Talk:John Kerry/Archive 13

Untitled

Carry-over current discussion Rex071404 02:18, 14 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 [1]. 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 [2], 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 [3]." 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 [4]." 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 [5]. 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 [6], 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 [7] 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)

Mbecker and I moved this topic forward today (see above). Mbecker made succint comments in the same manner that Jgm is now making. Why don't you try that and quit trying to roll us backwards an entire week? That said, I am interested in addressing Jgm's concerns. Why don't you rewrite v.1 of of SBVT incoporating Jgm's concerns and we'll then see if we can also incorporate yours? Place the new version under a heading of SBVT v.2. How does that sound? Rex071404 02:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry Rex, I'm going to have to agree with JamesMLane here. There is a seperate article about SBVT. The only mention they deserve here is a statement saying they oppose his presidential campaign, and a link to thier article. If they didn't already have such a large article of their own, devoted so much to this exact information, I would say leave it here, but this is not the case, and as such, the information should not be repeated here. — マイケル ₪ 03:03, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

---

Carry over discussion --khaosworks 02:43, 14 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.

If we include this, we also must include how it is that Elliott came to the conclusion that Kerry had been dishonest; namely that Kerry's original report and and his biography do not tell the same account of what transpired. It's the ommitted detail that Kerry shot a fleeing, wounded teenager in the back, which Elliott contends Kerry never told him at the time of the incident. Rex071404 03:41, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You really should read the affidavit - Elliot's statmement is based on an interpretation of a passage in Kerry's biography, which he actually quotes - and in it, Kerry absolutely denies that he shot the VC in the back. So Elliot's justification for that statement is not only hearsay, but the only documentation he can provide contradicts it. In any case, the proposed sentence is still factual, and earlier in the paragraph Elliot already says that "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". All the pertinent information is there, and the sentence does not need to be altered. --05:04, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In regards to the unsigned question about Elliott (above), if we put in too much detail, we defeat the purpose of the sub-pages, wouldn't you say? Rex071404 02:51, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That was mine - sorry. One sentence is not "too much detail," and it gives a more complete picture of where Elliot's statement is coming from. There is no sub-page concerning the criticisms of Kerry's Silver Star, so I don't see how that is really cogent to this particular discussion. --khaosworks 03:05, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes Rex, you are being too selective here. Elliot has said a lot of things, and we either must include all of his "flip-floppinh" or none of it. — マイケル ₪ 03:07, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

There is also the matter of a whole paragraph that I added that Rex deleted, which reported (verbatim) several statements from the crew members, who unlike Elliott were there at the time. Rex's explanation for the deletion invoked some unexplained inconsistency. I don't see any inconsistency, but even if the recollections of these witnesses were inconsistent, they would be worth reporting. Since then my version has been improved upon (in the sandbox) by Lyellin and Khaosworks. I suggest this text as the treatment of Elliott:

The details surrounding Kerry's Silver Star have become controversial in the course of the Presidential election. In 1996, when Kerry was criticized about it during his Senate campaign, Elliott, the commander who had recommended the award, came to his defense. As recently as 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." [8]

In July 2004, however, Elliott signed an affidavit that stated in part, "When Kerry came back to the United States, he lied about what occurred in Vietnam..." Thereafter, 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." [9]. In August 2004, however, Elliott contended that the newspaper had substantially misquoted him. He signed a new affidavit that stated, "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" [10]. (http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_aff.html). Yet to be clarified is whether Elliott would still recommend the award in consideration of the other factors recounted in the citation. 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.

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.

This information is relevant to assessing Elliott's criticism. Some comments from the crew are now included in the original discussion of the incident, but part of my suggestion is also that the original discussion should be based more closely on the official citation, and not quote the crew. You can see the whole revision in the sandbox, which someone moved to User:JamesMLane/John Kerry Silver Star. JamesMLane 03:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I answered JML on those points already, here again is my answer:

• 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.

Rex071404 03:46, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pedant: I don't have any problem including these, as long as they are expressed in a neutral tone:

• 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.

but I'm not sure I personally want to edit those in, since I'm an "anything but bush" guy... but there's really no arguing against those facts that I can see... and I for one don't mind controversial factual information.Pedant 06:34, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - 08.13.04 v.2 - (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 [11]. 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 [12], currently support him. For a more detailed discussion of this topic, see Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Since the other editors here will not help merge the ideas into a v.2, I have started the ball rolling myself. If they then complain about that too, I feel that's bad faith.

Please succinctly list below, the complaints you have about v.2. Note: If you don't list your complaints, I will assume you accept v.2 as-is and I will re-insert it as-is. I am going to wait 24 hours to give you all plenty of time.

Here is what I've heard already:

• Link to commercial source baout book = must replace with non-cmmercial source - I agree
• Link to SBVT sub-page - JML says unacceptable to be at end - I disagree and ask for more dialog.
• Please take note (as per above) that Mbecker helped me develop v.1 from which v.2 is forming - so please stop the false contention that I am acting unilaterally.

Rex071404 02:49, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You have no authority to set a deadline or dismiss the views of others unilaterally. It is not incumbent upon others to list their complaints lest your version become the official one. It is incumbent upon you to state why the current, consensus version is inadequate and make a case why your version is superior.

In short, you don't make the rules around here, Rex. Gamaliel 02:56, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone care to update the arbitration evidence page to reflect Rex's latest volly of reverts and personal attacks? Neutrality 03:01, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

N's contention that I am attacking on a personal basis is not supported by fact Rex071404 03:10, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel, you mis-state my position. Let me explain it to you: This Wiki is egalitatrian. That means that each of us have the same editorial rights. The principal of justifying your edits also applies to you and JML and Neutrality, etc.

Currently, in conjunction with Mbecker, I have been developing a new text as shown above. Suffice it to say, I am following the approved protocol: I am posting my suggestions and asking for comment. If the other editors refuse to dialog, that is not my problem.

As best as I reasonably can, I am going to press forward with the edits which I think need to be done - subject of course, to giving everyone a chance to discuss and agree.

But you see, that is the key - they must discuss with an aim towards agreement.

If you or they refuse to dialog towards consensus, then frankly, you and they are gumming up the process and are contributing to the problems here. Rex071404 03:10, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I appears that everyone else disagrees with you on this section rex. Lets just let it be for now. — マイケル ₪ 03:15, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

I went to post my response and found that Gamaliel had already explained the situation quite well. To his comment, I add only that your stated goal of "dialog" is not advanced when you repeatedly engage in this tactic of telling people that if they don't follow some course of action that you've laid down, then you'll assume they hold a certain opinion. As I've told you before, your comments along these lines are very annoying. Please stop.

Gamaliel, as for your question: The problem is that it takes so long to do it right. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence#POV inclusions, deletions and modifications, paragraph 2, I gave a detailed account of just one incident, his attempts to insert his POV that Kerry's wound wasn't severe. I'm partway through compiling another such detailed dossier on a fairly minor point, but one that's illustrative of the larger problems we have with this page, viz. his attempts to change the organization so that the "Criticism" of Kerry's military service became more prominent. I don't really know what to do. The blow-by-blow account is time-consuming, but I don't know if summaries will get us anywhere.

I went to post the above two paragraphs and found another edit conflict. Sigh. Rex, your latest comment ignores the substance of what Gamaliel said, about using the current version as the basis for discussion. Why don't you accept the invitation I extended above, where, after quoting the original version of the paragraph as supported by several users, and then the version that incorporated all subsequent consensus changes, I wrote: "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." JamesMLane 03:19, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pedant:OK, heres a stab at a neutral acceptable version:

As the presidential campaign of 2004 developed, a group of over 200 Vietnam Era veterans some of whom were, or had been Swift boat crewmen or 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 John E. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi.

Of the living members of Kerry's direct former crew mates, all but one currently support him in his bid for the Presidency of the United States.

comments?Pedant 06:49, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

John Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia" false statements - Please read and comment - 08.14.04

Background: Some of the editors of John Kerry, in past dialogs here, have I feel, been opposed to including details of Kerry's past behavior or statements if indeed the facts surrounding the point at issue cannot be presented in such a light that they would consider it "NPOV".

At the same time, I have tried to express to the group that sometimes, there is simply no way to make bad news look nice - as in "you can't put a shine on a rotten apple".

This point I am raising now, is one of those "rotten apples" of Kerry's personal history, which I feel warrants reporting, but for the life of me, I cannot find any way to include the details about it, other than to say the truth which is; John Kerry has for years told a patently, on the face of it, false statement about Christmas Eve, 1968. From this article [13] (one of many I have found on the web on this topic), I extract this information:

On the floor of the Senate on March 27, 1986, Sen. John Kerry issued this statement: "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me." Mr. Kerry's statement at the time was similar to other statements he had made after returning from duty in Vietnam, and throughout much of the 1970s. Writing for the Boston Herald in October 1979, Mr. Kerry said this: "I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real." First, the obvious: Richard Nixon was not president in December 1968, and no history of the Vietnam era suggests that Lyndon Johnson ever ordered troops into Cambodia; but those are minor points.

It is my view that, as a consequence of Mr. Kerry himself pushing his Vietnam service to the forefront of the 2004 campaign, that the veracity of Mr. Kerry and his personal accounts about his service, become germane to this article.

If in truth, Senator Kerry has a track record of lying about facts relating to his service, I feel that it is not "POV" to include the details of those false statements.

However, since I am on a voluntary hiatus for a few days, and since in any case, having experienced what I see as entrenched pro-Kerry opposition here and also bearing in mind that flat out calling Kerry a liar (rightly so in my view) would be controversial to this group of editors, rather than jump in with both feet and simply create a section titled:

John Kerry's false statements about "Christmas in Cambodia",

I thought it best to poll the group 1st and see if they are willing to accept as a true fact, that John Kerry has indeed told stories over time which place him - at the orders of the Military - in Cambodia for Christmas Eve 1968.

My view is that the records of the Senate and the Boston Herald as reported by the 08.10.04 story in the Washington Times (and referred to - but not quoted verbatim - other places such as here) are accurate and that this provides exceptionally valid proof that Senator Kerry has been lying about "Christmas in Cambodia" for many years.

Further, I feel that the readers of this Wiki are entitled to know a full panoply of verified facts about Kerry, good and bad.

At the same time, in order to avoid stirring up trouble, I will not proceed with any edits on this point, unless and until we can thoroughly deliberate on it 1st.

This message then is to alert the other editors that I am calling them to and asking them to deliberate and discuss with me their findings on this Cambodia issue.

Also, please be advised that due to the Arbitration efforts being pursued by some here, I have been forced to gather information which helps proves my main contention, which is: Some editors on John Kerry, refuse to dailog and refuse to deliberate, especially so on points that would tell ugly truths about Kerry.

Therefore, be advised that in particular regards to Wolfman, Neutrality, JamesMLane and Gamaliel, if those editors do not engage me in dialog about my proposed "Cambodia" addition to John Kerry, I intend to cite their non-responsiveness to the Arbitrators as evidence.

Proposal:

Here is my proposed addition:

Christmas in Cambodia controversy

As of August 2004, a new controversy regarding the veracity of John Kerry's past statements has made the news. There are reports that include direct quotes of Mr. Kerry himself [14], which indicate that for years, John Kerry has made false statements about his whereabouts on Christams eve 1968. It is contended by some, that Mr. Kerry did this repeatedly over time to embellish certain details about his career. Though Mr Kerry does not directly rebut the reports himself, one of his spokespersons, without actually saying that Mr. Kerry stands by the veracity of certain of his past statements on the topic, did recently address the issue. [15]

I would be satisifed to insert the above sample text verbatim. I am also however, open to your comments. Rex071404 01:57, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with the history of conflict related to this aritlce, but it seems to me that the information above from Rex071404 should most definately be included in the article. Acegikmo1 02:34, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I do not feel that every editor has an obligation to engage you in dialog about every minor point you bring up, nor do I feel that their refusal to do so gives you leave to insert whatever you want to into the Kerry article. I feel that your threat to ?cite their non-responsiveness? is just that, a threat, and threats are against the wikipedia spirit of cooperation and should not be used in an effort to manipulate other editors.

With that said, I oppose the insertion of this as written. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to document every minor charge in a political campaign. And this charge is pretty much he said/she said. Kerry says Cambodia, SBVT says not. I also oppose insertion of this story without context, i.e. a description of the mission they were on and the combat which occurred, things which are not in dispute I believe.

Here?s a link I found: [16]. Haven?t found much else besides Drugde and assorted nonsense so far. Gamaliel 02:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

According to the United States Congressional Record, on March 27, 1986 on the Senate floor, John Kerry said:

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khme Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; The troops were not in Cambodia?I have that memory which is seared--seared--in me"

Find that text on this link

Here are some more on the same topic (Kerry Cambodia falsehoods):

• NY Post [17]
• Washington Times [18]
• NY Daily News [19]
• Rush Limbaugh [20]
• Rush Limbaugh #2 [21]
• Joseph Farah - World Net Daily [<nowiki>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39952</nowiki>]
• San Franscisco Examiner [22]
• Capitol Hill Blue [23]
• Telegraph.co.uk [24]
• Hugh Hewitt - World Net Daily [<nowiki>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39920</nowiki>]
• Pittsburgh Tribune Review [25]
• World Net Daily 08.11.04 [<nowiki>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39924</nowiki>]
• Byron York - National Review Online - [26]
• Mark Steyn - Telegraph.co.uk [27]
• James H. Joyner, PHD - TechCentralStation.com [28]
• NY Post - 08.06.04 [29]
• Chicago Sun Times [30]

Rex071404 05:32, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Question(s) for Gamaliel, re

Cambodia (above)

1. If it is true that Kerry lied about his whereabouts many times, including on the floor of the US Senate, would you still consider this so "minor" that we should not tell our readers about it?
2. Are you suggesting that because this issue of "Cambodia lies" entered into the media stream during a "political campaign" or from a "charge", that we should ignore it?
3. Your comment seems to presume that you believe Kerry was indeed on some sort of a mission on Christmas Eve 1968. Is this what you are suggesting? If so, what is your source? Please show me a link.
4. By saying "things which are not in dispute I believe" are you asserting that it's your position that Kerry still does claim to have been on an illegal, secret mission into Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968, or not? If so, please supply a link showing that this is his current position.

Suffice it to say, I am of the view that Kerry has been quite plainly caught in a lie and that this particular lie goes right to the core of his credibility about his service and the veracity of his personal account of same. For this reason, I am of the view that this is very timely information and is very important information for our readers - not simply "minor" Rex071404 05:44, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex, I'm on neither side of this debate (for now) but the press citations above are partisan and fishy. In decreasing order of credibility on this issue - New York Post, Washington Times, National Review, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Rush Limbaugh, WorldNet Daily. These are all conservative outlets that have histories of pushing agendas, and are hardly arbiters for the truth. Fuzheado | Talk 04:00, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fuzheado, I would think that that NYP and Wash Times (at least) are reliable enough sources, unless there is real proof to the contrary. Klanda 04:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actualy, the New York Post (not the Times) is a tabloid with very plain Republican leanings, and the Washington Times (not the Post) is also right-leaning. Helen Thomas resigned from UPI after it was bought by News World Communication, who publish the WT. As an aside, News World was founded by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. Not saying anything about this one way or another, just FYI when it comes to credibility and possible bias. --khaosworks 06:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Has Kerry responded to these accusations? I first heard about it on an unwitting exposure to Limbaugh, and subsequently read some of the articles linked above. It appears that the original accusers were the authors of Unfit for Command. Kerry's comments in the book may have been taken out of context, for instance:

• One of the main points of contention with Kerry's statement "The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real" is that Nixon wasn't president at the time, but for all we know Kerry could have been referring to a later occasion in which Nixon denied that troops had been there. It's also possible that this statement, in context, does not immediately follow the previous one quoted, "I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border...", in which case he may not have been referring to 1968 at all. Perhaps he was simply referring to Nixon as the president-to-be, in the same way we often still refer to ex-presidents such as "President Clinton." Has any of this been confirmed or denied? What's the original October 1979 Boston Herald quote, in full?
• Another point is that Kerry couldn't have been in Cambodia, because he wasn't ordered there. Well, obviously, if the President (Nixon or otherwise) is denying troop involvement there, it's not official. Kerry himself said this.
• One of Limbaugh's complaints was that Kerry claimed having been shot at by the Khmer Rouge, "four years before they were active in that area." Again, this could be out of context (as Limbaugh tends to do); "I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge..." does not, to me, seem necessarily connected with his previous statement about Cambodia in 1968. He could simply be listing war remembrances, among which is his memory of being shot at by the Khmer Rouge. If may also be a matter of Limbaugh, or others, just making up facts. That is not without precedent.
• There may also be a problem with sources. This blogger has been unable to locate the 1986 Kerry speech in question (has anyone else located it?)

• Here is a picture of the Congressional Record in which Kerry claims to have been in Cambodia, courtesy of Glenn Reynolds. I consider this authoritative. Klanda 04:53, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unless Kerry has responded to these accusations, I see no excuse to include the Unfit for Command authors' interpretations of events as factual. If they are to be mentioned in the article, they should be in context, that such-and-such authors/talk show hosts have accused Kerry of lying about Cambodia, based on their interpretation of his statements to the Boston Herald in 1979 and on the Senate floor in 1986. -- Wapcaplet 04:22, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think not responding is good enough to exclude the material. Can always include "Kerry did not respond to these allegations" etc. ... let's put in anything that's fact, leave out what's false, and label the allegations as allegations. That's what we do here right? So I think we just need to sort out what's fact and what's false and what is alleged, right? Let's head that way.Pedant 07:07, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

At the present time, all the reports about this basically amount to free publicity for the SBVT book. I don't think Wikipedia needs to contribute to that. There may indeed be something worth describing here, but Wikipedia is not a news report. I don't think WP needs to insert every allegation made against Kerry, nor should WP necessarily be doing primary investigative journalism to assess the validity of such claims. Personally, I feel that if these allegations have any credibility, less partisan news sources will begin doing investigative and analytical reports about them soon enough and WP can summarize the issue at that time. What is being reported right now is little more than press releases for the book. older ≠ wiser 12:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

News article or Encyclopaedia article ?

This article shows the danger of updating based on news during an election campaign. Our articles on other historically important politicians don't get into the level of campaign event by campaign event detail which leads to the foregoing partisan arguments. Even the Al Gore article doesn't get to this level; and for someone like Harry Truman or Winston Churchill (who also had a short military career prior to becoming a politician) it just isn't an issue. I suggest that this article (and the George Bush one) should be left vague where the facts are in dispute until after the election because at the moment it is in danger of becoming a point-scoring exercise with an enormous level of detail in some areas of Kerry's life, those areas being driven by the latest "sound-bites" and "revelations". -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:06, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

Are you contending that the fact Kerry is a liar in regards to Christmas '68 is in dispute? Rex071404 06:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How could I? I know next to nothing about the man and have no great interest in him. In Christmas '68 I was far more interested in Apollo 8 than in the Vietnam War. That hardly puts me in a position to make authoritative pronouncements on Kerry's truthfulness or lack of it. If you've all agreed that he's a liar that's fine by me 'cause I don't even know, let alone care, what he's supposed to be lying about. After all, show me a truthful politician and I'll show you one who hasn't been found out yet.

However I am fairly sure that I can tell the difference between an article which is driven by partisan point scoring and one which isn't. Guess which way I think this one's heading. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:01, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

Rex071404

With the 4th yes vote this temporary order has become effective. Fred Bauder 16:47, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

2) Rex071404 is banned from editing the pages John Kerry; John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004; and John Kerry VVAW controversy until the final decision is made in this matter. This is based on his churning of the article over petty matters as well as repeated efforts to inject a hypercritical point of view as illustrated by these edits: [31], [32], [33] ; [34], [35], [36] and [37]

Yay:

1. Fred Bauder 04:55, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
2. mav 09:37, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Martin 12:40, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. the Epopt 16:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nay:

Abstain:

now what?

So are we dropping the Christmas in Cambodia thing? Or handling it neutrally ? either is fine with me, but it would be nice to move along somewhere beyond this obstaclePedant 07:15, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

This is weird:

As they reached the shore, a Viet Cong soldier with a rocket launcher appeared jumped out of the brush, carrying a grenade launcher that could have seriously damaged the boat.

was it a rocket launcher or grenade launcher or both?Pedant 07:24, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

According to the citation as written by Commander, Naval Forces, Vietnam, it was a B-40 rocket launcher. --khaosworks 08:29, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Silver Star controversy

The presentation of Elliott's multiple statements is confusing unless they're in strict chrono order; the July affidavit prompted the Globe story, which prompted the August affidavit, which (as of now) is Elliott's last word, so I've put them in that order.

More generally, we're presenting only one side of the controversy (Elliott's). During the period of frequent revert wars, I made a suggestion that got quickly buried -- it was hard to notice everything then -- but which I'd like to revive now. The changes would be:

1. Reword the original description of the incident (section 2.2.4) to follow official sources. A complication is that Khaosworks has discovered that there are two different versions of the "official" citation: one on Wikisource and one from Kerry's website. Regardless of what use we make of each, however, the idea would be to delete all the crewmember comments and rely only on the citations.
2. The "Criticisms" section (2.4) would become "Controversies". Section 2.4.1, on the Purple Hearts, already includes criticisms and responses, and section 2.4.2 should do so as well. This is where Kerry's crewmembers would be quoted.

My earlier draft, as now edited, is at User:JamesMLane/John_Kerry_Silver_Star. Much of that version has been overtaken by events on the main article, but I suggest that two parts of it should be used. The first four paragraphs, under "Silver Star", would replace the current section 2.2.4. The next-to-last paragraph (beginning "On the specific issue of the death of the lone Viet Cong soldier...."), incorporating the crewmembers' views, would be added to the end of section 2.4.2. Comments? JamesMLane 06:03, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've been away and so missed some of the discussion, but this raises two issues for me. First, regarding the SS citation on Wikisource: I transcribed that from the initial citation by Zumwalt (an original pdf scan). I think the source was sportsmenforkerry.com. The version on Kerry's web page is a courtesy re-issue signed by a later SecNavy. The wording differs slightly betweeen the two. There is also a re-issue of the BS citation floating around somewhere with slightly different wording. It is not clear why a second set of citations got issued years later. Both Wikisource versions are Zumwalt originals.

Second, all of this stuff about the purple hearts and silver star is criticism by SBVT members. Didn't we decide earlier that the SBVT page is the appropriate place for a detailed disscussion of SBVT criticisms? Shouldn't we therefore move almost all of this material to the SBVT page?Wolfman 06:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, thanks for the explanation, but do you know why there was a "courtesy" re-issue? and why it used different wording? As to the second point, I agree that, in general, SBVT merits only a passing mention here. Elliott, however, is the one who recommended the award, so I think his comments are more notable. That's regardless of whether he's a member of SBVT; I don't know whether he is. JamesMLane 06:50, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Multiple Citations

I don't know why there are multiple sets of citations. My speculation is that he lost or misplaced the originals at some point and, as a senator, got a signed re-issue rather than a photocopy. There is apparently even a third SS citation signed by Admiral Hyland floating around. In any case, the wording differences are of little consequence. But since Zumwalt pinned him, I figure that's the most authentic version. I did, however, google up a thread over at freerepublic which seizes on this as proof of a dark plot regarding the medal-tossing thing.

As far as I can tell, there are less than 20 people offically involved in SBVT. But, many more signed the letter, including Elliott. His two affidavits were requested by and sent to SBVT steering committee members. So, I think it's fair to categorize this as SBVT material. If Elliott claims that some important element of his SS reccommendation was _false_ then I agree that should be discussed on the main page. If he just changed his mind after 30 years about whether the action deserved a medal, that's a lot less compelling. Elliott didn't give him the medal, the Navy did — based on a supposedly factual report by Elliott.Wolfman 07:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There's also the problem of dates. When were these citations issued, and which is the final draft? Surely the medal couldn't be awarded three times from three different citations. The Zumwalt SS citation is not stamped "Official Record Copy" while the other CINCPAC and Secretary of the Navy ones are - what does that mean? Adding to my confusion about which is the "official" account is that according to regulations Silver Star is apparently not awardable except at CINCPAC level and above, at least during peacetime. In wartime, it can be awarded by lower ranking officers, but only when officially delegated. I do not know if Zumwalt was delegated that authority, but the letter seems to imply so. --khaosworks 08:40, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The following theory (googled up on some forum) seems reasonable to me: The award is supposed to come with a citation suitable for framing (single page). Zumwalt's citation was a little over, requiring two pages. Presumably, Zumwalt (as commander in chief of naval forces in Vietnam) was given de facto wartime authority to approve Silver Stars, but had to get them formalized through CINCPAC after the fact. When the award was run through CINCPAC some months later, the staff there slightly edited the citation to make it regulation size. (An aside: SecNavy citation was by Lehman under Reagan, so it clearly came at least a decade after the events.)Wolfman 15:17, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Spin

But that aside, what's really puzzling about Elliot's saying in his 2nd affidavit that he would not have recommended the Silver Star if he knew that all that Kerry did was shoot the VC in the back is that the citation doesn't (a) use that as the sole reason Kerry was awarded the Silve Star and (b) as I've mentioned before, the only source he an cite actually has Kerry denying he shot the VC in the back (he does say there were shots from all sides, side and back, though, but as to himself, no). --khaosworks 08:40, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't find those points at all puzzling. My explanation of them is that Elliott's current stance is politically motivated. I think it's telling that he doesn't come right out and say, "If I had known then what I know now, I wouldn't have recommended him for the medal." Instead, he seizes on the most widely publicized aspect of the whole mission and says that Kerry's actions in that particular moment would not have justified a medal. That leaves open the possibility that the medal would be justified by Kerry's leadership of the whole mission, including but definitely not limited to saving the boat from this one particular danger. Elliott appears not to have commented explicitly on that subject. I suspect that the affidavit was drafted for him by someone who wanted to leave the impression that Elliott would not have recommended it, period; Elliott wasn't willing to say that, because it wasn't true, but he was willing to go along with the agenda of saying things he thought were true but that would leave the appropriate impression. (As a lawyer, I've drafted a few affidavits for witnesses along those lines.)

Whether these points get developed in the media over the course of the campaign may depend in part on how seriously anyone takes Elliott. Given the way the American media cover campaigns, we can expect that comparatively minor attacks, like Kerry's Silver Star and Bush's nonfulfillment of his National Guard responsibilities, will get too much attention, while things like the economy and the invasion of Iraq will get too little. JamesMLane 09:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Speaking as a former public prosecutor and judge (currently on sabbatical), I was using the term "puzzling" in the same way I would have written in formal correspondence, "Your client's representations are not borne out by investigation," translated as, "He's lying to you." :) Yes, of course it's spin. --khaosworks 09:59, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of spin, that's certainly what Elliott is now doing. Elliott hasn't said that anything in the citation is incorrect. He's just changed emphasis to make the same events seem negative. Until 2004, his spin was that Kerry boldly and at great personal risk charged into an ambush and shot an armed attacker preparing to launch a rocket. Now, the spin is that Kerry cowardly shot a wounded man in the back. Either spin is consistent with the facts as presented in the citation. But, as I noted, this medal is not Elliott's to give or to take back. Yes, he issued the initial reccommendation for the award. But the Navy issued the medal based on a review of the facts. Unless Elliott now claims that his report was false in important respects, his changing spin on the matter is basically gossip.Wolfman 15:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! I'm with you guys on this one. — マイケル ₪ 18:53, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Condense to essential facts & move detailed discussion to SBVT?

James, I respect your view that Elliott's position may be of unusual importance. However, each of these medal controversies (plus the undiscussed Bronze Star controversy) could take paragraphs to discuss fully. I have more material that is relevant to these disputes, but am hesitant to add it for fear of making the controversy section huge beyond it's true importance. (For example, Hibbard repeatedly misstated the location of Kerry's first wound — the one he supposedly remembers so vividly as just a scratch). It seems to me that each of the medal controversies is fairly characterized as essentially an SBVT issue. I wonder if it would be sufficient to simply summarize the SBVT position on each medal, state that the SBVT position is disputed, and direct readers to the SBVT page for a full discussion? Elliott could, of course, be given a bit more detail in the controversy synopsis. An arbitrator on the Rex claim made the following point: "The article needs to be about John Kerry, not a blow by blow account of the ebb and flow of mud slinging efforts." To me, a fair discussion of the Elliott claims would require a "blow by blow" account simply because it's so complicated. But that makes it a distraction to an article about Kerry, whereas it would fit fine in an article about attacks on Kerry (i.e. SBVT). Reaction? — James, or anyone else.Wolfman 05:20, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have added an "allegations" section to the SBVT article. As part of that, I used the current Kerry Purple Heart & Silver Star controvery sections essentially verbatim. I still think that the discussion here ought to be reduced to a much shorter discussion with a reference to SBVT for full discussion. But, I want to wait for some feedback before cutting back the sections here that I copied to SBVT.Wolfman 21:55, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok, no one commented, so I did it. All cut info was dropped into the SBVT article yesterday. We now have discussions of the Bronze Star & Cambodia X-mas on that page as well. Hopefully, it will make for a better JK article both in the reading and the harmony of construction. If anyone is strongly opposed, just say so. I'm not trying to impose this approach if others strongly disagree. Wolfman 23:34, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It looks good to me.Pedant 09:24, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

sponsorship of legislation

Why do the numbers keep fluctuating on this chart? Gamaliel 04:07, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Scanning the AFL-CIO link, the numbers seem misleading. First, a bunch of the "sponsored bills" are resolutions honoring the neighbor's cat -- the sort of meaningless thing that always gets passed. We shouldn't be counting those. Second, bills passed seems incorrectly tallied, a lot of those measures passed. Third, if we're going to tally this stuff, we might as well use all the data for his Senate career instead of just the past few Congresses.Wolfman 21:43, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This chart is really misleading. First, to be meaningful it ought to refer to major legislation. In the 104th Congress, Kerry introduce 10 separate bills to get some sort of authorization for 10 individual commercial ships. It's pointless and misleading to list that as 10 bills, none passed. I assume there was some procedural reason to make them separate bills. So, I suggest that the chart be relabeled to refer to "major" sponsored bills. Second, the chart specifies "bills signed into law". Many of the measures passed, but didn't require signing because they were just Congressional resolutions. These are not listed. Correcting the first problem will help a lot with the second. The chart is so misleading that I'm inclined to cut it until a proper job can be done.Wolfman 21:44, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I concur. Cut it. There are 100 different ways to present this information, but in the end it's really meaningless anyway. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 21:57, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tried a new tack. Just listed some major bills; see article. Comments? Wolfman 22:25, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The bills I listed came off the AFL-CIO web site which I erroneously assumed was comprehensive. Since it's not comprehensive, the list might be a bit selective given the source. Anyone is welcome to go through the listings on Kerry's Senate site to see if I missed any significant or major legislation that should be added. It's a big list, so I won't have the time to get to it myself for a few days. Editors who want to avoid headaches should be aware that Rex is making an issue of the recent changes to this section over in arbitration.Wolfman 16:46, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A complaint of bias

This article is seriously BIASED. It contains a picture of Douglas Brinkley's vanity piece about John Kerrys bogus account of his war service, but users have taken out this picture representing THE OTHER SIDE:

File:Unfit1.jpg

-Infinate justice

I've blocked this user infinitely for vandalism and detrimentally POV edits, on both this page and others (e.g. France). The above image and its accompanying caption is not suitable: promoting a partisan site whose "top story" is the Frenchness of Kerry's hair only serves to lower Wikipedia's credibility. If anyone has a problem with my administrative actions, they're free to post an RfC (or just yell at me on my talk page). -- Hadal 16:43, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No problem.

As far as the book goes, I have no problem if this article features a picture of Unfit for Command, but other editors decided to remove it on the basis that similar articles (Bush, etc.) did not contain pictures of critical books. Gamaliel 17:45, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I actually think a pic of the cover of Unfit could go quite nicely with the other pic of the other book.. the one in the article now. It would make a good contrast, and now that we have taken out most of the controversial stuff, and moved it to SBVT, I don't see any harm. None at all. I'm opposed to it, from my personal need to not have Bush in the White house, but editorially speaking, I'd prefer to _include_ a pic of Unfit for Command than to omit it. (as long as we don't juxtapose it with a lot of POV material it seems harmless next to the other book)Pedant

I agree with Pedant here. My personal objection to the cover at the time was the material added WITH it, and not nessecarily the cover itself. Lyellin 13:25, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

There are several books by and about Kerry listed in "Further reading". Should we reproduce all of their covers? and, picking up the argument that Gamaliel referred to, should the George W. Bush article include a copy of the cover of The Price of Loyalty? If some veterans who were never on Kerry's boat are worthy of such attention, surely the same would apply to Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, who observed Bush firsthand at numerous Cabinet meetings. Oh, and then there's Richard Clarke's book.

Obviously, we don't normally reproduce book covers. We have two of them here as special cases. The New Soldier is significant partly because Kerry himself wrote it, and partly because some of Kerry's critics have targeted it. Tour of Duty deserves some acknowledgment because our article makes extensive use of Brinkley's research (either directly or filtered through the Boston Globe or other sites). We list the SBVT book in "Further reading", and we link (improperly, twice in the same paragraph) to an article where the cover is reproduced. That's already more promotion than the book deserves, and more promotion than we give to much more substantive criticisms of Bush. JamesMLane 20:05, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There's a difference between these books. Tour is a biography by a historian. Unfit is a hit piece by a group running ads against Kerry. There is no symmetry whatsoever between them. I do oppose the cover of Unfit on the page, just as I would oppose the cover of Franken's book or a dozen others on Bush's page. Remember, this is an article about Kerry, not about the mud-slinging of an election. I would sooner remove the cover of Tour than ad Unfit. But, I don't really see a need to remove Tour.Wolfman 17:12, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On second thought, Wolfman makes a good point, my sense of style was running away with my sense of restraint. No more book covers, leave tour of Duty in.66.245.208.240 21:59, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)Pedant

Utter derail

Hi. I'd quite like to make a valuable contribution into making this an even greatier article. Unfortunately nothing comes to mind now, so I'd like to point out how much attention Kerry's past must have gotten in the media circus surrounding the presidential race to result in such an extensive Wikipedia article. Quite ironic compared to the amount of attention the question who would actually make a better president gets, ain't it? -- Kizor 19:40, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Trying again on the genealogy

A couple weeks ago I posted here a proposal to rewrite the "Family background" section to reduce the level of detail. Nothing happened; basically, my suggested language was buried under all the other disputes that were going on back then, and the Talk page was archived. I still think the current article text is too detailed, so I'll try again.

The genealogical information should be saved, for the sake of any reader who wants to pursue that subject. I created a stub for Kerry's maternal grandmother at Margaret Tyndal Winthrop, and copied the last paragraph (with Governor Winthrop et al.) into it. (Even as stubs go, it's pretty sloppy, so anyone who wants to fix it should.) That step preserves the link between Kerry and his Colonial forebears. With that protection in place, here's a possible rewrite. It ended up being longer than I'd expected. I left in a fair amount of detail about Kerry's Jewish roots (on his father's side), because I think that's been the subject of some attacks on him (for allegedly concealing it). I didn't want to drop the reference to opium for fear of being accused of bias, but I really think it could go, given that there are links to articles on James Grant Forbes and the Forbes family. Mainly what I cut was all the Olde New England stuff, except for his distant relationship to Bush, a fact too piquant to leave out. My proposal:

Kerry's paternal grandfather, Frederick A. Kerry (born Fritz Kohn), was born in the town of Horní Benešov, Austria-Hungary (in what is now the Moravian-Silesian Region of the Czech Republic), and grew up in Mödling (a small town near Vienna, Austria). His wife Ida (née Loewe) was born in Budapest, Hungary. They immigrated to the United States, arriving at Ellis Island in 1905. The Kerry-Kohns were German-speaking Jews, but the family concealed its background upon migrating to the United States, and raised their three children, including Kerry's father, as Catholics. A Czech historian has shown that Ida was a descendant of Sinai Loew, one of three older brothers of Rabbi Judah Loew (1525-August 22, 1609), a famous Kabbalist, philosopher and talmudist known as the Maharal of Prague. Two of Ida's siblings, Otto Loewe and Jenni Loewe, died in the Nazi extermination camps (Theresienstadt and Treblinka, respectively), after being deported from Vienna in 1942.

Richard John Kerry, John's father, was born (c. 1916) in Massachusetts. After a stint in the U.S. Army Air Corps, he worked for the Foreign Service and served as an attorney for the Bureau of United Nations Affairs in the U.S. Department of State. In 1937, he met Rosemary Forbes, a member of the wealthy Forbes family. One of eleven children, she studied to be a nurse, and served in the Red Cross in Paris during World War II (she also was a Girl Scout leader for 50 years). The couple married in Montgomery, Alabama in January 1941.

John Kerry's maternal grandfather, James Grant Forbes, was born in Shanghai, China, where the Forbes family of China and Boston accumulated a fortune in the opium and China trade. He married Margaret Tyndal Winthrop, who came from a family with deep roots in New England history. Through her, his maternal grandmother, John Kerry is related to four Presidents, including, ironically, George W. Bush (9th cousin, twice removed). [38]

These three paragraphs would replace what's now a five-paragraph section on "Family background". Comments? JamesMLane 07:08, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sounds all right - except that I would cut out the "maternal grandmother" phrase in the last paragraph (it's obvious who she is from reading - to make it clearer, use "Forbes married" instead of "he married" in the second sentence), and specifically mention John Winthrop, as he is a very important early American. I freely admit though, that the last bit is because of my own bias as a fledging Early American historian. Aside from that and maybe some tweaking of the language later, works for me. -khaosworks 11:52, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is the siren song that leads to detail clutter, I'm afraid -- "Let's add just this one more interesting little fact." Yes, Winthrop is important, but is Kerry's relationship to Winthrop important? Given that Kerry has "deep roots in New England history", does it matter which specific early Americans he's kin to? I don't object to your rewording otherwise. JamesMLane 13:02, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not insistent on the last one - like I said, it's personal bias. It'd be nice, but I agree not vital. -khaosworks 13:07, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Looks fine by me. Though there is an article on Kerry's father, Richard Kerry, that could be linked to. older ≠ wiser 11:58, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's linked to in the first paragraph under the heading "Early Life and Education" (which I just noticed has too many caps in it), a couple paragraphs before where this section would begin. JamesMLane 13:02, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Having heard no objections, and not wanting this point to get lost again if too much time goes by, I've made the change. JamesMLane 12:23, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

nice short edit cycle on this, and good work on following through during the confusion. good job JamesMLane. Pedant 21:40, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Should this article be split up?

Well, shouldn't it? It is awfully long. Quadell (talk) 17:02, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a specific proposal?Wolfman 17:32, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, we could have separate articles for John Kerry's military service and John Kerry's service in the U.S. Senate, with just a couple of paragraphs here summarizing these sections. But I'd be open to other proposals. It's just that Wikipedia articles are encouraged to stay under 32K, and this article is nearly double that.Quadell (talk) 19:04, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

I really don't think so. In some cases useful splits can be made (SVBT). In others, I don't really think a split is appropiate. Now, making this article less verbose.... a whole other story- James just worked to do some of that, and I think if you are worried about length of the article, that is the route that should be taken. Lyellin 18:03, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Oh no, I think all the information is good. I wouldn't remove info. I would just keep each article under 32K. See Wikipedia:Page size for the policy. Quadell (talk) 19:04, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Quoting from that page... "A rule of thumb for splitting pages...". Although long pages are often appropiatly split (see EU), there are also many that are not. Including Featured articles. Why? Some things have logical splits. Countries, organizations, historical periods. In this case, a "John Kerry's early life" article, along wtih the 7 or 8 we'd create to split the page, doesn't seem logical enough to me. Sure, it's a long article, but they happen, and it makes sense to keep it together. My two cents ;) Lyellin 19:16, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it could be shorter, but I'd prefer something like User JamesMLane did with the genealogical info see above... only where the level of detail amounts to clutter, that would be better reserved for someone wanting further study.. anything that fits the narrative flow could be left in I think. BUT, there's plenty of sub articles that could be written that really don't fit here, (not a split, but an addendum?) those I would wholeheartedly encourage someone to tackle.66.245.208.240 21:48, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)Pedant

Way too much here. Most of it is covered again in the links, i.e. Military records, voting records, etc. For an article that is not supposed to excede 32k there is a lot that can be cut.

Recommending a change to SBVT section

Original sentences Several SBVT members were in the same unit with Kerry, but of Kerry's direct former crewmates, all except one, Stephen Gardner, support his presidential bid. Among the SBVT members are some of Kerry's former commanding officers including Grant Hibbard and George Elliott.

Change/condense to Several SBVT members were in the same unit with Kerry, including some of Kerry's former commanding officers, Grant Hibbard and George Elliott.

Reasoning Which crewmate supported Kerry's bid for the presidency, while important to the controvertial aspect of the SBVT group, is out of context in the current paragraph. I recommend removing that blurb. The controverstial aspects of SBVT is now more directly addressed in the second to last sentence of this section. If people want more information about the controversey, they can visit the link at the end of the article.

I'm just going to go ahead and make the change. New to wikipedia so trying to figure exactly how to approach this. If this isn't what should do, please correct me and I will offer my apologies.

I think it is important to make the distinction between people who directly served with Kerry and people in different boats or in the same unit. The 2 sentence version is clearer and doesn't take up that much more space. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 21:33, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, it is definitely important when you are discussing the controversey of the SBVT. But that is all covered in the SBVT article. I think all the main point of the paragraph should be that "some veterans who served with Kerry have attacked his war record." I did acknowledge the controversey and the fact that his former crewmates support Kerry in the second to last sentence (as it now reads) which reads: "Defenders of John Kerry's war record, including former crewmates that gave drastically different eyewitness accounts than members of SBVT, charged that organizers of SBVT had close ties to the Bush presidential campaign and contended that SBVT's accusations were false and politically motivated." --Nysus 21:44, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it is important here as well, since SBVT is making the claim that their members "served" with Kerry to lend their assertions greater veracity. Space is not really an issue - clarity and accuracy is. -khaosworks 21:50, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree, but what does that have to do with support for Kerry for president? It might be important to talk about the defintion of "serve" here is but to mention which veteran does/does not support Kerry for President is quite another. Just come out and say that "however, Kerry's direct crewmates, except one, do not support the allegations of the SBVT."

In fact, that goes further - "Several SBVT members were in the same unit with Kerry, but only one, Stephen Gardner, served on the same boat." Shall we add, "..and supports the allegations made by SBVT."? -khaosworks 00:26, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There's an important distinction between, on the one hand, supporting or opposing Kerry for President, and, on the other hand, confirming or contradicting Kerry's account of the incidents for which he was awarded medals. SBVT is charging that his medals weren't deserved. I've seen nothing to indicate that Gardner has joined in that criticism. Questions have been raised about the incidents by people who weren't there, but, AFAIK, all the people who've come forward and who were on the scene (on Kerry's boat or on other Swift boats) have stated their opinions that the medal for that incident was justified. We need to make this more clear. For example, this passage from the current text: "Defenders of John Kerry's war record (including former crewmates who gave different eyewitness accounts from members of SBVT) ..." is misleading because it gives the impression that there are conflicting eyewitness accounts of any of the medal incidents. I don't think there are. JamesMLane 01:16, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gardner was not present at any of the medal incidents. [39] Wolfman 01:33, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There most certainly are conflicting eyewitness accounts of the medal instances. Particularly by Rassman, who was resuced by John Kerry, states that there were bullets flying all around him when he was rescued. This directly contradicts the some members of the SBVT who claim there weren't. Also, an editor for the Chicago Tribune who recently broke his silence to directy contradict what the SBVT have stated. --Nysus 01:42, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, from working on the SBVT page, the only medal under question from eye-witnesses is the Bronze Star. The first PH was questioned; but the questioner wasn't really a witness according to all the known crew. Wolfman 02:16, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nysus, I know there are eyewitness accounts supporting the award of the medals. My question was whether there are any eyewitness accounts that conflict with that view. Hibbard and Elliott, who've made criticisms, weren't eyewitnesses. I thought, as Wolfman has confirmed, that Gardner, while opposing Kerry in general, hasn't given a contradictory eyewitness account of any medal incident. Since I wrote my previous comment, I've checked further and I was reminded that Thurlow does count as a "conflicting" eyewitness. He now says there was no enemy fire in the Bronze Star incident, even though everyone else who was there says there was, and even though Thurlow's own medal citation for the incident says there was. Still, I think our current wording is misleading if Thurlow is the only support that can be found. The phrase "Defenders of John Kerry's war record (including former crewmates who gave different eyewitness accounts from members of SBVT) ..." gives the impression of multiple eyewitnesses pro and con as to each incident. What I think we have instead is that all the eyewitnesses to all the incidents agree with Kerry's position, except for one eyewitness to one incident. Nysus, when you say there's a claim by "some members" of SBVT, is there anyone taking that position except Thurlow? JamesMLane 02:23, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think we may be getting a little off track here. In an effort to keep from losing the forest through the trees, let me try to formulate what I think we should focus on with this very delicate paragraph: 1) State the fact that some veterans belong to a group called SBVT have challenged Kerry's official war record. 2) Give an example or two of how they have challenged it and who these guys are. 3) Make clear that there is controversey around the charges and that other vets, who also served with Kerry, do not agree with the accounts or conclusions of the SBVT. 4) The rest can be covered in the SBVT article.

But to more directly answer your question, there were two other guys with Thurlow: Chenoweth and Pees. That's according to this article in the Washington Post: [40]--Nysus 02:48, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why don't we just edit it to remove the parantheses? -khaosworks 02:31, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, my original sentence used commas. I do think it should be reverted back. The use of parentheses makes it seem like an unimportant fact. I think it should be made quite clear that other men who served with Kerry stand by his war record. --Nysus 02:54, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, I mean remove the words in parantheses entirely. I put that phrase in parantheses originally because the sentence has two separate ideas: (1) that defenders of Kerry's war record charge that SBVT has links to Bush and is politically motivated and (2) these defenders include former crewmates who contradict SBVT's allegations. Putting those into one sentence with commas doesn't parse well. If your purpose is to show that other men who served with Kerry stand by his record, then we should just leave it as "Defenders of John Kerry's war record (including former crewmates) charged that..." The contradicting testimonies bit kind of distracts from that, and is covered in the SBVT entry anyway. -khaosworks 03:30, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that it's extremely important to call out the fact that other vets who served alongside Kerry have rebutted the SBVT. That certainly needs to be left in there. But placing that fact in parentheses, however, marginalizes this important point. "Parentheses are occasionally and sparingly used for extra, nonessential material included in a sentence."[41] Since this is an important point, it's more appropriate to use parenthetical commas. Taking your prior point into consideration about the sentence not flowing (parsing???) well, it's my opinion the sentence should read, "Defenders of John Kerry's war record, including many of his former crewmates, charged that..." --Nysus 04:21, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay, the phrase is short enough that I won't question its placement. Let's do it that way. -khaosworks 06:02, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Preliminary arbitration ruling

• Effective 24 August 2004:

User:Rex071404 is banned from editing the below listed pages while his arbitration case is ongoing:

• John Kerry
• John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004 and
• John Kerry VVAW controversy

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404.

--mav 05:44, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Choking incident

I finally got around to creating an article on Chic Hecht, and I incorporated the material from here about the choking incident. It was much more significant in Hecht's life than in Kerry's. We had some discussion about its inclusion here earlier. In typical fashion for this frenetically active page, however, the discussion has already been archived (Talk:John Kerry/August 2004 Archive 4#Senator chokes on an apple). This story would be significant if, for example, Kerry had a reputation for intense partisanship, because it would be countervailing evidence -- but Kerry doesn't have such a reputation. I can't see this as being important enough to keep. Anyone who wants to know about Kerry at this level of detail can follow the "What links here" list. Having it in the new Hecht article ensures that it won't be lost if it's deleted here. JamesMLane 08:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Placement of request letter image

For a while the image of Kerry's request for assignment to Vietnam was with the three photos at the beginning of the "Military Service" section. On my screen that lineup created a very awkward beginning to the section, with a confusing layout, so on August 23 I moved that image to where it was discussed in the text. As a result, the section began with a good horizontal set of three photos, text underneath, and the request letter later on, with text flowing around it. User Mt2131 has now moved it back, with the comment, "fixed article gap by moving Request Form thumb pic with the others". The result on my screen is to create an article gap, in the sense of an excessive gap between the "Military Service" heading and the first subheading. This is probably just a matter of different browsers and screen sizes displaying the material differently. How do other people see my version as opposed to Mt2131's version? JamesMLane 12:25, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm using a Mac, aned the Safari browser, and the second version looks better, as all the pictures are the same width now. There does not appear to be a gap to be seen. -khaosworks 12:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Using Windows XP. On Netscape 7.1 both look ok, though I prefer Mt2131's version aesthetically. But on Internet Explorer, Mt2131's version is definitely superior — it removes a very large vertical text gap next to the 3 photos. Wolfman 16:16, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Protection?

This page is being vandalized very frequently. GWB's page got protected—shouldn't this one? I estimate over the last few minutes that a random visitor would have a 20% probability of seeing vandalism instead of the legitimate JK page. dreish 18:08, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

Page protection isn't done to prevent vandalism. Vandalism is easily and quickly corrected. Pages are protected because of editing disputes. One troublesome user was banned from this page, and since then we've haven't had much in the way of serious disputes. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 18:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You can't effectively block a vandal using dynamic IPs. There is a category on Protected page specifically for pages temporarily protected due to vandalism. - Tεxτurε 18:49, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My mistake, I didn't realize that was done here, though that makes sense given a sustained attack. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 19:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lieutenant Governor footer

This chart is wrong, and there's a little note above it that shows it to be wrong. Francis W. Sargent ceased to be Lieutenant Governor in 1969 when Governor Volpe resigned to join Nixon's Cabinet, and Sargent became Governor. I'm sure the office wasn't vacant from 1969 until 1983. As for a successor, I don't know whether anyone was chosen to complete Kerry's unexpired term when he resigned to take his Senate seat, but surely someone was elected in 1986. Therefore, his successor couldn't be Paul Cellucci, who didn't become Lieutenant Governor until 1991. JamesMLane 18:10, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Divorce or Annulment?

Is divorce an accurate term to use? since the marriage was annuled sometime before Kerry married Theresa Heinz.

--RobbieFal 20:05, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think he probably has a civil divorce and a religious annulment. At any rate, that's the way Catholic divorces among my acquaintances are. Wolfman 20:10, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

He must have divorced. You can't get a civil annulment if you're married for several years and have children. He also has an annulment from the Catholic Church. john k 20:18, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman is correct. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)