Talk:John Kerry/Archive 24

message: In parliamentary procedure there is a thing called a closure motion which is used to end endless debate on an issue. Once proposed two things happen. 
* all discussion ends immediately, with not another word said on the issue. 
* a vote takes place immediately on whether to take a decision. 
* If the vote is yes, lets take a decision, that vote to take a decision takes place immediately without comment; 
* If the vote is no, the whole issue is dropped without comment. 
In either case no more debate takes place.  
Maybe using a version of that system might end this painful discussion once and for all. So I am proposing we follow that procedure. It would have three parts:
* everyone agree to bide by the agreed set of rules
* we vote on whether to take a decision
* if yes, we vote on alternatives, (one by Derex, one by Rex) if no the discussion ends until 1st January. 
::Derex here, why me? How about we just vote on the version as it existed a month or so back, pre-Rex-reincarnation.
::Just a suggestion. By all means propose that version. Once there is a clear alternative that is all that matters. FearÉIREANNuser_talk:Jtdirl 02:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Closure Motion

message: So I guess the closure motion has revealed Rex's true colours. He is not interested in taking a decision. He just wants to go on and on and on and on hammering this page until he gets his way. And he knows that if a consensus vote took place he'd lose. 
His response pretty much shows that while his language is different, his motivation is the same as got him repeatedly censured here before. His reponse method (ignore other people's points — as Kizzle found out in the last edit) pretty much shows that he has no interest in debate, let alone decision-taking. Instead he wants his points conceded and will keep bringing them up until either he is allowed win or until people get so fed up (as some people have) that they leave the page in disgust. If enough people leave he can then get his way. 
I would suggest in this case that as people have talked this issue to death and he isn't paying any heed, people simply stop the discussion, report his behaviour to admins and request the enforcement of the arbcomm rulings. This farce has gone on long enough. FearÉIREANN(caint) 04:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Compromise: If a compromise paragraph can't be reached in 20k from now, then we vote.  That ok? --kizzle 04:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I have no problems with the last 2 ideas. This is now (at least) the second attempt to close this by vote. If he's the lone voice on his side again, I just don't see where he has a leg to stand on. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rex revealed: This farce has gone on long enough

message: No, Kizzle, my argument is as follows:
* 1) The term injury in understood by all to mean damage to the body
* 2) The term wound, is understood by all to be damage that harms the body
* 3) All wounds are injuries, but not all injuries are wounds
* 4) In the context of a discussion of a Purple Heart the term "wound" has specific meaning which some injuries and wounds meet and others do not.
* 5) For example, if you break out of a POW camp and stabbed an enemy guard in the eye with a pencil while fighting him hand to hand and a small splinter injures your finger, your injury is deemed a "Wound" for medal purposes and you will get a PH because this occurred during enemy action, even though a small splinter is not any kind of a wound (no real harm to body)
* 6) If you pick up a friendly grenade while not in combat and blow your legs off, this self-inflicted injury (Max Cleland) does not get PH, even though it's a grievous wound (real bodily harm) because it did not meet the "heat of battle" requirement for self-inflicted wounds.
* 7) If you and your men machine gun some sampans, while no one is firing at you (no proof of enemy action at all) and you shoot off a grenade launcher and injure yourself with a small metal splinter, because there was no "heat of battle", this self-inflicted wound does not warrant PH. And because no enemy was there, only fleeing fishermen, there was no enemy action; so even if the source was not self-inflicted, such as if it was friendly fire from crew mate, this still means no warrant for PH, as the "enemy action" requirement not met. Now in either scenario, the severity of the wound has no bearing. If it was medically treated, even with booboo creme and met any requirement of a) enemy action (enemy inflicted) or b) "heat of battle" (self-inflicted) or c) unknown origin (during enemy action), the from paper cut right on up to get your head blown off, PH would equal yes.
*8) As i read the evidence: a) no proof of enemy action b) 2nd attempt to get medal, c) a retired Admiral (Schachte) and General (Hibbard) both saying "not severe,minor", I say to myself, hmmm no enemy action, not much of an injury, perhaps he did game the system.
*9) This line of thinking is not partisan and it's not unreasonable.
*10) Even so, I want only facts in the article, not my suspicions, so
*11) I look for terminology and reports to see if certain salient facts cant be put forth in a narrative that does not sweep Kerry's history here under the rug.
*12) There no debate that Kerry was awarded 3 PH
*13) John Kerry is not where allegations about not deserving them will go
*14) However, it is true there was 2004 public controversy about this.
*15) Thus, stating something like "in 2004 there was controversy about this" is not POV
*16) We accept as true that Kerry at least one point said "I was wounded"
*17) I have never seen a source for this
*18) Brinkley worked on book for Kerry and says "three wounds"
*19) US Mil give three PH and PH is supposed to be given for "Wounds"
*20) Earned or no, three wounds can get three PH, so our compact 1st PH narrative says "wounded"
*21) The severity or lack thereof of Kerry's 1st wound is an objective fact which was is and will always be whatever it was, regardless of whoever complains about it.
*22) If there wee no controversy caused by SBVT and had they not called JK's manhood into question over this, no one would care if a minor wound was called a minor wound
*23) The only question would then be, "is it minor?"
*24) Again, if there were no SBVT controversy, no one here would challenge the veracity of Brinkley's "lucky all three were minor" quote.
*25) Editors here are confusing SBVT controversy with underlying facts of wound
*26) "Minor wound" need not be anything more than common vernacular such as "large elephant" or small can of soda in order to benchmark 1st wound onto scale of severity
*27) Those photos of the KIA's if posted to this wiki with the description of "severe wound" would be self-evidently true, with no rational arguments against "severe" possible.
*28) Calling Kerry's wound "minor" does run a POV risk of belittling him.
*29) Not calling a minor wound "minor" while at the same time telling everyone about a "bandaged arm" runs the POV risk of puffing Kerry up.
*30) All other dialog here has been aimed at trying to make this clear.
*31) All this googling has turned up details support Kerry's wound as being a "laceration"
*32) Certainly the belly gashed KIA photo was a "serious" laceration.
*33) Serious laceration can be layman's language and need not be precise "medical diagnosis" though it appears that the Army does use that term.
*34) Likewise for "minor laceration", it need not need not be precise "medical diagnosis" though it appears that the Army does use that term.
*35) If your head is blown off, that is a severe wound
*35) If your leg is blown off, that is a severe wound
*36) If you get burned on 20% of your body, that is a severe wound
*37) If you get a paper cut, zit or hangnail, that is not a severe wound
*38) If you get a severe wound in the Us military, you will get treatment for severe wound
*37) A Sick Call Treatment Record which shows no evidence of severe wound treatment, does not support severe wound
*38) A wound that causes no loss of duty and gets no sutures is not a severe wound
*49) Kerry's wound was not severe
*40) Brinkley called Kerry's wounds "minor"
*41) Letson said "superficially"and "small"
*42) In my attempts to reason with Kizzle et al, I asserted that "minor wound" and "Severe" wound have meanings and added some links with those terms
*43) Kizzle, et al never accepted this to be valid enough to justify
*44) Now Kizzle suggests that the term "minor wound" must be in the SCTR or how do I justify using the term which he refers to as a "medical diagnosis"
*45) A text search of this page and the 5 most recent talk pages reveals that other than answering Kizzle just now, I never used the term "medical diagnosis"
*46) But, the words and reasons that I did use, being turned down by others here, led me to search for and find "laceration"
*47) Using Kizzle logic of "it's not in the SCTR so it did not happen", it's plain to see that Kerry's skin was not lacerated by the "shrapnel"
*48) Therefore, Kerry was not wounded
*49) Or, if he was, it was not much of a wound - so minor that there is no recorded "medical diagnosis" because there ws nothing there but a "fingernail scrape".
*50) The wound was minor. A precise term could be "minor laceration shrapnel wound"
:Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 06:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll read your fuckin 50 point argument in the morning when I'm not so drunk. --kizzle 07:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, there aren't nearly fifty points up there. It's basically the same things that Rex071404 has been saying for the last few hundred kilobytes, just written in list form instead of gigantic-paragraph form. —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Maybe he meant 50 pints! Rex's endless hammering of the same points over and over again could drive you either to sleep or to drink. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 07:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: You know. You think you've seen it all. And then...we have a 50 point (and yes lots of repeating in there) diatribe basically about "minor" and "wound". --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rex's Further reply to Kizzle 

message: According to Brinkley, the noted historian, Vietnam War expert and Kerry service details expert, the wound was "minor".  I have sourced this to a verbatim quote, but all some editors here have done is mock me and deny the obvious.
Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 08:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brinkley says the wound was minor 

message: This page has been locked from editing due to edit warring. If anyone wants to propose new/modified text, then do it on the talk page. It is fine to make edits, or even bold ones; but if they continue to get reverted, and you effectively revert as well, then no progress is made. That is what is happening here, and so the talk page is the place to make new suggestion.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 08:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We did just have a vote about Rex's edits.   Are we to hold another one now? We've talked this issue to death, Rex refuses to let the issue drop, and it's clear there's community consensus against Rex's edits. And this page was just protected over this same issue:  . I really don't think protection is a viable solution in this case. -- Mr. Tibbs 08:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with you. I think we need a combination of both things. The page should be protected because of the edit warring. Rex, if you want to cooperate and compromise, great. I hope you do. But if you show no signs of doing that, I think we should persue arbcom and keep this page protected until we can get some order. 40+ edits a day is ridiculous. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put up a Request for Clarification regarding Rex here:   -- Mr. Tibbs 20:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unprotected.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 00:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Unless this group here is going to actually try to agree on what the essential, non-hagiographic, salient facts are that ought to go into 1st PH section, I fail to see how we can ever  agree on anything. The core editors of Kz, JML and Gammy want enforced stasis on 1st PH section. I contend it's too hagiographic. Has one editor here bothered to ask me what I think can be done? Did I not ask woohoo for help? Did he not mock me and rebuff me?. As for facts, I contend that "bandage" is a) not esssential to the narrative b) inaccurate c) unsupported except by inference d) arrived at by an unevenly applied drawing of inferences e) hagiographic in the context used. On the other hand, "minor wound" a) is supported b) is not based solely on inference c) adds perspective to the hagiographic "bandage" which, d) makes that word less inaccurate. I've many times offered to lay off "minor" (even though it's supported and sourced) if the hagiographic and inaccurate "bandage" were left out. So far, no takers. This is one example. I could list others. Not likely though with the mocking which goes on around here. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 16:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  essential, non-hagiographic, salient facts 

message: Oh Sweet Jesus. Does this farce on this page (all of it) ever end? Now we have a numbskull adding in cocksucker to edits. I've protected it *yawn*. This page is f*****g ridiculous. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 07:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone put that word on my text formatting subpage, fortunetely, someone of human intelligence reverted it out even before I could.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 07:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Stay calm. We'll get through this somehow. Btw, as Voice of All saw, putting the protected tag on the article does not protect the page. Admins are given an option for "protect this page". That's what used. It doesn't even automatically put the tag on the page. They are 2 separate things. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I though a regular user just put the tag there, which I see happen quite often. I re-added the tag, since it actually is protected....I scrolled over the red text to quickly :-). Unless someone came in and protected after I removed the tag...Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 07:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: BTW, that didn't last long, I just unprotected it earlier today :(.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 07:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think that it should remain protected until we get an arbcom case going against Rex...resuming his old one anyway. Otherwise, this will just continue. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page locked

message: Kizzle says that "minor" is "uncited subjective characterization", but he is mistaken in that. Both "minor" and "not serious" have been cited to valid sources. "Minor" to Kerry biographer Brinkley,  and "not serious" to retired Admiral Schachte . As to whether or not these two persons, when they made their assessments, drew only subjective criteria is not established. Therefore, Kizzle's complaints that the statements made by these two are "subjective" is not supported. And, especially since we are using Brinkley for other points, it's absurd to now say that his statement of "minor" and only this particular statement by him, is invalid as being "subjective". I know I've said this before, but the opposition to "minor" is based on an uneven application of editing standards. If "bias" is the wrong word for that, then "disequal presumptions" perhaps is better. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 07:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh, you're not citing it in the passage but adopting it into the official tone of the article.  That's what I mean by uncited subjective characterization. --kizzle 07:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Both "minor" and the alternative of "not serious" have been cited 

message: Regarding the two sentences under dispute, I'd like Kizzle to explain what he means by "you're not citing it in the passage but adopting it into the official tone of the article". Here are the two sentences in dispute; "a)" shows the "bandage" sentence as it currently reads, "b)" shows the "minor" sentence as it would read if minor were allowed in:
:a) "Bandage" (currently in the article):
The next day, with Kerry's arm bandaged, he returned to regular Swift boat patrol duty. 
:b) "Minor" (currently not in the article):
During this encounter, Kerry received a minor shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow. 
Kizzle, I think we are close to a breakthrough here. Please give me your best answer.
Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 08:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kizzle, you simply saying this "subjective characterization" for "b)", but not for "a)" does not make it so. You need to explain in detail why  you contend this is true. All you have done is re-assert your position. Kizzle, your retort is not an explanation and does not suffice to support your contention. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 20:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look up on this and the last 5 archive pages.  I've supported my position plenty.  I'll even point out where i said it, look for my question to you asking whether both "minor" and "bandage" can be defined through objective criteria, and what clear and distinct characteristics make up each.  But that's as far as I'm going, as I'm done talking past you. --kizzle 21:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kizzle explains "citing" and "official tone of the article" 

message: I hunted up one of the old threads about "minor": Talk:John Kerry/August 2004 archive 1#Account of Vietnam service.  The discussion there isn't hugely different from what we've seen in the past few weeks.  Dealing with Rex is like plowing the ocean. JamesMLane 13:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's deja vu all over again. --kizzle 18:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A blast from the past 

message: Place your version of Kerry's 1st PH here, once we have a few up we'll vote on concensus.  A good-faith attempt at concensus building was attempted (which is the biggest understatement I have ever been witness to) and failed, thus we should vote on where people stand. Let's try and get this done pretty quickly as I want this whole thing over with as soon as possible so that the rest of us can get back to building an encyclopedia. --kizzle 19:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh, Wwoods and Johntex also both support "minor". Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 21:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Still. Doesn't change the fact that consensus was reached. And apparently, this was an issue you were harking on what...14-15 months ago? Give it up. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Note, Rex copied this proposal to here from my talk page. I also like version A above, but prefer the medical treatment sentence in this version (nothing beyond pulling the shrapnel). Derex @ 03:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I said I'd support this, and I do. That doesn't mean I can't support other versions as well.  Btw, I haven't seen your commitment to this version, so why do you even care? Derex @ 17:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid "Final" Vote 

message: During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating near a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began running and failed to obey an order to stop. As the men fled, Kerry and his crew of two opened fire on the sampans, destroying them, and then rapidly left. During this encounter, Kerry received a shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow.  Medical staff at base removed the shrapnel, and Kerry returned to Swift boat patrol duty the next day. Kerry was subsequently awarded his first Purple Heart for this wound.
:Note, Rex copied this proposal to here from my talk page. I also like version A above, but prefer the medical treatment sentence in this version (nothing beyond pulling the shrapnel). Derex @ 03:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I said I'd support this, and I do. That doesn't mean I can't support other versions as well.  Btw, I haven't seen your commitment to this version, so why do you even care? Derex @ 17:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Version B - Derex 

message: Please read this. Please take note of "It appears that enforcement #7 (the penalty related to reverting articles) is in relation to remedy 4.1 (the prohibition on reverting articles). As such, it appears that enforcement 7 expired when 4.1 did. →Raul654 07:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I already told you, drop minor, drop dressing, drop bacitracin, drop bandage, drop everything but shrapnel was removed. Then, I'm good with it. Derex @ 17:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You do not own this page. Prove your points and I will drop my objections. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 00:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Then affirmatively state what standard of proof you will accept from me (and require of yourself). Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 04:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rex is correct about ArbCom, re: reverting  

message: It seems to be frozen in this horribly pro-kerry form, how can I edit it? isn't this supposed to be a free source open encyclopedia?--Anonrtgtt 00:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick question anonrtgtt, what intrigued you so much about John Kerry, specifically his first PH, that made this one of your first edits? --kizzle 01:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I have no idea whose sockpuppets these accounts are, though I do know that you, Rex, had a sockpuppet for quite a while which you vehemently denied was you.  For now, you're innocent until proven guilty, however. To help prove your innocence, can an admin do an ip check to see if Rex ever logged into his account from an AOL ip? To his credit, when he used a sock before, it was always the same ip. --kizzle 04:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: True, like I said, you're innocent until proven guilty.  But it doesn't exactly help your case when you used a sockpuppet before to vandalize JamesMLane's talk page while denying that you were Rex. --kizzle 04:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: No, but explicitly denying you were Rex while using the ip account is sockpuppet editing. --kizzle 04:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Of course. Everyone on WP made sure to memorise the IP you use just in case you forgot to log in and then forgot who you were when editing when you forgot to log in. A bit forgetful, are you? Or is that just a minor forgetfulness? lol FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: But you were also refusing to identify yourself as Rex. --kizzle 06:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why can't I edit this page?

message: So how are you, Rex? Good? Let's see. You leave at 00:30 or so...around that time, I start getting hit with vandals up the wazoo. it took redwolf and I 3 hours to get it so that I wasn't getting hit with a new variation of anonxxxx every 10 minutes. And then an hour later...look...it's Rex! And we have more evidence. Rex posts on the Talk:Price-Anderson Act page at 00:03 and lo and behold, the first vandal posts to P-A at 00:20. Try deleting this, Rex. You deleted my valid post off of your talk page. Yes, I'm an admin with over 11,000 edits...I threatened to leave the project and I have several people begging me to stay. Yeah, I have alot of reason to vandalise your page with garbage. I'm really tired of how we treat bad actors. We go through all of this red tape and nothing works. Rex has been through it twice...been punished twice...and yet...here he is. And Rex, according to Kizzle, you pulled this once before. You spent months claming that your username and the IP you now admit to using were not the same person. And conveniently, the sockpuppets all used AOL, which you know darn well we can't trace. You could've set up an AOL account tonight for this purpose. In fact, you could've been on Wikipedia with both accounts at the same time...yours...and the vandal address...because as most people know, you can get on with AOL and another ISP at the same time. You just use one to get to the other. Or you can alternate both. You know this. And I love this charge about us somehow getting together and deciding to accuse you of using sockpuppets. Look at User:Woohookitty/Vandals. Do you think we went to all of this work just to accuse you of being a sockpuppet? I got hit with 5 vandals...all with similar names...2 more were going to be created (anoni and one other one), but they were stopped before they could. There were also 2 impersonators of me formed.
:And the thing is...this can't be all coincidence. Come on. I go on a diatribe against you today and look...I get massively attacked for the first time in my 10 months here? I had been vandalized before but nothing like this. Come on. Get real. Yes it's all a coincidence...the fact that just I was hit...the fact that you had 2 posts on the Price-Anderson page 17 minutes apart with 2 accounts...the fact that you hit basically just the political pages I do plus any admin stuff I tried...yep. Coincidence. And I'm sorry for putting this here. I know it doesn't belong here, but it shouild be posted somewhere and apparently he's going to delete any attempts that I make to put this on his user page. 
:Again, I really am done with this page, but I had to put this here because I have nowhere else to place it. And it is germaine to this article because I angered Rex today and guess what happened? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rex and sockpuppets

message: This edit, combined with the gem of an edit summary I've quoted, pretty much sums up the value of Rex071404's actions here. I absolutely hate it when people do this to me, but I'm going to quote the dictionary here:
:suf·fer v. tr. 1. To undergo or sustain (something painful, injurious, or unpleasant)
You have got to be kidding, Rex071404. What possible "proof" could satisfy you at this point? —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So you contend that either Kerry did not "undergo or sustain" such an injury or that the injury was not "painful", "injurious", or "unpleasant"? I think we can rule out "injurious", since it was, after all, an injury. That just leaves "painful" and "unpleasant". I have not actually hammered shrapnel into my arm (yet!), but I suspect it would at the very least be unpleasant... —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Rex, get on IRC.  anyone else monitoring this page now, get on irc. --kizzle 06:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Nobody's going to listen to you here.  At least in real-time we won't be talking past each other.  you can copy and paste the transcript.  Go download www.mirc.com then click here. --kizzle 06:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on IRC now, but honestly, I am rather ignorant of IRC chatting conventions. Somehow it's one form of communication I have managed to avoid since I first tried it in '95 or thereabouts.  —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Still on if anyone wants to come. --kizzle 06:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I signed off after the conversation became circular in the same way that much of the discussion here is. Tangents turn into other tangents until you find you're talking about the same thing you were an hour ago, and you're no closer to a conclusion. I can post a link to a transcript up to the point where I left if anyone is interested. Thanks, kizzle, for trying to be proactive and setting up the chat, and thanks Rex071404, for participating! —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rex071404: "no proof he suffered" 

message: Brinkley is valid for both bandage and minor or he's not valid for either. There has been no proof offered otherwise, only unsupported contentions. I have met my burden to offer citation for "minor".  I am citing to the exact same person who says "bandage". There is no escaping that this is true. Those who disregard this and refuse to offer proof that one is valid and the other is not, fail to meet their burden, plain and simple. Come what may, I will not agree to an illegitimate vote. If "minor" is illegitimate, then there is no reason to offer it for a vote. If it's not illegitimate, then there is no reason to exclude it. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 22:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Brinkley citation validates "minor" as being legitimate

message: Wow, I take Sunday off and look at how busy everybody has been.  Well, as the rest of you have surmised, it also seems clear to me that the way to proceed is to place several versions of the disputed paragraph on the page and let people pick which one they support best.  In an ideal world, consensus should be unanimous and everyone should be happy, but sometimes (ahem) that's not possible.  Once a consensus is reached, attempts to change that paragraph can be reverted as vandalism.  As an aside, I have no idea who these sockpuppets were run by, but I find the behavior absolutely appalling.  Let's all try to take a deep breath and ratchet down the rhetoric just a bit.  I'd also just mention that if you feel like you're being baited, you probably are -- so don't hit the edit button, just let it go.  I'm going to copy the earlier versions of the vote back down to the bottom of the page where they'll be immediately obvious.  · Katefan0(scribble) 16:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add another version below, but limit it to one per person please. I note that Rex has said he won't edit the JK page while arbitration is ongoing, which I think is big of him. But that doesn't mean, Rex, that you can't propose a version here on the talk page. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do versions B and C intentionally omit the  link? —HorsePunchKid→龜 19:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I think that's probably just an oversight. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, the lack of one in version C is not an oversight. There's already a pointer to it at John Kerry#Criticism of military service and awards (and I don't think it belongs there; rather, it belongs somewhere under a discussion of the 2004 presidential campaign, since whatever so-called "controversy" existed was entirely a function of opposition tactics in that campaign.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. When the section is put in context, I see no value in the see also link in version A, though it still has my vote. One thing at a time, I suppose. —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I said that version A was acceptable to me, but there are places where I think it could be improved, and this is one of them.  (My hope was that leaving minor changes unmade would increase the chance for consensus.)  I think that, at one point, I changed the passage you cite so that it read "In August and September, the Navy reviewed the available documents and concluded that...." or "The Navy reviewed the available documents and announced in September that...."  The attacks on Kerry can't be tied to a specific date, because they were escalating throughout the campaign.  The Navy review is more precise, however.  It was triggered by a request that, IIRC, was filed in August, and the Navy's official response was released in Septeber. JamesMLane 07:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: last thing, to placate those who think as Rex, can you affix the Letson source to "bandage" as well? --kizzle 07:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Implying that Letson is a valid source would get into the controversial area.  Even those who think as Rex contend that Brinkley's source was Kerry, and it's undisputed that Kerry was there.  I'd rather leave the disputed points to the daughter article.  The Snopes link is really to support the point that Kerry conducted a patrol the next day; "bandage" just happens to be in the same sentence. JamesMLane 17:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Right now, his receipt of the Purple Heart for this incident is included in the last two sentences.  I assume that, if you stripped those sentences to remove the controversy stuff, you'd substitute a simple statement that Kerry was awarded his first Purple Heart for this incident.  Also, note that the daughter article is now linked in the "Criticism of military service and awards" subsection.  If you linked it at the very top of military service, would you eliminate the later link, or link the same article twice? JamesMLane 17:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah ok, I didn't remember the criticism section.  That's the appropriate place for the "controversy" see-also template, rather than the top.  The 'Criticism' section should also be amended to mention the IG report. And yes, strip the last two sentences, but also add one saying he got the PH -- the last sentence of B works there. Derex @ 18:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be more inclined to link it in text, as it is now, rather than with the template, but I don't feel strongly about that.  I agree that it belongs in that section. JamesMLane 18:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Vote for version A. Firstly, because it is the status quo, so someone must have considered it has merit. Second, because it is one of the few things about kerry which I have heard about on this side of the Atlantic. So it must be noteable, and am fascinated to learn more.  Sandpiper 17:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I vote for this version.  I would like this sentence reworded to make it clear who left rapidly (Kerry and his crew or the men?: As the men fled, Kerry and his crew of two opened fire on the sampans, destroying them, and then rapidly left.Dubhdara 01:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: done Derex @
*This version needs sources. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Busy beavers 

message: ::Do versions B and C intentionally omit the  link? —HorsePunchKid→龜 19:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I think that's probably just an oversight. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, the lack of one in version C is not an oversight. There's already a pointer to it at John Kerry#Criticism of military service and awards (and I don't think it belongs there; rather, it belongs somewhere under a discussion of the 2004 presidential campaign, since whatever so-called "controversy" existed was entirely a function of opposition tactics in that campaign.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. When the section is put in context, I see no value in the see also link in version A, though it still has my vote. One thing at a time, I suppose. —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I said that version A was acceptable to me, but there are places where I think it could be improved, and this is one of them.  (My hope was that leaving minor changes unmade would increase the chance for consensus.)  I think that, at one point, I changed the passage you cite so that it read "In August and September, the Navy reviewed the available documents and concluded that...." or "The Navy reviewed the available documents and announced in September that...."  The attacks on Kerry can't be tied to a specific date, because they were escalating throughout the campaign.  The Navy review is more precise, however.  It was triggered by a request that, IIRC, was filed in August, and the Navy's official response was released in Septeber. JamesMLane 07:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: last thing, to placate those who think as Rex, can you affix the Letson source to "bandage" as well? --kizzle 07:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Implying that Letson is a valid source would get into the controversial area.  Even those who think as Rex contend that Brinkley's source was Kerry, and it's undisputed that Kerry was there.  I'd rather leave the disputed points to the daughter article.  The Snopes link is really to support the point that Kerry conducted a patrol the next day; "bandage" just happens to be in the same sentence. JamesMLane 17:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Right now, his receipt of the Purple Heart for this incident is included in the last two sentences.  I assume that, if you stripped those sentences to remove the controversy stuff, you'd substitute a simple statement that Kerry was awarded his first Purple Heart for this incident.  Also, note that the daughter article is now linked in the "Criticism of military service and awards" subsection.  If you linked it at the very top of military service, would you eliminate the later link, or link the same article twice? JamesMLane 17:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah ok, I didn't remember the criticism section.  That's the appropriate place for the "controversy" see-also template, rather than the top.  The 'Criticism' section should also be amended to mention the IG report. And yes, strip the last two sentences, but also add one saying he got the PH -- the last sentence of B works there. Derex @ 18:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be more inclined to link it in text, as it is now, rather than with the template, but I don't feel strongly about that.  I agree that it belongs in that section. JamesMLane 18:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of the different versions

message: During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating near a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began running and failed to obey an order to stop. As the men fled, Kerry and his crew of two sailors opened fire on the sampans and destroyed them, then rapidly left. During this encounter, Kerry suffered a shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow.   Later, medical staff removed the shrapnel and applied a bacitracin dressing.  The next day, with Kerry's arm bandaged, he returned to regular Swift boat patrol duty.  During the 2004 election, this incident and Kerry's resulting Purple Heart were disputed by critics of Kerry.   Also in 2004, the Navy conducted a review of the existing documentation and determined that Kerry's medals were properly approved. 
: Vote for version A. Firstly, because it is the status quo, so someone must have considered it has merit. Second, because it is one of the few things about kerry which I have heard about on this side of the Atlantic. So it must be noteable, and am fascinated to learn more.  Sandpiper 17:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Version A - Status quo  

message: During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating near a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began running and failed to obey an order to stop. As the men on shore fled, Kerry and his crew of two opened fire on the sampans, destroying them, and then rapidly left. During this encounter, Kerry received a shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow.  Medical staff at base removed the shrapnel, and Kerry returned to Swift boat patrol duty the next day. Kerry was subsequently awarded his first Purple Heart for this wound.
: I vote for this version.  I would like this sentence reworded to make it clear who left rapidly (Kerry and his crew or the men?: As the men fled, Kerry and his crew of two opened fire on the sampans, destroying them, and then rapidly left.Dubhdara 01:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: done Derex @
*This version needs sources. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Version B - Derex 

message: During the night of December 2-December 3, 1968, Kerry was wounded during an encounter with the enemy. Kerry was awarded his first Purple Heart for this wound.
*I vote for Version C - this whole incident isn't even a footnote in History (if he had been elected Prez, maybe....) Who really cares about what the 30-year-old service record of the losing Prez candidate was? Can you even recite whether the losing candidates in the last 30 years served or not? -Jcbarr 01:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Version C - minimalist - Jpgordon

message: MAKE IT STOP!! PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!--205.188.117.68 23:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes, in the night, I wake up screaming that too. Derex @ 00:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: any chande of grapefruit?Sandpiper 17:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What's a chande? --205.188.117.68 20:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He meant chance, he just mispelled it. --kizzle 20:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: IT'S SO ORANGE IT MAKES MY EYES HURT

message: Number 1 is I'm back. :) Rex is gone and we don't have an edit war anymore. isn't that amazing? :) So. Do we have any other issues we can address during his absence? Anything bothering anyone about the article that we can change? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, yes, but it's something I haven't had the energy to tackle due to the Rex problem.  This article should have a section on the 2004 election.  While there's already an article on the election itself, we really should have some sort of summary here.  Gamaliel 09:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: So

message: First of all, I need some help. When exactly did everyone reach consensus on "wound" and "bandage". Anyone know the exact date? And, for those involved in the arby case, please Present evidence. Again, I know Rex is gone for now but we've tried this "self-imposed exile" routine before. What happens if we don't have enough evidence against him and nothing happens to him? The second the case closes, he'll be right back here, terrorizing us again. So please help. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Been gone, but I think Tibbs already nailed it.  Derex @ 04:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmmmm. This post and this one raise my red flags a bit. -Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Couple of things

message: I'm only protecting this page for a few hours, so hopefully the vandals will quiet a bit. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've unprotected it now. Titoxd(?!?) 04:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: This page just isn't the same without everybody's favorite persistent troll, I wonder what sockpuppet he's moved onto now--I172.142.98.29I 02:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to kick him while he is down... Titoxd(?!?) 02:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: persistent troll

message: I wish there was a Criticism section in this article. I'm trying to figure out where I can work something like this in: Kerry authored the money laundering provisions in the Patriot Act. Some feel this is one of the most privacy-invasive parts of the Act. These provisions were used to prosecute a Las Vegas strip club owner.
Where can I put this in? This article needs a Criticism section. RJII 03:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the article needs a separate "Criticisms" section.  We should continue to include criticisms where appropriate in the subject-matter sections.  For the specific point you mention, I think that a mention could be made in the discussion of his Senate career.  As with other legislative issues, however, the full elaboration of the pros and cons should be in the article about that legislation. JamesMLane 16:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of Kerry and Patriot Act