Talk:John Kerry/Archive 8

message: Archived as of August 1, 2004. If anything else needs to be moved back out of the archives, feel free, but please be aware of the page size. Ambi 12:41, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

message: I should know better than to edit in this war zone, but there are a few changes I just made which shouldn't be controversial.
The article mentions Kerry's ribbons and the "two medals" without ever mentioning why this is a point. Never mind that ribbons-medals has been a point of controversy for years. Even never mind that Kerry has claimed to have thrown more than "two" medals. The only source we have for the origin of the two medals Kerry said he threw is Kerry himself. He said that one WWII veteran and one Vietnam veteran each gave him a medal or medals, that he put them in his (shirt, IIRC) pocket and when it was time for him to throw his ribbons, he reached in his pocket and threw the medals as well. Frankly, having been there (and even if I wasn't) why would "a WWII vet and a Vietnam vet" give Kerry (in particular) their medals to throw instead of throwing them themselves? The whole point of the exercise wasn't to "give the medals back" it was to make a personal statement--witnessing, as it were. So I think that "he said" is as mild a comment as we can possible make in article space.
The second point is on the "atrocities." Kerry did not witness these personally (he's made that point himself enough times) but reported what others had said. The "testifiers" were not under oath in Winter Soldier and how much they said is truth, half-truth or outright lies remains an open question. In brief, let's qualify the statement like good little historians of the atrocities themselves (as opposed to Kerry's statements, which are transcribed under oath) to indicate that these were, and are, claims. In short, my generation of vets did good stuff, and bad stuff, and lots and lots of thankless stuff. Let's not make Wikipedia a further instrument of slander, no matter how pretty we want to Kerry to look. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:53, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medals, ribbons and atrocities 

message: I made alterations to correct two points. First the thrust of the article implies that Kerry was a leader in ending the Vietnam War. The VVAW (and particularly Kerry's testimony) did have an impact but it served mostly to put an imprimateur on anti-war protest of people who could not easily be dismissed as dirty-hippy-college-students; but the war was alreasy ready on the way out in 1971. Troop number peaked in 1968 and when Nixon took office, the disengagement began. VVAW was another "brick in the wall" so to speak. By the same token, VVAW was "effective" but not "one of the most effective." The anti-war movement was active and huge for years (the Pentagon was "levitated" in 1968, IIRC). -- Cecropia | Talk 20:09, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Leadership" and the VVAW 

message: I removed:
:A hoax e-mail that that made specific claims about Kerry's service record was recently analyzed by Snopes, an urban legend inquiry website..
First, this is a "straw man." It is not refuting material in our article. It is publishing an email not in this article and then knocking it down.
Second, nowhere does Snopes say the material is a "hoax," so that characterization is false, though in fact, if it is a hoax, that's even less reason to refer to it. Should we publish every cock-and-bull story on the internet just so we can call it a lie?
Third, and this is an aside, this is a little out of Snopes range and perhaps competence. What Kerry did or didn't do in Vietnam is not in the nature of an urban legend, and though Snopes is good at debunking alligators in your toilet doesn't mean that they are politically impartial. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:18, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snopes "hoax" email 

message: While I understand the need to remove such information as Kerry's astrological sign — due to its easy availability given his birthdate and its irrelevance — I'd like to urge everyone here not to delete everything remotely entertaining. Someone, I think it was Rex, deleted this sentence from the section on Kerry’s muffin shop:
:“The current owners, Carol Troxell and Sara Youngelson, supplied 1,000 gift bags of "John Kerry Chocolate Chip Cookies" made with his mother's original recipe to the Boston 2004 host committee for a DNC media walkthrough during the Democratic Convention at FleetCenter.”
Removing unnecessary words is important, and copyediting and proofreading are great. Wholesale removals of interesting material are not, as m:Wiki is not paper. I’ve restored. Neutrality 21:37, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's not go on a "Triva Witch-hunt"

message: In the last few minutes alone, the two of them have plunged right back in to their regular pattern of sterilizing John Kerry so that nothing (not even a link) which thay want out, stays in.
Rex071404
: No need to get hysterical.  I cut the link.  And I explained why in the comment.  I'll elaborate here.  First, the link is NOT primarily about Kerry's decision to quit the VVAW (the relevant topic).  It is primarily about the controversial Kansas City meeting, which we have had endless debate about.  Even the title of the article emphasizes the "Dark Plot".  That meeting is discussed in detail in the X-Ref which provides context and links to other sources.  Second, some of the details in this article have been refuted by more recent publications.  For example, Barnes no longer asserts that Kerry was at the meeting in question.
: In short, I view this link as an attempt to end-run a consensus approach to the VVAW/Kerry controversy.Wolfman 22:55, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support that link as germane, accurate and non-intrusive. Rex071404 03:49, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolfman and Neutrality are back at it already 

message: While posting improved Ortega, update snafu lost a section. Neutrality fixed it and I reposted the new Ortega - see edit summary Rex071404 22:37, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The momentary delete of Iran/Contra was accidental and has been corrected 

message: This title is far more accurate for that section since the text there focuses mostly on Kerry's testimony and the time frame surrounding it Rex071404 22:47, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  See new section title of "Anti-Vietnam War activism and Congressional testimony" 

message: :I have just had to block someone for 24 hours. This was in lieu of allowing an edit war that was going to lead to yet another page protection for this page. I hope this is the last block that needs to be assigned over this edit war. However, I encourage everybody to take under advisement that this is not a page that should be protected. This page will proabably need a lot of updates over the next three months, and it needs to be kept editable. To that end, some suggestions to avoid making me come down here again:
:#Use accurate edit summaries. If the edit summary is "Fix typo," it should not have any content deletion. It should fix a typo.
:#If you are reverted, discuss the change and come to a consensus. Especially if the page is moving very quickly, which this page does, an edit summary is not enough. Furthermore, if someone clearly disagrees with you, stop, discuss, compromise. Constant page edits make it very hard for people to get in and do anything with the page. Discussion before making controversial changes also has the advantage of slowing down the editing, so tha tother people can get in and do something.
:#Edit from a Neutral point of view. Be civil. Assume good faith.
:Thanks. Snowspinner 23:17, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
::Thank you. Sound advice for all. I will be sure to keep this in mind, and encourage others to do the same.--Neutrality 00:22, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring

message: Just in case anyone was confused by the references in edit summaries to "JML's consensus version" of the paragraph about Ortega: I proposed a draft (in a comment now in the Talk archive).  Rex said he liked it but would probably want to add the statement that Ortega was a Communist (inclusion of which I specifically said was wrong).  There the matter rested.  No one else commented, there was no poll, and the page was protected at the time so there was no Ortega-related editing.  I like what I wrote (duh) but I wouldn't claim a consensus for it. JamesMLane 02:49, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ortega -- there is no "consensus version"

message: We have a problem with properly sourcing this text.  Some of the previous version of our article is Doug Brinkley's wording, not always with attribution.  I'd prefer to minimize the extent to which we use direct quotations, claimed to be fair use.  In particular, the passage where we quoted Snopes quoting Brinkley quoting Kerry is unclear as to who's saying what.  I've paraphrased some of it instead (keeping Kerry's direct quotation).  Snopes quotes Brinkley extensively, so leaving in the Snopes link gives the reader access to those details.  The same problem arises with regard to the Silver Star incident, and I'll try to clean up that passage unless someone beats me to it.
Furthermore, characterizing Kerry's injuries is POV, especially since we follow up the account of his tour of duty by devoting such careful attention to the criticism of his war record, including the severity of the wounds.  Instead of asserting that an injury was "minor", the initial passage should just report the facts, e.g. that he was back on patrol duty the next day.  The assertion that the wounds were minor, if included at all, should be attributed to his critics. JamesMLane 06:07, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Common sense, self-evident observations need not be "assert{ed}". An injury which requires no stiches, causes no loss of work time and requires only bacitracin and a bandage is ipso facto, minor. However, it may be true that one of the three Purple Heart injuries Kerry sustained may have been closer to moderate. If you have a problem with this observation (not an "assertion"), then perhaps you should back track and read the Kerry released summary of his medical records (which certain parties have been quite vigilent in deleting the link to from John Kerry. Or, for your benefit, here it is again. One need not have specific medical training in order to read the plain english text written by Kerry's doctor: "Mr. Kerry sustained a shrapnel injury in his left arm above his elbow. He was treated at the Cam Ranh Bay US naval support facility where the shrapnel was removed and the wound was treated with a topical Bacitracin antibiotic dressing. He was returned to duty following his treatment. ". There can be no arguing that the 1st injury was without question, minor - "topical Bacitracin antibiotic " - around my house we call that "boo-boo" creme. For the sake of clarity and factual accuracy, in referring to this 1st injury, it is right and proper that it be described as a "minor" injury.  About the others, I will have to re-read the section more and re-think. Rex071404 03:23, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please talk with me before you revert and/or remove my well-thought-out textual entries. You may claim to be doing good copy-editing, but you ingore the fact that wihtout the "not-severe" qualifier, a reader could mis-presume that for some unkonw reason, Kerry returned immediately to duty even though serviously injured. Wile I agreed with you about the word "minor" as it could imply a dismisive tone. I am not pleased that you and neutrality immediayle jumped on line whne I started making edits tongiht and I am also not pleased that the two of you are inching towards provoking an edit war (it seems to me) by your incessant trumping of virtually every edit I make. I have trouble resuming good faith, when you behave this way Rex071404 04:10, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, let's not start an edit war over a simple turn of phrase.  You don't have to tell people the wounds are minor, they can judge for themselves as we have detailed descriptions of each injury in the article.  And when you say "Kerry returned to duty the next day", I think it's redundant to point out that the wound was minor, as people are most likely not going to assume that he went out in the boat with a bleeding stump.  In an article like this one, where everyone is hypersensitive to POV, it's probably best to leave even common sense characterizations out, and in any case they are rendered redundant by the preexisting detailed descriptions. Gamaliel 04:20, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text:  The reading public is entitled to know that not all of Mr.Kerry's injuries were of the same severity. What is the point of saying: Injured. Injured again. Injured for a third time. Where is the richness of detail in that account which allows a person to fully appreciate the sacrifices that our fighting men and women make for USA? Also, my comment should have been discussed more prior  to the tag-team changes being made by Neutrality and Wolfman Rex071404 04:34, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Each of the wounds and treatment are described in exacting detail.  I even know that Kerry's sore ass was treated to a warm soak.  That's pretty rich detail in my view.  Also, there is no "tag-team".  I explained my edit carefully above.  I am not in collusion with Neutrality or anyone else.  Now, as you asked, I have politely waited for another response.  I still disagree with you edit for the reasons carefully explained above.Wolfman 04:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think "warm" is enough detail.  Was it tepid? Luke warm? Boiling hot?  America deserves an answer. Gamaliel 04:49, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text:  With your text, the severity of the 1st wound is not explained clearly. Also, by changing the term from "minor" to "not severe" any scent of POV is excluded. And, this word choice helps set the context for the 2nd and 3rd wounds as actually being of a differing level of severity than the 1st. This makes for a more enlightening read. The readers are entitled to context. Also, since this is no longer a POV complaint which you have, ours is now a simple disagreement on style. It is not fair that between you and Neutrality, the final say on style should be pulled from my comments evry time. Please read my comments on this page of this evening. I am trying very hard to respect each other editor's ideas and text. I ask that you do the same for mine. There is no major problem cause by leaving "not severe" in and this section, with my sentence is cerainly no more redundant than many, many other paragraphs in the article. I ask that you leave this be until others can also comment and I can reply to them as well. Rex071404 04:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Account of Vietnam service

message: I cut a sentence in the criticism section about Sec. Lehman issuing a second set of medal citations years later.  It had no logical connection with the surrounding text that I could see.  If anyone thinks it's important, it probably ought to go into the VVAW medal-toss X-ref.  Apparently some bloggers fantasize that this shows Kerry had to get a new set of medals.  The original citations by Admiral Zumwalt are now linked into the text from wikisource (where I transcribed them).Wolfman 08:43, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Lehman citations?

message: Without comment or discussion, and while leaving Edit Summary notations which are cryptic and falsely marked as "m" for "minor", Neutrality is at this moment, changing the entire layout of the John Kerry page. This type of non-discussd major change is precisly what precipitates revert wars and edit wars. I stongly object to his doing this. Rex071404 03:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please notice that there is double display of seome sections after these major reformats by Neutrality. Plus, please don't characterize my comments as "battles". I do not view myself as being in conflict with you and I ask that you also not do this Rex071404 04:31, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not intended literally, it's a common turn of phrase.  The point is that being quarellsome over little things makes people less disposed to cooperate on big ones.Wolfman 04:36, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do not suggest that I am being "quarellsome". I do not think of you that way and I ask that you not suggest that of me. Also, I am seeing several sections of the page show up again lower down on the page, even after I refresh. Are you also seeing this? Rex071404 04:46, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I object to Neutrality moving all the photos to the right... 

message: According to Kranish, et al, p. 104 "Zumwalt decided to fly down to An Thoi to pin the Silver Star on Kerry's uniform himself."  Gamaliel 03:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Zumwalt

message: Replacing "in connection with" with "charged" is awkward. I already mention what the specific charge is later on. We should try not to use the same verb that way twice.--Neutrality 04:09, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed - I have changed it to "arrested for" instead of the prior "in connection with". An arrest is a very specific thing, my text is NPOV and yet more accurate. Rex071404 04:17, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rex 

message: Your last change mucked up the entire layout - please revert
Rex071404 04:20, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur with this change you made which resulted in this: "During this campaign, Kerry's younger brother Cameron and campaign field director Thomas J. Vallely were arrested after breaking into the basement of the building housing both Kerry's own headquarters and their opponents' headquarters." Rex071404 05:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  To: Neutrality 

message: Please take notice that there is double display of some sections!!!
Rex071404 04:39, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I just deleted the duplicate sections.  I'd appreciate it if everyone looked it over to make sure I didn't delete too much. (Rex, I'm confused.  Why didn't you just delete it yourself?  Did you think it was a discussion issue?)  Gamaliel 04:47, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because I got booted yesteday and I want to avoid doing anything that could be mis-interpreted as a wholesale "revert". Also, whoever did it should be more aware and I wanted them to take notice of their error. Rex071404 04:58, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I had to re-do two minor changes I made, but the other two came out fine. Man, trying to do proofing and wikifixing on this article right now is like trying to fix a pocket watch while Erol Flynn and Douglas Fairbanks are stage-fighting on your table! --Ray Radlein 05:03, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Gamaliel: I checked your fix, and I think we now have all and only the sections that were there before.  Thanks!  Some particular edits may have been lost, like the Heinz links, so we'll keep an eye out.  Ray: I agree.  If everyone would use the Preview button and combine their edits, so that the page isn't being changed so frequently, all of us would have readier access. JamesMLane 05:34, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page layout is all messed up - please read ! 

message: I believe that the readers can better locate tems to read if the "books by John Kerry" and "books by other authors" are broken out bu subsection, in that order.
Any comments, please?
Rex071404 05:22, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think chronological is more representative of what's currentlty on the market and available to obtain to read. Plus, chronological fits nicely with the timline nature of the total article. Rex071404 05:40, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Bibliographies (and wiki articles I'd imagine) list books alphabetically, and I see no compelling reason to arrange them chronologically, since some of these books cover his entire career.  Gamaliel 05:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I wish to bifurcate the "further reading" section 

message: As has been pointed out by others, Wikipedia is to present facts.  If the facts about the injuries make it "obvious" that they weren't severe, then readers can draw that conclusion for themselves, without being spoon-fed.
Furthermore, as to Wikipedia procedure, there is no rule that says one editor can write the content as he pleases, and then all others must refrain from editing it "﻿until the dialog is complete."  In this instance, the dialog will never be complete.  Everyone else will keep explaining why the correct NPOV approach is to state the facts, and Rex will keep insisting that he's right and not budging a millimeter.  I'm going to delete the characterization and restrict the statement to the facts.  Rex, if you think that any fact is being concealed from the reader, please explain it here, i.e., please specify any additional facts about the severity of the injury that would not be known to the reader. JamesMLane 06:14, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for mistating my position and for violating the spirit of the ongoing dialog by reverting me prior to discussion. Let me see now, so far today, Wolfman deleted my sentence 2-3 times, Neutrality 1-2 times and now comes you, doing it also. I have explained by views clearly and copiously. The burden is on you to demonstrate why the sentence the way I have it is either inaccurate, more redundant than other things elsewhere in the article, or POV. However, since it is none of those things, and you made the change prior to dialoging, you have acted in out of order. I am restoring that sentence, pending a better justification for the concerted efforts the three of yu have engaged in to block me. Frankly, I feel that the three of you are being very petty Rex071404 06:28, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been explained multiple times to you. Given that at least four people disagree with you, and you seem to be the lone objector, the burden is upon you to explain what is wrong with the consensus version or why yours is superior.  Gamaliel 06:35, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text:  I have done this severral times ,in great detail (see above). Since none of you have backed up your objections with a sound critique, I interpret the fact that you are all in agreement to be indicative of a group-think POV on that sentence. Rex071404 06:38, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would accept changing the front part of my sentence of: "As this injury was not severe..." to: "After his wound was disinfected and bandaged...". This consitutes a pure recitation of facts, and cannot be construed as a "characterization". This is subject to the two final sentneces staying in the order I have placed them, with mine 2nd to last. Rex071404 06:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characterizing the injuries 

message: Arbitiration section has some weird doubling that I'm afraid to attempt to fix for fear of deleting something, or getting into edit conflits while doing it. Lyellin 07:58, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
It's the result of rapid fire postings. That said, I am going to take a several day, voluntary hiatus. See if you guys can think about what I am trying to fit in. Perhaps we'll be able to better communicate in a few days.  Thought for the day:
* "In an argument between a cockroach and a chicken, the cockroach is always wrong...."
Rex071404 08:06, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Gamaliel's edit seems to have eliminated the duplication.  Thanks again, Gamaliel! JamesMLane 12:09, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Weird doubling

message: As I mentioned above, section 4 of this article needs a lot of work.  The chronology is confusing and the level of detail is excessive.  Some of the statements are just wrong -- for example, the race in which Kerry contemplated a run against Philbin but ended up supporting Drinan, who won, was in 1970, not 1972.  I've gotten partway through a substantial rewrite, which I'm adding as "Campaigning for Congress" for lack of a better title.  I'm also spinning off his Senate career as a separate section. JamesMLane 08:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Section 4 problems

message: I really don't want to get involved in this page because it seems like a constant edit war, but for someone courageous enough to brave the flames, it would seem appropriate (at this point) to include dates on the various headers in the text.
Someone wanting to look up various sections of John Kerry's life would have to sift through prose to find dates, whereas sections broken up by dates would facilitate this type of research. I noticed this as I was checking out the recent revisions to some of the sections that specifically deal with certain years but do not explicitly state so in their headers.
This is just a suggestion, though. =)
Ieshan 13:10, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
:I wrote my explanation of edits to section 4 (above) and then, before posting, modified it to include dates.  I thought it made my comment easier to follow.  You're suggesting that the same would apply to the actual article.  Duh!  I hate it when I get that "Why didn't I think of that" feeling.  Anyway, I've added dates. JamesMLane 17:28, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I really don't want to get involved in this page, but... 

message: While reviewing the discussion on this page, I noticed in the Arbitration section above that JamesMLane made reference to Rex's comment of 06:28, 3 Aug 2004, under "Characterizing the injuries,", but I was not able to see that section. It appears that section was removed by Rex in this edit: . I'm not sure exactly what happened, and given the quirks of edit conflicts on a page with frequent edits, I'll assume that it was done inadvertently. I have restored the text of that section to its place above the Arbitration section. older≠wiser 13:34, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: He's deleted sections and comments before, and been apologetic each time it's happened. Given his unfamiliarity with wikipedia, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt on this one too. Gamaliel 17:23, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoring section deleted from this page

message: This anti-Kerry article at BushCountry.org uses this article as a reference to try and prove how terrible Kerry is. Besides finding it a little humourus, I find it a little suspisious that there was a huge edit conflict, and then as soon as the conflict was resolved, this article was released. I know it might be a little bit paranoid, but it isn't beyond belief that maybe the person pushing some of the things in this article had an agenda. Now, these are all premature accusations on my part, since I haven't been involved in the edit conflict, but I'd ask that some people who were involved please look into it. { MB | マイカル } 14:29, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
:I wouldn't worry about it. Besides it being a POV website, with a POV article, which well, strings together a bunch of facts to try to imply things, nothing is too special. The edit war that's going on was about a section that is misquoted in the article anyway, or at least summed up badly. I wouldn't accuse anyone of anything- it's a non-issue, IMHO. Lyellin 14:42, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
:Disgusting.--Neutrality 14:51, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is really quite funny to read and actually compare to the article. In an odd way, I think it speaks volumes as to the balance of the article that such a POV site can cite the article to support it's position. Charges of pro-Kerry bias in this article don't carry as much weight when even blatantly POV sites reference the article to support their position (even if they are very selective about what they quote or paraphrase or mis-summarize). older≠wiser 15:12, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Lyellin -- non-issue.  I notice, though, that our "source" message says that Wikipedia is cited "by the mainstream press."  Maybe we should reword that.  Calling the BushCountry website "mainstream" is definitely POV. JamesMLane 17:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A fair and well-documented biography

message: I've rewritten the Ortega section because it seemed fundamentally flawed to me as it didn't talk about why they went.  I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs of the Nicaragua conflict so I've got no problem if someone tweaks the facts or language.  Gamaliel 22:16, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Meeting with Ortega

message: This article is listed on this website . The call it a fair and well-documented biography of John F. Kerry. This can bring in some new pro and anti-editors to this page Walter 14:33, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Prominent listing of this article on pro-bush website