Talk:John Kerry/Archive 19

message: John Kerry's discharge from the Navy deserves more discussing and correcting. He was technically discharged from the Navy on February 16, 1978. John Kerry's own website reveals he was in the Navy Reserves from 1970 until 1978.
This means Kerrys anti-war activities, protest, and negotiations with foreign powers in foreign states took place while he was an officer of the United States military. The affects of this action is very serious and one cannot deny these facts.
*And who has? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navy Discharge 

message: I think so.  [ +t, +c, +m ] 07:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not even the lamest we've had on this page.  Although we described the wound that led to Kerry's first Purple Heart, we spent many kb dealing with one editor who kept re-inserting his opinion that the wound was minor.  By contrast, there is at least some substance to the different interpretations of "Jewish". JamesMLane 07:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, I remember that guy. He perfected the art of edit warring, with his "requirement to discuss before reverting him" and his "baseline version". Ah, memories...  [ +t, +c, +m ] 08:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This Edit War, [[Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever|Lame?]]

message: According to this  JamesMLane thinks that calling a minor wound minor is editorializing. If so, then we can't call Katrina a large or powerful hurricane. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   05:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We dealt with this a year ago. Let it go. Gamaliel 05:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is editorializing. It's an opinion, not a fact. How many more arbitration cases do we need?  [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 05:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The severity of a wound can be gauged by the objective evidence. The undisputed evidence supports describing this wound as minor. Are you saying the severity of the wound is unknown? Rex071404  216.153.214.94   05:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What Gamaliel said.  [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 06:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Prior discussion on this "issue" can be found on the talk page referenced in my edit summary.  The specific section is Talk:John Kerry/August 2004 archive 1#Characterizing the injuries.  I don't recall whether there are any other sections with such talk; I didn't search the whole archive.  Having reread that particular thread, I'm of the same opinion now as I was then. JamesMLane 09:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 1st wound was minor 

message: Removed almost all adjectives from the article, then labled then as POV removal, also removed reference to John Kerry owning a dog, as a blatent POV issue along with Favorite Food, and reference to him being a cyclist.. I could be missing something, but those don't actually seem like POV issues, unless of course this editor's idea of NPOV, is to remove anything that isn't negative, including what seem like rather neutral statments like John Kerry Owns a Dog, I'm going to rv the whole thing to back before the edit war--anon editor 02:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More than a year ago, Kerry's campaign people leaked details about pet ownership. Any current status on the dog? Also, who says that Kerry is an avid cyclist? There is even less proof of that, than there is that his 1st wound was minor (please see above). Also, rather than just complain, why don't you ask me my line of thinking and see if we can agree on some edits? Also, when was the last time anyone had a current referrence that Kerry's "favorite food is chocolate chip cookies" and why should such minutiae even be in this article? Do we have such detail about all US Senators? Rex071404  216.153.214.94   03:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *So, what makes his pet ownership POV? or favorite cookie? I just dont' see any connection what so ever between your edit summaries, and the things you're re-writing--anon editor 05:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The connection between the deleted "cookie" referrence and POV is that such fawning minutiae, by being in this article, serves no editorial purpose of import. Rather, what it does is turn a biography into a hagiography. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   05:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but what does hagiographic mean? --kizzle 05:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bla, bla, bla, bla, you just keep talking, you're certianly the only one listening to you--Here I come to save the day 19:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd Edits by ''Rex071404'' 

message: According to the edit summary by Szyslak for this edit, which states "rv {NPOV} - the tag is for disputes that can't be resolved after discussion; also removed gratuitous "See also" link)", it is clear that the correct course of action, on a disputed page (when issues can't be resolved after discussion) is to add an NPOV tag. This being the case, I am adding a POV check to this page and am reminding the other editors here of important details from the wiki article on "Consensus decision-making", which are: "Rather than simply list known alternatives, debate for a short time, vote, and then accept or reject by some percentage of majority (ex. over 50%, over 2/3), a consensus decision-making process involves identifying and addressing concerns, generating new alternatives, combining elements of multiple alternatives and checking that people understand a proposal or an argument. This empowers minorities, those with objections that are hard to state quickly, and those who are less skilled in debate. Therefore, consensus decision-making can be seen as a form of grassroots democracy."
I ask the editors here to take note that "combining elements of multiple alternatives" is an essential part of consensus decision-making and yet, the editors here have been reverting and deleting every edit I make to John Kerry (and has been doing so for well over a year and again, many times in the last few days). For this reson, it cannot be said that there is any valid consensus among the active editors on this article. As with that as my justification, I am adding the POV check tag to the article.
Rex071404  216.153.214.94   20:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV check tag for [[John Kerry]]

message: Here are the 1st (5) sections of each outline from each article. It's clear that the Kerry article goes into much more personal detail, the net effect of which is to "sell" Kerry to people. It was forced on us by the pro-Kerry editors during election 2004 and it remains the same way today. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   21:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern (as I have made abundantly clear - see above) is that this Kerry article has too much fawining detail. And, the few less flattering things which go in are immediately taken out. The outline speaks for itself - Kerry's article is imbalanced and there is no realistic correlation on the personal history outline between Kerry and Bush. Gamaliel, do you deny that Kerry's page has much more personal detail than Bush's? Also what is your justification for reverting at multiple pages on the Wiki - reverting me multiple times on political related articles? Do you deny that you have been reverting me multiple times, without talk page dialog and often with no justifying edit summary? Do you disagree with the details I have posted above regarding consensus decision-making? If not, please point me to the any edit I made in the last few days you (or one of the other Rex-reverters here) have allowed to my edits be "combined" into a poltical article, without being reverted or edited out. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   00:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Because disagreeing with him, according to his new page at User_talk:Rex071404/Liberal_bias constitutes a liberal bias. --kizzle 23:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Kerry article was taking most of it's current form starting back in Summer of 2004. Between then and now, the pro-Kerry editors at this page have done all the can to keep embellishing it. And, Bush was not yet re-elected in July 2004, which is when I joined this Wiki - in part, to try to get some even handed treatment of the two pages. There is no denying the truth about the above outline comparisons: Kerry's has way more personal detail. And, now that Kerry is very well know, there no longer is any excuse for it. I am asking you other editors to please be more flexible on edits to this article and please allow some of my edits to stay in without reverting them. And as for Kizzle's comment - I'd prefer that he keep his personal taunts off of the talk pages of articles. He's welcome to criticize me on my personal talk page, but I feel that his comments such as that above are counter-productive here. Also, I'd ask that he stop stalking my personal scratch page list - it's not any of his concern that I am keeping a log of various edits, and by repeating my scratch page links all over, he's causing needless controversy. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   00:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rex, I believe that adding to some liberal hit-list everytime someone simply disagrees with you is the very definition of counter-productive.  It definetely doesn't help foster a sense of collaboration.  As for your comments, I don't see a need to excise comments about a former presidential candidate simply because the election is over.  I believe a policy of removing information when the subject steps out of the limelight is a bad way to go. --kizzle 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *As far as "stalking" is concerned -- every page on Wikipedia is for public consumption. If you want a private scratchpad, do it elsewhere. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison of [[George W. Bush]] and [[John Kerry]] outlines 

message: I intend to put details about this into the article. any comments? Rex071404  216.153.214.94   02:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an example of anything except the fact that no one here knew about that information yet.  Once again you are true to form and attribute sinister motives to other editors instead of simpler, innocent, more realistic ones.  Gamaliel 03:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not so. Bias need not be sinister. If I love kittens, I am biased in favor of them. And I am unaware of anyone who considers those who love kittens to be "sinister". Rather, bias (which your comments above confirm - perhaps unwittingly) can also manifest itself this way: a) Various wiki editor(s) like Kerry. As a consequence, they never #2) look for anything to critique him on and because of that, #3) those who are biased in favor of Kerry, never (search for, or) find fundraising scandal details about him via Google. Now as you can see, this theory could also account for why you or various others never found those fundrasing stories. And it's true that you did not ever find them, because as you stated "no one here knew about that information yet". I suggest this is because you have not looked hard enough - and I further suggest it's primarily because you are not interested to see to it that the Kerry article be as firm of a critique against him as the Bush article is against him. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   04:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit I do not look for bad things about Kerry to put in the article.  Neither do I look for good things about Kerry to put in the article.  It is not because I am not interested in this article being a critique of Kerry, it is because I am not that interested in this article.  Like all the other editors here, I have interests beyond this article.  I spend much more time writing about poets and comic strips than politics.  Unless I am writing an article from scratch, I don't do extensive searches for information, I just add the information I happen to come across.  I imagine that none of us have spent the last year constantly googling Kerry's name for the latest tidbit of trivia.  We just monitor this article for major changes, and that's about it.  We've moved on since the election, apparently you have not. Gamaliel 08:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Am I wrong to say that the 11 bills passed into law is a more important fact than chocolate chips? Also, why do you insist on harshly characterizing my edit as a "rant". If I put a pejorative of that tone into the Kerry article, you would expunge it. So why do you smack me with it? And as for "dragging down" Kerry, as Ronald Regan would say "there you go again". I am trying to put in a few, accurate facts and you call that "dragging down". Also, if Kerry were not so high in your mind, bringing even-handedness to this hagiographic sing song of an article, would not been seen by you as dragging him down. It's the opposite of the mind probe in "The Riddick Chronicles". In that movie, the mind probe detected a Furian and freaked out "Kill the Riddick - Kill the Furian". But with this article, it's "Protect the Kerry - He must not be dragged down". Please. If you were even vaugly familiar with Kerry and his track record in Massachusetts, you'd know that my assesment of him as a mediocrity is accurate. And if you think I'm trying to bring him down, you must think he's more than that. This to me, is your clearest admission of pro-Kerry bias so far. I assert that he's average. You assert that saying so brings him down. It's you who are exalting Kerry, not me bringing him down. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   09:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundraising scandals 

message: I intend to add information about this to the article. any comments? Rex071404  216.153.214.94   03:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kerry is being sued for defamation 

message: Read this Slate article here Rex071404  216.153.214.94   05:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose if Bush were claiming to be a space alien, that would matter. As it is, I don't think he's every done that. Kerry, on the other hand, has falsely potrayed himself as being Irish, for personal political gain. Would you like some more links to better prove that? Rex071404  216.153.214.94   16:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't even bother, they'll just try and derail you, and drag you into a long and messy conflict, until the article looks like a kerry campaign comercial, best to ignore the buzzing sound they make and go straight to the article itself, be bold in editing and all that jazz--Here I come to save the day 20:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Kerry pretend to be Irish in the past? 

message: A1sdf deleted the following paragraph:
One of the Bush administration figures criticized for his handling of BCCI was Robert Mueller who, in his then-role as Deputy Attorney General, was criticized about slow performance regarding the investigation. Kerry himself was criticized in some circles for not pressing harder against certain Democrats, and he was also criticized by some Democrats for pursuing his own party members, including former Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford. The BCCI scandal was later turned over to the Manhattan District Attorney's office. 
Kerry’s role in the BCCI matter actually deserves more attention in this article, not less.  The Washington Monthly article stated:
By the end, Kerry had helped dismantle a massive criminal enterprise and exposed the infrastructure of BCCI and its affiliated institutions, a web that law enforcement officials today acknowledge would become a model for international terrorist financing. As Kerry's investigation revealed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, BCCI was interested in more than just enriching its clients--it had a fundamentally anti-Western mission. Among the stated goals of its Pakistani founder were to "fight the evil influence of the West," and finance Muslim terrorist organizations. In retrospect, Kerry's investigation had uncovered an institution at the fulcrum of America's first great post-Cold War security challenge. 
As our article notes, several agencies in the Bush 41 administration were culpable in not pursuing BCCI properly.  Mueller was sent to debate Kerry on Nightline about the investigation.  Although he was thus a prominent spokesweasel for the Bush administration, he was only one of several officials who were at fault, and who were mentioned by name in the Kerry/Brown report.  It's interesting to note his involvement because he's now the FBI Director, but I don't see that fact as having enough bearing on Kerry's role to merit inclusion here.  The rest of the paragraph, however, is perfectly valid information, and I've restored it with some tweaking. JamesMLane 21:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, JamesMLane's use of the term "spokesweasel", is indicative of bias on this topic. Likewise, his assertion of "culpable" - were there any findings or court rulings which held this to be so? If not, it's speculative POV. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   21:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's POV.  POV is allowed on talk pages.  I didn't use the term "spokesweasel" or even "culpable" in the article. JamesMLane 21:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If you want to see why I called Mueller a "spokesweasel", you can look here for a passage from a book in which his Nightline appearance with Kerry is recounted.  For the rest of it, my mindset isn't relevant.  A biased editor has an obligation to rein in his or her bias and make edits that comply with NPOV and other Wikipedia policies.  I've done so. JamesMLane 22:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: BCCI investigation

message: (copied here from User talk:Szyslak)
NRO is suffiently mainstream and Byron York is sufficently well regarded that when Byron quotes Dr. Louis Letson, you cannot simply reject this source out of hand as being invalid - and somehow not meriting discussion prior to your reverting my edit. Please dialog with me about this on Talk:John Kerry.  I'll answer there promptly, as soon as you articulate a rationale for you rejecting the validity of Byron York's quoting of Dr. Letson. Thanks. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   06:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byron York @ NRO 

message: I recently made this edit which relied on this as my source. My source article is written by Byron York and directly quotes  Dr. Louis Letson, the man who personally administered the medical treatment to Kerry's 1st injury. Mr. York, in the article, quotes the Dr. thusly;
:"What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about 1 cm. in length and was about 2 or 3 mm in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle.
:I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps. I doubt that it penetrated more than 3 or 4 mm. It did not require probing to find it, did not require any anesthesia to remove it, and did not require any sutures to close the wound"
As any plain reading of the York article makes clear, Mr. York, is directly quoting the Dr. and it is Dr. Letson himself who uses the words "small" and "superficially". Based on those direct quotes, I used the word "superficial" to describe the injury and "small" to describe the shrapnel. Frankly, I fail to se how anyone can claim that my version is POV or warrants the edit that Szyslak made here and which has in it this statement "which some of his conservative critics have called minor."
If you read above, you will see the enormous opposition that had gone against the use of the word "minor". So much so, that I took the time (as Kizzle wanted - see above) to get a direct source quotation. Yet, to top it off, Szyslak seems to be confusing York viewpoint with Leston's personal words. Arrgghhh.... I am going to sleep on this and let it sit for a few days. Perhaps by then Szyslak will see that my source is valid and he is confusing Letson (fact) for York (opinion). 
Of course, there would still remain the point of whether or not Szyslak will subsequently accept the Letson facts as true facts. Because even if he does come to admit that Letson said those words (in writing, which York re-printed, verbatim), there will still be the issue of Szyslak (and others) perhaps faulting Letson's recollection or calling Letson a liar. 
Even so, to my knowledge Letson is the only medical staffer who treated Kerry's 1st injury, so he is the only trained authority on what the treatment was and what size/type injury he saw. So then, I guess what I am saying is, why are we so quick to refuse the accept Letson's statement as valid? We have many other sources, in many articles who do not have a 35 year unblemished medical career vouching for them, as Letson does. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   08:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct Quotation vs. "Opinion" 

message: This page is 80 KB long, and should be shortened or split as per Wikipedia:Article size. In a similar way as George W. Bush, this article, too, is extremely long, and could use much shortening, for a variety of reasons, such as fact checking and general ease of readability, making it viable for FA status. Thanks, Mysekurity  e-mail 02:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Time to either delete some stuff or spin off subsidiary articles. I have long stated that there is too much minutiae in the John Kerry article. Perhaps we can begin by deleting details such as this "His favorite food is chocolate chip cookies." Rex071404  216.153.214.94   16:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree.  Several daughter articles have already been split off.  I'm skeptical about whether more such splitting is sensible.  The few items of personal details, like the cookies, do not add appreciably to the article's length. JamesMLane 16:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Please don't start that kind of hostility. By aggregate word count, my edits here have tended towards less words, rather than more. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   04:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Size 

message: do photos count as original research?  I think as long as there isn't a copyvio problem, you can use original photos. --kizzle 01:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Photos by Wikipedia editors are exempt from NOR.  See Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#NOR vs. photos made by Wikipedians --Aude 01:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  uhh 

message: Ok, here is a new way of explaining:
This photo of the "support Kerry" sign shown in a tableau with some bras, can rightly be interepted (as a I've contended above) that it's been created to prove that Kerry is desirable. Gamaliel (above) said that it's a "pun", but if it's a pun, then the only rational reason for including it is to prove that Kerry supporters can make cool puns, hence Kerry must be "cool", which is still a form of proving something. 
Because the photo in intended to make a point and is not just a photo of a butterfly or a tree, etc., the point this photo tries to make (whatever that point is) transforms this photo from being a "stock" photo into a form of argumentation - towards a point. That argumentation is what makes this photo "original research". 
Indeed, the original caption for this photo was "Support for John Kerry, seen in Arizona". Quite apart from the fact that it appears more true the caption should have read "staged in Arizona" instead of "seen in Arizona", the operative word "support" argues that we, the readers, ought to interprept the photo as evidence of support for Kerry. Of course, since the photo's Summary details give every indication that the photo was staged, then this photo is indeed "original research" because it was staged, by a wiki editor, to prove a "novel narrative", eg: "there are women hanging their bras out for Kerry in AZ".
The reason photos need to be watched for Wikipedia:No original research violations is that the subject matter can be easily manipulated, prior to the shot being taken and then "surprise!", we have "proof" of something. This is called "creating a primary source" and it's why the NOR policy specifically states "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed".
And, if you don't think this is true, think about this:
Candidate A and Canddidate B are in close battle in a heavily minority district. Supporters of A, take signs for B, bring them to a field, dress themselves up like KKK and burn a cross, while holding B's signs. This, they take a photo of and then post it into B's bio page on the wiki with a caption of "Supporters of B hold a rally". Too impossible you say?
What if supporters of A take B's signs and make a big mess in a parking lot with them and leave also a lot of trash like water bottles and sandwich wrappers.... the caption for this reads, "trash left behind after local rally for B". More subtle - and how do we prove it's not true?
Suffice it to say, regardless of whether or not editors here may feel "the photo is cute", the reason that there is an Official Policy regarding Wikipedia:No original research which does indeed control the use of photos, is so editors cannot game the system by  hitting other editors in their "the photo is cute" blind spots.
It may just be that no other editors here recognize that photo as Original Research - but I do and I think it would be informative if we could get an opinion regarding it from ArbComm or Jimbo, etc. - someone that this group of editors concedes has expert capabilties in interpreting Wikipedia:No original research as it pertains to photos.
As of this moment, the photo is still in the article and I have been reverted three times for deleting it. And at least two of those rverters do claim they want the photo out (see comments above and match names with revert Edit Summaries) - even though they themsleves reverted it right back into the article. 
As of my last edit regarding this photo, since I keep getting reverted for deleting it, I have changed the caption to read "A home photo taken by photographer Nils Fretwurst, in Arizona, October 2004". This caption is factually correct and is based on the Summary data for the photo istself. 
Still, as to why John Kerry should have "a home photo [of bras and a sign] taken by photographer Nils Fretwurst" in it, has not been made clear by those who reverted me and restored the photo.
Rex071404  216.153.214.94   18:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe there is enough information here  to rightly conclude that the photo was staged by the photographer himself. However, that premise is not essential to my contention about photos of this type (those which argue for a point) as opposed to stock photos. For example, even if the bras and sign were found on the fence by the wikipedian who snapped the photo, how do we know he didn't remove a bunch of garbage filled boxes and empty booze bottles from along the fence, prior to snapping the photo? In that scenario, the true image of the circumstances of the Kerry "support" tableau is modified and we, as readers, are then deprived of an opportunity to evaluate the "support" in its genuine natural surroundings. The simple fact is that photography affords too many opportunities to manipulate a message and that's why photos with explicit messages, if they are a primary source created by the wikipedian, are not allowed. This is not a mere "stock" photo of some innocuous visage or tree or old barn, etc. This is a highly charged poltical message "support John Kerry" intentionally injected into the wiki on a 1st hand basis by a wikipedian so as to show a novel type of support. This image has does indeed have enough hallmarks of a photographic primary source to disqualify it as original research. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   19:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I object to the tone of Gamaliel's comments. I also object that in and of itself, disagreement with my NOR contention, compels other editors to keep this particluar photo in the article (see copious notes above). Additionally, I'll reiterate the point I am making, which is: It's the potential for abuse that makes photos with the hallmarks I have listed: a) created by the Wikpedian b) not published already by a reputable publisher -this does NOT include self-publishing- see Wikipedia:No original research (and certainly not by uploading it somewhere as JameMLane suggests is possible) and c) advocates an explicit message, that makes such photos invalid. Such photos are not mere "stock" photos - such as the GWB one by Jimbo that JamesMLane cited. Rather, they are advocacy photos aimed at making a point and whether the tableau is created, discovered or a combination, it is not "bizarre" to object to them as being unacceptable under NOR. And I think Gamaliel ought to stop hurling insults. This is not the 1st time recently that he has made a personal attack aginst me. Simply because he disagrees with my reasoning, does not grant him carte blanche to insult me. I think an apology is in order for the use of the word "bizarre" being directed by Gamaliel at my commentary. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   19:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I give up.  Apparently you'd just prefer to go on alienating not only people who disagree with you, but also people who agree with you.  Gamaliel 19:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   The photo is intended to ''prove'' a point and is indeed "research" 

message: What the heck was that ridiculous photograph doing on the page? It has no artistic value, no communicative value, nothing remotely of relevance to an encyclopædia. Frankly the picture should be deleted as waste of space. I've deleted it from the page. It belongs in the bin. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should also post your comments on the talk pages of each of the several editors who kept reverting me each time I deleted it from the article. Rex071404  216.153.214.94   19:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I assume you're talking about the bra photo.. I agree with you and Rex on this one. It doesn't add much to the article. It's funny, but not encyclopedic. Rhobite 19:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Jtdirl.  We may disagree on reasons why the photo doesn't belong on Kerry's bio article, but it's gone and that's fine with me. Let's move on. --Aude 19:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny thing is, as far as I can tell, it's an anti-Kerry thing: support the boob, vote Kerry. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ridiculous photo