Talk:John Kerry/Archive 9

message: I just looked into this today: http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_video_wmv.html
Based on this information (and other which I have read), I have real problems with these final (2) sentences from the "Criticism" section:
"Though several people in the same unit with Kerry are part of SBVT, the men who served with Kerry on his boat regularly campaign with him. Almost all of them appeared at the 2004 Democratic National Convention; Drew Whitlow called the SBVT's claims "totally false." [8] (http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-6/1089817512150830.xml)[9] (http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=19101&format=text)"
In my view, leaving those sentences in there, allows a pro-Kerry section-closing statement to remin un-rebutted or balanced. Not good. Rex071404 03:58, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article states the POV of the SBVT people.  Then it states the POV of the veterans who disagree with SBVT.  Are you saying that this section is biased because the "closing statement" is pro-Kerry?  By that logic, the section would also be biased if the last word were given to SBVT.  If anything, the article now gives SBVT more attention than it deserves. JamesMLane 05:41, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New information coming out about Kerry's 4 month stay in Vietnam 

message: If you review the above link and watch the brief video on it, which can also be found here:
mms://a1281.v125028.c12502.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/1281/12502/v0001/eaglepub.download.akamai.com/12502/swift_boat.wmv 
On this video, the orignal  doctor who treated Kerry for his 1st Purple Heart says that Kerry lied about it. This is 1st hand information and is not hearsay along the lines of the "summarizd" military medical records which Kerry released. As you know, that summary was not prepared by the actual doctors who treateed Kerry's "wounds". 
Now, I know this still bothers some people here, but the text regarding KErr'ys 1st woundd is not clear enough and needs to be more accurate. For us to wilfully assist KErry in keeping the details about his 1st wound obfuscated, is to. by default, adopt the Kerry-preferred viewpoint. That is not neutral and must change Rex071404 03:58, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kerry's 1st Purple Heart 

message: I’ve tried a different treatment of the pictures.
* The arrival at Boston should be near where the article recounts his winning of the nomination.
* The information about his only arrest shouldn’t be buried in a photo caption.  I moved that subject to the article text and shortened the caption accordingly.
* I thought the horizontal pile-up of pictures under the heading “Anti-Vietnam War activism (1970-1971)” looked horrible.  I tried to match them to the appropriate portions of the text.  (On my browser, at least, the three pictures under “Military service (1966-1970)” look OK.  The only problem is that they somewhat obscure the first subheading.  I've tried to counter that by inserting a couple line breaks, though without using HTML tags, having been warned off that method by the Wikipedia:Picture tutorial.) JamesMLane 16:47, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of pictures

message: Neutrality, your latest edit puts this whole story into a very ungainly caption.  The advice in Wikipedia:Captions is that captions should be "short (usually less than 3 sentences)" and "The text should be complete without the captions. Don't remove relevant information from the text just because it's in the caption."  I have several problems with your version:
* The information that Kerry was arrested would be important to some readers and shouldn't be buried in the caption.
* The very long caption makes it hard for the page to display the photos sensibly.  On my browser, the current version puts the Lexington photo opposite the beginning of the text about the demo at the Capitol, which is confusing.  It creates an initial impression that Kerry was arrested in DC.
* Your version is simply wrong.  They didn't march from Concord to Boston (quite some hike) on the first day, then back to Lexington on the second day.  The itinerary was: start in Concord on Friday, spend the night there; march to Lexington on Saturday, spend Saturday night there; march to Bunker Hill on Sunday, spend Sunday night there; on Monday, march on to Boston for the rally on the Common.  However, I don't think an article about Kerry needs all this detail.  I prefer one brief summary to put the whole protest in perspective, and then the information about the circumstances of Kerry's arrest.
* Links in captions are problematic because some readers may miss them.  If the link can conveniently be given in text, I think that's preferable, and there's no need to duplicate the link in the caption.
I'm restoring the information to the text and trimming the caption accordingly. JamesMLane 23:07, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture and text about the Lexington demo

message: The quote is from Lt. Larry Thrulow, PCF-53, and appears in Brinkley's Tour of Duty, page 260.
I have the Kranish and Brinkley books out from the library, so if anyone needs a quote or something looked up, let me know. Gamaliel 19:49, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "What is this crap?" 

message: Neutrality, it seems that all this attack and counterattack has already obscured my comment here about Operation POW.  It was only a few hours ago but more stuff has intervened than some Talk pages see in their lifetimes.   :(   It is simply not correct to say, as in your latest edit, that people marched from Concord to Boston on the first day.  Please see Talk:John Kerry#Picture and text about the Lexington demo, above.  My source is http://www.lexingtonbattlegreen1971.com/files/Johnson,%20Arthur.pdf especially pages 13-14.  I'm restoring the earlier account.  If you have a source supporting the very unlikely hypothesis of a one-day march from Concord to Boston, please let me know. JamesMLane 02:56, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  There goes Neutrality again - making intentionally hostile comments in an effort to stir up trouble Rex071404 03:44, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please confine your joint commiserations to your own personal talk pages. This will help avoid misunderstandings. Rex071404 06:35, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Operation POW

message: :*Just like the prior 3 times, Neutrality has snuck in his version just before the page is locked.
:I accuse him of sweet talking various persons to be able to be ready with the last revert.
I accuse Neutrality of corrupting the process.
:Several of us worked for hours to agree on a section and he just reverted it again!
:Here again, is the work prodcut that Neutrality keeps deleting against consensus:
On December 2, 1968, while Kerry and his crew were on duty on Cam Ranh Bay, they saw people running from a boat to a nearby shoreline, according to two crewmen who were patrolling with Kerry. When the Vietnamese refused to obey an order to stop running, Kerry ordered the crew to open fire. During this encounter, Kerry suffered a shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow.  The shrapnel was removed and the wound treated with bacitracin.  Kerry returned to duty the next day, conducting a regular SWIFT boat patrol. It was for this injury that Kerry was awarded his first Purple Heart.:Rex071404 05:51, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think you have made some valuable contributions in pointing out subtle pro-Kerry POV.  It's probably easier for you to see, since you are clearly anti-Kerry.  My objections are when I perceive you as actively trying to insert subtle anti-Kerry POV.Wolfman 06:28, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality cheats again! 

message: (I'm putting this comment here because the previous "Operation POW" section, where it logically belongs, has already been shifted several screens up.)
Neutrality, you keep rewriting this section to say or imply that people marched from Concord to Boston in one day.  That's implausible on its face and is contrary to the source I cited.  Do you have a basis for that assertion?  Also, what purpose is served by including so much detail about this particular demonstration?  The only reason it's notable is that Kerry was arrested, so I think we should give the circumstances of the arrest in Lexington, and leave out stuff like the picnic in Boston. JamesMLane 15:21, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Operation POW, revisited

message: :I removed this line:
:This was the only time Kerry was arrested.
:This is a gratuitous comment. It answers a question that hasn't been asked. If we can supply a responsible source claiming he was arrested some other time than this would be appropriate, but then we would have to show why the "other" report was false.
:The fuss of Bush's DUI was allegedly that he lied about having been arrested. There is no comment on the Bush page "This was the only time Bush was arrested." -- Cecropia | Talk 20:28, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is gratuitous; I think it's informative. The sentence's purpose is to tell the reader that Kerry was not arrested again — which is useful information, because he very well might have gotten arrested at another demonstration again. The sentence tells the reader that this was in fact the only time Kerry was arrested at a protest.--Neutrality 21:00, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: One would think that, if Kerry were arrested more than once, that would be positively mentioned in the article. Many people who testify before Congress do so multiple times. Do we have to qualify the mention of Kerry's testimony with "That was the only time Kerry testified for the VVAW before the Senate"? -- Cecropia | Talk 01:01, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: So now we're using information theory for a political decision? Let's allow that your theory is accurate, please point me to (1) the research that shows an arrested protestor is more likely to be arrested again than a DUI is to be arrested again and (2) demonstrate that an ordinary person reading these articles is apt to expect that Kerry would have been arrested again, therefore must be positively told he was not; but that the same reader would assume that Bush was never again arrested, therefore shouldn't be told he was not. -- Cecropia | Talk 01:01, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll admit that the stuff about information theory went waaaaay over my head.  What I know is that lots of activists in that period had multiple arrests.  (There were one or two occasions when someone expressed surprise to me that I had never been arrested, given the circles I was moving in.)  When we cite multiple demos, and include a pic of Kerry in custody, I think a certain number of readers, especially those familiar with that milieu, might form a vague impression of multiple arrests.  It's reasonable to rule that out.  We might do so more tersely, though, by working it into the text.  I won't try to edit in the article, because the whole Operation POW thing needs a major overhaul and I'm waiting for Neutrality to answer my comments.  I'd envision something along the lines of: "The second night of the march was the occasion for Kerry's only arrest. When the participants tried to bivouac on the village green in Lexington, hundreds of them, veterans and townspeople, were arrested. Kerry spent the night at the Lexington Public Works Garage and later paid a $5 fine." That, after all, explains why we're talking about this one particular demo, out of the many that he attended. JamesMLane 02:22, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it should be mentioned for precisely these reasons.  Multiple arrests for anti-Vietnam activists were quite common. I don't particularly care how it comes up, in text or caption, but it should be mentioned to dispel the possible impression of more than one. Gamaliel 02:28, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only time arrested 

message: :The page has been protected again. 63.227.76.25 has also been blocked for vandalism (This seems to be the same user blocked yesterday by Guanaco for his/her conduct on this page.) Now that this user has been blocked for 24 hrs, another admin can unprotect this page if he/she so chooses. 172 22:11, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But why protect the page? Neutrality 22:13, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It was more than a two-way edit war. 128.111.87.6 also made an ostensibly bad-faith edit. This was the sole edit of this user, though, so blocking this IP is probably inappropriate for now. I'll unprotect the page, but my hunch is that 128 will be returning. 172 22:17, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Kerry's first memory, at age three, is of holding his crying mother's hand while they walked through the broken glass and rubble of her childhood home in Saint-Briac, France.
Interesting. What was his second memory? This must be something he said and we are stating it as a fact like we scanned his brain. --Hemanshu 02:46, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to say "Kerry has stated that his first memory was ...".  That seemed a bit silly & verbose to me, because how else could we possibly know his first memory.  Of course he said it, or we wouldn't know would we.  So, I edited out the "has stated".  If you think this introduced some ambiguity or reduced clarity, by all means change it back.Wolfman 07:05, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Kerry occupied his time there racing his cousins on bicycles and challenging relatives to games of kick the can.
How is this relevant to anything? Another unnecessary detail. --Hemanshu 02:51, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: We cut a lot of details such as this before (partially at my instigation).  Someone pointed out that doing so made the article much drier and less of a good read.  So, since the only argument against such details is they are 'unnecessary', we put them back.Wolfman 07:10, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's what that comment meant, IIRC, or at least that's not how I read it. I think the point was that we shouldn't chop out all that stuff, like the cookie story. But much of this really should go. Ambi 07:39, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: On Christmas Day, Kerry said goodbye to his relatives; on January 3, 1967, Kerry began a year of training for duty at a ten-week Officer Damage Control Course at the Naval Schools Command on Treasure Island, California.
Was he weeping when he said goodbye? How dramatic. --Hemanshu 03:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: We’ve been stating in the picture caption that Kerry was arrested on May 31, but I’m unable to verify that date.  Various bits of information are: the march started on Friday in Concord; the plan was to spend the second night in Lexington; Kerry and the others were arrested in Lexington because the selectmen had refused to grant a permit; and a couple different perpetual calendars that I checked say that the Saturday of Memorial Day weekend, 1971 was the 29th.  If the arrest occurred after midnight it would have been on May 30.  I haven’t specifically confirmed the date of the arrest, however.  I think “May” will suffice.
Our current Operation POW account is too detailed and, in describing the overall protest plan, is contrary to every source I’ve read, as I’ve noted above.  I’m rewriting to: correct the facts, trim the excess detail, omit the exact date of arrest, and note that it was the only arrest by working that fact into the text, as I suggested above, not as a separate graf.  Because Neutrality seems to want a lot of (what I consider unnecessary) detail about the demo, I left in Paul Revere and the public reading of the Declaration of Independence, but I drew the line at the picnic and the fife band.  All of that stuff wasn’t until Monday, anyway.  It’s also not worth mentioning that Kerry, or anyone else arrested in the U.S. in 1971, was given his Miranda warnings, because that was standard (Miranda having been decided in 1966).  Finally, having seen different figures for the number of arrests, I settled for just saying “hundreds”.  Sorry, belated sig: JamesMLane 00:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fair enough to me. Ambi 01:10, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Arrest and Operation POW (yet again)

message: This issue was discussed at length several days ago. There was no consensus on what bacitracin page should look like. Issue was resolved by another user adding word "antibiotic" to the Kerry page. Bacitracin Wiki link should not appear in Kerry page until content for it exists. Because there is no content on that link, it is distracting to the flow of the read when clicked on. If anybody thinks it should stay they should write the wiki page for bacitracin. Otherwise, the word bacitracin should stay in, but the Wiki link to the blank bacitracin page should be removed Rex071404 17:14, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ridiculous. "Empty" links are how Wikipedia grows. - Nunh-huh 21:59, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not making an issue out of it. All Im am saying is that left in or removed, it is no big deal, and for that reason, the minor change created by me removing it, did not warrant the speedy reversal of my edit my another editor. Rex071404 23:01, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Kerry & bacitracin