Talk:John Kerry/Archive 18

message: John Kerry's discharge from the Navy deserves more discussing and correcting. He was technically discharged from the Navy on February 16, 1978. John Kerry's own website reveals he was in the Navy Reserves from 1970 until 1978.
This means Kerrys anti-war activities, protest, and negotiations with foreign powers in foreign states took place while he was an officer of the United States military. The affects of this action is very serious and one cannot deny these facts.
*And who has? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navy Discharge 

message: I think so.  [ +t, +c, +m ] 07:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not even the lamest we've had on this page.  Although we described the wound that led to Kerry's first Purple Heart, we spent many kb dealing with one editor who kept re-inserting his opinion that the wound was minor.  By contrast, there is at least some substance to the different interpretations of "Jewish". JamesMLane 07:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, I remember that guy. He perfected the art of edit warring, with his "requirement to discuss before reverting him" and his "baseline version". Ah, memories...  [ +t, +c, +m ] 08:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This Edit War, [[Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever|Lame?]]

message: According to this  JamesMLane thinks that calling a minor wound minor is editorializing. If so, then we can't call Katrina a large or powerful hurricane. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   05:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We dealt with this a year ago. Let it go. Gamaliel 05:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is editorializing. It's an opinion, not a fact. How many more arbitration cases do we need?  [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 05:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The severity of a wound can be gauged by the objective evidence. The undisputed evidence supports describing this wound as minor. Are you saying the severity of the wound is unknown? Rex071404  216.153.214.94   05:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What Gamaliel said.  [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 06:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Prior discussion on this "issue" can be found on the talk page referenced in my edit summary.  The specific section is Talk:John Kerry/August 2004 archive 1#Characterizing the injuries.  I don't recall whether there are any other sections with such talk; I didn't search the whole archive.  Having reread that particular thread, I'm of the same opinion now as I was then. JamesMLane 09:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 1st wound was minor 

message: Removed almost all adjectives from the article, then labled then as POV removal, also removed reference to John Kerry owning a dog, as a blatent POV issue along with Favorite Food, and reference to him being a cyclist.. I could be missing something, but those don't actually seem like POV issues, unless of course this editor's idea of NPOV, is to remove anything that isn't negative, including what seem like rather neutral statments like John Kerry Owns a Dog, I'm going to rv the whole thing to back before the edit war--anon editor 02:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More than a year ago, Kerry's campaign people leaked details about pet ownership. Any current status on the dog? Also, who says that Kerry is an avid cyclist? There is even less proof of that, than there is that his 1st wound was minor (please see above). Also, rather than just complain, why don't you ask me my line of thinking and see if we can agree on some edits? Also, when was the last time anyone had a current referrence that Kerry's "favorite food is chocolate chip cookies" and why should such minutiae even be in this article? Do we have such detail about all US Senators? Rex071404  216.153.214.94   03:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *So, what makes his pet ownership POV? or favorite cookie? I just dont' see any connection what so ever between your edit summaries, and the things you're re-writing--anon editor 05:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The connection between the deleted "cookie" referrence and POV is that such fawning minutiae, by being in this article, serves no editorial purpose of import. Rather, what it does is turn a biography into a hagiography. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   05:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but what does hagiographic mean? --kizzle 05:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd Edits by ''Rex071404'' 

message: According to the edit summary by Szyslak for this edit, which states "rv {NPOV} - the tag is for disputes that can't be resolved after discussion; also removed gratuitous "See also" link)", it is clear that the correct course of action, on a disputed page (when issues can't be resolved after discussion) is to add an NPOV tag. This being the case, I am adding a POV check to this page and am reminding the other editors here of important details from the wiki article on "Consensus decision-making", which are: "Rather than simply list known alternatives, debate for a short time, vote, and then accept or reject by some percentage of majority (ex. over 50%, over 2/3), a consensus decision-making process involves identifying and addressing concerns, generating new alternatives, combining elements of multiple alternatives and checking that people understand a proposal or an argument. This empowers minorities, those with objections that are hard to state quickly, and those who are less skilled in debate. Therefore, consensus decision-making can be seen as a form of grassroots democracy."
I ask the editors here to take note that "combining elements of multiple alternatives" is an essential part of consensus decision-making and yet, the editors here have been reverting and deleting every edit I make to John Kerry (and has been doing so for well over a year and again, many times in the last few days). For this reson, it cannot be said that there is any valid consensus among the active editors on this article. As with that as my justification, I am adding the POV check tag to the article.
Rex071404  216.153.214.94   20:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV check tag for [[John Kerry]]

message: Here are the 1st (5) sections of each outline from each article. It's clear that the Kerry article goes into much more personal detail, the net effect of which is to "sell" Kerry to people. It was forced on us by the pro-Kerry editors during election 2004 and it remains the same way today. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   21:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern (as I have made abundantly clear - see above) is that this Kerry article has too much fawining detail. And, the few less flattering things which go in are immediately taken out. The outline speaks for itself - Kerry's article is imbalanced and there is no realistic correlation on the personal history outline between Kerry and Bush. Gamaliel, do you deny that Kerry's page has much more personal detail than Bush's? Also what is your justification for reverting at multiple pages on the Wiki - reverting me multiple times on political related articles? Do you deny that you have been reverting me multiple times, without talk page dialog and often with no justifying edit summary? Do you disagree with the details I have posted above regarding consensus decision-making? If not, please point me to the any edit I made in the last few days you (or one of the other Rex-reverters here) have allowed to my edits be "combined" into a poltical article, without being reverted or edited out. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   00:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Because disagreeing with him, according to his new page at User_talk:Rex071404/Liberal_bias constitutes a liberal bias. --kizzle 23:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Kerry article was taking most of it's current form starting back in Summer of 2004. Between then and now, the pro-Kerry editors at this page have done all the can to keep embellishing it. And, Bush was not yet re-elected in July 2004, which is when I joined this Wiki - in part, to try to get some even handed treatment of the two pages. There is no denying the truth about the above outline comparisons: Kerry's has way more personal detail. And, now that Kerry is very well know, there no longer is any excuse for it. I am asking you other editors to please be more flexible on edits to this article and please allow some of my edits to stay in without reverting them. And as for Kizzle's comment - I'd prefer that he keep his personal taunts off of the talk pages of articles. He's welcome to criticize me on my personal talk page, but I feel that his comments such as that above are counter-productive here. Also, I'd ask that he stop stalking my personal scratch page list - it's not any of his concern that I am keeping a log of various edits, and by repeating my scratch page links all over, he's causing needless controversy. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   00:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rex, I believe that adding to some liberal hit-list everytime someone simply disagrees with you is the very definition of counter-productive.  It definetely doesn't help foster a sense of collaboration.  As for your comments, I don't see a need to excise comments about a former presidential candidate simply because the election is over.  I believe a policy of removing information when the subject steps out of the limelight is a bad way to go. --kizzle 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *As far as "stalking" is concerned -- every page on Wikipedia is for public consumption. If you want a private scratchpad, do it elsewhere. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison of [[George W. Bush]] and [[John Kerry]] outlines