Talk:John Kerry/Archive 17

message: This page is constantly vandalized by Bush haters.  The Bush page is protected, so why not this?  Bart133 21:15, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the vandalism to this page is from Kerry haters, actually.  The most recent example was the addition of the statement that he likes "comunism" (sic).  My personal opinion is that this page should not be protected, though I agree with you about treating them the same -- the Bush page should be unprotected. JamesMLane 21:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: protect it?

message: Repeated reversions of the "Kerry-victory" picture:
 led me to recall a discussion on the talk page in which it was decided to use Kerry's official senate portrait (available on his senate office website) - .  I object to replacing the portrait without discussion (as Randy Johnston and Rebroad have done).  In support of keeping the official campaign picture I have three points.
# Kerry's article should be written such that it represents his entire biography and career.  I think the "victory" picture would be better placed on his presidential campaign page.
# Kerry didn't actually win the presidential election, and a victorious picture conveys incorrect information to casual readers unfamiliar with John Kerry (think if Wikipedia were to be printed and the next generation is reading the article).
# On the basis of consistency, the official portrait should be used.  The articles for senators (e.g. John McCain, Pete_V._Domenici, Bill_Frist), and even for George W. Bush use official portraits, rather than campaign snapshots.
(forgive the formatting of the pictures)
--ABQCat 23:51, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main article picture 

message: I made a couple of corrections in the marriage box. They might be self-evident, but I'll elaborate anyway.
(1) For Kerry's first marriage, his status is "divorced." I took out the notation "divorced in civil law, annulled in RC canon law." In the U.S., as person's marriage status in his/her religious faith is of no legal consequence whatever. Religious powers can marry only by the power vested in them by the state in which the marriage takes place. Take the opposite case: if the church refused Kerry an annulment (it has happened) it would not be appropriate to say, in the main factbox "Kerry was divorced in civil law, but is a bigamist in church law," or "Kerry is married to Julia Thorne in religious law, and to Teresa Heinz in civil law." His marriage status according to his religious faith should appear in his personal life section, if anywhere.
(2) Kerry's second marriage is to Teresa Heinz, her accepted name at the time of marriage, not Teresa Heinz Kerry. This is not just an academic or stylistic point: Franklin D. Roosevelt did marry Eleanor Roosevelt, his cousin. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:04, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kerry Marriages 

message: Hello everyone.  I had found out these articles awhile back but was just reading John kerrys entry and the entry on john kerrys military service, and service controversy but was unable to find this mentioned.  Crimson Herald followed John Kerry campaigned for Congress for the first time.  Author of the article Samuel Z. Goldhaber mentioned...
Quoted from the second link bellow: 
"At Yale, Kerry was chairman of the Political Union and later, as Commencement speaker, urged the United States to withdraw from Vietnam and to scale down foreign military operations. And this was way back in 1966.
When he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, the draft board refused and Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy.
END OF QUOTE.
The first link is a current article looking back at the second Link's article that was written in 1970.  The man who wrote the article Goldhaber says Kerry has never contanted him or the newspaper to say that it was false.  And nowadays when the Telegraph paper writing the current article tried to contact kerrys people they never denyed the article.  I was wondering if this should be mentioned somewhere or if this is crediable or not?
ARTICLE: Revealed: how 'war hero' Kerry tried to put off Vietnam military duty 07/03/2004
LINK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/07/wkerr07.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/03/07/ixnewstop.html
ARTICLE: John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress Wednesday, February 18, 1970
LINK: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=352185
:The information about Kerry's speech at the Yale commencement is in the article already: "Because of his public speaking skills, he was chosen to give the class oration at graduation. The speech was hastily rewritten at the last moment, and was a broad criticism of American foreign policy, including the war."  As for his having requested a one-year deferral of his military service so that he could study in Europe, I thought it was also included.  I confirmed my recollection that it was in the article at one point (see this version).  Does anyone remember why it was removed?  Did we perhaps move it to some other article?  JamesMLane 11:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hastily written" doesn't seem very NPOV. TIMBO (T A L K) 15:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To say that a speech was rewritten in a short time or just before its delivery is a fact about it, not opinion, but I've amplified to note that the prior text had already been published. JamesMLane 17:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, no worries. TIMBO (T A L K) 20:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kerry and the war

message: Kerry is a senator now... while he may be a laywer too, he is mainly a senator.
This piece seems to have a pro-Kerry spin in some areas.
*His current occupation is senator. His profession is lawyer. The disputes regarding his military service are mentioned adequately in John Kerry#Criticism of military service and awards. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:11, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  He Is A Senator // Neutrality 

message: Looks like those two are teaming up to get revert happy again. 216.153.214.94 19:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonder Twin powers activate! Gamaliel 03:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we twins?  I thought we were "more than just friends".  I'd ask Antaeus Feldspar to clarify it, but apparently he's just my sockpuppet.  Or I'm his sockpuppet.  Or something.  It gets so confusing around here sometimes.... JamesMLane 03:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gamaliel and JML 

message: My edits today on a miscellany of points:
*Calling the injury "minor" has been discussed to death here, see archived talk.  It's POV.  The John Kerry military service controversy article gives all the facts about the injury.
*Put reference to 2004 campaign in past tense, not present perfect.
*Put reference to Forbes survey in past tense, not present.
*Remove reference to bio of John J. Pershing, too tangential. JamesMLane 17:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of my edits

message: This is unreasonalbe - there is no reason the full quote should not be included. We should use facts and direct quotes instead of summaries for contenious issues since a summary is more likely to push a particular POV. Symes 03:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert to remove a direct quote and then protect 

message: I've archived all pre-election 2004 items (in sequential order) to this new link Talk:John_Kerry/041405.archive. Let's concentrate on this current (3) items above, then we can see about other issues too, perhaps even some past unresolved ones. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   00:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Archive [[Talk:John_Kerry/041405.archive]] created 

message: Anyone else feel like unprotecting this article? It's been protected for 12 days.. the dispute over the atrocities quote was pretty silly, it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that should cause a prominent page to be protected for almsot 2 weeks. If people feel that our use of the atrocity quote is currently not neutral, let's work on it. Thanks. Also, Rex has been banned so that should make it easier to edit this article. Rhobite 20:10, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
:I agree Symes 13:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotecting 

message: We had a lot of information about this issue and it was really getting to clutter the main article.  That's why we set up the daughter article with the wikilink, leaving just a summary here.  The paragraph added by Johntex about Form 180 is part of that larger controversy, so I've moved it to John Kerry military service controversy, and added the source from Johntex's edit summary. JamesMLane 07:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks James - that looks like a good move.  Johntex 16:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Military service controversy

message: The "Kerry would have been taller than Lincoln" line that was just added as the second graph got me checking. Some time ago that same line was modified to "Kerry would have been the same height as Lincoln." At that time I checked it against the Lincoln article, which said that Lincoln was 6' 4", not 6' 3.75", which is what the Lincoln article now says. I'm pretty certain that that fact should appear where it does and not as the second graph, but we should try to have the correct fact, eh? Anyone know where the two really do "stack up?" - I'm not going to lie, I'm suprised that Lincoln would have been so definitively measured to a quarter of an inch... Sirmob 03:48, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kerry V. Lincoln (height)

message: I have made a few fact-based changes to the page.  If you have an issue with them please discuss here before reverting.  Thanks.
*Well, let's see. We can start with the fact-based "50-member Senate". Check again. As regards the rest of your edit, talk first, edit later -- it's better than editing, then challenging others to talk before they revert. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues and Voting record