Talk:John Kerry/Archive 7

message: There was a poll in progress, so I've again taken that part of the Talk page from the archive and copied it back in here.  I did not copy the lengthy "Comment" subsection from the archived poll discussion -- only the first few subsections, the ones with the votes in them.  JamesMLane 08:50, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  POLL 

message: (John Kerry/Neutrality)
#Neutrality 06:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality's version

message: (John Kerry/VVAW cross-reference)
#JamesMLane 06:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: VVAW cross-reference version

message: #Gzornenplatz 06:32, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
#Gamaliel 07:30, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove section entirely

message: #Rex071404 16:55, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return to Rex's version(s) 

message: #Rex071404 23:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rex '71 VVAW v.3 

message: #Lyellin 07:10, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
#Ambi 07:25, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Lyellin's Version 1 [[Talk:John_Kerry/Lyellin]] 

message: # Rex071404 15:13, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Lyellin's Version 2 [[Talk:John_Kerry/Lyellin]] 

message: Kerry is no longer the presumptive nominee, he is the nominee. I want to edit the protected page to reflect this, changing:
::John Forbes Kerry (born December 11, 1943) is a United States senator from Massachusetts, and, due to victories in the U.S. presidential primary elections, is the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee for President in 2004.
to
::John Forbes Kerry (born December 11, 1943) is a United States senator from Massachusetts, and, having accepted the nomination of the Democratic Party on July 29, 2004, is the party's nominee for President in 2004.
Yes, change it
#Cecropia | Talk 03:37, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm just going to change the wording. If there is a consensus objecting or wanting language tweaks, they can holler for me or another sysop. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:09, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: That distinction of "Democrat" or "Democratic" was started by Joe McCarthy (seriously). Although using Democrat rather than Democratic has entered the language as an alternate usage, it is awkward and seems partisan. The official name of the party is the Democratic Party. It would be generally correct to say that "he is the Democratic Party nominee" or "he is the nominee of the Democrats." -- Cecropia | Talk 04:18, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting - thanks! On another note, please take notice that user Neutrality is following me around this Wiki, changing questions I pose and entering misleading notations. It appears that he has taken too strong of a personal interest in the controversy of this dialog. See my notes (and the evidence of what he is doing) here: []. Any advice ot assistance you could give would be appreciated. Rex071404 04:32, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Using "Democrat" as an adjective is a usage solely of Republicans, in my experience.  (Well, and FOX News, if you want to count that as contradicting my thesis.)  I didn't know about McCarthy.  I assumed it arose because "Republican" is both the noun and the adjective and the GOP types just applied the same pattern to their opposition. JamesMLane 04:29, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in Kerry's status 

message: I am asking for group agreement that we use the Rec v.3 VVAW. See all three of my VVAW versions here: Talk:John_Kerry/Rex's_version. please take note, that from version one through version three, I took a lot of group input and made it much less POV and much more acceptable to all. Also, if you like, please go to my page here Talk:John_Kerry/Rex's_version and copy my v.3 as a new entry, then edit that entry to how you like it andd we can all review you suggestions. The sooner a few do this, the sooner we can be done. Plese make the effort.
(Or), without further delay, state yes or no, will you accept Rex VVAW v.3 ?
Rex071404 06:48, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but please do not miss the point that we can effectively use the sub page with my (3) versions as the drawing board page that has been called for. On this page, we can make sample versions to share. I sense that my v. 3 VVAW might be close to being acceptable, that is why I am asking for others to make and post derivatives of it on my sub page. JamesMLane, why don't you try that, please? Rex071404 07:42, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please keep your eye on the ball 

message: Several people besides Rex have been working on ways to deal with these subjects.  Multiple versions are available for consideration and voting at the top of this page.  Anyone who wants to support Rex VVAW v.3 can go to Talk:John Kerry#POLL and vote for it, in a comprehensive poll that also gives other participants a chance to solicit support for their proposals.  That's the fair way to do it.  JamesMLane 07:36, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but please do not miss the point that we can effectively use the sub page with my (3) versions as the drawing board page that has been called for. On this page, we can make sample versions to share. I sense that my v. 3 VVAW might be close to being acceptable, that is why I am asking for others to make and post derivatives of it on my sub page. JamesMLane, why don't you try that, please? Rex071404 07:42, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's keep everything together in one poll

message: According to user 67.180.24.204, who, in his comments on the Ann Coulter talk page, while opposing an idea of mine, said this: "The Wiki's job is to report on what is, not what you would prefer to be", 
That being so, it would seem that there is no longer any excuse to keep various unfavorable facts about Kerry out of the John Kerry page. 
That is unless 67.180.24.204 is being disingenuous with us and has been opposing my suggestions about Kerry in bad faith. 
After all, on the Ann Coulter page, certain editors, including 67.180.24.204 are very active there in making sure every fact and quote, etc., that looks bad for Coulter gets in, but on John Kerry, anything that looks bad for Kerry they work to keep out. Do I sense a pattern here? Rex071404 08:42, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the purpose of the this Wiki? 

message: Rex071404 says: Ok, since we are doing nothing but going in cirles, all the while the Kerry page stays in it's unnacceptable state, we need to clear up the basis of this disagreement. As a 1st step, I propose we try to agree about whether or not we admit Kerry actually attended the disputed VVAW meeting. And since it has been "accept(ed)" as true, (read link) by Kerry's spokesperson that the FBI report placing Kerry in the meeting is valid, this is prima facia evidence that he was. Therefore, my question is, who will accept as fact that Kerry was there?
*Yes, I accept as fact that Kerry did indeed attend the Nov 1971 VVAW meeting
**Rex071404 20:10, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Kerry's spokesperson did not accept the FBI report as accurate without dispute. As Wolfman indicates below and as I quote in a previous section, there is a big IF in the statement. And even the FBI reports are not in accord. The only report that I recall being cited so far was from an anonymous confidential informant who neglected to mention many other pertinent details about the meeting--there was no mention of the highly charged atmosphere. Another FBI report of the meeting contained many details about the proceedings and the militant atmosphere but made no mention of Kerry being there. Until there is a detailed analysis of the voluminous FBI reports, I'm not willing to concede this point. There is a world of difference in credibility between a report by an anonymous CI and an actual surveillance report by an FBI agent. older≠wiser 21:33, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Rex, do you have a link to that statement?  I recall reading it was along the lines of '_if_ the FBI report indicates Kerry attended, we would assume that is correct'.  Assuming that's what the spokesman said _and_ you can link to the FBI document showing he was there, I would think it is fair to state that Kerry did attend the meeting.Wolfman 21:08, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I have not seen any official statement from the FBI reporting that Kerry attended the meeting. There have been FBI field notes about the meeting, some of which say Kerry was there and some that do not. An isolated field memo should not be interpreted as gospel--they are simply one source of information for analysts to evaluate. Someone with experience in evaluating such materials needs to evaluate the credibility of the different reports. older≠wiser 21:44, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who accepts as a fact that Kerry was at the Nov 1971 VVAW meeting? 

message: Neutrality previously "recused" himself, now all of a sudden he jumps back in. What he is saying though, makes no sense. Is Neutrality now saying that we there should be no facts reported in John Kerry or is he saying that we should not try to agree on what facts to put in? 
And yet, if facts are to go in, isn't better to reach consensus on which facts we agree on as true, if there has been dispute.  How rational would it be for me to use Neutrality's logic and thereby decide that we can't even agree that John Kerry is from Massachusetts? Such reasoning makes no sense to me. Is Neutrality now contending that John Kerry as currently constitued contains no facts, not even ones we all agree are true? If so, what Neutrality is suggesting is patently false and absurd. Rex071404 20:26, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I recused myself from being a mediator in any case involving you or John Kerry, not from any involvement in editing this page. The rest of what you wrote is so incoherent that I'm not even going to attempt a response.--Neutrality 20:36, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Neutrality is starting a "revert war" again - stop it! And take notice that he is now insulting me again (called my writing "incoherent")! Rex071404 20:43, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about?  Neutrality hasn't reverted anything. Gamaliel 21:01, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text:  He reverted my section title by removing the formatting which makes it a section title (I had to restore it). And yes, that section title probably is silly, but with you guys denying and/or refusing to give a y/n answer about even the most basic adverse facts on Kerry, this entire converstion has gotten silly. Rex071404 21:54, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rex, on the "y/n answer" I think you are referring to whether folks accept as fact that Kerry was at the KC meeting.  But, it looks to me like you didn't ask a simple "yes or no" question.  You had some addendum about stipulating  a prima facia case and providing additional links.  That's why I voted "other".  I don't yet accept his presence as fact, but I also don't agree to your addendum.  If you want a simple "y/n" answer, don't ask a loaded question.Wolfman 22:08, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: That's not a revert.  A revert is when you return to a previous version entirely, removing all changes made after that version.  He did not "revert" your title, he simply changed it. Gamaliel 23:12, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]] and [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] state that as composed, there are no "facts" in the [[John Kerry]] page. Therefore, entire page is opinion and should be stricken as utterly POV 

message: Believe it or not, I'll write a post on this Talk Page that is not about something highly controversial. I feel the page is too crowded with images. Could we rearrange and resize the pictures and maybe remove one or two less useful ones? Also, I think the picture of Kerry protesting the Vietnam war should not come twice. Finally, there should not be a surplus of pictures in the upper part and close to none in the bottom part, as it is now the case; it should be more balanced for the sake of esthetics. --Liberlogos 04:50, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I have been dialoging for days, with a rotating group of mostly pro-Kerry POV'ers who simply clam up and refuse to answer when true facts they don't like are dropped in their lap.
Now, all of a sudden, you re-protect Kerry?
This is just like last time - you guys put what you wanted in and then locked the page
What a farce!
Rex071404 07:04, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The protection is as much a surprise to me as it is to you, but I guess it was inevitable given what happened over the course of the day.  Sorry Rex, but the poll and today’s events clearly indicate that we have not achieved consensus despite your efforts to unilaterally declare it.  Gamaliel 07:09, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: You unilaterally declared concensus by posting a version that was not agreed upon by anyone besides yourself.  Whatever language you use to describe your actions, they were inappropriate as no consensus has been reached. And I'm unimpressed by quotes from the man responsible for the Trail of Tears.  Gamaliel 07:34, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Umm, Rex.  I did respond to your 'prima facie' evidence.  You never answered.  Personally, I have no idea why it matters so much whether Kerry happened to be in Kansas City.  But, inclusion of this alleged fact seems to be the main sticking point for you.  The news reports we linked don't agree on the issue.  How then can you expect us to include it in an encyclopedia article as incontrovertible fact?  Currently both evidence for and against is presented.  What could be more neutral?Wolfman 07:45, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: John Kerry - are you kiding? 

message: Regarding the protection: I know the page was only very recently unprotected, but judging by the number of reversions (at least five in the last hour before protection) and the accompanying edit summaries, I thought things were rapidly heading downhill with no end to the reversions in sight. I especially want to bring to attention this illuminating edit summary by Rex071404:
:(/*RV to previous, reversing repeated vandalism by JamesMLane and Wolman -Sysop - please check and see if Wolfman and Neutrality are coming from the same IP address)
To Rex: Please understand that charges of vandalism and sockpuppetry are serious accusations and should not be bandied about lightly. This sort of language violates both wikiquette and the civility rule. So please, for the sake of everyone concerned (including yourself), try to keep the slander and histrionics to a minimum (preferably zero). Thanks for your consideration. -- Hadal 07:41, 1 Aug 
2004 (UTC)
:: Hmmmm.... when I, in my new user ignorance, made mutiple postings to Neutrality's talk page, he deemed it "vandalism" and referred to it as such. Even so, perhaps I miss-used the term. My apologies. Also then, what is a "troll"?  Neutrality called me that several times as well. I wouldn't want to misuse that term either. Rex071404 07:47, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Rex, you've been playing this "Oh, I'm just a new user, I don't know how things work here" card for quite awhile. It's getting tiresome. When are you going to learn how the Wikipedia works instead of obsessing about the John Kerry page? Have you bothered to read any of the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines yet? Or the Welcome article and the many links it contains? Meelar posted links to these on your talk page shortly after you got your username. older≠wiser 12:33, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on protection and civility