Talk:John Kerry/Archive 22

message: Kate, I don't know what MT's game is, but you have been very helpful at John Kerry and I am not against you. And I am certainly not a sockpuppet. Please have a developer check my edits. I am only on a fixed IP DSL line in Massachusetts. Rex071404  216.153.214.94  
:...right. Well, that's enough of that. I think it was just an anon trolling anyway. Let's get back to talking about content. · Katefan0(scribble) 07:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: non-partisan and moderate are entirely separate things. your objection makes no sense. Derex @ 15:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My primary thought is:  Let's resolve the Purple Heart sourcing issue before delving off down other tunnels, okay?  I've asked you to respect this idea several times now. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: He won't get bored. Derex @ 19:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Rex, your statement is a lie.  (I'm sorry, but the presumption of good faith is rebuttable, not conclusive, and you've long since shredded your own credibility.)  I expressed the opinion that the version of one month ago was better.  With you, of course, a preference for one version is equivalent to an announced intention to revert and revert and revert in the hope that your sheer persistence will let you get your away against everyone else, but I don't operate that way.  Show me a specific diff where I've stated such an intention.  You know how to do it.  You find it in the page history, copy the URL, and paste it in here.  Put brackets around it if you want it to appear as a number; omit the brackets if you want the reader to see the full URL.  Everything said here on this talk page is in the record.  Find the place in that record that supports your statement, and I'll apologize for calling your statement a lie. JamesMLane 21:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: as James points out, favoring a different version is not a statement of intention to revert to it.  i favor reverting to the month-old version as well, but that's not the same as saying that i will revert regardless of any future changes. Derex @ 23:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Still waiting for James to answer as per above. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   00:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't presume to. James is more than capable of speaking for himself. My comment was, of course, speaking for me. And it was stating that your "quote" showed nothing more than exactly what James had already said. Derex @ 00:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Your offer intrigues me. However, unless Szyslak, Kizzle, Gamaliel, Derex, Jtdirl and Mr. Tibbs also agree, then what's the point? I support all my edits with copious talk here. Mostly, those other editors (other than yourself) offer virtually no edit related talk. If I were to make that agreement with you, since those others don't (by and large) pay any attention to the dialog here, then I'd be agreeing to a known defective solution. Here is a counter offer: On a separate sand box page, you and I directly dialog one on one and see if we can agree on a 1st PH section. What about that? Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 15:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kate / Rex dialog, re: edits 

message: Rex, you wrote, "JML has already said he's goining [sic] to revert it back to the one month ago version."  I pointed out that your statement about what I had allegedly said was false.  You respond by demanding an absurd pledge, which is like charging that I've said I'm going to commit a murder because I haven't pledged not to.  You're simply trying to deflect attention from your own falsehood by demanding that I pledge not to commit a murder.  What actually happened was that I expressed an opinion about the comparative merits of different versions.  Did I plunge in with a reversion spree to my favored version, in disregard of what other opinions were expressed on the talk page?  No, I did not.  Did I complaint that members of a "cabal" were engaged in "tag-team reverting" when everyone else involved disagreed with me?  No, I did not.  If you want to see examples of that kind of disruptive behavior, you'll have to look at edits to this article by someone other than myself.
I do not accept your implied claim that you could freely edit the article but that, a few hours later, it had somehow become a "consensus version" that no one could touch.  Nevertheless, there seemed to be substantial support for including such additional details as the Navy conclusion.  I expressed my opinion that that was a mistake, an opinion in which I was not alone; furthermore, I'm hopeful that the subsequent discussion has shown others that my reasons were sound.  I intend to elaborate on that point.
As for pledges, I pledge not to violate Wikipedia policies as I understand them.  I'll offer this further reciprocal pledge: I'll stop editing the article entirely if you will.  Each of us can comment on the talk page, but if either of us wants to make a change in the article, he has to propose it here and hope that someone else will see merit in it and implement it.  If you're willing to astound me by accepting that agreement, let me know; otherwise, I suggest that any further talk from you about pledges will be unproductive. JamesMLane 07:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your offer intrigues me. However, unless Szyslak, Kizzle, Gamaliel, Derex, Jtdirl and Mr. Tibbs also agree, then what's the point? I support all my edits with copious talk here. Mostly, those other editors (other than yourself) offer virtually no edit related talk. If I were to make that agreement with you, since those others don't (by and large) pay any attention to the dialog here, then I'd be agreeing to a known defective solution. Here is a counter offer: On a separate sand box page, you and I directly dialog one on one and see if we can agree on a 1st PH section. What about that? Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 15:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  James makes an offer 

message: Umm please listen to Katefan and stick to resolving the PH issue before you start jumping around to other sections. --kizzle 03:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep on topic please

message: Article's protected. Probably for the best. Way too much constant editing and concomitant reverting going on here. · Katefan0(scribble) 00:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW the person who protected it accused me of reverting a protected page. They have now admitted that they may have been wrong. What seems to have happened is that they and I were editing the page at the same moment. As the records show my save of my edit occurred one minute before they saved with the edit summary protected. (An edit conflict should have appeared I presume, but for some reason it didn't. But the n Wikipedia is doing strange things lately.) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Mindboggling!!! *sigh* Putting in an explicit qualifier like minor, in other words Wikipedia telling the reader the wound was minor when that is not how it was described in medical documentation, is POV, just as calling it major if it was not described as such elsehwere would be. Letting the reader decide for themselves whether it is minor or not is NPOV. What part of Neutral Point of View do you have difficulty grasping??? Your pre-occupation with adding in slanted words, negative implications, snide tones to sentences and trying to ensure that the article points the finger is astonishing. That may be possible in a polemic, but not in an NPOV encyclopædia.  FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I was afraid this was coming 

message: Jtdirl, again, I will remind you that "wound" does not appear anywhere and that we are inferring that we can use that word based on (albeit, reasonably good) evidence. Likewise, the reasonably good and official wording of "Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl (sic) bacitracin dressing. Ret to Duty." supports the usage of "minor".
Now Jtdirl, think about what you are suggesting. You are suggesting that "wound" can be used because Kerry got medical treatment. And you are also suggesting that "minor" can not be used, because it's not literally in the Sick Call Treatment Record. Well you do know that all along Gamaliel, yourself and JamesMLane have been insisting we use a sentence which says: "The shrapnel was removed and the injury was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged.", but the word "bandage" does not appear anywhere in the official record. 
You guys keep saying Rex is "POV", but I have been giving you way more than the official record even states. There is nothing in the official record which states that Kerry got a "bandage", bandaging" or even a "band-aid". The official record regarding treatment, says only "Shrapnel removed and appl (sic) bacitracin dressing". There is no proof whatsoever beyond the term "bacitracin dressing" which indicates anything was applied. Bacitracin is referred to in medical vernacular as a "dressing". And for those of us who were scouts, we will remember our wound/injury dressing training. "Dressing" and "Bandaging" are not the same thing! Kerry's "wound" was not even bandaged yet you guys call me POV, when your side has been flat out (lying?) making things up about bandaging all along. That record does not say "bacitracin and a dressing", which might imply a bandaging. No, what is says is "appl (sic) bacitracin dressing". >>> Note the absence of any statement such as "wrap arm with bandage" <<< Bacitracin. Only. In other words "boo boo creme". Only. That's it. No bandage. No bandaging. Nothing more than a topical ointment dressing of bacitracin. So please, Jtdirl, get off your high horse about being such a good researcher and learn how to read plain English (/snide reference to Jtdirl's previous insults to me about "research"). And, according ot the BBC's "Learn English" guide "[you] dress a wound by cleaning it and covering it". . It certainly is true that any covering which attends to a wound or injury, including Bacitracin alone (as long as it covers) is a "dressing". A bandage is a type of dressing, but so is Bacitracin by itself. All elephants are mammals, but not all mammals are elephants.
Rex071404  216.153.214.94   01:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rex, I am going to politely ask that you drop your crusade about "wound."  Something that wasn't a wound doesn't need a dressing.  Any other discussion is hopeless POV rhetoric.  Beyond which, consensus is not with you on this point and there is therefore nothing more to argue.  However, your stubborn insistence on pushing this point -- even in the face of a dissenting consensus of several editors -- makes you appear frustratingly obstreperous and I fear that it is making it difficult for other editors to work with you on other points of disagreement that you might find more success with.  Please consider respecting consensus and dropping this pointless harangue about the word wound.  I say this with the utmost respect. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To get to "bandage", we must make an inference, there is no verbatim proof 

message: I'm sure this has been done before on the Purple Heart issue, but while the page is protected I think we should give the RFC process another try. To get the ball rolling, I suggest something like this, to be posted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics:
*Talk:John Kerry How serious was the wound that led to John Kerry's first Purple Heart, and how should the article address this issue? Some editors consider the injury "minor" and want the article to assert this claim as truth. Others say such a statement would be non-NPOV editorializing. Also, are there too many biographical details? If so, does this constitute an NPOV problem? One more issue: What should the article say, if anything, about claims that Kerry has misrepresented himself as Irish American?
I'm not commmitted to this wording, so feel free to suggest changes. I'd like the RFC to go up as soon as possible, though, so we can come to a satisfactory resolution and get the page unprotected soon. We don't need to continue these long, pointless debates at the expense of Wikipedians who are denied the privilege of editing this article.  [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 02:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are only "pointless debates" to those who think they are. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   02:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why I wouldn't suggest putting that in the RFC.  [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 02:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I was going to suggest that we wait until we can reach an agreed-upon framework for the questions to be answered.  Ah, well, it doesn't matter.  Regardless of what the questions are, and regardless of what the answers are, Rex will go on edit warring as soon as the page is unprotected.  The only times he hasn't been doing so since his arrival at Wikipedia have been the periods when he was restricted from doing so.  (In fact, he made at least one anti-Kerry POV edit to this article in violation of an ArbCom restriction. ()) Nevertheless, I don't see how we can expect anyone who hasn't edited the article before to give a useful response unless we do some structuring.  As an example of what I have in mind, see this RfC.  In that instance, we didn't post the RfC until all editors were happy with the way the issues were presented.  That's the ideal way to proceed, as long as no one raises absurd objections to the wording. JamesMLane 06:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that's the ideal way to proceed with an RFC. However, the page's current protected status made it seem urgent to me that we get some outside input as soon as possible. Who knows, maybe someone who hasn't even been participating in this debate will come up with a solution none of us have even thought of. We'll see how it works out.  [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 22:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment? 

message: Rex's long comment above has gone beyond the "issue" of the severity of the wound, and picked up another SBVT talking point: the charge that Kerry's wound resulted from a round that he himself had fired.  (The SBVT was partial to calling the wound "self-inflicted", probably hoping to insinuate that Kerry had deliberately injured himself.)
The daughter article, John Kerry military service controversy, addresses this aspect of the Purple Heart.  The facts make clear that SBVT's position is meritless.  (The daughter article doesn't say that; it's my inference from the facts.)  Under military regulations, the Purple Heart is awarded for "friendly fire" wounds in the "heat of battle", so long as the fire is targeted "under full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment."  The Americans on that boat thought there were enemies present.  The SBVT witness on this point is Schachte, and in his version, he was the one who made the initial decision to fire, because he thought there were Viet Cong on the shore.  Thus, even if there actually were no Viet Cong, the fire was targeted with the full (albeit mistaken) intent of attacking enemy soldiers.
Any edit that got into this aspect of the Purple Heart would have to note what Schachte says, and would have to include the two other witnesses who disagree with Schachte, and would have to refer to the regulations to make it clear that a "self-inflicted" wound could still quite properly qualify for a Purple Heart.  This would be in addition to the presentation of evidence about the severity of the wound.
That level of detail belongs in the daughter article, not here. JamesMLane 17:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the fork already addresses it, I don't see any reason to re-invent the wheel in this article, particularly in that much detail. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Enemy action in the first Purple Heart incident

message: This version is based on what was in place in mid-October (October 17 version).  The changes I've made from that version are: (1) change "in and around a peninsula" to "near a peninsula"; and (2) insert citation to Snopes for the statement Rex earlier deleted as unsupported, namely that Kerry went out on patrol again the next day.
Below, I give the paragraph about the first Purple Heart.  The daughter article covers several medals, so the link to it is given in the section headed "Criticism of military service and awards".
Proposed text:
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. 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 suffered a shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow. The shrapnel was removed and the wound was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged.  Kerry returned to duty the next day on a regular Swift boat patrol.  Kerry was awarded his first Purple Heart for this injury.
The point is to confine all this back-and-forth about disputed points to the daughter article. JamesMLane 17:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's also in the Snopes piece.  I figured that one citation at the end of the factual account would suffice, instead of peppering the paragraph with repeated references. JamesMLane 18:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I'd consider removing the "bandage" completely, or at least rephrasing. There's no indication that he was "bandaged" as part of his treatment -- just that he was wearing a bandage the next day. He might have been bandaged; he might have bandaged himself; why bother including anything we're not certain about one way or the other, that makes no difference one way or another? This whole thing should be kept to the minimum; the medical record shows he was wounded, treated with bacitricin, and released; nothing else is really needed. The whole damn thing isn't really needed, other than "he was wounded and received a Purple Heart; see John Kerry's military career for details." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  The Sick Call Treatment Record does not "show" that Kerry was "wounded". It shows that he was treated for shrapnel with bacitracin dressing. Whether we choose to describe the underlying status of Kerry's arm as "wounded" or "injured" is an editorial choice, but there is  no showing by any record, medical or otherwise that a "wound"  rather than an "injury" is what was treated. There are no offcial records anywhere which show "wounded" in regards to Kerry's 1st injury. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 21:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see now the wisdom of this position. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If they're fully interchangeable, then you should have no problem going along with the consensus and using the word wound. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless of course, by omitting the other variant altogether, we make an invalid implication towards the PH being valid, not just having been awarded, which is what this is all about. One instance of each word will suffice (see beelow). Unless of course you are claiming that the words are not interchangeable and are thereby arguing for POV. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 19:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I'm arguing for is consensus. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: No, I like James' version better.  Yours ends by implying significant doubt without any rebuttal and uses "injury" instead of the concensus-approved "wound". By the way, I thought according to you, "'wound' is not the bone of contention." --kizzle 18:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kizzle, do you deny that there was "considerable contention" about this? The actual state of facts regarding the extantcy of a controvery is not prone to rebuttal, only the two sides are. My edit does not take sides or mention any sides or their views. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 18:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: No apology; I stand by every word I wrote.  As to the substance, you've lost me.  Suppose Kerry panicked and fired a grenade launcher at a chipmunk, with no VC within a mile.  Furthermore, Kerry foolishly fired while too close to shore, so that a bit of shrapnel from his own shot hit him and lodged in his arm.  It seems to me that would be both an injury and a wound.  Are you saying it would be one but not the other? JamesMLane 19:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: All this is immaterial. A consensus of editors have decided that wound is the proper descriptor.  The question has been decided. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I guess the definition of a rationally reached concensus then is if and only if Rex agrees? I am very hesitant to take your description at face value, as "1st hand accounts" refers to SBVT testimony? --kizzle 19:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you even bother to read the previous comments before posting? Kerry's 1st hand statements, as quoted on the Snopes page (from Brinkley book) do not prove wound either. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 20:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: As is a consensus being formed and one person trying to unsurp it. I don't think you have moral ground to stand on here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The consensus is valid, irrespective of whether you agree with the position taken or not. Feel free to avail yourself of the solutions outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (although the primary one has already been done -- entering an RFC).  Otherwise there's not much more to talk about on this subject. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Of course... you can contend so all you like, that's your right and I'd never expect anything else. But it changes nothing. This argument is done. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only because you were unable to prove your point and quit the discussion. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 20:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Next. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: This subject is closed. Let's move on. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: "Quitting" what? The consensus on this section was decided long ago. You are not God. We don't bow to the whims of one user over the whims of many. The needs of many outweight the needs of the few...or the one. Enough. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  JML's proposal for the paragraph about the first Purple Heart 

message: In regards to James now inserting what is basically the 1 month ago version, I contend that this act of his vindicates my prior assertion that he did intend to go with that. I think he owes me an apology for calling me a liar. That said, if the group will agree to my modifications to James's posting, then we can reach consensus now. I would be willing to accept this version which I am posting here:
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 running and failed to obey an order to stop. As the men fled, Kerry and his crew of two sailors opened fire on the sampans destroying them, then rapidly left. During this encounter, Kerry suffered a shrapnel injury in the left arm above the elbow. The shrapnel was later removed and the wound was treated with bacitracin dressing.  The next day, Kerry returned to Swift boat patrol duty. Kerry was subsequently awarded his first Purple Heart for this injury. During the 2004 election, this incident was the focus of considerable contention. For more detail John Kerry military service controversy 
And please note: I am not just being a pecker about the usage of "injury" along with "wound" here. As of today, even our Purple Heart article uses them interchangably: 
A "wound" is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent. A physical lesion is not required; however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record.
Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 18:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If they're fully interchangeable, then you should have no problem going along with the consensus and using the word wound. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless of course, by omitting the other variant altogether, we make an invalid implication towards the PH being valid, not just having been awarded, which is what this is all about. One instance of each word will suffice (see beelow). Unless of course you are claiming that the words are not interchangeable and are thereby arguing for POV. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 19:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I'm arguing for is consensus. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: No, I like James' version better.  Yours ends by implying significant doubt without any rebuttal and uses "injury" instead of the concensus-approved "wound". By the way, I thought according to you, "'wound' is not the bone of contention." --kizzle 18:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kizzle, do you deny that there was "considerable contention" about this? The actual state of facts regarding the extantcy of a controvery is not prone to rebuttal, only the two sides are. My edit does not take sides or mention any sides or their views. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 18:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: No apology; I stand by every word I wrote.  As to the substance, you've lost me.  Suppose Kerry panicked and fired a grenade launcher at a chipmunk, with no VC within a mile.  Furthermore, Kerry foolishly fired while too close to shore, so that a bit of shrapnel from his own shot hit him and lodged in his arm.  It seems to me that would be both an injury and a wound.  Are you saying it would be one but not the other? JamesMLane 19:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: All this is immaterial. A consensus of editors have decided that wound is the proper descriptor.  The question has been decided. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I guess the definition of a rationally reached concensus then is if and only if Rex agrees? I am very hesitant to take your description at face value, as "1st hand accounts" refers to SBVT testimony? --kizzle 19:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you even bother to read the previous comments before posting? Kerry's 1st hand statements, as quoted on the Snopes page (from Brinkley book) do not prove wound either. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 20:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: As is a consensus being formed and one person trying to unsurp it. I don't think you have moral ground to stand on here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The consensus is valid, irrespective of whether you agree with the position taken or not. Feel free to avail yourself of the solutions outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (although the primary one has already been done -- entering an RFC).  Otherwise there's not much more to talk about on this subject. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Of course... you can contend so all you like, that's your right and I'd never expect anything else. But it changes nothing. This argument is done. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only because you were unable to prove your point and quit the discussion. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 20:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Next. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: This subject is closed. Let's move on. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: "Quitting" what? The consensus on this section was decided long ago. You are not God. We don't bow to the whims of one user over the whims of many. The needs of many outweight the needs of the few...or the one. Enough. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rex counter-offers with a modified version of James's suggested text