Talk:John Kerry/Archive 6

old business

This page had gotten huge (over 120kb!), so I've archived it.

Two things from the old page. Firstly, I'm not going to deign that last comment of Rex's with a reply. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Calling someone a "bigot" is a prime example.

Secondly, I don't believe Rex has ever posted what his objection to Gamaliel's attempt at a compromise was. Ambivalenthysteria 06:38, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I did not call anyone a bigot!

You are recklesly mistating the facts in a slanderous manner!

You ought to remove that above ad hominem attack as it is wrrong and it is false!

Rex071404 06:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What attempt do you refer to?

And what about the suggestions I have made?

Where are those reponses?

Rex071404 06:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. You attacked me (which is still right there in the archives), refused to apologise because it was a "legitimate" attack, and now I call you on it and you lose it.

Now, Gamaliel's version can be seen here ([1]). It mentions the meeting, and does so in a fairly NPOV manner. I dare say that's about the only NPOV way I can think of including the meeting at all, unless included in a much broader section about VVAW. However, you reverted that as well, and then attacked him on his user page for it. As to your 'suggestions', how have they changed from your first edits? Ambivalenthysteria 07:04, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are the one who must be kidding! Why do you start a new page with such a prominently placed ad hominem attack against me? You are using your superior role to bully me. Shame on you! Rex071404 07:24, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What superior role? Anyone can archive a page. Ambivalenthysteria 07:26, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You know I am new here, much of how to do things, I have yet to learn. Rex071404 07:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Keep you opinons to yourself please

You called my views nonsense, then you archive the page to hide the evidence. What kind of behavior is that? Rex071404 06:53, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who called your views nonsense, thank you. I archived the page because it was just about crashing my browser. The evidence of faux pas here from all sides is still easily accessible. Ambivalenthysteria 06:58, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

POLL

There was a poll in progress, so I've taken that part of the Talk page from the archive and copied it back in here. I did not copy the lengthy "Comment" subsection from the archived poll discussion -- only the first few subsections, the ones with the votes in them. I've also added in a new subsection with my proposal, the VVAW cross-reference version. It expands on the general discussion of VVAW, for points that (I hope) are agreed to be significant and undisputed, but it uses a cross-reference to a new article, to be created at John Kerry VVAW controversy, where most of the material now in this section would go. JamesMLane 06:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All right now. Let's have an informal poll see if they's some way we can stop this before I go completely insane. Here's how it works. Submit what you think shoud be the content of the disputed section in a sub-talk page so we can get a rough estimate of where the consensus is. (A sub-talk page is like this: Talk:John Kerry/Sample.) Neutrality 06:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality's version

(John Kerry/Neutrality)

1. Neutrality 06:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

VVAW cross-reference version

(John Kerry/VVAW cross-reference)

1. JamesMLane 06:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. Lyellin 07:42, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
3. This is excellent. john k 12:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Remove section entirely

1. Gzornenplatz 06:32, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
2. Gamaliel 07:30, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3. john k 11:46, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
4. Ambivalenthysteria 06:58, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Return to Rex's version(s)

1. Rex071404 16:55, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. Buster 05:57, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Here is Rex's (1st version - see 2nd below) of "VVAW": Talk:John_Kerry/Rex's_version (moved to subpage by Ambivalenthysteria for brevity)

Comments

• There was no poll in process - that poll was inoperative while we talked! You are hiding the truth about the ongong dispute about what set of facts to use! Your barbaric butchering of this dialog is evidence of your idea backruptcy here! I laid out a number of suggestions on that archived page, but you refuse to carry any of those over! What kind of NPOV is that? Rex071404 07:00, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• I like what JamesMLane has written about Kerry's anti-war activities and I would like to see that inserted into section 3 as it is (aside from the medal and meeting controversies) far too brief. However, I still am against including the meeting non-issue in this article, and I really don't think creating an entire article around that non-issue is warranted. Gamaliel 07:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • By your characterization of this as a "non-issue", you sound to me like you are shilling for Kerry. Now chances are you don't mean to sound that way, so if not, why do you so off-handedly dismiss my concerns? I find that to be very offensive! Rex071404 07:20, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I find your accusations, insults, and behavior to be very offensive. Gamaliel 07:24, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Great! We both offend each other - at least we can agree on that! Rex071404 07:29, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Rex, why must you assume that everyone is anti or pro kerry? Let's make the assumption that everyone here is pro-NPOV. Then let's work on writing an article that everyone can agree on, that presents facts, and not inferences, and manages to state what needs to be said, without tainting the article in either direction. In the process, can we stop accusing people of being bigots, etc, etc. Even if that is not what you mean, it is obvious that people are reading it that way, and many people are, not just one, so let's tone it down and settle this without screaming, but instead by working together, as a community. Lyellin 07:31, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • Great idea! Let's start with my proposed text at the link above, and edit it into softer language that all can accept. After all, my facts, in the form of links, are 100% accurate, so there is no dispute there.Rex071404 07:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I am going to sigh. Let's step back, look at the 3 texts, and see what's going on. There have been MANY edits of that text, with new paragraphs proposed. They've all been reverted, which is where this arguement comes to a head. So how about making sure to allow a little leeway on your side, as well? Personally, you've done a very good job of only quoting things that leave it to look as those Kerry is lying, in a conspiracy, trying to conceal truth, and agreeing with those who wanted violence, ignoring the quotes by Camil and others from the CNN and Boston Sun articles. So let's allow leeway on both sides, eh? I'm currently looking at combining your's and Neutrality's versions, but it takes awhile. Lyellin 07:51, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Gamaliel, my proposed new text wouldn't be "inserted into" section 3; it would become section 3, with everything else that's now in section 3 deleted from this article. The proposed new article wouldn't be only about the non-issue of the meeting. It would also include the non-issue of the medals. OK, I grant you, two non-issues doesn't make all that much more substantial an article than one. Nevertheless, the reasons to follow this course are: (1) if enough Bush supporters are throwing rocks at Kerry over either or both of these non-issues, then it's objectively reasonable for Wikipedia to report the dispute, because of its prominence, even if one side in the dispute is absolutely full of it and is launching a deceptive attack for political purposes; and (2) by having someplace on Wikipedia where all these rocks being thrown at Kerry can be catalogued, we may head off endless attempts to re-insert them in the main John Kerry article. JamesMLane 07:35, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I guess a seperate article could serve as a sort of sewer drain to keep this one free of nonsense. But seriously, I don't think a seperate article is needed. The medal controversy is a real issue (real in that it's been frequently discussed and it actually involved things Kerry did, instead of just possibly saw or heard) and is handled well (if a bit overly long) here. I don't see any reason not to keep it here. What I'm picturing as an ideal now is some version of your text as section 3, the medal section as 3.1, and no mention of the KC meeting. Gamaliel 07:42, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Your comments here reflect an incredible pro-Kerry and/or anti-Bush bias. And just who is it, that is, as you say "full of it"... Rex071404 07:48, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is something of a "sewer drain" aspect to my proposal. As to the medals, though, even if you consider it a real issue (because based on what Kerry actually did), that still leaves the question of how important it is. I think that, in the overall scheme of the main article, it's about this important: "Some of Kerry’s detractors have also raised questions about exactly when he left VVAW and whether he gave up his own medals or just the ribbons ...." There follows the cross-reference for anyone who wants the level of detail on medals vs. ribbons that's in the current version. JamesMLane 08:21, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • • • Why do you suggest we use a "Some of Kerry's detractors..." preamble on a "negative" against Kerry, when you don't similarly suggest we use an "According to his supporters..." premable on the "positive" Kerry items? In fact, if we back-tracked and added a "According to Kerry's supporters" and a "Some of Kerry's detractors" at each location they would logically go in the current John Kerry page and then we counted each up, you would see that there are far more "pro" Kerry points and not very many at all "anti" points. Therein lies the bias to which I have been referring, and about which, I have heard shrieks of denialRex071404 01:27, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• In multiple choice polls such as this, interested voters should be encouraged to vote for as many options as they find acceptable (perhaps bolding their name next to the favourite choice), otherwise you often fail to get a majority for an option, let alone a working consensus. Pcb21| Pete 09:58, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Another try

So I just posted another try at a compromise version at Talk:John_Kerry/Lyellin. The goal is to present both sides, without making any open ended statements, and without inferences, in a short amount of time. I wrote it while at work, in the middle of an allergy attack, so we'll see how this goes... Lyellin 08:46, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

That's not a bad compromise. I'm still left scratching my head as to why this is important enough to mention (particularly now that the innuendo is gone, as the innuendo seemed to be a common argument for the incident to be mentioned at all, if that makes any sense), but I'm not going to object to that being put in the article. Ambivalenthysteria 08:59, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I know what you mean- I still am a fan of putting it into a seperate article, but I think the goal if we are to keep it in the Kerry article is to make sure it's as concise, and equal, as possible. Any objections to adding this to a section on the poll? and my signature Lyellin 09:11, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection to your adding this as another alternative in the poll, even though if you change your vote I'll lose my only supporter (sob). I'm still against keeping it in the Kerry article, though. I agree with Ambivalenthysteria that it's not important enough. Including it would be clear bias in that, even in your version, the article on John Kerry would give more space to whether Kerry was at this one lousy meeting than the article on George W. Bush gives to whether Bush defaulted on his service obligation, although the latter point is obviously more important. JamesMLane 09:48, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's fine, as far as NPOV goes. But, as Ambivalent hysteria says, I have no idea why this subject is significant enough to be in an encyclopedia article about John Kerry. And, as Ambivalenthysteria also notes, the innuendo is the justification, so when you take that out, all that's left is a non sequitur. I think this material has no place in the John Kerry article. Whether it is in its own separate article, or not to be found in Wikipedia, is indifferent to me. john k 12:29, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You guys just crack me up! Anything that highlights shortcomings or flaws in Kerry's track record or truthfulness, is to you a "non sequitur" or "innuendo" or is not "significant".

Rex071404 18:49, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In no way do I agree that the "Medal Toss" is of limited importance or that it should be shunted aside or merged with "1971 VVAW". As a long time Massachhusetts resident, I can attest that Kerry milked this story for many years in the local press to build his street cred as a committed Liberal (a popular thing in Mass). Now that all of a sudden Kerry would prefer that this fade away, you have NO RIGHT from the standpoint of NPOV to help him. The Kerry Medal Toss highlights the crux of a dispute concerning the singular episode which launched Kerry to national fame. If you remove this from the final article, you might as well declare your bias by posting a Kerry/Edwards campaign logo in it's place!

Rex071404 16:48, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To clarify, the "cross-reference" version does not shunt aside the medal tossing demonstration. It states: "Kerry threw his military ribbons over the fence along with the medals of two other veterans ...." It concludes by stating: "Some of Kerry’s detractors have also raised questions about exactly when he left VVAW and whether he gave up his own medals or just the ribbons; see John Kerry VVAW controversy for a full discussion." The cross-reference version therefore reports the incident (in terms that distinguish between Kerry's ribbons and others' medals), notes that there's further controversy over that one aspect of it, and directs the reader to more information about that controversy. More to the point, the version does indeed cover the crux of the dispute. The crux of the dispute is not whether Kerry protested by throwing ribbons or entire medals, but whether he should have protested at all. Differences of opinion about the Vietnam War, which are addressed in this version, are far more important than the difference between ribbons and medals. JamesMLane 19:24, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Once again, the pro-Kerry blinders are on and enable the Wikis here to completely mistate the issue at hand. The Crux of the issue on both the Medal Toss and VVAW is that there is plenty of information which tends to indicate that Kerry has a pattern of changing his story on an opportunistic basis so as to attempt to increase his level of appeal. There are two ramifications of this pattern 1) The true facts of what Kerry has done from time to time in the past is obscured and 2) A character trait of cutting corner's on one's personal history for self-serving puroses becomes evident. Both of these ramifications are indeed germane and both of them are helpful datums to those who are researching and evaluating Kerry during the 2004 election season.

But of course, I don't need to tell you that - you know this already and that's why, along with the other pro-Kerry editors here, you are fighting so hard to keep the illuminating details about Kerry's shenannigans out. Rex071404 20:23, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of course the medal toss should be discussed - that he tossed the ribbons, that he still has his medals, and so forth. Beyond that, I'm not sure what, exactly, Kerry is being accused of. Is the problem that he did throw the ribbons, or that he didn't throw the medals? Or what? Also, to create a page, just make it. Go to User:Rex071404/John Kerry, or whatever, and make the page. john k 18:34, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have revised my suggested version to incorporate Lyellin version

Since I do not know how to make a seperate page, here it is: Rex071404 16:38, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1971 Meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW)

File:Kerryrally.jpg

John Kerry speaks at an anti-Vietnam War rally.

From November 12th to 15th, 1971, a VVAW meeting was held in Kansas City, Missouri. The meeting is quite controversial because one VVAW member in attendance suggested that the VVAW should assassinate, among others, seven Senators who were in favor of continuing the Vietnam War, including Strom Thurmond, John Stennis, and John Tower.

And even though most reports indicate this suggestion was soundly rejected, controversy has arisen in some circles as to whether or not Kerry was at this meeting, and whether or not his statements about this and as to when he quit VVAW have been consistent and accurate.

Kerry’s campaign, according to the Boston Globe, says that Senator Kerry does not remember attending the Kansas City meeting, nor does he remember the specific discussion in question.

Additionally, although Kerry has at times stated that he had already quit the VVAW before this meeting took place, the New York Sun reported on March 12, 2004 that "Kerry's presence at this meeting has been confirmed by several witnesses, even though Senator Kerry has stated that he does not remember attending." [2]

However, Scott Camil, the man who suggested using violence, has more recently said that he does not remember Kerry being there. According to the Boston Globe, Camil states “He had nothing to do with this, I don’t remember seeing him there.”

Other sources, including the FBI and also another VVAW Member, Randy Barnes, have corroborated Kerry as attending the meeting. However Mr. Barnes has more recently restated his position on this and now says that he may have been mistaken as to which meeting in Missouri he saw Kerry at.

The varying contentions surrounding Kerry's alleged attendance at this controversial meeting as well as the contradictory evidence as to precisely when he did in fact disassociate himself from VVAW has caught the eye of several national commentators, including John Fund of the Wall Street Journal and Patrick J. Buchannon, the right-wing idealogue.

The varying reports on this topic do not make clear precisely what the historical record is, however most published reports do give Mr. Kerry the benefit of the doubt and are clear to avoid suggesting that he was personally in favor of assassinating US Politicians. It is also reasonably clear that regardless of when indeed Mr. Kerry actually did quit the VVAW, it was in any case, no later than approximately 6 months after the controversial November 1971 meeting.

---

The above is much too long. How about this:

By 1972 Kerry had left the VVAW because of its radical tendencies. Some critics of Kerry today raise questions about the exact time of his leaving the VVAW. They point to a VVAW meeting held November 12-15, 1971, in Kansas City, Missouri, during which one VVAW member in attendance suggested that the VVAW should assassinate, among others, seven Senators who were in favor of continuing the Vietnam War, including Strom Thurmond, John Stennis, and John Tower. Most reports indicate this suggestion was soundly rejected. Nevertheless, critics suggest that Kerry, if he was present, should have alerted authorities. It is not clear whether or not Kerry was at the meeting. Some witnesses say he was present [3], and so does an FBI report (the FBI gathered information about Kerry until May 1972), but Kerry earlier said that he had already quit the VVAW before that meeting took place, and Scott Camil, the man who suggested using violence, also has said that he does not remember Kerry being there [4].

You are making progress, but among other problems, you are misstating Kerry's now proclaimed rationale for leaving VVAW. Kerry's web site says: "Although Kerry was a leader of the VVAW, he eventually left it after concluding that the most effective way to oppose the war was to run for public office..." Rex071404 18:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Camil himself has said "I was serious..."

And that, it appears, is why the pro-Kerry squad here is fighting tooth and nail to avoid quoting from or using this link here. Rex071404 18:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's because it's a partisian right-wing source.--Neutrality 20:48, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying that the University of Florida Oral History Archive is a "partisian right-wing source"? Because if you bothered to read the article that you dismiss as "partisan", you would find this verbatim text in it:

Another source is an October 20,1992, oral history interview of Scott Camil on file at the University of Florida Oral History Archive. In it, Mr.Camil speaks of his plan for an alternative to Mr.Kerry’s idea of symbolically throwing veterans’ medals over the fence onto the steps of the Capitol during the Dewey Canyon III demonstration in Washington in April of 1971.

“My plan was that, on the last day we would go into the [congressional] offices we would schedule the most hardcore hawks for last — and we would shoot them all,” Mr. Camil told the Oral History interviewer. “I was serious.”

Once agin Neutrality, your specious and hysterical cries of "partisan" serve only to highlight that it is indeed you who is the partisan here and it is indeed you who is gumming up the progress towards consensus. Rather than you shout "partisan!", I challenge you to address the serious fact that the reference quoted in the so-called "partisan" article which you dismiss, is sourced to a nationally recognized university. But of course you won't, because as always, I have been able to check you at every turn, because you are the partisan! Rex071404 20:59, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So? If you look into my proposal you'll see that Camil is quoted saying that very thing.--Neutrality 21:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say, "So?" ? Are you saying that you admit your efforts so far have been intentionally partisan and therefore by definition, POV? Please clarify. Rex071404 22:47, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kerry's spokesperson DOES NOT any longer dispute that Kerry WAS there

Read this here Rex071404 19:00, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some reports state that Camil has been offered a job now with Kerry Campaign

See link [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37577 here] Rex071404 19:02, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Other credible reports have Kerry's spokesperson ADMITTING that Kerry has been in recent contact with Camil, see link here. Rex071404 19:20, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Was Kerry aware of Communist activists within the VVAW ?

Read this link here Rex071404 19:17, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yawn. Here's a quote:

Nicosia said Kerry was aware of communism's increasing presence in the VVAW operations and it was one of the factors that led to his resignation as one of the leaders of the group in November 1971.

But even though Kerry resigned from the group's leadership in November 1971, several published news accounts cite Kerry as a representative of VVAW into 1972.

Big deal. Nothing new here. Kerry resigned from leadership but continued to share the group's original antiwar goals. Another spot on quote: Cline believes that much of the recent scrutiny of Kerry's anti-war activism has originated from a "far right segment" of veterans trying to influence the election. older≠wiser 19:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A quote from where? Your pro-Kerry archive?

Rex071404 19:33, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Um, no--it's from the article you so proudly cited above. older≠wiser 19:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but contrary to your snide tone, this is a matter of truth, not "pride" and the simple fact remains that you only pull out tidbits that make Kerry look good. Since you seem to be pushing now for an excerpt war, let's focus instead on this quote (from the same article):

"The 1970s anti-war group that included John Kerry was "heavily infiltrate[d]" by individuals dedicated to the teachings of Chinese communist leader Mao Tse-Tung and to the use of violence, if necessary to achieve their goals, according to a historian friendly to Kerry."

Rex071404 20:04, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

While this may be a matter of truth, your campaign of disinformation has little to do with truth, unfortunately. The article does not claim that Kerry was associated with these Maoist elements and that in fact states their increasing presence were one of the reasons for his leaving the group. Yet you apparently believe this makes Kerry look bad. Very strange. older≠wiser 20:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you had your thinking cap on and if you had been following this discussion more closely, this would not be "strange" to you (BTW: Why is it you can call me "strange", but when I previously asked another if he was being a bigot towards me, everyone got hysterical?). Suffice it to say, one over-arching purpose of my showing this particular group of links here is to clearly illustrate that there is plenty of anti-Kerry bile on the web, but if any of you bothered to pay attention, the stuff that I am suggesting we do include in the "VVAW" section is much tamer. You did read my revised suggested version of VVAW as shown above?Rex071404 21:10, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Radical Veteran has ties to Kerry

See link here Rex071404 19:23, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

More yawns. It was hardly a secret that Camil and Kerry knew each other. Here's my choice quote from this piece:

"We had national meetings every three months," Camil said. "We had meetings in Denver, St. Louis, Detroit, Kansas City. What was the order of the meetings? What were the dates? I haven't the slightest.

"It's not a question of lying about stuff," he said. "To remember the order of meetings 33 years ago and who was there and when specific ideas came up, who can do that? The fact is there were FBI agents at every meeting. They should have good records."

older≠wiser 19:35, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Using the FBI standard, the FBI files clearly show that Kerry was at the Nov. 1971 VVAW meeting and interestingly enough, the FBI kept track of Kerry until May 1972. Well what do you know, I have been pointing out that Kerry has indeed hid the fact that he was still with VVAW into 1972 and even the current VVAW web site points out that Kerry did not leave until sometime in '72. Hmmm could this mean that I have been right all along, that my proposed text of: "It is also reasonably clear that regardless of when indeed Mr. Kerry actually did quit the VVAW, it was in any case, no later than approximately 6 months after the controversial November 1971 meeting." is perfectly accurate and more than fair to Kerry?

Rex071404 19:59, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

' Please explain why we should care? The point of Camil's comment, and of Bkonrad's quoting of it, is that all of these people seem to be confused about what happened at which meetings, and what order they were in (this seems confirmed by comments of other VVAW people than Camil and Kerry). On the other hand, the suggested text is absolutely fine with me, if we're to mention the Kansas City meeting (which I still think we probably shouldn't) john k 21:05, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Did you read my "revised my suggested version" for VVAW as shown above? Would you suport the insertion of that, as-is? If not what lines or links would you change? Rex071404 21:12, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

By the way, since you assert that the VVAW associated people are "confused" this would include Kerry and that would undercut any weight we should put on his recollection that he was not at the Nov. '71 VVAW meeting. Also, as shown above at "Kerry's spokesperson DOES NOT any longer dispute that Kerry WAS there", the Kerry camp has indeed accepted the FBI version of events - which place Kerry at the meeeting - as valid. Here is the exact quote (from the link in the above section): "If there are valid FBI surveillance reports from credible sources that place some of those disagreements in Kansas City, we accept that...". Now of course, though the Kerry camp is trying to downplay the uncontested accuracy of an FBI report by referring to it an "historical footnote", the simple fact remains that the FBI report places Kerry in the meeting and Kerry's people "accept" that fact! Let them call that fact a zebra, a shoebox, an "historical footnote" or what have you, the simple fact remains that with the Kerry camp's concession it is now documented as incontrovertable that Kerry was indeed there. In light of that, my proposed text is very soft on Kerry! Rex071404 21:21, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Huh? The point is that I don't care if Kerry was in some specific VVAW meeting where some guy said something stupid. I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that he was there. The point is that I don't see why this is relevant. Is it relevant because it proves Kerry was lying? It proves Kerry was saying something which was not true, I suppose, but I don't think it demonstrates particularly clearly that he lied about anything. Beyond that, I don't see how it demonstrates anything. So what if Kerry was present at a VVAW meeting where some nut made a crazy suggestion that was shouted down? Why is this a significant fact? I am dubious about this, because the only purpose of this seems to be to insinuate that Kerry somehow approved of Camil's suggestion, which is just ridiculous, especially given that Kerry quit VVAW at around this time because (according to his own account, but also, apparently, to those of others) he thought it was getting too radical. john k 22:17, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Once again, you ingore all the previous points made. Everything you just said has already been refuted. Do you even read the links that have been painstakingly supplied for you? Or would you just rather continue on, completly oblivious that the facts contradict you?

Rex071404 22:42, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And you aggravatingly argue by nonsequitor. I have looked at all the links you provided and have been following the discussion on this page and I have no idea what you mean by what you just said to John. Could you please elaborate as to why it is significant to spend more that one or two lines mentioning that Kerry's recollection of 33 year-old events is faulty? older≠wiser 23:02, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Now here comes older, another biased pro-Kerry editor, who tries to limit the scope of this issue by mis-characterizing it thusly; "why it is significant to spend more that one or two lines mentioning that Kerry's recollection of 33 year-old events is faulty?".

Well then, just in case you missed this above, here it is again:

"The Crux of the issue on both the Medal Toss and VVAW is that there is plenty of information which tends to indicate that Kerry has a pattern of changing his story on an opportunistic basis so as to attempt to increase his level of appeal. There are two ramifications of this pattern 1) The true facts of what Kerry has done from time to time in the past is obscured and 2) A character trait of cutting corner's on one's personal history for self-serving puroses becomes evident. Both of these ramifications are indeed germane and both of them are helpful datums to those who are researching and evaluating Kerry during the 2004 election season.

But of course, I don't need to tell you that - you know this already and that's why, along with the other pro-Kerry editors here, you are fighting so hard to keep the illuminating details about Kerry's shenannigans out." Rex071404 23:21, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Don't you see that this is a polemical point? Whether you're right or not, there's no way to make this claim in an NPOV way. It's a point of political advocacy, not of encyclopedic explanation. THe facts on this matter, such as they are, do not speak for themselves to make the point you're trying to make. And any attempt to actually say this directly would just be POV. And without your polemical point, the whole story just seems completely pointless. john k 23:40, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What is the crux of this dispute?

The mere act of making it known that Kerry has changed his stories on these two topics (ie: Medal Tossing and '71 VVAW) is NOT in and of itself "polemical". And the reason it's not is that the mere act of stating a fact is not an argument. For your benefit, a simple outline of presenting a case:

I - Issue

R - Rule

A - Argument

C - Conclusion

Simply stating the fact that Kerry did this or did that, or did not do this or that is not argumentative. It only becomes so if and when the fact presenter then proclaims that such and such conclusion must be made as a result of the truth of the fact.

In other words, if my suggested text for the VVAW section were something like this:

"Kerry Fact #1 blah blah Kerry Fact #2 blah blah Kerry Fact #3 blah blah Therefor you must agree with conclusion x"

Then perhaps you'd have a point. However my suggested text does nothing of the sort and therefor, it's clear that it's you and the other pro-kerry editors who simply do not "get it".

As a matter of fact, on one of my earlier versions (which was reverted) I even went so far as to EXPLICITLY STATE: "The varying reports on this topic do not make clear precisely what the historical record is and for that reason, the readers are left to drawn their own conclusions about this.".

Even so, this too was reverted by the pro-Kerry crowd because the concept that there even might be any open questions about Kerry's suitability is anathema to them.

They DO NOT WANT any of the readers to ask themselves, "should I double-check Kerry more?" Therefor, any entries that are inconclusive or otherwise not expressly positive for Kerry, must be expunged. If not, the entire purpose of the biased pro-Kerry editors, is defeated.

The pro-Kerry crowd want the readers of John Kerry read an article that has a tone of, "Oh see, this is John Kerry - nothing wrong here, nothing bad to think, no need for any further research, move along".

Each and everyone of you know this to be true, for if it were not, you would simply help me re-jigger my text until we all found it acceptable!

Rex071404 00:11, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Two points here, one of substance and one of style. (1) The significant "anti-Kerry" aspect of the VVAW stuff is that many veterans (and others) were hostile to VVAW in the 1970s and adhere to that opinion today. Their opinion doesn't depend on knowing who attended what particular meeting. It depends on the basic, undisputed point that Kerry was a prominent spokesperson in opposition to the policy of the U.S. government. People who supported the policy he was opposing held his stance against him, and still do so today. Any failure in Kerry's judgment about a major foreign policy issue is much more important than any failure in his memory about whether he attended specific meetings. The "cross-reference" version presents this anti-Kerry point. You continue to charge that everyone who disagrees with you wants to exclude all anti-Kerry material from the article. Your accusation against us is untrue. (2) As to style, it seems that the basis of your charge of bias is that your position is so manifestly correct that no reasonable people could disagree with it, that in fact all of us know that you're correct, but we're maliciously refusing to go along with you because of our bias. The proof of our bias is that we disagree with you. This constant barrage of ad hominem attacks is an unhelpful approach to collaborative editing. As I write, this Talk page, which was archived less than 24 hours ago, is already drawing the warning notice about excessive length. If you would stop repetitiously questioning everyone else's good faith at every opportunity, the discussion would be more manageable. JamesMLane 00:37, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Summary of Facts

I am interested to present the facts in such a manner that the reader says to themselves: "I didn't know that". That's it, that's my entire objective. And what do you ask, might they currently not know? Here are the facts you people keep obfuscating:

1) Kerry was only in harm's way in Vietnam for FOUR MONTHS! 2) The "wounds" he received were barely scratches. 3) The Purple Hearts he received for those wounds enabled him to leave early (which he did) 4) The Silver star he received was for beaching his boat in contravention of his training and chasing on shore by foot and getting a rocket launcher. He may or may not have shot a fleeing wounded man in the back - we haven't even hashed that out on this page yet. 5) He willingly participated in an awards toss back (medals) ceremony. 6) About this ceremony, he has changed his story a number of times. 7) He was intimately involved as a leader with VVAW. 8) Certain VVAW person(s) did advocate violence at a particular meeting. 9) Kerry's contemporanious statements about this have been contradictory. 10) The FBI confirms and Kerry campaign accepts as true the fact that Kerry was at that meeting. 11) Kerry has also changed his story about this several times.

In brief, those are the essential FACTS, each of which is TRUE and can be shown via external sources to be true, around which I'd like to write "Medals" and "VVAW".

Unless and until you pro-Kerry persons can refute my facts, I remain adamant that my version be used as the starting point, for I indeed have refuted your "facts" and shown them to be primarily a grab-bag of assertions and personal feelings, such as various contributors expresions along the lines of "so what" and "it's not that important".

Rex071404 00:44, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, please. The first four points are patently ridiculous. It wasn't Kerry who awarded himself purple hearts, to take the most obvious bit. I don't think anyone disputes 5 or 7, or that these are important things that should be in the article. 8 and 10 would appear also to be true, but their significance is more questionable. 6, 9, and 11 are the crux here. This just seems to be a side issue. JamesMLane is right - the real important issue is that Kerry participated in VVAW, a controversial group, and that a lot of Vietnam veterans resent this, for understandable reasons. The significance of trying to prove that Kerry attended some meeting where some guy said something intemperate, or that he has told somewhat varying stories about things that happened decades ago, seems to me to be highly dubious. And your insistence on denigrating Kerry's military record is both irrelevant and unattractive. john k 02:50, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

AdamJacobMuller 23:05, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) Someone should get ready to change "presumptive nomine" to "nominee" since they are about to oficially nominate Kerry! YAY!

The reason why this page may never reach consensus, is that we always have some pro-Kerry bigot (there, NOW I've stated it!) who, having not said anything constructive, simply wants to leap into the fray and ridicule the array of facts at issue. Ok then AJM, precisly WHAT is "patently ridiculous" about the truth regarding these facts?

Do you deny that Kerry's 2nd tour of duty, the one where he served as a Swift Boat Commander, was abbreviated to only approximately four months? Or, according to you, is it my goal of making sure that in the literally hundreds of words in John Kerry which are dedicated to describing his military service, readers are not left with the FALSE impression that his 2nd tour of duty was longer than that, that is "patently ridiculous"? Well?

Regardless of how snide you are, it still remains that the facts I have listed are true and that leaves you, a pro-Kerry shill, no alternative but to mock me as being ridiculous.

Not one of you pro-Kerry shills will DARE make a line by line critique of my proposed text(s) for "Medal Toss" or "VVAW" because there is no way to do it without exposing your bias!

What's that I hear? Nothing but deafening silence and the mocking of shills!

Rex071404 04:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You can't handle the truth!

The core truth about this issue, and the main one which the pro-Kerry shills cannot stand is this:

For a Presidential Candidate (Kerry) whose stated raison d'etre in the 2004 race is to save USA from (as Kerry tells us, ad nauseum) the "lies" of GWB, the fact that Kerry has a verifiable track record of changing his story about controverial issues is very germane to the current situation in America. If people want glossed over BIO's, let them go to CNN or WAPO. People come to the Internet for better control over their information flow. What good is it if you people keep censoring it?

The painful truth about the pro-Kerry shills here is that they are censors, plain and simple!

Rex071404 04:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

After this latest batch of personal attacks, such as calling anyone who disagrees with him "pro-Kerry shills", I think the best course of action here is to proceed from the RfC to Arbitration. I think it would be a waste of time going to mediation, as we've had three seperate attempts at compromise shot down in the last day, and Rex continues to abuse and attack the motives of those who disagree. Thoughts?

What a steaming pile! Did you bother to READ AdamJacobMuller's Edit Summary to the comment I replied to and about which you ae now SHREIKING for "Arbitration"?

Here is the VERBATIM quote of his Edit Summary: Go Kerry! Someone Change get ready "presumptive nominee" to "nominee".

Now is there ANYONE on this page who would DARE try to say that such a comment is not ipso facto PROOF of utter and complete pro-Kerry BIAS?

And now you call for "arbitration" What a FARCE!

By the way, I notice Ambivalenthysteria, that you didn't sign your demand and that you don't try to refute the facts which I posted. Rather your sole focus is and has been to try to give me the boot. It's evidence that you have nothing to answer towards the truths I have posted about Kerry...

Rex071404 05:04, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A passing comment by a wiki user not greatly involved in the current edit discussion proves nothing except that your grasping at straws. If you would just calm down and take a breath, we're not that hard to work with. Gamaliel 05:16, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Then what about the list of 10/11 facts I hve listed and want specific comment on?

Why the silence?

If my facts are valid, then why do you insist on excluding them?

Rex071404 05:28, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Something really should be done about this article. It is one of central importance to readers and one where the content needs to be updated regularly. Yet it is protected because one user, who has never edited another article, continues to insist on his own biased version. As the US elections approach this might be only the beginning of a series of partisan battles fought over the pages of the various people running for Congress, governerships, and the presidency. - SimonP 05:42, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

SimonP is arriving late to this issue and is unaware that Neutrality started an edit war by constantly reverting my edits without discussion. Neutrality was also involved in a similar episode which resulted in George_W._Bush getting "protected" some time ago. And even taking SimonP's incorrect assumption at face value, Neutrality and his cohorts have laid claim to the entire John Kerry page and yet at this point, will not "un-protect" so I can add in my suggested changes (see above). Nor will they speak up and say what problems they have with the facts I would like to see included. Also, adamancy is not intransigence and you should not mistake the two. I am being adamant, not intransigent. The reason we are stalled out is tht the pro-Kerry crew here will not speak about about my list of 10/11 facts. They few that do post something either ignore that list or mock it. Rex071404 06:01, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

a wisecrack?

from CNN:

...Scott Camil, a Florida vet who put forward the idea, says the notion didn't get very far.

"If people considered our plans to be so bad, we would have been charged, and they would have made a big stink about it."

(Camil might be saying this now, but it's also been reported that he was recently offered a job with the Kerry campaign - see link [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37577 here.])Rex071404 05:39, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Camil, who was later tried and acquitted with seven other vets for plotting an assault on the 1972 Republican National Convention, said Kerry's opponents are "trying to blacken him with my brush and my ideas, and that's not fair."

Kerry, whose campaign insisted that Kerry had not been present in Kansas City until the FBI reports and VVAW minutes proved otherwise, cannot recall hearing the radical idea.

Still, Barnes and Crandell said no violent plot was seriously considered.

"I don't think any discussion amounted to more than kind of the wisecrack level, because I don't think anyone took it seriously," Crandell said.

(Why are we citing IN BOLD letters, a man who is so incoherent that he contradicts himself within a single sentence? By definition, a "wisecrack" is a brief comment or remark, but a discussion is an extended communication.) Rex071404 05:47, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"It's just that VVAW was an absolute anarchy," Barnes added. "Everybody had to say something about something."

By all accounts, Kerry was a moderate voice in the group, who took a grim view even of civil disobedience. Many fellow antiwar vets felt he was too traditional....

If we're going to mention that Kerry supposedly had a responsibility to inform the police, then we should also mention that some (all? most?) attendees didn't take the idea seriously. Gamaliel 18:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Why must the pro-Kerry crowd always seek ways to mitigate any possible flaws with Kerry? Did you read my notes above concerning "preamble(s)"? It's way up top of this page, under the "comments" section.) [User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] 05:36, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This section was deleted by Rex about 10 hours and 68 edits ago. Gamaliel 05:12, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My apologies. This was not an intentional deletion by me. It's unfortunate that this section fell off as it's current placement here distracts from the fact that we are now at the endgame. Either the pro-Kerry crowd on this page takes the time to attempt to refute the 10-11 facts I have listed and want included, or it is apparent that we have stalled out here.

Rex071404 05:17, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry's anti-war associate, Camil had a serious goal of assassinating politicians

As shown above (and here), on Oct 20th, 1992 Camil himself went on record and said:

“My plan was that, on the last day we would go into the [congressional] offices we would schedule the most hardcore hawks for last — and we would shoot them all,” Mr. Camil told the Oral History interviewer. “I was serious.”

Rex071404 05:21, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Truce Offer

I offer an edit truce so we can gather our thoughts. Without Gamaliel's fine assistance right now, we would have had a SNAFU.

Here is my pre-truce question: Does anyone here actually understand my point and why I feel the inclusion of my facts - as listed under "Summary of Facts" above is important?

I see no reason why each and every one of the facts I'd like to see included are being opposed.

Rex071404 06:37, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Counteroffer

The concept of "an edit truce" is meaningless. Truce or no truce, no one can edit this page while it's protected. I agree with SimonP that the current situation is very bad. Kerry will soon be the Democratic nominee, but only a sysop will be able to include that and other Convention-related information in the article. A more meaningful "truce" would be along these lines: (1) Text of the disputed section 3 is moved to a new page, something like John Kerry/Sandbox, where discussion of the VVAW-related topics can continue; (2) the disputed section 3 is temporarily removed from the main article; (3) the main article is unprotected; (4) everyone agrees not to edit John Kerry on these subjects for at least a week while we try to find consensus on the "sandbox" page. That's not a great solution, because it leaves the article completely silent about Kerry's role in VVAW (a subject we all agree should be covered), but at least it would allow improvements on other subjects. Rex071404, will you accept that as a temporary working plan? JamesMLane 06:50, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have trouble visualizing your offer.

Please tell me; Y/N:

Would there be included in the "unprotected" John Kerry page a section called "The medal-tossing incident" and another called "1971 Meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW)"?

If yes, please post below a vebatim replica of how you say they would appear.

Or if not, why don't you take a few minutes and copy, edit and re-insert below, my version of the '71 meeting section with your suggested changes? I'd like to see if you feel any part of mine is acceptable to you at all.

By the way, doesn't it alarm you that Neutrality was heavily involved in the "pre-protection" editing of John Kerry and also of George_W._Bush prior to it's "protection", but he's now totally silent on the efforts to reach consensus here...?

It's almost as if, having succeded in locking in his edits, Neutrality is sitting on his hands and refusing to help...

Rex071404 07:07, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, they would not. They would be temporarily removed from the article, and then be discussed on a subpage until consensus was reached. As to actually solving this, two of us have attempted to write neutral versions at John Kerry/VVAW cross-reference and Talk:John_Kerry/Lyellin, but you have, as far as I can see, ignored both of them. Ambivalenthysteria 07:15, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That is an unfair characterization. I have reviewed those writings (if we are talking about the same thing) but am still at a loss as to why otherwise involved persons such as yourself will not make the effort to try and refute the list of facts which I have supplied above at the section titled "Summary of Facts". Before I can consider your comment to be anything other than closed-minded noise, please answer this question for me: Do you dispute the truth of those 11 facts which I have listed in that section? If yes, please specify. If not, please drop your opposition to incoporating reference to them (such as I have done in my 2nd suggested text for '71 VVAW, shown above). I await your reply. Rex071404 07:26, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ambivalenthysteria's interpretation of my counteroffer is the correct one. The language now in the John Kerry article as section 3 would be deleted. For now, Neutrality's proposal would not be added. My proposal would not be added. Your proposal would not be added. Lyellin's proposal would not be added. This temporary solution would eliminate all the pro-Kerry information about his eloquent opposition to a colossal governmental mistake, and/or all the anti-Kerry information about his mendacity, depending on how you want to look at it. As for your more recent question, both Lyellin and john k have gone through your eleven points, but I don't have the patience to scrutinize each one to see whether I agree or disagree. I note that the first few relate to Kerry's Vietnam service, which is in section 2 of the current article and therefore wouldn't be covered by my truce counteroffer. As to the ones relating to VVAW, my basic answer is that, whether the statements are true or false, they're not important enough to include in the main article beyond a brief reference. If my proposal is ultimately adopted, the evidence on these subjects can be presented at greater length in the separate article, linked to the main article. I realize that you disagree about the importance of these particular statements. That's your right. You should recognize, however, that this article can't include every truthful statement that anyone might make about John Kerry. Your repeated implication is that, if a contributor refuses to accept a true statement as part of the article, the refusal is clear proof of bias. That implication is unfounded. JamesMLane 07:59, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is no possiblity that your suggestions here can be acceptable unless the overall pro-Kerry nature of the entire John Kerry page is toned down. For example the single most detailed section of the entire page is titled "Kerry's second tour of duty as commander of a Swift Boat" and yet all this information is dedicated to events which took place within a time span of only approximately four months. To read all the detail, you would think Kerry was in country for several years! If you can't see how this has a POV which favors Kerry, then your suggestions to me will probably not be persuasive. It is inarguably true that Kerry's military service was relativly easy and his medals earned for relativly little. These are inescapable facts and ones that will not go away, whether you succeed in blocking them from inclusion in this Wiki or not. Rex071404 08:16, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I support the idea of this counteroffer, so we can get this discussion off the rather important page, and onto a new section. Ambiva- Rex did try to incorporate portions of my text into a new section, just so you know. I'm working on a reply to the "facts" and also another re-write... just takes time.

That was me Lyellin 07:23, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Lyellin, why don't you do a re-write of my 2nd version of VVAW and post it below. If you take into account my concerns which by now must be obvious, I'd like to see what you come up withRex071404 07:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm getting there :P Currently at work, so I try to do a BIT of work in between trying to calm this down. Lyellin 07:37, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

VVAW brought over from archive so I could respond to AH

Cecropia, I just don't understand how that particular VVAW meeting section is relevant to Kerry. Of course his time in VVAW deserves attention, and probably much more than is here already. But that meeting just isn't, as far as I can see, relevant to him. With the source you provided, I'm happy to accept that he was there, but there's no evidence that he knew of the proposal, and certainly no evidence that he supported it - nor that the vast majority of his colleagues did either. Kerry has done his share of questionable things, but this seems to be an attempt at smearing through guilt-by-association. If it's not meant to imply that he supported it somehow, why is it there, and why is it relevant? Ambivalenthysteria 05:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's very relevant because Kerry has at times said that he quit VVAW because of the imprecations / plans / ideas of violence and other times he has said that he quit earlier than that. Now if he quit because of the the violent ideas, then why is there no record of him telling the police? You can't reasonably suggest that in the context of that era, in light of the then well known fact that other groups were using violence, that someone like Kerry should have just "shrugged" off the violence suggestions, can you? On the other hand, if Kerry did quit before the "violence" meeting, why was he still representing himself to the media as a VVAW leader almost a year later? (see link above to copy of NYT article). The simple truth is that this episode well serves to highlight the true fact that Kerry is indeed a professional waffler who tries to take two sides of every issue. It is right and proper that the Wiki record show the details about these two points. Indeed, we should go farther and detail how many times Kerry has changed his story about this. Are we going to be reduced to nothing but pro-Kerry syncophants simply because we know Nader can't win and some of us are not happy with GWB (aka "the shrub")?

Rex071404 05:30, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ambivalenthysteria: I just caught up with this. I apologize for not responding sooner. That last VVAW is relevant in several ways, none of which have to do with whether or not Kerry was involved in potential violence, because it is seems clear he was not. (1) It is relevant because it appears to be the meeting during which he turned his back on VVAW, and that events at that meeting seem to have been "the last straw" in his leaving. So it is important as history; (2) it is politically relevant because he says he has no memory of being there but acknowledges he may very well have been. This cuts several ways. On one level it is like Bush's DUI. The DUI was an extremely minor one (no accident alleged, no boisterousness, no major impairment) but the issue was considered as a case of "lying about being arrested." On a different level, the VVAW meeting raises a simple but potent issue. Does he really not remember (please don't say "he insists"--what do you expect him to say?) or does he not want to be questioned about it? I'm not arguing to take the next step and start making insinuations (such as the GWB article is full of) you asked why this is a relevant event in Kerry's past, and I've told you. On a different note, I'm not really anxious to return to this article--my wall has enough holes in it. -- Cecropia | Talk 07:08, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Response to 'Facts'

1)Kerry was only in harm's way in Vietnam for FOUR MONTHS! Alright, why don’t we state “Kerry’s second tour of Duty, when he was stationed in Vietnam, was for a duration of 4 months, as he was sent back early due to receiving 3 Purple Hearts. 2)The "wounds" he received were barely scratches. Ok, this one is highly POV. We could describe the wounds, I guess, but that also seems POV. Sorta ambivilant on this one. 3)The Purple Hearts he received for those wounds enabled him to leave early (which he did) I covered this already in # 1 4)The Silver star he received was for beaching his boat in contravention of his training and chasing on shore by foot and getting a rocket launcher. He may or may not have shot a fleeing wounded man in the back - we haven't even hashed that out on this page yet. alright, but they DID give him the medal, thereby validating that contradiction of orders. And we can’t know what happened. We can report what people have said. Beyond that, if it’s an enemy combatant, I don’t think ANYONE can object to them being shot. Especially those of us who have not served ina military setting. 5) He willingly participated in an awards toss back (medals) ceremony. No one disputes that 6)About this ceremony, he has changed his story a number of times. We can explain the issue here- HE has said he threw something, perhaps now he threw something else. We can’t say “Oh, he keeps on changing his mind” 7) He was intimately involved as a leader with VVAW. And also left because he did not feel many of the things were appropiate, and felt he could help his cause (which, was still the same as the VVAW), by running for political office 8)Certain VVAW person(s) did advocate violence at a particular meeting.

No one argues that, although I don’t see why this is relevant at all to John Kerry

9)Kerry's contemporanious statements about this have been contradictory. My version mentions this already, in a NPOV manner, as does James 10) The FBI confirms and Kerry campaign accepts as true the fact that Kerry was at that meeting. My version has the FBI, but not the campaign. Alright. 11) Kerry has also changed his story about this several times. ..Kerry says he doesn’t remember, and then has admitted that if records show him there, he must have been there. SO? I don’t remember which meetings I went to of my HS Drama club, and that was just 3 years ago. Lyellin 07:35, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Your response does not refute the truth of my facts, rather, it argues various merits for and against referring to them.

1st we need to clear up whether ot not you agree the facts I state are true. For example, if you don't like the word "scratch", what are we to say about his wounds? That they were "extremely minor"? The truth is, that those wounds were indeed almost nothing more than scratches and to describe them as "minor wounds" paints a misleading picture in the mind of the uninformed.

Most persons, when they think "wound" think stiches and loss of blood at minimum. Kerry did not suffer either of those to any degree. In light of that, his constant parading around as a "band of brothers" man is especially misleading. Did you see that mini-series? The wounds those men suffered were horrific. For Kerry to employ the "band of brothers" theme in his campaign is disgusting. And if you don't think he is doing that, look at this link here

The reason why so many of you think I am POV about my chosen verbiage for Kerry, is that frankly, you are misinformed about many details of Kerry and his public message. What's POV or not in regards to Kerry will largely have to be wieghed against how Kerry potrays himself to the public. If he goes parading around saying things that paint a false picture, it is not nessecarily POV to add some information that allows a reader to put Kerry's claims into context.

Rex071404 07:57, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rex. *sighs* Please, for a second, assume everyone here is as smart as you, and everyone here cares as much as you, ok? I am not misinformed. Heck, I am more informed than I SHOULD be. I regulary have contacts with one of the highest GOP donors in the last election (Hint: I work at an embassy). I read all sorts of various news, from all sorts of sources, from Fox, to CNN, to BBC, to the National Journal. For once, let's assume that everyone is on the same kind of level. I object to your verbiage because it's POV. Many of the "Facts" that you state and portray, are most likly facts. They are also said in a manner that is entirely POV. That's the issue here. Beyond that, notice that there are many of us here who want to resolve this, as quickly as possible, as appropiately as possible.

All of that above though, is a non-issue. Whether or not we are informed does not affect if we can see that a sentence is highly motivated in a point-of-view manner in one way or another.

I was not trying to refute or prove your "facts". I'm not in a debate about the facts here. I'm in a debate about what needs to be included into a NPOV, encyclopedic article. The truth of the matter is, the national media has barely paid much attention to this. EITHER side of the media. It was an issue, it was reported, then it became a non-issue.

I've been posting about the VVAW meeting. Medals are a different issue. Wounds/medals are a different issue. Needing a seperate section. But you know what, I don't have Kerry's Medical reports after the wounds. Do you? If you do, please show them to me, I'll be interested to read them. Regardless, he was wounded, he got the purple hearts. The same arguemetn can be made that Bush was in the military. He was. Now, I personally believe he skipped out, etc, etc, but we have a seperate page for that for a reason.

Lyellin 08:06, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Try this one

There is a second version on Talk:John_Kerry/Lyellin. Lyellin 07:48, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Except for formatting the link, that's much better than your previous effort. However you still have not said what problems you have with my current version (my #2 sample). Why do you insist on changing mine to such a degree? Rex071404 08:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

People insist on changing it because it's considered by numerous people to be POV. That's why there's been numerous attempts at trying something else. I don't like Lyellin's new version as much - I don't see the difference between version 1 and version 2, except that version 2 is a bit longer and has more messy wording. Ambivalenthysteria 08:08, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Typing in a bit of a rush. I'm worrying about an acceptable version, not properly formatted, right now. Why? because you have whole paragraphs that do nothing that speculate, and make the section ENTIRELY too long. We've discussed that above, about the relative importance of sections. I can say everything, show the discrepency in Kerry's statements, and still only take four paragraphs, instead of eight, while also making it much more NPOV and leading. I happen to think version 1 is better. Unfortunetly, I've not had enough time to edit version 2 to be happy with it. Lyellin 08:10, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)