Talk:John Kerry/Archive 2

message: Hey everyone, I just wanted to say I think you're doing a fantastic job with the Kerry page. This has got to be one of the most well-written and informative pages in the entire Wikipedia (which isn't saying much, but in this case I mean the article is very well-written and informative). Looks like people who track John Kerry actually know how to write. Thank God for that. -- 160.39.193.218 10:16, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

message: A agree with the edit that substitutes "killed" for "coup de grace" but the term was used in a major newspaper profile, and simply means that he fired the shot which killed someone already wounded.
But ... as I said, I prefer the simple "killed" to the phrase "coup de grace," which was usually used to describe the shot fired by an officer at an execution to make sure the person was dead. Cecropia 05:46, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  coup de grace? 

message: Excommunication? I can't find anything on an explicit excommunication on the web.  Kerry would be eligible for excommunication based on his pro-choice stance, and there's a 1998 vatican decree regarding automatic excommunication of anybody engaging in abortion, up to an including some forms of birth control.  This bit strikes me as partisan, unless anybody can come up with something concrete I'm removing this.
Tarka
:Concentrate on the phrase "latæ sententiæ" which means "self-inflicted"--i.e., no "bell, book and candle" but could not receive communion because of sins in opposition to church teaching. A commonly understood phrase (if true) such as "does not attend church," "considers himself Catholic, but non-practicing," "not eligible to receive communion by action of some bishops," etc. would be less mystifying. There was a church ruling at least in some places a few years back that the church should deny communion to politicians who openly advocate abortion. Cecropia
::Sorry I should have brought this up here first: the Catechism of the Catholic Church states in canon 2270nn that Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life  In case you don't have a copy here's a link in english 
::I also recall reading in local press about several bishops stating Kerry will not recive communion. I can't find any good links about this , but I'm sure someone has a good link. NN 20:57 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
:::I think it is inflammatory to state as a fact that Kerry is in a state of excommunication (self-inflicted or otherwise) if that is not in any way officially documented. I mean, until he is actually excommunicated, it is just a matter of opinion as to whether he is or is not. I am deleting the statement again. Bkonrad 20:16, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think his negative status with the Church is relevant unless he, for example, makes a big positive issue of his Catholic faith. Cecropia 20:54, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither is the fact that his maternal grandfather traded opium or that he saw the ruins of Hitlers bunker and camped in Sherwood. I think we should include this, if You find it out of place in the early life section we can move it his stance on abortion or views of Kerry, as for Bkonrad: the closest you'll get to an official statment are the news stories, canonical law does not document such cases. N.N. 21:34, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excommunication? 

message: Has the "This article is not worth reading" (I paraphrase!) header at the top of the article been discussed anywhere? If not, I propose to remove it. The article is good, why are we doing ourselves down by saying it is not? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:51, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The header is a MediaWiki: msg and is included in four articles, so it may be appropiate to discuss whether should be in any, some or all of them. George W. Bush gets vandalized relatively often for example, but that is not so much because it is election year. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:23, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The header has been modified from the original and I believe it accurately reflects what the outside reader should know, which is that the emotions and volatility concerning the issue require more care in reading than your usual Wikipedia article. Put it this way, you might read completely accurate information on the Democratic National Committee website and on the Republican National Committee website, but you are conscious of where you are reading it, so you've been warned if something seems a bit over the top one way or the other. I view this as a matter of letting people know these articles may be different from what they expect on the rest of Wikipedia. Cheers! Cecropia 16:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept what you are saying to an extent, but I don't think this article is dramatically different from the rest of Wikipedia. People are capable of being non-neutral about all sorts of things. If anything, this article, which is heavily watched and so kept in line, is much more likely to be neutral than plenty of others that are the product of one or two people. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:25, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but would argue that the articles are neither balanced nor neutral in the sense of what you want in an encyclopedia. They do tend to represent both points of view well, but that's a debate, not an encylopedia. Perhaps we could look at it this way. It's a year after the election and somebody's in and somebody's not. Will a high school student writing a report on Bush need a long page on where he was for a year of Guard service? Will that be an accurate representation of its relative importance in Bush's presidency? At that same time, will anyone really want to know (except to play Trivial Pursuit) whether Kerry tossed ribbons or medals, or his or someone else's? At least that bit is only three paragraphs. But be that as it may, the Wikifans seem to have settled in on the notices, so I think most of us are happy with (or at least accepting of) them. Cecropia 16:43, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree that the notices are there firmly for the benefit of Wikipedia editors, rather than our readers. I think we should target the latter. In a years time this articles will be refactored, and things that seem important then will be kept in prime position, other stuff will be re-titled and may even be dropped completely. I re-iterate that the problems you are concerned with here, are true of all current event topics... I have re-written London congestion charge three times to give the proper perspective as it has become less in the media and more just one of those things. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:54, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Top of article header

message: Normally, we count George Washington as the first President, and John Kerry will be the 44th. However, according to a rectangular box at the bottom of George Washington's article, I now see 8 Presidents of Continential Congress, making George Washington the ninth President and John Kerry the 52nd. User 66.32.68.243
:First of all, John Kerry will have to be elected before he becomes any number president. Second, we do not count Presidents of the Continental Congress in the sequencing, since they were presidents of that Congress, and not the executive of the United States. Cecropia 21:16, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You saw a box that told you that Kerry, if elected, will be the 44th President of the United States and that George Washington was the 1st President of the United States. - Woodrow 01:09, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kerry's sequence number