Talk:John Kerry/Archive 25

message: Has anyone heard about Senator Kerry calling for the impeachment of President Bush? 
192.168.139.130 15:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue here is that someone has expressed concern with your potential bias, and you have dismissed it with a little bit of smark and a "bush joke", not very professional--Ytrewqt 04:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impeachment? 

message: According to this (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_120405.pdf) CBS transcipt,
from the Dec. 4th, 2005 show, Senator Kerry said this:
:"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the-of-the historical customs, religious customs."
I think this should be mentioned in the John Kerry article. Comments? Suggestions? 192.168.139.130 15:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  JP, I am not sure what your concerns are. Are you saying that we should not tell the readers about Kerry's Face the Nation comments? This seems noteworthy to me. Should I log in and make the edits myself? 66.98.130.139 16:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're not sure what my concerns are, please read WP:NPOV. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kerry on [[Face the Nation]] TV show 12.04.05 

message: According to this photo here: http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/4678/alhubbardkerry15vj.jpg, John Kerry was accociated with Ramsey Clark during his Vietnam War protest days. And, according to the Canadian Press (in the Vancouver Sun, December 05, 2005, ), Ramsey Clark is Saddam's laywer. Has anyone else read anything about the connection between Kerry/Clark and Hussein? Is Kerry still close with Clark? 192.168.139.130 15:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Kerry / [[Ramsey Clark]] / Saddam Hussein connection ? 

message: I edit anonymously for a variety of reasons, all of which I feel have merit. I'd prefer to keep it that way. "Semi-protection" is a true assertion, but "temporarily restricted" is a falsehood. Those who pushed this policy through are certainly focused on keeping protection of this type "always-on" at various political articles. 192.168.183.77 01:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection policy 

message: : "Ben Barnes, former Lieutenant Governor of Texas, will tell CBS audiences that he arranged for Bush's assignment, expecting that the Bush family would be grateful for the assistance even though no one asked him for his help. CBS also will tie in the fact that Bush had a drinking problem at the time, although Bush himself admitted that years ago... [B]en Barnes' status as the third largest contributor to John Kerry's campaigns should render any testimony from him completely invalid... Do you think that the Tiffany Network will mention Ben Barnes' finance connections to John Kerry when discussing his testimony regarding George Bush, in that he has half a million reasons to make up bogus charges against the President? Not likely. 
: "Ben Barnes has a large vested interest in the outcome of the 2004 election. He is a co-chairman of John F. Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign. Barnes, as CBS News reported in June 2004, has made bundled contributions of more than $500,000 to Kerry’s campaign. Barnes owns a home near his friend Kerry’s home in Nantucket on the Massachusetts shore." 
Another interesting fact about Kerry fundraising - Kerry's 3rd biggest contributor (Ben Barnes) was one of the primer-movers of the Bush/ANG storyline. 66.98.131.200 22:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Kerry and Ben Barnes (of Bush National Guard fame) 

message: Gamaliel violated the 3RR rule at John Kerry 1/5-1/6. Here are the diffs:
# 05:19, 5 January 2006 - 
# 05:23, 5 January 2006 - 
# 09:03, 5 January 2006 - 
# 02:54, 6 January 2006 - 
# 08:18, 6 January 2006 - 
If you study the reverts he made, they were clearly made against non-vandal edits. For this reason, Gamaliel should not be allowed to flaunt the 3RR simply because he's pushing his own preferred text instead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.15.76.242 (talk • contribs) . 08:22, January 6, 2006
Nice try, but the first two "reverts" are simply replacing material from different sections in different edits, with an explaination in each edit summary.  This is totally unlike your real 3RR violation, hiding behind different IP addresses. Gamaliel 08:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR violation at [[John Kerry]] 

message: Work out your differences. I see we have an edit war getting some fire. If it continues, I will protect the page. Work it out. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please 

message: Article is semi protected after a number of unsubstantiated edits and deletions by anon user(s). ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi protected 

message: Anon 70.64.56.165 has created Talk:John_Kerry/sb1. I've asked him to explain his intentions here. In general, stuff like that isn't allowed in the main namespace unless it has been discussed with others first. I'm very close to protecting the main page. Not a sprotect. A full protect. We seem to have a brewing edit war and I'd like to nip it in the bud. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will you please stop over-reacting. These edits, in aggregate, are fair, accurate, NPOV and serve the noble goal of trimming this article from being too large ("My main goal on Wikipedia is to make it as clean and concise as possible"). Wiki tells us to "be bold" and yet, whk goes round making protection threats. Personally, I feel the burden is on the complaining party (in this instance woohookitty) to specifically critique the edits he/she now complains about. And as for SB1, are you saying you'd rather not have a sandbox? If I were trying to be sneaky, I would never have saved the page - I would have used preview only. The sandbox page was to engage in full-transparency editing. I am sorry if that offended you. 192.168.165.56 10:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think you are the one overreacting. I am not complaining about your edits nor am I labeling you "sneaky" or anything else. I have a feeling that you are lumping me in with the people that have reverted your changes. I'm neutral on this article...always have been. It takes 2 sides (or more) to edit war. So me saying I might have to protect the page is not me judging your edits or anything else. Honestly, I don't have a feeling about what's going on here. I just see a brewing edit war and in general, we try to stop those. As for the sandbox, no, sandboxes are generally not permitted in the article namespace. I don't know how much you are familiar with Wikipedia, but we have several namespaces. Sandboxes are usually limited to the Wikipedia namespace (Wikipedia:Sandbox) or userspaces. I would suggest creating an account, so you can have your own sandbox. You can use your userpage for basically anything, including sandboxes. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  70.84.56.165, would you mind if your Talk:John_Kerry/sb1 page was moved to User talk:70.84.56.165/sb1? It's not that the sandbox itself is the problem, it's location is. -- Mr. Tibbs 00:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I was trying to say. I need to take succinct classes. ;-) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I would just like to point out that User:66.98.130.204 and User:70.84.56.165 appear to be the same person and  has recently taken to vandalizing userpages.   -- Mr. Tibbs 05:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmmmmm 

message: I protected the page to nip this brewing edit war in the bud. You guys are using the edit summaries to "discuss" this. No. Discuss it here. Work out your differences. I'm keeping it protected until that happens. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And before I hear "you protected the wrong version!". :) I'm neutral on this. I happened to protect an anon version but I don't favor any of the sides here. I just want it worked out. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: There is no mention of Kerry's fundraising issues. Why does this keep getting deleted?
67.15.76.110 23:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundraising problems 

message: Could someone please add  under the external links section?  Thanks!—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  interwiki template 

message: No discussion since this last round of protection was implemented. We'll unprotect and see what happens. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sigh 

message: I recently semi-protected the article because of anonymous users blanking large parts of the article without consensus or a good reason. Please discuss major ommissions of sourced content first. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 09:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected 

message: I tried adding " Boston College, 1976 " to the infobox, but I am not permitted to do so. Someone with editing capacity can add it. Potatoe 22:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it consistent with the other congressional biographies you've been doing. NoSeptember talk 22:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law school 

message: nobody cares about Kerry's childhood friends.
This article should feature, Kerry's,
Senate career, 2004 presidential campaign,
and his political beliefs.--CorvetteZ51 09:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree - there is too much irrelevant and fawing detail in this article. 66.98.130.204 07:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  too much pre-history 

message: This article was quiet for a couple of months in November and December 2005. Not sure why we're back to vandal heaven. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woohookitty, I don't know where you get off labeling all the edits you disagree with as "vandal heaven". This is a personal attack - please stop. 67.15.76.244 07:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We're nearing SP again 

message: Kerry was divorced and subsequently was granted a Catholic Church annulment. That annulment had no legal force or effect. Had Kerry not been divorced 1st, under civil law, he would still have been married to his 1st wife. Please see CNN which clearly states he was divorced. See WashingtonBlade.com which clearly states "Kerry eventually received the annulment from the Boston diocese despite Thorne’s vehement objections." and "John Kerry obtained both a divorce and annulment". In fact, the sidebar of the article is so illuminating on this topic, it's worth printing verbatim, here: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.168.244.76 (talk • contribs) .
copyvio removed by Derex 07:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Derex is deleting important information from this page, please go to the WB article itself and read the sidebar there: http://www.washblade.com/2004/3-5/news/national/kerryback.cfm 67.15.76.244 07:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, you simply can't post a copyvio, you already linked it.  Second, the article already stated he was divorce in 88 & annulled in 97.  What's your issue? Derex 07:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not trying to "hide" a thing.  That's why I just asked you a question.  Your retort and accusation is incredibly rude, and I'd suggest you read WP:AGF. You were caterwauling about no mention of a divorce, when there was one.  Then you made a quite large and redundant edit.  Feel free to add the phrase "annulment over Thorne's objection" to the current text .... that doesn't really require a whole new and redundant paragraph, does it?  And, it would be nice if you could find a more credible reference than the Blade. Derex 14:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "[Julia] Thorne said she does not think she needs to contest Kerry's request for an annulment because she does not recognize the validity of the proceeding, and wants to allow Kerry and Heinz to participate fully in church practices."  There are multiple other sources in credible newspapers for this.  For example, Washington Times: "Mrs. Thorne says she still supports Mr. Kerry politically and is glad he is happy in his new marriage to Heinz food fortune heiress Teresa Heinz." Derex 17:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divorce then annulment - both must be mentioned 

message: I think most of those who edit and watch this article agree it could be shorter. But why hasn't there been any real progress in shortening it? It is not because we're a bunch of lazy editors who are shirking our very important duty to make this article shorter, as the anon who is arguing for leaving the article page tagged with  seems to be insinuating. I think it boils down to two basic reasons:
*There are much more pressing concerns on Wikipedia. When there are thousands of articles undergoing NPOV disputes and thousands more of generally poor quality, should we forget about them because the Kerry page is 20 or 30 kilobytes bigger than some prefer?
*Previous efforts at shortening this page have consisted of deleting large chunks of text. Here at Wikipedia, most editors don't like it when you go around chopping off large parts of contentious, controversial articles. Hence the edit war last month, between the editor(s) who tried to cut out substantial parts of this article, and those who reverted the changes, suspicious of possible POV pushing.
Even many of those who reverted last month's attempts at "trimming" would support cutting this article down to a more manageable length. But how?
My personal suggestion: instead of chopping out information, we should strive, whenever possible, to:
#Rewrite for tighter, less wordy prose, whenever appropriate, and/or
#Move anything cut from the main article to subpages.
This is anything but the only way to trim this article. Any other suggestions? Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 01:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, let's shorten this article ... but how? 

message: Who here thinks that somebody as obsessed with this article as REX, would simply just go away after a 2 year long history of stalking this article? Impossible I'd guess, wondering which one of these anon ips he is--152.163.101.7 04:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: obvious question

message: The top of this talk page looks like a little bit of tag overload perhaps...it takes 1.5 pages to scroll down and get to content on an 1152x8.. resolution. — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, we should do something about that. And since this is the LOL section, why does the trillian definition for John Kerry say this "YOU VANDALIZE THIS PAGE I WILL **BLOCK** YOU.-->"--KelticKTalk 07:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, you're right, it does! There seems to be a comment at the beginning of the article. I think it may be useful to remove it. — Ilyanep (Talk) 17:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There's no comment :\ — Ilyanep (Talk) 17:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOL!!!!!!! 

message: I see that a toolong tag keeps getting edited in and removed here. I was thinking that the Bush article is itself too long and was thinking of inserting that tag there. I'd like to avoid edit wars over that there.
Any recommendations? Merecat 08:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus appears to be that the toolong tag belongs on talk pages only. There's a section on this Talk page discussing this; please add your thoughts! --Ashenai 09:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[George W. Bush]] and [[John Kerry]] 

message: It seems non-sequitir to mention John Kerry and Rick Santorum sponsoring legislation in the issues and voting section without a citation.  I am not quite sure what the editor was trying to juxtapose with that sentence.  Was it that the DLC often aligns itself with Rick Santorum?  Is it meant to say that Rick Santorum often votes as liberals?  Is it trying to add breadth to Kerry's voting record by trying to say he sometimes votes with a conservative?   Rick Santorum isn't an issue or vote so a particular vote or sponsorship of legislation doesn't seem to add any light to the section.  I think a citation is needed.  Otherwise, fans of the DLC will think this is a POV attack on DLC or fans of Kerry will think this is a POV attack  by aligning him with a conservative or Kerry detractors will use this to say that this is an example of "flip-flopping".  None of these conclusions would be fair so I think this sentence needs clarification. Tbeatty 18:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I answered it above.  It's not detailed enough.  Just because it's true doesn't make it necessarily a "factoid" that needs to be in an encyclopedia.  There is a whole section on sponsorship of legislation.  The factoid would sound pointless if it was standalone.  Think about this standalone sentence in the legislation sponsorship section. "John Kerry co-sponsored Senate legislation with such prominent conservatives as Pennsylvania's Rick Santorum."  It lacks context and citation.  Everyone would question why this statement would be made.  Is it to show Kerry is conservative?  Santorum is liberal?  What legislation?  What context?  Tbeatty 19:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Kerry and Rick Santorum? 

message: Reverted image vandalism (Image:413px-anus.jpg John Kerry after doing his mom.) made by User:Dontlookatme. Commented on User_talk:Dontlookatme and in page history comments. 139.76.128.71 15:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted Image Vandalism 

message: Made a few copyedits here just now. Please look at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush and see if you can chip in there. Merecat 05:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  copy edits 

message: A lot of other prominent politicians have a section outlining their core political beliefs and positions. Shouldn't Kerry have one as well? And please try to avoid serious refrences to the whole "He's a flip flopper he doesn't have real beliefs!". --Berger 13:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No political beliefs? 

message: Under the family heading---What exactly is a bonesman legacy?
:A bonesman is a member of the Skull and Bones secret society. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones), like John Kerry and George W. Bush. I assume a bonesman legacy is a member with some male ancestor who was also a member (usually father and/or grandfather). The term 'legacy' is sometimes used in the US to refer to a student or applicant to an ivy league school who's parent(s) or grandparent(s) attended the school. It might make more sense to simply refer to Heinz as a "himself a member of Skull and Bones" or "a bonesman" (with link), since I assume both Kerry and Bush are legacies, yet that's not pointed out, and the term can confuse readers. Holmwood 00:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bonesman legacy? 

message: I came to this article for the first time and had some quarrel with the following paragraph:
:According to some of these who know him, Kerry is a religious man. A practicing Roman Catholic, he is said to carry a rosary, a prayer book, and a St. Christopher medal (the patron saint of travelers) when he campaigns. However, he supports policies such as abortion, which is in opposition to Roman Catholic beliefs.
I changed it to the following:
:According to those who know him, Kerry is a religious man. A practicing Roman Catholic, he is said to carry a rosary, a prayer book, and a St. Christopher medal (the patron saint of travelers) when he campaigns. However, he supports policies such as abortion rights, which the Catholic Church opposes.
First of all, for those who claim that only "some of those who know him" consider him religious, I'd like to know who the detractors are. Second, I don't think it's accurate to say that he "supports abortion" just because he supports it remaining legal--that's why I changed it to "supports abortion rights." Third, saying it's "in opposition to Roman Catholic beliefs" will be viewed by many as simplistic; in fact, the majority of identifying Catholics in the United States claim to be pro-choice. So it's better to say that abortion rights are opposed by the Catholic Church, not "Catholics" in general. marbeh raglaim 12:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion 

message: The Truth, John Kerry, and The New York Times Very interesting. Sound true to me. I don't know why Kerry keeps going back to this stuff - it makes him look bad.
:Oh, please. Aren't you people tired of pushing this nonsense two years on? Derex 15:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please? "You people"? No, I wouldn't rehash this now, but if Kerry runs again, it will be fair game, just as was the Bush National Guard crap, which a major news organization used, publishing fraudulent documents in the teeth of a presidential campaign. -- Cecropia 16:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Kerry article regarding SWIFT Boats, etc. 

message: I want to ask if I can change the image from the current one to this one I found in the commons - I think it looks better than the current one. --Blue387 19:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your image much better. Kerry isn't a very picturesque man (I think he's a good guy though) and the current image doesn't look as good as the prior image on this page or your proposed image.--Folksong 07:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No, no, no! Kerry needs to look like a walking cadaver. What would the political cartoonists do otherwise? And oh, by the way, be bold. marbeh raglaim 10:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change image? 

message: Lie Detector TV show had Stever Gardner from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth on tonight.  The show had also asked John Kerry to appear on the show but he never responded to the invitation.  I only watched part of the show but I saw Steve Gardner take the polygraph test and they announced he passed it.  They asked Gardner about the death of a young boy (or man) and whether it was mentioned in an After Action Report. I do not know much about the issue, but it sounded like Kerry did not mention a key fact in the report that led to one of his medals.  The website is www.liedetector.tv.  Perhaps they will post clips from the show on the website.  It was my first time watching the show.  Is the fact Kerry refused to be on the show notable enough to be mentioned in the article.  It is obvious the Swift Boat Vets will be around if Kerry chooses to run for president again.  Any thoughts? RonCram 04:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't sound really credible to me, and we shouldn't speculate about future presidential elections too much.  It doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would fit well into the article.  Karwynn 19:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lie Detector TV show

message: Why hasn't there been some sort of passage included in the article about his various positions throughout the years and how they seem to change w/the times. This can be done in a neutral manner w/appropriate sources,but it seems wikipedia is almost developing a liberal bias..I can't believe it's come to this.--Bairdso66 04:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your quest should begin with sources.  Kasreyn 06:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flip-flopping 

message: A pertinent question here is, during the 2004 election, was it the Republicans or the Democrats who first raised the issue of Kerry's service in Vietnam?  Because if it was the Democrats, then Kerry did indeed do something at odds with his previous statements.  If it was the Republicans, it could instead be interpreted as defending himself from attacks upon his character.  The difference between these seems significant to me.  Kasreyn 03:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a source indicating that Kerry made such a declaration ("Because of my combat experience, I will make a good war-time leader"). You say he "made it a point from the outset", so I'm guessing you mean he said this multiple times.  Simply mentioning his military experience in speeches -- with far less regularity than his critics have claimed -- doesn't mean he made his military experience a "crucial issue" of his campaign.  I don't think it matters at all who first mentioned Kerry's military background. I'm sure it was Kerry, as he certainly kept it no secret from anybody...why would he?  It was the Republicans who relentlessly (and baselessly)  attacked his military record, and successfully turned it into an issue.--Hal Raglan 03:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Vietnam as a Campaign Issue 

message: Kerry used the F word in a Rolling Stone interview while running for Prez in '04.  Can someone add this to the article?  Dubc0724 16:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not missing the "point" at all.  My point is that a politician's use of profanity is not notable.  I ask to make mention of it here and people get riled up.  I take it out of the Dubya article based on the same argument and people get riled up.  You can't have it both ways, folks.  Dubc0724 17:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody wants it both ways.  It is the news coverage of the event, not the inherent nature of the event itself, which is the basis for inclusion. You can disagree with that basis if you like but you can't pretend people are including it on an entirely different basis. Gamaliel 17:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It couldn't have anything to do with the (gasp!) political parties, now could it?  PS Why am I having two separate arguments with you? :-) Dubc0724 17:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. It's all about bias.  God forbid you actually listen to someone else's reasoning and actually believe that it is sincere. Gamaliel 17:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  God forbids me to do that.  Life's more fun when you're a skeptic.  At this point we're both dealing with our opinions of why something may or may not be notable.  Maybe others can weigh in on the topic.  We've probably spent more time than it's worth already, though.  Dubc0724 17:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  F Bomb in Rolling Stone 

message: Should John Kerry's memebership of skull and bones at Yale university be included on this page?--Lucy-marie 08:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's already there.  Probably doesn't need the GWB reference but it reads okay.--Tbeatty 18:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skull and bones