Talk:John Kerry/Archive 5

message: I do not quite see why a biography should cover a detailed description of a politician's position on a special interest like this one unless the politician was a backbencher most well known for arguing about this special topic. If you think that is relevant for the election include it at the extra page for the campaign. Get-back-world-respect 22:36, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gun politics 

message: You need to STOP your wholesale deletions on the John Kerry page.
This a controversial topic and you are supposed to discuss this before taking such drastic action!
You are causing an edit warr and I am going to report you!
Rex071404 12:48, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are making plenty of edits without discussion yourself. Please tone down the rhetoric and attempt to work with the rest of us.  Gamaliel 21:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: STOP your wholesale deletions/reversions!

message: :It is inappropriate to put an Inuse message in the middle of a major editing dispute. Both versions of VVAW are there now. I suggest you make no more edits, ask an admin to make the page  and hash out the differences in talk. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:10, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for the Inuse message is my hope that we can take a break from editing and work this out without having the page protected. Neutrality 22:16, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection is the appropriate way to do this. After the arguments are hashed out, ask for consensus to unprotect. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:19, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inuse inappropriate 

message: Rex071404 22:35, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What's with all the "some sources say"?  Do any sources say the suggestion wasn't shouted down, for instance, or that the suggestion wasn't even made? If there's so much disagreement about the basic facts, why mention this at all? john k 23:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: The ONLY disagreement is from Kerry syncophants. All the media reports do indeed say that the suggestion for violence was made. In fact, the man who offered the suggestion has conceded in recent interviews that is was indeed made.
The problem is that in the name of FALSE neutrality about this, certain pro-Kerry Wikis want this softpedaled.
The point is that something that was indisputably dangerous occured there and was admitted to by the man who said it. The only remaining question is how much wiggle room Kerry should be allowed in his denials...
Rex071404 23:22, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  For VVAW, I would be satisfied with this (see below) 

message: From November 12-15, 1971, a VVAW meeting was held in Kansas City, Missouri. It has been reported that at that meeting, a VVAW member proposed that they should assassinate pro-Vietnam War politicians. 
Some sources say that this suggestion was immediately shouted down by a large majority. Also, according to some reports, Kerry left the meeting prior to that suggestion being offered and was therefor not present to personally hear the proposal for violence.    
On this subject, over the years, Kerry has at various times stated that he does not remember attending the meeting in Kansas City. He has said that his memory is that he had already resigned from the organization several months earlier, at the St. Louis meeting in July 1971. 
However, the New York Sun reported in a front page article on March 12, 2004 that "Kerry's presence at this meeting has been confirmed by several witnesses, even though Senator Kerry has stated that he does not remember attending." 
Additionally, as late as January 26th, 1972, the New York Times was still reporting John Kerry as being "a leader of Vietnam Veterans against the War" 
The varying reports on this topic do not make clear precisely what the historical record is and for that reason, the readers are left to drawn their own conclusions about this.
:What's with all the "some sources say"?  Do any sources say the suggestion wasn't shouted down, for instance, or that the suggestion wasn't even made? If there's so much disagreement about the basic facts, why mention this at all? john k 23:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The ONLY disagreement is from Kerry syncophants. All the media reports do indeed say that the suggestion for violence was made. In fact, the man who offered the suggestion has conceded in recent interviews that is was indeed made.
The problem is that in the name of FALSE neutrality about this, certain pro-Kerry Wikis want this softpedaled.
The point is that something that was indisputably dangerous occured there and was admitted to by the man who said it. The only remaining question is how much wiggle room Kerry should be allowed in his denials...
Rex071404 23:22, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 1971 Meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW)

message: I reversed back to the left hand side formatting from Neutrality's previous edit.
Rex071404 23:29, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left hand formatting for medal looks better 

message: Is that his goal here? 
To be the last man standing just prior to forcing John Kerry to end up being protected here too?
Rex071404 01:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, quit it.  This article should be protected.  Both of you are awful.  The hundreds of tiny edits strategy is intensely irritating.  I was going to revert to the last stable version (or, more accurately, the last pre-you and neutrality version), but you've been at this shit forever - there've been hundreds of edits in the last week or so.  Both of you ought to be kept away from this article, just based on a completely non-substantive critique of your editing styles.  (And Rex's talk page style makes things all the worse for him).  Sigh.  john k 01:52, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think there is any equivalency here. I haven't vandalized anybody's talk page (as he has done multiple times). I also rewrote the disputed section several times, but he keeps reverting. (Sigh.) Neutrality 02:01, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: BTW, I've requested page protection. Neutrality 02:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I notice that [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]] was also heavily involved in the raging dispute that caused [[George_W._Bush]] to end up being "protected" 

message: This has turned out, predictably, just as I said it would: The pro-Kerry squad has succeded in goofing things up enough to screw the rest of us out of the opporunity to present the TRUTH.
To the person/persons who "protected" this page, I challenge you to refute the truth of this:
===1971 Meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW)===
From November 12-15, 1971, a VVAW meeting was held in Kansas City, Missouri. It has been reported that at that meeting, a VVAW member proposed that they should assassinate pro-Vietnam War politicians. 
Some sources say that this suggestion was immediately shouted down by a large majority. Also, according to some reports, Kerry left the meeting prior to that suggestion being offered and was therefor not present to personally hear the proposal for violence.    
On this subject, over the years, Kerry has at various times stated that he does not remember attending the meeting in Kansas City. He has said that his memory is that he had already resigned from the organization several months earlier, at the St. Louis meeting in July 1971. 
However, the New York Sun reported in a front page article on March 12, 2004 that "Kerry's presence at this meeting has been confirmed by several witnesses, even though Senator Kerry has stated that he does not remember attending." 
Additionally, as late as January 26th, 1972, the New York Times was still reporting John Kerry as being "a leader of Vietnam Veterans against the War" 
The varying reports on this topic do not make clear precisely what the historical record is and for that reason, the readers are left to drawn their own conclusions about this.
Or how about this:
===The medal-tossing incident===
On April 23, 1971 John Kerry and other veterans threw their medals and ribbons over a fence at the Capitol building at Washington, D.C. in protest. The stated purpose of the demonstration was to show that this protesting group of veterans thought the war was unjust. Later on, during Kerry's political career, the varying news reports about Kerry's assertion that he did not throw his own personal ribbons that day, has caused considerable controversy. 
The difference between "ribbons" and "medals" in the military is that ribbons are the small colored bars that are worn on uniforms but medals are larger ribbons with attached metal medallions that are only worn on special occasions.
On November 6, 1971, Kerry was being interviewed by a television station in Washington, D.C. where he said that he "gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine medals." 
The medal-tossing incident is controversial because it ultimately turned out that Sen. Kerry does keep a display of medals at his home. If these are his original medals, then this proves that what he threw over the Capitol fence in 1971 were not his medals. Over the years, political opponents of Kerry have seized upon this incident, saying it demonstrates that Kerry is untruthful and changes his story from time to time. 
Kerry contends that he has always been consistent in re-telling his version of what he did that day in protest and he also claims that he did not in fact throw his medals themselves, only his ribbons. 
News accounts from the time say Kerry and other Veterans tossed a handful their medals over the fence at the US Capitol during an anti-war protest, but are not clear on exactly who threw what on an individual basis. 
However, critics point to the published record as such as articles from the Boston Globe which clearly highlight that Kerry has been quoted in contradictory statements on this topic several times over the years, beginning with a WRC-TV "Viewpoints" (interview) he gave in 1971 stating he did indeed throw away his medals.  
Even so, as a guest on ABC's Good Morning America TV show in April 2004, Kerry [http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-04-26-kerry-medals_x.htm
denounced] this factual dispute as "...a phony controversy".
You won't even TRY to, because you KNOW THAT YOU CAN'T!
This effort has turned out like the sore loser kid who takes his ball ang goes home:
You cant stand the truth, so you block other from presenting it.
As for "discuss(ing) a user on an article talk page", I tried that on Neutrality's TALK page and he kept deleting my comments.
Rex071404 03:22, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The fact that this has been "protected" with the pro-Kerry Liberal bias versions intact is very frustrating to me 

message: On April 23, 1971 John Kerry and other veterans threw their medals and ribbons over a fence at the Capitol building at Washington, D.C. in protest. The stated purpose of the demonstration was to show that this protesting group of veterans thought the war was unjust. Later on, during Kerry's political career, the varying news reports about Kerry's assertion that he did not throw his own personal ribbons that day, has caused considerable controversy. 
The difference between "ribbons" and "medals" in the military is that ribbons are the small colored bars that are worn on uniforms but medals are larger ribbons with attached metal medallions that are only worn on special occasions.
On November 6, 1971, Kerry was being interviewed by a television station in Washington, D.C. where he said that he "gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine medals." 
The medal-tossing incident is controversial because it ultimately turned out that Sen. Kerry does keep a display of medals at his home. If these are his original medals, then this proves that what he threw over the Capitol fence in 1971 were not his medals. Over the years, political opponents of Kerry have seized upon this incident, saying it demonstrates that Kerry is untruthful and changes his story from time to time. 
Kerry contends that he has always been consistent in re-telling his version of what he did that day in protest and he also claims that he did not in fact throw his medals themselves, only his ribbons. 
News accounts from the time say Kerry and other Veterans tossed a handful their medals over the fence at the US Capitol during an anti-war protest, but are not clear on exactly who threw what on an individual basis. 
However, critics point to the published record as such as articles from the Boston Globe which clearly highlight that Kerry has been quoted in contradictory statements on this topic several times over the years, beginning with a WRC-TV "Viewpoints" (interview) he gave in 1971 stating he did indeed throw away his medals.  
Even so, as a guest on ABC's Good Morning America TV show in April 2004, Kerry [http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-04-26-kerry-medals_x.htm
denounced] this factual dispute as "...a phony controversy".
You won't even TRY to, because you KNOW THAT YOU CAN'T!
This effort has turned out like the sore loser kid who takes his ball ang goes home:
You cant stand the truth, so you block other from presenting it.
As for "discuss(ing) a user on an article talk page", I tried that on Neutrality's TALK page and he kept deleting my comments.
Rex071404 03:22, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The medal-tossing incident

message: "... behavior that causes an atmosphere of animosity, disrespect, conflict and stress...",
why does Neutrality get to have the final say about John Kerry? 
I find that to be VERY "stress(ful)"
Rex071404 03:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  If we have a [[Wikipedia:Civility]] rule aginst "incivility"... 

message: At last, a voice of reason!
Rex071404 05:38, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you ! 

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

message: What say you to that?
Rex071404 15:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's reasonable to urge that all edits, whether favorable or unfavorable to Kerry, be subjected to the same standard.  It's not particularly helpful, however, to present such a truism in a form that suggests an implied threat, and in boldface no less.  (Sidenote: It's also not helpful to charge that another contributor is "feign[ing] confusion.")  As to the substance of your comment: The "ruthless" standard that I've been applying is that of significance.  The article shouldn't try to report all the details of every brickbat (or of every compliment) that's been thrown Kerry's way.  As I pointed out, the current version devotes approximately equal space to these two topics: (1) whether a 27-year-old John Kerry attended a particular meeting (when his significant and undisputed association with VVAW is covered elsewhere in the article); and (2) the investigative actions of U.S. Senator Kerry that brought to public attention the Iran-contra affair and, as an offshoot, played a role in the shutdown of BCCI.  Applying a neutral standard to these two points, I conclude that the second is far more important than the first.  For fairness between Presidential candidates, I'll add that was-Kerry-in-KC is less important than was-Bush-in-Alabama, but if the current version were to stand, Wikipedia would be giving significantly more coverage to the criticism of Kerry than to the criticism of Bush. JamesMLane 16:10, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I say NO! to a separate page for this controversy - Pro-Kerry material must be subject to the same ruthless edits, or this stuff stays in too! =

message: ::: Why do you all continue to refuse to respond???
Rex071404 06:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have posted above, detailed suggestions and asked for comments about facts and tone... 

message: See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rex071404.
: I initiated the "Rfc" because I was frustrated with the wholesale reversions be done on John Kerry by certain pro-Kerry editors.
:Rex071404 17:03, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment