Talk:John Kerry/Archive 21

message: According to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your facts, an over-arching, guiding principle of all editing on the wiki is:
'Write stuff that is true: check your facts. Do not write stuff that is false. This might require that you check your alleged facts."
Here again are the uncontested facts:
# Kerry was wounded
# Kerry received treatment for that wound
# Severe wounds require more treatment than "bacitracin and bandaging"
# Kerry received only "bacitracin and bandaging"
# The term "minor wound" is a medically specific technical term
# Kerry did not self-treat his wound
# Whether or not a wound is self-treated, does not change it's level of severity
# Wounds that receive only "bacitracin and bandaging" from a medical professional are not referred to by medical profesisonals as anything other than "minor wounds".
I have tried, as best as I can, with the limited sources available on the 'net, to provide enough facts that the editors here who are opposed to "minor" can see that their opposition is unsupportable. 
If Kizzle, et al (the "No!" crowd) insists on thinking that the sources I provided do not support using the adjective "minor" or the medical term "minor wound", I want him to please choose, based on the facts we have now, was the wound level
*A) MINOR 
*B) SEVERE 
*C) IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW 
As evidenced by this:  in medical terminology, there are only two classifications of wounds, minor and severe.
According to this: , a  "A minor wound is a small wound or a wound on just the surface of the skin".
According to this: , for a minor wound: "Apply antibiotic ointment to minor wound and cover with a sterile gauze dressing or bandage that is slightly larger than the actual wound."
I am NOT "distancing using Letson". Rather, I am providing additional information for those (such as Kizzle) who have difficulting grasping that the wound was indeed minor. Perhaps Kizzle thinks the wound was severe? Perhaps the treatment which the wound received is insufficient from Kizzle's perespective to indicate that the wound was minor?
Suffice it to say, I call on Kizzle to take a position: Kizzle, based on the facts and medical terminology citations we have so far, was the wound "Minor", "Severe" or "Impossible to know"?
I contend that it is true that the wound was minor. Leaving out this true fact will leave the false possibility open that it was something other than that. 
We are told to write what is true. And yet, without accuracy, there can be no editorial truth here. We need the accuracy enhancing use of the adjective "minor" and the medically precise term "minor wound", both of which come together in a workable non-POV manner in "minor shrapnel wound".
Rex071404  216.153.214.94   19:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to take an opinion, but unfortunately I do not meet the criteria of an opinion that can be sourced in this article.  The fact that Kerry according to your source has a non-minor wound due to metal lodged within the wound is plenty for me.  This is the fact that is conspiciously missing from your list of uncontested facts that gives doubt to your subjective conclusion. --kizzle 19:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It's funny how you don't disagree that your own source indicates the wound was not minor. And tell me where any of these links provided characterize shrapnel wounds where the metal is lodged in the arm as "minor".  But so far, we have one source saying that a wound with "visible foreign material" such as the shrapnel lodged in the wound requires more than minor care. That's all I know, and I don't see how badgering to answer is going to help any, as my characterization of it being minor or not is not sourceable and thus not relevant. --kizzle 19:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, so attribute it to him, but don't include it in the main text.  And if you disagree with "requires more than minor care" than maybe you should provide a better source rather than letting me dismantle it.  Of course I don't think the wound was severe, but I don't think that it was minor either, and regardless either way, adding such information only draws conclusions for the reader and strengthens one point of view rather than simply saying he has an injury, providing the details, and letting them come to the conclusion whether the injury was minor (of which subsequently whether he deserved the medal at all, which is of course your highly transparent motive to include this passage).  If asking to attribute a POV rather than injecting my own POV is a "violation" of my "most basic duties and are therefore a rogue editor", than that's ok with me.  I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. --kizzle 22:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The uncontested facts support "minor [[shrapnel]] [[wound]]" 

message: I have asked several other editors this, but do not get any answers, so I am going to ask in the form of a survey. Please note that I have offered only three choices, "minor", "severe" and "impossible to know". Please do not tamper with my supplied list of choices. The "It is not for Wikipedia's job to editorialise..." choice did not come from me. Rex071404  216.153.214.94  
Regarding the total evidence supplied on this talk page (see above) specific to the severity of Kerry's 1st wound, with the aim in mind of "write stuff that is true", to the best of my understanding and belief, I accept the evidence relating to proof of wound severity as showing that this medically specific technical term is true:
* The 1st wound was a "minor wound"
# Rex071404  216.153.214.94   21:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey of editors: regarding evidence supplied so far about 1st wound severity 

message: According to this: , there has been NO PROOF supplied by Kerry or anyone that the word "wound" even appears in his treatment record:
:The campaign could not locate a similar report for Kerry's original Purple Heart. As evidence that Kerry was wounded, campaign spokesman Michael Meehan showed The Associated Press a "Sick Call Treatment Record" from Kerry's personal files that included a brief written note dated Dec. 3, 1968, and stamped from the naval support facility at Cam Ranh Bay. 
:"Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl (sic) bacitracin dressing. Ret to Duty," it said. The note is followed by a signature that appears to say "JCCarreon" and some illegible letters that Meehan said probably designate the medical official's rank. 
If we are going to be literalists, then I intend to re-write the section in dispute with a direct quote from Kerry's "Sick Call Treatment Record" as follows
:: ====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 in and around 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. When the men refused to obey an order to stop running, Kerry and his crew of two enlisted men opened fire, destroyed the sampans, and took off. During this encounter, Kerry received shrapnel in left arm above elbow. The shrapnel was removed and he was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged.  Kerry returned to duty the next day on a regular Swift boat patrol. Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this medical treatment. This medal award was one of those criticized by Kerry's detractors in the 2004 election; for more detail, see John Kerry military service controversy.
Please note that the bold text is mine and is to show that this an EXACT quote of the only evidence to come from Kerry about this, the contemporaneously written "Sick Call Treatment Record".
The bold will be standard text in the article edit. 
Rex071404  216.153.214.94   22:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On 2nd thought, this sentence "Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this medical treatment.", should probably read as "Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this". The "medical treatment" is conclusionary and should be stricken. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   22:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the official document, what was he rewarded with the purple heart for then? --kizzle 22:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  Also, this sentence "Kerry returned to duty the next day on a regular Swift boat patrol." should instead read as "Kerry returned to duty the next day.", unless there is proof that Kerry was actually on a Swift Boat patrol, instead of at base, the next day. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   22:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It sounds a bit better except it's not proper English. --kizzle 22:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st "wound" - an alternative suggestion 

message: Rex's conduct on this page has been anything but acceptable under Wikipedia rules. 
* He is consistently abusive to other users. 
* He insists on shouting his comments at people. 
* He refuses to abide by the elementary requirement of NPOV. 
* He then tries to claim ownership of a survey, framing questions which breach NPOV rules by proposing that Wikipedia editorialise on a controversial point of some dispute, and when an NPOV option is added in he posts (with his traditional shouting) 
DO NOT modify my offered choices AGAIN - make your own survey if you want, but this is my survey. The answers below are NOT responsive to the questions I posed and will be designated as such 
::: Funny, since you keep deleting my text (see history this page), I am unable to locate that which you are complaining about. Also, what about using the literal quote (as I suggest above) from Kerry's treatment record? will you support that? And don't complain that I interspersed my comment here, you did the same thing when you creatd a 4th choice to my survey - worse even, you have given others the impression that the 4th choice came from me. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   22:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me spell it out for you then: 
# You don't own this encyclopædia;
# You don't own the page;
# You don't know the survey;
# Setting up a 'survey' containing fraudulent POV options is dishonest;
# Posting messages stating 'how dare you' rants in the middle of a survey is both a breach of Wikipedia ettique and disrespectful to everyone on Wikipedia. 
But then your handling of this survey is perfectly in keeping with your treatment of all attempts by other users to contribute to this page. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, did you even bother to read this: "The bold will be standard text in the article edit" ? Rex071404  216.153.214.94   22:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not so sure a RfC against Rex is appropriate, possibly an RfC on this dispute is warranted, although I call not-it on drawing it up.  One thing he does have you on, Rex, is that you don't get to control the debate by providing only your options, as clearly there was another option that many other people supported that you didn't give, thus your initial survey was a fallacy of choice between false alternatives.--kizzle 22:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kizzle, what I took issue with was his modification of the choices with a ("this choice added by" tag). I did not give that 4th choice and I do not want it to appear in my offering, undesignated. And frankly, I am inlcined to stop dialoggin with you Kizzle and I think it simply terrible that you refuse to take a position about the what the current batch of evidence supports regarding the three possibilities. And there are only three, no one is contending otheriwse. Also, based on all the objections and arguments made here, I am thinking that the literal quote of "received shrapnel in left arm above elbow" version (see above) is the best way to go. This will satisfy the complaints of the literalists, while at the same time avoiding a hagiograhic effect for that section. As for the 4th option issue, don't you understand what I am asking? I am asking the people here to comment on their position of what the provided evidence establishes to our satisfaction to be true regarding the wound. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   23:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but like JP said, you don't get to control the debate.  I am all for literal quotations, but it just doesn't read right to say he received shrapnel "in left arm above elbow", that's shorthand and not gramatically correct.  I don't think the option is to excise the word "injury" or "wound" altogether, as this is not under debate whether or not he suffered a wound.  The level of severity is under debate, thus we should not classify as either severe or minor, but simply say it was a wound, provide the details, and let the reader conclude.  This course of action is completely irrelevant to what you or I or anyone thinks about whether or not the wound was severe, as the 4th option says above, it is not our job to editorialize and take sides between two contesting POVs.  The mere fact that we do not specify in the offical text the severity of the wound does not render this portion hagiographic as you contest, it just avoids using conclusionary language about his injury.  "Minor" is an inference/opinion/characterization, so quote it, attribute it, provide the facts, and move on, but it abandons the very notion of NPOV to adopt this Point Of View into the official tone of the article itself. You can choose to dialog with me or not, but this should make it clear that I am objecting to your viewpoint based upon reasoned conclusions and not just simply saying "No!" as you previously accused me and those who agree with me. --kizzle 23:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rex's conduct

message: Kizzle, I am amazed at what a difficult forum for communication these talk pages are. Let me explain: My line of business puts me on constant verbal communication all day, face to face and on the phone. It is very rare that I don't reach agreement with people under those circumstances. For this reason, it amazes me that virtually nothing I say here seems to sink in. That said, you have to be aware that with my most recent edit I am indeed contesting whether or not the word "wound" is allowable or even proven true. 
I've never raised this point before, because I always thought it would be fruitless, but my research indicates that Kerry did not in fact actually get wounded, but rather sought (and later received after his second try) his 1st purple heart on the basis of a shipboard mishap, such as scraping his arm - not during battle and not under fire. 
To date, Kerry has not supplied any material which actually substantiates that the metal which was referred to as shrapnel on his treatment record actually came from ordinance. 
Kerry incurred what amounts to a small metal splinter. If it were up to me, that's what I would call it, "a small metal splinter". However, it's not up to me, so I have been willing to compromise.
FYI: In my estimation, the most likely source for getting a small metal splinter while shipboard or dockside, would be by mishandling or brushing into an improperly stowed/secured wire rope . 
Personally, I think with the addition of the Hibbard information of "Kerry's former commanding officer, Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, told the Boston Globe last week that Kerry's first Purple Heart came from minor wound, resembling a fingernail scrape" combined with the predicate condition of "The military regulations for awarding the purple heart specify that it is awarded when a service member is wounded or killed as a result of action involving a hostile enemy." makes clear that with the varying contentions as to the truth of when and how Kerry got this metal splinter, it's POV to call it a wound or anything but a small wound.
I've offered:
*"minor shrapnel wound"
*"superficial injury from a small piece of shrapnel"
*"superficial wound from a small piece of shrapnel"
*"a shrapnel wound of uncategorized severity"
*"received shrapnel in left arm above elbow"
(and associated variants) - all of which get attacked and rejected by a core group of editors, not one of whom will answer a simple question, which is: 
If the facts we have do not support the use of the word "minor", do the facts we have support the use of the word "serious"?
Repeat, I am not saying that Kerrry could not have qualified for the PH under some interpretations of the PH rules of that day. Rather, what I am saying is that this section of the article has never shone the crystal glare of scrupulous accuracy on the 1st injury/wound/metal splinter.
As evidenced by the ferocious opposition to adding even a single word such as "minor", I think that more is a foot here than zealous desire to make wikiprogress.
Rex071404  216.153.214.94   01:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to Kizzle, but is for all, re: 1st "injury" issue 

message: Kate, if Kizzle, Gamaliel and JamesMLane agree to your current version as being acceptable, I will also agree. I am posting your version below, for reference purposes:
:During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating in and around 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. When the men refused to obey an order to stop running, Kerry and his crew of two enlisted men opened fire, destroyed the sampans, and took off. During this encounter, Kerry received a shrapnel wound in his left arm. Subsequently, the shrapnel was removed and Kerry was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged. The next day, Kerry returned to duty. Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this incident. Some have suggested that Kerry's wound was too small to be deserving of the award, including one of his former commanding officers, retired Lt. Gen. Grant Hibbard.  For more detail, see John Kerry military service controversy.
Rex071404  216.153.214.94   21:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as there's a one sentence rebuttal after the Hibbard mention, so that we briefly represent both sides and not just his opponent's, as in something along the lines that the Navy reviewed the records and concluded that the award was correctly given (James or Derex, do you have the link for that?) . --kizzle 22:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me.  Something like ... including one of his former commanders, retired Lt. Gen. Grant Hibbard. However, the U.S. Navy reviewed the case and concluded the award was proper <link to citation> · Katefan0(scribble) 23:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have any of your own edits not been "jumping the gun" by that definition? Derex @ 23:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Really, making declarations and ultimatums like that aren't useful to building consensus. If there is a counter to what Hibbard said, and a quick way to include it, then that should be done. I mean, if it's someone saying "that Hibbard is a crackpot," then maybe not. But something as definitive as the Navy having reviewed the situation and actually having weighed in about it should definitely be included; to not do so is to do our readers a great disservice. Does someone have a source link we can review? · Katefan0(scribble) 23:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kerry already gets a positive inference with "wound". The rebuttal gives him two "thumbs on the scale" to one. The article is simply not the place for argumentation of this sort. It's totally unencyclopedic except in a detailed article about the controversy. Besides, reporting the wound isn't a "positive inference" -- it's the simplest form of the fact (unless we simply report that he got a Purple Heart on so and so date, which implies the wound). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I am, provided it's sourced (I don't think it is right now). I'd like to see exactly what the Navy looked at or said so we can be sure to be absolutely precise about what conclusions they made. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kate's 11.03.05 1st PH version 

message: :During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating in and around 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. When the men refused to obey an order to stop running, Kerry and his crew of two enlisted men opened fire, destroyed the sampans, and took off. During this encounter, Kerry received a shrapnel wound in his left arm. Subsequently, the shrapnel was removed and Kerry was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged. The next day, Kerry returned to duty. Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this incident. Although a subsequent Navy review of this award found it to have been correctly given , some have suggested that Kerry's wound was too small to be deserving of an award, including one of his former commanding officers, retired Lt. Gen. Grant Hibbard.  For more detail, see John Kerry military service controversy.
Blatently POV in how it used although to imply validity to Hibbard's claim, especially with the way it ends, which in effect says Although the Navy review agreed that the award was OK Hibbard suggests strongly that it wasn't. For evidence of the proof that Kerry deceived people read this link. You must be joking!!! FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rex071404 11.03.05 1st PH version 1 

message: :During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating in and around 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. When the men refused to obey an order to stop running, Kerry and his crew of two enlisted men opened fire, destroyed the sampans, and took off. During this encounter, Kerry received a shrapnel wound in his left arm. Subsequently, the shrapnel was removed and Kerry was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged. The next day, Kerry returned to duty. Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this incident. Some critics have challenged the legitimacy of Kerry's injury and/or award, including one of his former commanding officers, retired Lt. Gen. Grant Hibbard.  However, a subsequent Navy review found John Kerry's award to have been correctly given under Naval regulations.  For more detail, see John Kerry military service controversy.
This one implies Critics questioned the validity of the award and even whether he really was injured. The Navy said that the award had been given under the correct procedures, but did not say he was not feigning injury to get it. For more evidence of Kerry's duplicity read this link. 
Stop trying to add in your political agenda into the article through implication, hint and ommission. Follow standard NPOV rules like every else. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You forgot supposition, conjecture, bias, stupidity, manipulation, scheming and finagling. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   01:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can think of a few more, too. Derex @ 01:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rex071404 11.03.05 1st PH version 2 

message: ..thanks James!  I think the current version looks good and is fair. · Katefan0(scribble) 00:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating in and around 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. When the men refused to obey an order to stop running, Kerry and his crew of two enlisted men opened fire, destroyed the sampans, and took off. During this encounter, Kerry received a shrapnel wound in his left arm. Subsequently, the shrapnel was removed and Kerry was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged. The next day, Kerry returned to duty. Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this incident. Some have suggested that Kerry's wound was too small to be deserving of the award, including one of his former commanding officers, retired Lt. Gen. Grant Hibbard.  In 2004, a Navy review found Kerry's award to have been correctly given under Naval regulations.  For more detail, see John Kerry military service controversy.
Although I almost never agree with James, I will say that his alert removal of "However" makes this version almost non-offensive to me. I do, however stand by my view that we have chosen to use "wound" instead of "injury" and that choice was based on an unevenly applied standard of inferences. Nonetheless, so long as this above JML version stays unmolested in John Kerry (as currently shown by this example above), I pledge to accept this matter as resolved and agree that consensus was reasonably reached regarding this section. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   00:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Very good, and thanks to all. · Katefan0(scribble) 00:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   00:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I promise not to molest the passage anymore. Of course James has to come in and take all the credit. --kizzle 01:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still POV and I'm preparing further edits, but I won't make them until I have my explanation ready to go to post shortly thereafter. JamesMLane 01:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Why don't you wait to see what he has to write first? --kizzle 02:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Of course, just chill out until he actually edits something. --kizzle 02:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation added... 

message: :During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating in and around 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. When the men refused to obey an order to stop running, Kerry and his crew of two enlisted men opened fire, destroyed the sampans, and took off. During this encounter, Kerry received a shrapnel wound in his left arm. Subsequently, the shrapnel was removed and Kerry was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged. The next day, Kerry returned to duty. Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this incident. Some have suggested that Kerry's wound was too small to be deserving of the award, including one of his former commanding officers, retired Lt. Gen. Grant Hibbard.  In 2004, a Navy review found Kerry's award to have been correctly given under Naval regulations.  For more detail, see John Kerry military service controversy.
Although I almost never agree with James, I will say that his alert removal of "However" makes this version almost non-offensive to me. I do, however stand by my view that we have chosen to use "wound" instead of "injury" and that choice was based on an unevenly applied standard of inferences. Nonetheless, so long as this above JML version stays unmolested in John Kerry (as currently shown by this example above), I pledge to accept this matter as resolved and agree that consensus was reasonably reached regarding this section. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   00:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good, and thanks to all. · Katefan0(scribble) 00:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   00:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I promise not to molest the passage anymore. Of course James has to come in and take all the credit. --kizzle 01:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still POV and I'm preparing further edits, but I won't make them until I have my explanation ready to go to post shortly thereafter. JamesMLane 01:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Why don't you wait to see what he has to write first? --kizzle 02:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Of course, just chill out until he actually edits something. --kizzle 02:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  JamesMLane 11.03.05 1st PH version 

message: *Problem: Too much text in the Silver Star section, all shaped in a too nicey-nice account.
*Problem: Quotes by vets are all by Kerry supporters. Three boats were present that day, so there were more than just Kerry's buddies from his boat. Alternative set of quotes should be mixed in.
*Problem: Many available facts tend to indicate that the enemy soldier was a teenager and that Kerry shot him in the back. At minimum, something regarding the facts of which direction the soldier was running ought to go in.
Rex071404  216.153.214.94   00:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We have two entire articles devoted to this stuff.  SBVT and John Kerry military service controversy. These articles were started in accordance with arbitration committee advice during the first case against you.  The current article accurately portrays, with detailed reference, the basic facts.  The two entire articles, which are clearly linked and referenced in the text go over all the details of the controversy.  If you want to start playing games with the Silver Star account, first go do it in the "controversy" article. As of now, the referenced and cited facts in the controversy article support the current state of affairs in this one.  In particular, I invite you to go dispute the accounts of the men on the boat who stated that the VC would have "lit us up like a Roman candle" had Kerry not shot him.  the accounts of the other VC, the account of the commander of the other PCF involved, the contemporaneous statement of Kerry's commander, and statement of John Warner who was under-secretary of the Navy at the time, and the several documented lies and misrepresenations by Kerry's critics in that affair. Further, although I always try to assume good faith, I must say I am beginning to wonder whether your edits are tinged by an anti-American and anti-veteran POV.  Note that I am not accusing you of that, but we can all benefit by examining our biases. Rex, though you may find the Vietnam war distasteful, as many do, it is important to rise above that bias and edit neutrally about veterans of that conflict. Derex @ 01:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next item on Rex071404 to do list - Pare down and/or balance the "Silver Star" section 

message: Explanation of my latest edits:
* This article was long stable in a version that said, "Kerry returned to duty the next day on a regular Swift boat patrol." Rex didn’t like the concluding phrase, presumably because it served as yet another reminder that Kerry was in Vietnam, unlike some Yalies of that era.  He said it should be removed "unless there is proof that Kerry was actually on a Swift Boat patrol ...." Rex then went ahead and removed the passage without waiting to see what support there was.  The reference supporting this statement is found, mirabile dictu, in the "External links and references" section of the article.  If you’re actually looking for it, it’s not particularly hard to find; it’s the link that’s described as relating to "Kerry's Vietnam service medals" (duh).  I’ve restored the language with the supporting citation.
* Our article says, "Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this incident."  I removed the word "later", but Rex restored it, saying, "he was not award PH on the spot".  Do we really have readers who might think that, at 3:00 a.m. on a narrow waterway in the Mekong Delta, with Kerry and his men out on a skimmer with the engine cut so they could surprise Viet Cong who'd hear the approach of the noisy Swift boat, the Navy had another skimmer right behind them, crewed by an officer armed with a pen to sign Purple Heart recommendations, and by a clerk to fish the medal from an old toolbox bolted to the floor of the boat?  It's truly absurd.  I have no desire to get into yet another 100-kb edit war over a single word in the article, however, so here's another instance where Rex gets his way by his willingness to persevere endlessly while the rest of us want to spend time improving the encyclopedia.
* Rex wrote: "my research indicates that Kerry did not in fact actually get wounded, but rather sought (and later received after his second try) his 1st purple heart on the basis of a shipboard mishap, such as scraping his arm...." I’ve waded through quite a bit of the anti-Kerry smears and I’ve never seen any reference to such a claim.  The SBVT arguments were that the wound was small, that it was caused by a ricochet from a weapon that Kerry himself fired, and that there was no enemy fire.  Even SBVT’s star witness, Schachte, says that Kerry was wounded while out in a boat looking for Viet Cong at 2 or 3 a.m.  Rex, would you be so kind as to share with us the source(s) in which you found the claim that Kerry was injured “while shipboard or dockside”?
* Rex has stated that one aspect of Kerry’s award is “whether it was an actual wound”.  Later he added, "Now let's ask ourselves, how did the word 'wound' even arrive in John Kerry in relation to the 1st injury?" From that springboard he goes off on an argument that maybe “wound” is some kind of inference and maybe the shrapnel that was removed wasn’t really shrapnel.  According to Corpsman Rex, "In my estimation, the most likely source for getting a small metal splinter while shipboard or dockside, would be by mishandling or brushing into an improperly stowed/secured wire rope." Well, let’s see how the armed forces use these terms.  According to the relevant section of our article (Purple Heart#Award Specifications), "A 'wound' is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent." So Rex’s totally hypothetical wire rope splinter would be a wound, even if there were the slightest evidence for that hypothesis, which there isn’t; it's contradicted by the documents and by ALL the witnesses, even the anti-Kerry ones.
* Rex said that "Kerry already gets a positive inference with 'wound'", but jpgordon refuted that while I was working on this comment.  “Wound” is neutral.  If we’re going to get into this foolishness in the main Kerry bio article, the way to do it is to report one side of the controversy (Hibbard), report the other side (a position that Elliott, who’s anti-Kerry, states in the same Boston Globe article, with more detail appearing in the Snopes page), and then report the Navy’s conclusion about the recent controversy.  I've edited accordingly.
Of course, there’s much, much more information of this sort that could be put into the main bio article.  We moved it all out last summer, but now Rex wants to re-introduce the controversy material here.  When it suits his purpose, Rex is very big on inter-article comparisons, so let me just note that there are plenty of undisputed facts omitted from the George W. Bush article, such as that a former lieutenant governor of Texas testified under oath that he pulled strings to get Bush his cushy Guard slot, ahead of other applicants, as a favor to the family; and that no one has come forward to say they ever saw Bush actually present at the Alabama unit where he was supposed to do part of his Guard time.  We moved all that into George W. Bush military service controversy, just as we moved these SBVT attacks on Kerry to the daughter article John Kerry military service controversy.  Are we going to undo those decisions from 2004?  Maybe we should just save time and copy the entire text of each daughter article into the main bio article.
My bottom line: I favor reverting all the recent edits and restoring the paragraph about the first Purple Heart to the state it was in a month ago. JamesMLane 03:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: James, thanks for making clear once and for all your intransigent attitute towards making even one iota of chnage to this section of text. that said, I will point out that nothing you said above justifies you reverting today's consensus version back to the one you champion or otherwise violating consensus. I am sorry you are so angry, perhaps when you are able to put some of that aside, things will not get you so vexed. If we can agree on your edits, I'll support your desired modifications. If not, I won't. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   03:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: My wiki-vacation starts today and will extend until my midterms are done.  You guys have fun with this. --kizzle 03:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: James has already made modifications in violation of the hard earned consensus of today, I am in process of modifying those changes now. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   04:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Jame's reverts, we don't need that much summary and repetition in this article, we already have a sub-article as well.Voice of font color=black>All</font> T|@|Esperanza 06:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with some of Rex's edits and comments 

message: My last post, I swear :)
Kate and Rex (or anyone else who hasn't thrown their computer at the wall from all of this) please respond to the points below. --kizzle 18:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed Kizzle's bullets here to numbers, I hope no one minds. This should make it easier if anyone wants to reply to these points. Johntex\talk 20:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  James's points to respond to 

message: *There have been several versions here that I could support.  My favorite so far is the one above, at the start of this section. this section. I think it is clear, informative, NPOV, and not overly lengthy for inclusion in the main article. Johntex\talk 19:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I didn't mean to make a link to the edit button.  My bad.  Johntex\talk 19:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This  version is also acceptable to me. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   21:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johntex says 

message: This is probably already fairly clear, but I support the original version yesterday that kizzle, jtdirl, Rex and myself had agreed on.  I don't mind the version Johntex posted either. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, here is the version of the articlespace I was talking about:  I think it's functionally the same as yours, with the exception of the line about it being a partisan fight in '04. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As previously stated, this  variant by Kate is acceptable to me. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   20:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katefan0 

message: Please see this. It's directly about this topic, but I have linked it here rather than repost to save space.
Rex071404  216.153.214.94   07:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rex071404 comments to Derex 

message: On one hand, I agree with Katefan that we should concentrate on the current debate.  On the other hand, I feel obligated to explain and defend my edits yet again and to respond to Rex's umpteenth labeling of me as one of his oppressors. 
* The "Support John Kerry" photo: Rex claims that I and others "did nothing constructive to help keep that crappy photo out."  On the contrary, I repeatedly participated in the talk page discussion, where I posted my opinion that the photo should not be included in the article.  Talk page discussion is often not constructive, true, but revert warring is almost always much less constructive.  I have no obligation or desire to participate in some silly edit war Rex started, especially when the only reason it lasted as long as it did was because Rex insisted on attempting to rewrite the rules of Wikipedia once again. 
* The Ortega photo: First Rex insisted on inserting a link to the photo in the middle of the paragraph.  Rex is right when he says "It is uncontested that Kerry met with Ortega and had a photo taken with him."  I don't dispute they met.  In fact, last year I spent a good amount of time researching and rewriting the section about their meeting. No one disputes that they met.  It's a fact.  So why do we need a link to a picture to substantiate a meeting that everyone agrees took place?  Do we usually stick links to pictures in the middle of paragraphs in Wikipedia articles?  Is this a common practice here that no one told me about? When a link directly to the image wouldn't do, Rex quoted the caption and used that as an excuse to link to the picture.  The caption quote was useless as it said in vague terms what the previous sentence already said in more specific terms.  Yet Rex insisted.  So instead of a link directly to his beloved picture and a two sentence caption, I substituted a link to part of a Boston Globe story which extensively discusses his Senate career, including the Ortega visit and that very same photo. This link was one of the sources I used for the section and provides much more information than Rex's preferred link to a two sentence caption.  And Rex still isn't satisfied! 
*Issues and voting record: Rex claims to be "tightening up" this paragraph.  Yet he removed a key piece of information: that Republicans were misrepresenting Kerry's voting record.  The other editors were right to restore this information.
None of these issues would be issues at all if Rex wasn't more concerned with himself and how many edits he gets in and who "tag team" reverts him instead of the quality of the finished product.  Last year Rex put up furious fights about nonsense like bolding his preferred links and including two wikilinks to the same article in the same sentence. This year it's about how common English language words are supposedly pushing a POV. I can't wait to see what's next. Gamaliel 03:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how so-called (and unverified) misrepresenting(s) of Kerry's voting record matter, when verfied photos of Kerry with Ortega don't... Unles your POV is focused on defending Kerry's honor from the unseen perils of the vast-right-wing-conspiracy. Suffice it tosay, there is no publically notable controversy regarding Republicans "misrepresenting" Kerry's voting record, so why is that in there? Mind you this complaint comes from Gamaliel who kept deleting the very germane fact that as of 12.2004, a total of 11 bills sponsored by Kerry had become law. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   03:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see this was a mistake.  Every time I attempt to address one issue with Rex, Rex finds an entirely unrelated new one to complain about.  This thing about "11 bills" is one I have absolutely no recollection of so I can't address this new complaint. Regarding the issue of Republicans misprepresenting Kerry's voting record, contrary to Rex's claim, it was a notable controversy that was discussed in the press. I point him to this article which took me 3 seconds to find via google.  Try it sometime. Gamaliel 04:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gamaliel

message: The argument "what if someone did this particular thing 100,000 times"
is not a valid argument against letting them do it a few times.
--Jimbo
Rex071404  216.153.214.94   09:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And your point here would be ... ? Derex @ 15:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm curious, why do you prefer your version?  If it's just a matter of correct style, why do you care? Derex @ 18:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I didn't state a preference, you did.  What's the difference how it's stated? I don't see it, and you're the one making a fuss about it. Derex @ 23:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo says