Talk:John Kerry/Archive 23

message: Ok. This is getting ridiculous. Lets decide this once and for all.
===There a consensus on what to add into the article regarding the 'wound'. Now lets move on ===
FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: There a consensus on what to add into the article regarding the 'wound'. Now lets move on 

message: You people are all well off the point. Rex at least is making his point as far as it logically supports him but your refutes are avoiding the real issue. First, is it possible to have a purple heart that states on your record (dd214 or otherwise) that you received a "minor purple heart" or attained a purple heart by a "minor wound"? Then you need to look at WHAT HIS WOUNDS ARE! If none of this is clear or public record (despite what sources you support Rex)then it should be stated on the record that some evidence/biographies or otherwise suggests that that there was something "minor" about his wounds. Make this statement as nonbiased as possible and continue to repeat the facts every time Rex objects. Your argument that this is about subjectivity or objectivity is unfounded if you yourself cannot be objective. I don't care about votes. History shows us that people are generally mislead by propaganda and disllusionment constantly. John Kerry has plenty of clear lies he supports that prove that if you simply look at all the objective facts. (Example, he along with many other democratic party members still continues to state that the war in Iraq was based souly on WMD's when this is clearly untrue. If you disagree with me on that then state so and bring that argument to the Wikipedia War on Iraq page. We've had a national obligation to take out Saddam ever since we put him in power, thinking it was for the better. WMD's are the least of our reasons to stop a mass murderer yet the lies keep on going. Therefore, people voting over truth is as substantial as logrolling the constitution). So quit being a bunch of idiots who think that by saying "It's clear that your wrong" you have made an objective point. Propaganda and it's effect on you is repulsive enough as it is. (Youngidealist 03:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: There's a consensus...

message: #I believe the word "minor" is sufficiently supported by the evidence, and more informative to the reader.  Note, however, that although I am expressing a preference for this phrase, I have indicated (way above) several other versions I find acceptable as well.  Johntex\talk 01:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Prefer the phrase "minor wound"

message: ====Rebuttal(s) to vote comments ====
*rebuttal to Gamaliel's argument in vote section: While Kerry is still alive, there is no proof he met the "heat of battle" requirement, hence he was not "wounded" for PH purposes; absent proof of "heat of battle", injured is more accurate for 1st PH section context. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 22:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: There is no consensus on what to add into the article regarding the 'wound'. We need to discuss it more

message: *rebuttal to Gamaliel's argument in vote section: While Kerry is still alive, there is no proof he met the "heat of battle" requirement, hence he was not "wounded" for PH purposes; absent proof of "heat of battle", injured is more accurate for 1st PH section context. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 22:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebuttal(s) to vote comments 

message: *leave it for the daughter article. --kizzle 23:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter rebuttals specifically aimed at Rex 

message: Stop archiving this talk page every ten minutes, this isn't your own personal talk page Rex, you're taking this too far, it's almost like you're testing the system to see how far you can push before they block you or bring you up on sanctions, stop being a martyr already.  If the admins weren't 100% sure that you'd come back as an even more trollish sockpuppet, they would have blocked you by now, learn to take a hint--IKnowWho(Gee, I'm a sockpuppet, how unexpected) 23:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop making personal remarks. · Katefan0(scribble) 00:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: That controversy is fine for daughter article, not this page though. --kizzle 00:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Kerry/Archives&action=history What the hell??] 

message: Reading the dialogue on this page, I've reverted to the version agreed by everyone but Rex and unprotected the page. EVERYONE: Please do not start this discussion again. Titoxd(?!?) 00:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue closed 

message: The admin who unprotected, referred to this as "consensus" (Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 00:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[John Kerry]] has been unprotected 

message: (see below)
====First Purple Heart====
During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating near a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began to run. These men failed to stop when ordered, and Kerry and his crew of two enlisted men then opened fire with machine guns destroying the sampans and quickly left the area. During this encounter, Kerry received a shrapnel wound in his left arm above the elbow.  Subsequently at Sick Call, the shrapnel was removed and Kerry was treated with bacitracin and bandaged. Kerry returned to duty the next day on a regular Swift boat patrol. Kerry was later awarded a Purple Heart for this wound. During the 2004 presidential campaign, various critics such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth suggested reasons that this injury did not merit a Purple Heart. Also in 2004, after a limited review prompted by Judicial Watch the Naval Inspector General "determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved". For more information, see John Kerry military service controversy.
----------
Is this, as is, consensus, yes or no?
No
* No. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 00:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratification vote 

message: During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating near a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began to run. These men failed to stop when ordered, and Kerry and his crew of two enlisted men then opened fire with machine guns destroying the sampans and quickly left the area. During this encounter, Kerry received a shrapnel wound in his left arm above the elbow.  Subsequently at Sick Call, the shrapnel was removed and Kerry was treated with bacitracin and bandaged. Kerry returned to duty the next day on a regular Swift boat patrol. Kerry was later awarded a Purple Heart for this wound. During the 2004 presidential campaign, various critics such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth suggested reasons that this injury did not merit a Purple Heart. Also in 2004, after a limited review prompted by Judicial Watch the Naval Inspector General "determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved". For more information, see John Kerry military service controversy.
----------
Is this, as is, consensus, yes or no?
No
* No. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 00:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: First Purple Heart

message: I believe that the public facts support mentioning this. However, if it needs a re-write, please discuss here. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 13:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1996 Fundraising issues 

message: Is "wound" the only issue or are there others that need to be hashed out? I know one problem with an article like this is that John is still very much in the news, so we'll never be "finished" really. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The major hang up has for sometime been "First Purple Heart". Currently, this is how it reads. I would accept it like this, if the others will. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 04:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The assertion that the wound was not serious is not proper encyclopedic material.  Snopes is in the business of reaching conclusions about disputed points, but we aren't.  Also, I don't think the Judicial Watch role needs to be mentioned in Kerry's main bio, and I noted above that we should think about where the daughter article is to be linked. JamesMLane 04:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's my point on this. Knowing snopes, that sounds very POV to me. Snopes is in the game of rumor mongering. I would suggest trying to find another source to back this up. I don't care what snopes is using, to be honest. I wouldn't call them a reliable source. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Other sources regarding this topic that aren't included in the section: From Salon:    From FactCheck: From CNN:  From Yahoo:  -- Mr. Tibbs 07:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, I have a higher opinion of Snopes than the one you express.  It doesn't matter, though -- in this instance we're not referring to a conclusion Snopes drew after weighing conflicting evidence, because there is no conflicting evidence.  The exact passage in Snopes is, "Brinkley notes that Kerry went on a regular Swift boat patrol the next day with a bandage on his arm . . . ."  Do you think Snopes would not only be so dishonest as to make up such a story, but would also then be so stupid as to make a false claim that the story could be found in a widely available book? and nobody's called them on their falsehood since they published it in February 2004?  Unless and until someone says that this information isn't in Tour of Duty, I feel comfortable relying on it. JamesMLane 07:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If memory serves, User:Neutrality owns a copy of the book. And I'm sure plenty of libraries still have it. Gamaliel 07:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Use CNN then or one of the other ones. I didn't say that Snopes was making it up. I would just feel better if we used someone else. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the Salon articles is by Brinkley and may go into enough detail to mention the bandage, but I can't tell because I'm not a Salon subscriber.  Even if it's in there, I'd rather link to a free site than a pay site.  At this point I don't know of any better free site that confirms the specific point Rex is carping about, namely the bandage.  (We don't want to link to a site that relies on Letson because his credibility is certainly more subject to challenge than any alternative.)  I'm going to use the Snopes link until something better comes along.  Woohookitty, feel free to substitute a diferent source, but remember that if we're relying on a link that doesn't say quite specifically "bandage" or "bandaged", Rex will remove the citation and the information, and will favor us all with a lengthy disquisition on the subject, and will repeat said disquisition several times over the next few days.  If User:Neutrality were to confirm that it's in Tour of Duty, that would be fine with me, but I doubt that it would mollify Rex, given the vicious personal attacks he's made against Neutrality in the past. JamesMLane 08:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Brinkley is a perfectly legitimate source, and so is Kerry for that matter.  You can't dismiss perfectly legitimate sources without a reason that's more substantial than your suspicions.  Gamaliel 08:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I have a simple question, Rex. Why do you care so much about one word? Especially when it's going to cost you credibility and possibly more. I don't get it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't threaten people. Nice job avoiding my question, btw. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  My answer then, is two part a) Which word are you asking about? and b) Ask the same question 1st to JamesMLane. When he answers you, I will too. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 09:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You've avoided it twice now. Good work. Never mind. It would just give you another opportunity to talk about "wound". --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Kerry's personal diary as recounted by Brinkley at this NPR audio link makes clear that we have been only putting in service details which are hagiographic. We include many other service details, why is this not in? "They see a Vietnamese boat in a so-called curfew zone and they don't know what to do, so they shoot and they get to the boat and they find out it was just a bunch of women with children and rice." Did Kerry kill innocent civilians? And as far as Brinkley goes, it's clear from listening that he is utterly pro-Kerry in every regard. Brinkley is no more reliable a source than Letson. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 09:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Since I'm new to this article...

message: We have had 75 (yes 75) edits in the 36 hours since this page was unprotected and it's the same old issues...wound...purple heart, non serious, etc. This is just insane. I think the admin who unprotected it misinterpreted us. We have a consensus. That's clear. But the edit warring is not ceasing. We need reprotection. Period. It's gotten to the point where I for one can't follow all of the edits. One article should not have to take up all of someone's time on here. It's counterproductive as hell. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's insane, but protection isn't the answer.  The problem is, pure and simply, Rex.  He's now again deleted the information that the wound was bandaged, writing in his ES, "remove 'bandage' this is disputed".  There is no source that says there was no bandage.  I'm not going to revert this latest foolishness because, by at least one interpretation, I've reached my revert limit.  Protecting the page now would protect the wrong version, but even if it were fixed first, what's the point?  The instant someone lifted the protection, Rex would be back at it.  We can't keep an important article on semi-permanent protection just because of one disruptive POV-pusher. JamesMLane 15:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, Then send it to mediation...or...something. I don't think we can permit a never ending edit war. I mean I understand what you are saying, James, but there has to be a way out of this. Kate and I are both admins and we're trying our damndest to have some control over all of this, but even that isn't really helping. I've been in this for all of 3 days and I'm close to Wikiexhaustion over it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: That was explained to you over and over and over more than a year ago.  It's been explained more recently.  If the many words that I and others have written haven't succeeded in making the point clear to you, then I for one am unable to think of any further explanation.  I see no value in repeating what I've already said.  I just hope someone else will revert this page ASAP. JamesMLane 15:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Would you two please cease arguing for a second? Thanks. Now we have a revert war to add to the edit war. Anyway, I agree with you James about it not being good to have a semi-protected article. But, I'd argue that it's worse to have an important article like this changing twice an hour, which is why we're averaging over the last 40 hours or so. And this isn't even new data. It's not as if Kerry is in the news right now and we're adding new information. It's stuff that happened 30 years ago. I just think it makes Wikipedia look extremely unprofessional to have an article like this changing twice an hour. And honestly, I think this is beyond just a content dispute. So saying that well protection won't work isn't going to work for me. We have to do something here. Either we have to protect it or move it to mediation or something. I don't think we can permit a never ending edit war as a project on an article as important as this. It's not as if Rex or James or anyone else is going to stop the warring on their own. I think the time for that has passed. That's all I have to say...  --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I asked for protection again

message: From Dorlands Medical Dicitonary 
dressing (dress·ing) (dres´ing)  1. any of various materials for covering and protecting a wound. See also bandage.  2. the putting on of clothing. 
adhesive absorbent d.  a sterile individual dressing consisting of a plain absorbent compress affixed to a film or fabric coated with a pressure-sensitive adhesive substance. 
antiseptic d.  a dressing of gauze impregnated with an antiseptic material. 
bolus d.  tie-over d.
cocoon d.  a dressing of gauze affixed to the surrounding skin by collodion or other liquid adhesive in such a way that its elevated appearance resembles a cocoon. 
cross d.  cross-dressing. 
dry d.  dry gauze or absorbent cotton applied to a wound. 
fixed d.  a dressing impregnated with a stiffening agent such as plaster of Paris or starch, used to secure fixation of the part when the material dries. 
occlusive d.  one which seals a wound from contact with air or bacteria. 
pressure d.  one by which pressure is exerted on the area covered to prevent collection of fluids in underlying tissues; most commonly used after skin grafting and in treatment of burns. 
protective d.  a light dressing to prevent exposure to injury or infection. 
stent d.  a dressing in which is incorporated a mold or stent, to maintain position of a graft. 
tie-over d.  a dressing placed over a skin graft or other sutured wound and tied on by the sutures, which have been made of sufficient length for that purpose; called also bolus d. 
------
Just as I said, said to Derex, if I were going to guess, I'd say "bacitracin dressing" could mean with gauze see "antiseptic" def above. However, I have also said it could mean bacitracin as just a covering. That is also true, see "occlusive" above.
In either case, "bandage" has a separate def  and based what we know was applied "bacitracin dressing" and what it could mean ("bacitracin with gauze"), then if James wants to call it "gauze bandaging", I would agree. Please note that I said virtually the same thing some time ago to Derex here "Personally, I might guess that Kerry got Bacitracin, with gauze and surgical tape. If you want to use that language, I'd agree.  If others had actually read my reference to this, they would know that already.  To reiterate, at most, Kerry got "bacitracin impregnated into gauze", which can be referred to as dressing, but is not referred to as "bandaging", but could be called "gauze bandaging" or "gauze dressing" and those would not be a lie and either would settle my concerns. What about James? Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 17:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does any of this matter? --kizzle 18:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm saying in the grand scheme of things, who cares whether it's a "bandage" or a "bacitracin dressing"? --kizzle 18:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Rex is trying to imply that it was a scrape, not even really breaking the skin. If he can argue that the medic just smeared a little ointment over it, that goes to support the claim that it wasn't a wound.  Ultimately, Rex's issue is trying to keep any facts supporting the legitimacy of the PH out of the article.  Every single dispute over every single word in this section is Rex trying to insert spin to push a POV, that's not my personal opinion .... the arbitration committee made that finding (POV pushing) about exactly the same disputes over exactly the same words a year ago. But, of course, you already knew all that. Derex @ 19:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The recent versions I have offered do not play up any pissing contest between SBVT/Kerry. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 20:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Rex, numerous people have showed you various definitions of "dressing", all of which involve some sort of cloth. You have never once, despite considerable google searching, been able to provide anything which explicitly states that an 'ointment' can be a "dressing". Not once. All the indirect evidence you provide is actually evidence against ointment as dressing, as I demonstrate on your talk page.  You are required by the still-binding arbitration committee decision to provide a citation in view of your "demonstrated deficiencies" in conducting and interpreting the results of research.  So, put up or shut up.  You have provided no evidence, none, against Katefan0's suggested phrasing. Other people have provided vast amounts of supporting evidence and collectively wasted many hours on this point. Keep up this nonsense and I am going to start requesting relief over on the adminstrator's noticeboard under the existing arbitration remedies. Derex @ 18:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: This page here appears to be talking about a scenario where an occlusive (see above) dressing consists solely of an antibiotic ointment. From my reading of it, it would hard to imagine gauze on the lips for several days, (and none is mentioned). However, it does seem to make clear that aditional ointment would go on. Having said that, again some here miss my point, which is the uneven application of editing rules. I say "injury" and you guys say must be "wound", yet you guys want to turn around and take the pontetially supportable "gauze" and turn it into "bandaging". Why does the word "gauze" even exist if it differs not whit from "bandage? And on top off it, you then go ahead and refuse to admit that the medical dicitonary and other sources I have cited, still make clear that "dressing" and "bandagin" are two distinct and discrete things. They simply are not the same. As a result, even if we agree on "gauze" (which I long ago offered), gauze does not establish "bandage". Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 19:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rex writes, 'At the same time, what I have said about the evidence supplied by Jams is correct, the word "dressing" does not establish "bandage".'  Assuming that "Jams" is me, Rex's statement is false because I've never even gotten into this minute analysis of the meaning of "dressing".  The person that wrote the document was in the Mekong Delta in 1968, and was a medic in a unit where people were getting shot up all the time.  The author didn't necessarily stop to parse every word.  It's a mistake to try to pick apart the report as if it were a description of the results of a scientific experiment in a peer-reviewed journal.  The evidence that I've actually supplied is that a biography of Kerry, written by a professor of history/American Studies, says the wound was bandaged.  Rex objected that this biography was too favorable toward Kerry, so I supplied the further evidence that the main witness for Kerry's accusers on this point, Letson, also says that the wound was bandaged.  That there was a bandage on Kerry's arm that day is better established and supported than at least 90% of the other facts on Wikipedia. JamesMLane 22:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Nah, just scrap the whole thing. Bacitracin, bandage, gauze ... who cares? He had a piece of shrapnel pulled out of his are, why does the rest of this matter?  I think both bacitracin & bandage should come out. If I recall right, the whole issue started a year ago when Rex stated the only treatment was bacitracin, because it was a scrape. Then someone else pointed out that it was bandaged. In my view, both are trivialities and both should come out. All that matters is that he had a piece of shrapnel pulled and was returned to duty.  I'll leave it to the rest of you though, I've already wasted an hour debating Rex over this silly thing; I'll waste no more. Derex @ 03:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I kind of wish people would step back and see just how stupid all of this is. They don't give Purple Hearts for paper cuts, ok? If you don't think he deserved the PH Rex, that's fine, but you know what? They aren't going to take it back. I'm sick of this on both sides. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A medical dictionary is not opinion 

message: Rather than protecting the page again, why not just block Rex for persistant trolling?--205.188.117.68 20:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Here's a crazy idea

message: Unless we are going to say that Snopes is incapable of using the Brinkely book as a reference and also incapable of quoting that book verbatim, then we are going to have to admit there does exist on Snopes, a verbatim quote (attributed to Brinkley, from his book) as follows:
"Kerry's wound was not serious enough to require time off from duty." This quote is indeed on the Snopes page which James is citing 
Furthermore, the context of this quote indicates that Snopes asserts that Brinkley has said in his book that not only was the 1st purple heart for a "not serious" injury, but the 2nd is as well. Here, in it's entirety, is the Snopes sentence, verbatim, quoting Brinkley, as it sits on the page found at the snopes link: Brinkley noted that, as in the previous case, "Kerry's wound was not serious enough to require time off from duty.".
Suffice it to say , unless we are now arguing that Snopes is inventing quotes, then we have to accept as fact that James's highly vaunted source Brinkley has said the words, "not serious". 
The only point one could possibly argue here would be that Snopes has rendered an opinion about Brinkley's 1st PH comments when Snopes says "as in the previous case". Personally, I do not agree they are doing that. Rather, I feel this is a reminder in brief, not an opinion.  But if Snopes is offering opinion, then I would say that opinion and fact are so poorly segregated on the Snopes page, as to render it valueless. 
I find it interesting that James himself points to the headline on "Snopes" as being something we would never say here on the wiki. Indeed, with that he has opened the door to another point I have long argued about Snopes, which is Snopes is so chock full of flaws as a source and so pollutes our readers who are directed to it, that we should not use it at all. I reject the notion that somehow this particular Snopes page under discussion has such value that "We can cite them for facts but not for conclusions". Har! Far from it. By linking to that in this context, we plain and simply pollute the narrative of our own article.
Under the standard of 'half crappy links are ok , even FreeRepublic could be used for a source. Using James's desired standard of "cite for facts, not for conclusions", we find this interesting information on FreeRepublic [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1203448/posts], in the form of a combination of facts and conclusions. Please note that the facts are quoted and footnoted there: Later, after Schachte, Letson, and Hibbard's accounts of Kerry's wound were publicized, readers of Brinkley's biography discovered a passage quoting an entry from Kerry's war diary written after December 11 where Kerry recorded that "we hadn't been shot at yet". After this was pointed out, Kerry's campaign acknowledged that Kerry's wound may have been self-inflicted.
James would go absolutely berserk if I tried to write: According to Kerry, at this point, though "we hadn't been shot at yet", he nonetheless sought a Purple Heart for this wound.
James, this concession from Kerry establishes as a fact that a) Kerry was not involved in "enemy action" Dec 2 / Dec 3, so no matter how you slice it, there was no qualifying predicate enemy action which is the requirement to qualify for a PH. And with no enemy action, there can be no "heat of battle", so even if self-inflicted, it's not a "qualifying" wound. And yet, James stands by and watches while Kizzle continues to again and again try to insert the false statement that Kerry  "qualified"  for this PH. Does James revert that or object to that? Why not?
Suffice it to say, James's standard of "use for facts only" is preposterous. The FreeRepublic example is only one, but there are many others. This idea of letting James cherry pick desired details from a snakepit of crap like that Snopes page is just plain not good. Nothing good can come from allowing sources like that to be used.  However, if James demands Snopes, then at minimum, I am going to describe the 2nd PH injury as "not serious enough to require time off from duty"' because this is a verbatim quote from Brinkley and it is found on the James beloved "Snopes" page.
Now then, on this issue of sources  let's see what else we find:
* Rear Admiral Schachte said,  ""It was not a very serious wound at all."  . No witness has come forward saying that Schachte was did not see the wound 1st hand. Under James's rule of "There is no source that says there wasn't" regarding "bandage", then since there's no source which says that Schachte did not see the injury 1st hand, then we have to accept Rear Admiral Schachte's statement of  "not very serious" at face value.
* Now then, since there's also no source that says Ret. Lt Gen. Hibbard did not see the wound first hand, we also have to accept the statement of "He had a little scratch on his forearm" as accurate proof that the wound was not "above the elbow" and was minor or not serious  In fact, here we have another Boston Globe source telling us "Hibbard observed that Kerry's wound was minor" . The Globe goes on to argue about the PH regs, but it does not present any challenge about the veracity of it's own conclusions about Hibbard's contention, for which they use the word "minor". Surely the Boston Globe is a reliable source. No need to fight them on the word "minor". It's either the Boston Globe's accurate summary of what Hibbard said at one point to them "minor" or it's what he actually said "minor". Either way, coming from the reliable source Globe, we can use it. And using James's rule of "no one says otherwise", there is no source which says that Hibbard did not see the wound.
Here we have two highly credible 1st hand witnesses, who under James rule of  "nobody says otherwise", because no one has challenged that these persons at one point visually saw Kerry wound with their own eyes, we must accept at fact value what they say "not very serious" and "not serious" and "minor".
Now then,  James' 2nd rational for Snopes - to prove Kerry went back to duty the next day, also fails as a justification. Uh, we already have factual corroboration that Kerry went directly back to duty, and this is from a Primary Source, the Sick Call Treatment Record "Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl (sic) bacitracin dressing. Ret to Duty,"  James is only citing Snopes for that fact instead of  CBS so as to give another excuse to use Snopes. CBS is a better source for this verification than Snopes because CBS quotes the Primary Source SCTR, but Snopes quotes the Secondary Source of Brinkley's book. Kerry returned to duty after treatment. whether it was the same day or the next day, is not a notable fact and we do not have need a citation for that as there is no dispute that he returned to duty. Also, when we are trying to determine if "Dressing", "Gauze" or "Bandage" is correct, we are told by James "It's a mistake to try to pick apart the report as if it were a description of the results of a scientific experiment in a peer-reviewed journal."  Here is another one off James's double-standards. He wants precision as to when Kerry returned to duty, same day vs. next day, but he does not want precision when it comes to calling dressing "dressing" or gauze "gauze". And James' smarmy jibe about this  edit fails to persuade because he himself says "there's no serious dispute about the point" and I yielded on that point right away as soon as I recognized that. There is no dispute, either here or in the public about Kerry's return to duty and in either case, the Primary Source SCTR, beats the Secondary Source Brinkley quote (via the, in this instance, Tertiary Source Snopes).
James claims that he does not favor page protection, but  is that is real worry? I think not, his real worry is that if we end up protected again, that his preferred edits might be the odd man out. See his recent statement here on talk :"Protecting the page now would protect the wrong version".
Here's the bottom line: 
*Snopes is no good, but if it is good, I must be allowed to source "not serious..." to it, at minimum in regards to the 2nd PH as the quote is verbatim.
*Snopes is no better than FreeRepublic. If the James rule of "cite for fact, not opinion" is allowed, then those Freeper pages which have facts with citations, must be allowed. I have offered an example of one above.
* The SCTR is a Primary source. There is no need to look beyond this for details about what was on Kerry's arm. The SCTR refers to "Bacitracin dressing". So to should we use that phrase. I've tried to flex for James on this, but if you give him and inch he takes a mile. The amount or type of wrapping on Kerry's arm, be it "dressing" or "bandage" is simply not a notable enough fact to warrant superceding a Primary Source fact (SCTR), with a Secondary Source description (Brinkley). If so much precision is needed, then we must rely on the medical dictionary link which I supplied. A medical dictionary is more authoritative than Brinkley so far as medical terminology goes. The arm wrapping is the result of medical treatment, so the most precise usage is not Brinkley's layman usage, but the medical dictionary usage. And the dictionary makes clear that a "dressing" is not the same thing as a "bandage". Either the arm wrapping is a notable fact, in which case since it's a medical treatment, we need the precise medical term, or it's not a notable fact, in which case we do not need to look beyond the sole Primary Source, the undisputedly accurate SCTR.
Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 18:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already answered about 90% of this.  New points: (1) Would I "go absolutely berserk" if you tried to add the quotation from Kerry's journal?  The quotation is included where it belongs, in the daughter article (John Kerry military service controversy).  I've never tried to remove it from that article.  (2) Your esteem for Free Republic is laughable.  Snopes is a far more reliable source.  Even National Review Online is a more reliable source.  The serious conservatives who write NRO are head-and-shoulders above the typical Freeper.  JamesMLane 18:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rex rebuts James regarding Snopes, etc