to the addition of the reference to Gardner. JamesMLane 23:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

With regard to the discussion above about who published the book: Currently the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth article, which is where the information belongs, doesn't say anything about who published the book. It shows a copy of the cover with a caption that reads, "Opponents have criticized Kerry's military record. In the September 2004 book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, SBVT spokesman John E. O'Neill and co-author Jerome R. Corsi criticize Kerry's first Purple Heart and judgment in battle." That seems to me to be a correct phrasing, for the reasons stated by MBecker. There's currently nothing there about members "endorsing" the book, but any information to that effect would certainly be an appropriate addition to that article. JamesMLane 00:06, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Simply declaring my version wrong and reverting it is not consensus building behavior. Please follow Mbecker's lead and look for ways to harmonize our versions. I already adopted (2) of his suggestions today. Please make suggestions and wait for reply. I have demontrated via my acceptence of Mbecker's views, that I am not intransigent. Rex071404 00:10, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you'll accept a comment from a non-participant. The version of this section restored just now by Rex071404 has several problems, not the least of which are that it is awkward and wordy, and contains embedded links to commercial sites in violation of protocol. These observations, I hope, are not related to the controversial nature of the article. (I do also find the content prior version to be more straightforward, on topic, and NPOV, but I will leave it at that and let the participants hash that part of it out). Jgm 00:43, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex, your implication that I am proceeding without dialog, while you're being the rational cooperative participant, is total baloney. We filled many kilobytes of Talk dealing with your incessant attempts to turn the article about John Kerry into an article about SBVT. That was finally resolved, days ago, by the creation of the separate article. Stuff like whether SBVT published a book belongs there.

If you were consistently applying your concept of a "baseline" version, then the "baseline" version of this paragraph would be the one created in this edit by Wolfman on August 6, when he moved the whole long section about SBVT (its leadership, ads, funding, etc.) to the separate article. In its place he left the following:

"Also criticizing Kerry are over 200 other Vietnam Era veterans who have organized themselves as the group known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth SBVT). They have questioned Kerry's service record and his medals. Several people who were in the same unit with Kerry are part of SBVT, but all the members of Kerry's crew who are still living support his presidential bid."

Since August 6, the changes that have been made to this version by consensus have been (1)the correction of the missing left parenthesis after the wikilink and (2) the rewording of the last sentence to take account of the one guy who served briefly with Kerry and who supports Bush. Those changes produced the following version, the one I restored a few minutes ago:

"Also criticizing Kerry are over 200 other Vietnam Era veterans. As the presidential campaign of 2004 developed, they formed the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT). They have questioned Kerry's service record and his medals. Several SBVT members were in the same unit with Kerry, but of Kerry's direct former crewmates, all of them except one [19] support his presidential bid."

There is no consensus for any other change. In particular, I do not agree to the proposed changes that would start re-introducing into this article information about SBVT that should be in the SBVT article. I do not agree to the proposed changes that depart from normal wikilink style in order to highlight and promote material deemed especially valuable because of its anti-Kerry content; that violates NPOV. I am, however, perfectly willing to conduct a dialog about how the above paragraph might be improved, with the hope that we can build a consensus. If you would like to suggest any changes to the original version, as modified above to incorporate the consensus edits, please feel free to present your proposed changes here and explain your reasoning in support of them. (When I went to add this comment I found an edit conflict and read Jgm's comment. I agree with what he says and I appreciate his taking the time to join this discussion.) JamesMLane 00:54, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To Neutrality and Rex

You two have been arguing pointlessly with each other for some time now. Let me put a proposal to both of you. If, you don't agree with an edit someone else has done, it is alright to revert it, to a point. One revert is acceptable, however after that, it's just pointless and wastes everyone's time. Out of courteousness towards everyone else, please bring these issues to the attention of the other editors, and let us discuss these issues together to figure out the best choice. I realize, I have been gone from this article for several days. This is partly because I have grown tired of some users behavior on this article, and needed a break. However, there is nothing to stop either of you from leaving messages on other users talk pages asking them to chime in on any debate. It is not necessary for you two to argue endlessly with each other about who is attacking who. It won't get anybody anywhere, it will only take up extra space on this already very full and quickly filling talk page. I would ask that both of you keep any sort of personal attacks or comments off this page, because you are only hurting the article by bringing it up here. This bickering only stands to repel other users from contributing to an article that could use as many eyes as possible. Please, in the interest of this article, and Wikipedia as a whole, cooperate with each other. Don't let your differences get in the way of making sure this article is as good as it can be! If you two want to discuss anything other than something directly related to this article, please take it elsewhere, and try to avoid revert wars, they don't solve anything, they only make things worse. Thank you both, and everyone else in advance for your future civility. I look forward to editing this article in peace. I hope no one feels I am personally attacking them, because this is not my intention. My intention is only to help keep work on this article productive. Thank You. — マイケル ₪ 20:40, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure it can honestly be said that Neutraliy is "arguing". If you notice, he does not reply to my comments on this page to any measurable degree. Hence, there is virtually no dialog between us. It's JamesMLane who is leaving enormous amounts of comments for me on this page Rex071404 20:47, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I plan to edit this article anymore. I've relized there are far better things to do on the Wiki than argue with Rex. I don't wish to damage my reputation even further by battling with Rex. Let him destroy the article for all I care. You win, Rex. Neutrality 21:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality, I'd prefer that you not quit and I'd also prefer that you not think that I "won". Rather, what I'd prefer you to think is that we both got off on a bad foot in dealing with each other. I am asking you to please reconsider quitting and instead try some dialoging on this page. Rex071404 21:50, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad you want dialog. I only ask that any such dialog stay off this page. Thanks. — マイケル ₪ 22:12, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

And now, poof, unprotected!

Yes, again, this may be a poor choice, but I am going to unprotect this page. It has been stagnent for far too long. Then, my first changes will be the ones dicussed above with Rex. — マイケル ₪ 22:12, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Re: John Kerry Silver Star

Moved to User talk:Khaosworks. This doesn't belong here... — マイケル ₪ 23:28, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)