Talk:John Kerry/Archive 26

message: I noticed "Sore Loser" redirects to this article. I'll leave that statement hanging in the air for those who are better aquainted with the degree of style to be applied in the Wikipedia to act upon as they see fit. --Mickel 09:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is fixed. Kuru talk 18:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious Redirect 

message: First sentence in the article. Change it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.110.23 (talk • contribs) 19:23, September 26, 2006
:Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome.  --ElKevbo 01:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Kerry was not under oath when he "testified" about USA atrocities? If that's true, this is very interesting to hear. See this link: http://www.vvlf.org/default.php?page_id=77
38.119.52.98 07:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say that he wasn't under oath?  --ElKevbo 07:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Er Kenneth Campbell? In any case, how would someone else know for sure whether Kerry had ever been under oath? Finally I don't think Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation is a Wikipedia:Reliable sources Nil Einne 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fulbright hearing 

message: In response to the complaints about length, I'd like to nominate the "speculation about 2008" section. To me, that's a good candidate to put in a sub article, because it's speculation (though sourced). It's only going to get longer as we approach 2008, too. Derex 23:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.--Tbeatty 23:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spin off

message: Considering that this took place in the final days before an election and it's in all the newspapers, it belongs in the article.  Per WP:NPOV it doesn't deserve undue weight or space. Durova 21:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC response

message: I believe that more should be added to the recent remarks section of this article. There should be more about the reaction from soldiers and soldiers families. Also, this could hurt many democrats for reelection in the 2006 election. One day, although it might not be, we could look back on this and think that this could have been why the republicans kept Congress.
Bcody 22:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're giving this issue undue weight. Bcody, you can't TRY to effect an election or a readers favorable or unfavorable view of either Democrats, or John Kerry, which is what you admit to doing. I reported your actions for what I consider to be blatant electioneering. Sorry. I am going to trim this section way down. Please see Let The Dust Settle. and you might want to read the BLP on Larry Craig. Although in that instance it was an unconfiirmed rumor, most of your Conservative bretheren argued 'let the dust settle', as well. Barker, you can't just take a pic from the Drudge Report or wherever you like and post it here, plus this isn't relevent to the Biography of John Kerry. I'm removing the pic which not only isn't relevent, but has no copyright info. F.A.A.F.A 03:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed the other pic as well. You can't just take a pic from "© 2006 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved. [4] © MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved." -especially as it is not illustrating a particular point. If you were criticizing Kerry for being a windsurfer, you might be able to get away with using a copyrighted pic of him windsurfing to illustrate that particular point under fair use - but a pic of Kerry in front of a podium, even if it is at the event in question, is not NEEDED to descibe his 'botched joke' thus can't qaulify under fair use. F.A.A.F.A 04:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with FAAFA and think the picture should go, especially lacking a copyright status. I want to further point out that copyright pictures should not be used on Wikipedia at all, if anythnig it may squeak by in an article about Windsurfing as fair use, but not as a critique or demonstration of KErry windsurfing. --NuclearZer0 12:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This got brought to my attention at my user page.  Per WP:NPOV, any attempt to influence the outcome of an election is well outside Wikipedia's mission.  Write to your newspaper or start a blog instead. Durova 04:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My camera misformatted my memory card during Kerry's speech, so I had to reset and reformat. Though, if anyone would like me to post a self-taken, GNU-licensed picture in this section of Kerry at the rally (not speaking, but in the building), I'd be pleased to.--Folksong 05:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I came here looking for what kerry actually said.  So, I think it is good to include what he said.  But I find it that the section on the joke is way too long.  A lot of it is not relevant to a bio note, so perhaps we should just create a current events article for the joke where all that was sparked by it can be discussed.  Brusegadi 16:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never did understand how they tried to play it off as a joke... 16:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding more to the Remarks Section

message: This link isn't working and its used as a reference in the controversy section.--KrossTalk 23:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: link not working

message: This is not pertinent to Kerry's statements in the controversy, and it isn't representative of soldiers' opinions of the senator as a whole. The picture, and paragraph accomodating it should be removed.
The picture and the comment at least represent the thoughts of these eight service men.  Also, the statement with the picture does not indicate "all" soldier's.  The statement and picture should stay. Jbarker2 03:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't even necessarily represent their opinions. It's possibly they were just making fun of him, not that they were actually offended by it. Koweja 03:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's try to get some consensus here. Without a statement, who knows what those service men intended? If they come up with a press release or written response, let's put it in, if not, the picture should go. I'm not going to delete the picture until or if we get consensus, but I just want to get others' opinion. --Folksong 04:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is supposed to be about John Kerry, and a HISTORICAL article. Articles are not current event blogs, The botched joke deserves a short mention. The REACTION to it is not germaine to the article. If it doesn't die down (it actually already has) you can write an article on The John Kerry Botched Joke Controversy of 06. Wiki is NOT a newspaper where we update articles in a daily basis - unless it involves major news. That's why people say Let The Dust Settle. - F.A.A.F.A 05:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The responses to Kerry's botched joke is considered significant.  I understand removing the two pics with questionable licenses, but not half of the section.  Omission is also considered POV.The only problem is probably the undue weight rule, but the info fits criteria #1 and #2 as set forth by Jimbo.  I'll remove the part regarding the US soldier's response as not significant enough yet, but the rest should stay.  ^_^  Jumping cheese Contact 06:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The pictures should definatly go, a brief mentino if anything should stay. I find this quite disturbing that anyone would attempt to keep this picture in the article as its clearly biased and made to insult the person, we do have BLP standards, writing that they made a statement is one thing, but no point in including the picture. --NuclearZer0 12:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a blog.  If there is significant long term fallout from Kerry's misstatement, include it.  If it blows over, on the other hand, it has no place here. Mobrienil 14:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troops holding sign mocking Kerry comment 

message: In the "Electoral history" section, it states that Kerry received 252 Electoral votes, when in reality, he received only 251. If a registered Wikipedian would please fix, it would be appreciated. Thanks. --198.185.18.207 21:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He actually was supposed to get 252- a faithless elector in Minnesota accidentally voted for Edwards instead.  Cheers --DarthBinky 22:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but he actually received 251. There is a difference. --198.185.18.207 22:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Change made :-)  Jbarker2 23:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: 1. We need a source for whoever said that critics claim that Kerry has a record of insulting troops. Remember, one's personal opinion does not count here, but if a columnist or other published source said it, then it's fine to include it and attribute it in the article.
2. Deleting the second part of the quote which starts off that: "We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'" The second part takes Kerry's quote into context, and it's deceitful to readers by withholding part of the truth. What is wrong with letting readers decide their reaction to the quote instead of stacking the cards against Kerry? Also, a personal interpretation of Kerry's statement by deleting part of it is potentially libelous. --Folksong 08:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Folksong, I agree with you.  The entire quote should remain for the reasons of NPOV. Jbarker2 15:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two points. 

message: I feel for historical purposes that the context of the botched joke must be fully realized. My recommendation would be to add a larger portion of the kerry speech so that it is in proper context and that future people who look to wikipedia as a respectable reference to this incident will not perpetuate something that was taken out of context. too many times are words and speeches taken out of context by the mass media to create controversy and we should not record the history of some person in the media who wants to creat controversy but keep accurate historical record.
:Agreed for NPOV reasons.  Perhaps someone could provide a URL which contains the "full" text of the speech. Jbarker2 15:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well, though Derex keeps making revisions that seem to implicate that only Republicans criticized Kerry, is removing the apology entirely, and is entirely throwing off the balance of NPOV. --PeanutCheeseBar 23:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The condemnations made by Democrats are not the same condemnations made by Republicans. Republicans implied that Kerry intentionally bashed the troops from the upstart, while some Democrats merely stated his comments were inappropriate. Bob Casey and Harold Ford also came to Kerry's defense after his apology. There is a difference, which needs to be pointed out It's also disingenuous to state that Ford and Casey criticized his remarks without also showing that both accepted his apology and defended his explanation afterwards.--Folksong 00:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I hope we can find a way to tighten and shorten this soon as it's very much out of balance in comparison to the rest of the article.  But it's important that it not appear that all condemnation came from Republicans as that doesn't match what I understand of this event.  Certainly most of the condemnation, including the most vocal and vicious criticism, came from Republicans.  But the "Oh my God, did he really say that?  Idiot..." reaction was a bipartisan reaction. :)  --ElKevbo 01:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much what ElKevbo said sums it up; both sides were critical of Kerry's remark, but Republicans moreso than Democrats.  However, in reference to Kerry's apology, I only added that Kerry apologized; I don't think it's relevant whether or not it was accepted (be it by Democrats or Republicans), as the media will only occasionally continue to cover stories or people that don't accept such apologies.  After that, it usually only ends up as a footnote in some other news story, or comes up again if the individual should repeat his or her mistake.  Regardless, I'm glad to see we came to some kind of consensus. --PeanutCheeseBar 01:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context of 'botched joke' is important 

message: At present, the text asserts as factual Kerry's claims regarding the prepared remarks. There remains controversy on this point ( see , )   - I believe the statement should be qualified, e.g. According to Kerry's staff, . . .
Ronnotel 21:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What controversy? The New York Times reported as fact a quote from his prepared remarks.  Neither source you provide contradicts that or even addresses it at all. And, the first source is an opinion piece anyway, not a factual reference. Derex 21:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the very least, the timeline should be clarified. Had they been released before the speech, there would be no controversy. As far as I can tell - they weren't. And, by the way, the NY Times was forced to issue a correction regarding their characterization of Kerry's prepared remarks vs. what he said. I wouldn't necessarily rely on them as being objective in this case. Ronnotel 22:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't take this as sarcasm, but when was the last time a politician (or anyone) released their prepared remarks before a speech, or at all? No Wikipedian can instigate a controversy no matter how we feel about a subject, we can only report if there is a controversy from other people or another source. And may we see where the NY Times was forced to issue a correction?--Folksong 22:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The correction is here, third item. Clearly, the uncorrected text is skewed in favor of Kerry's POV. I think we should find a different article to reference, one that hasn't had to be corrected for blatant bias. Ronnotel 15:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless of his prepared remarks, he obviously didn't realize he botched it or that it would be offensive.  He may have "botched a joke", but he didn't know he botched it at the time.  I think that's more interesting (and telling).  Imagine if he had told a joke about immigration and used a slur and didn't realize it or apologize immediately.  Does anybody think that an excuse of "it was not supposed to be a slur in my written prepared statement and I botched it" would fly?  The fact that he didn't realize immediately that saying people with less education end up in the military would be offensive is a problem with his outlook.  But this whole thing doesn't deserve more than three lines in what is by any measure an extraordinary life.  --Tbeatty 03:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with Ronnotel that the main reason this developed into a controversy that ate up two days is because of Kerry's weird delay in releasing his written prepared remarks. I'm still scratching my head over it. Here, for example, is an article reporting interviews with officials in the Massachusetts Democratic party, and they don't seem to understand it any better than I do. http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061103/NEWS/611030663/1008/NEWS02  For the section, I would go back to what many people have suggested: the comments, the criticism, the answer, and save it on any more editorializing.  A while from now it may seem right to trim it down even more or delete it entirely, but at the moment I think that's really all you need.  Eupolis 03:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's keep our eye on the ball here. Is this of any notability past the week? This Reuters article says that the consensus among pollsters is essentially neglible impact. T, the problem is that he did not utterly flub it, his statement was open to interpretation. He knew he was being intentionally misinterpreted, as Dick Armey said, "It's pretty standard-fare political discourse. You misconstrue what somebody said. You isolate a statement, you lend your interpretation to it, and then you feign moral outrage." Derex 07:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what significance it has for this current election, but apparently the word around Washington is that this incident has killed Kerry's chances at getting the presidential nomination in 2008.  Newsweek has come out with a long article about it and the money quote is probably this one: “There is not a Democrat in Washington who thinks John Kerry is a viable presidential candidate after last week,” says a longtime Democratic strategist (who isn’t working for one of Kerry’s potential rivals).   Eupolis 15:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prepared remarks

message: cheesepeanutbar, please explain the source of this tag, per the guidelines. what specific elements are pov? note that i happen to agree with the tag, because the section is a gross violation of the undue weight provision of npov policy. i suspect your reasons are different though. Derex 02:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certain authors have repeatedly eliminated statements made by other authors meant to restore the NPOV perspective of the article, and there seems to be an underlying bias as the basis for doing so. --PeanutCheeseBar 03:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What statements? What sourced facts are needed to make this page NPOV that are not presently there? Saying someone else's past edits were biased has no bearing on whether the article itself is presently biased. Derex 03:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sourced facts such as the White House and the Republican leaders named in the section forgiving Kerry would be required, not just Democrats; you can't list a group of people from both parties who are critical of Kerry's remark, and then only state that members of his own party accepted his apology, while leaving the other party unspoken for.  Though Dick Armey's comment would explain WHY people got upset over the comment, it does not serve as blanket apology for everyone from his party, which you originally intended it to represent.  Thankfully, Ronnotel has been insightful enough to indicate that Kerry's apology did not cut it with everyone in the Democratic party, and has brought balance by pointing that out. --PeanutCheeseBar 04:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sect-pov

message: An anonymous editor has recently added a paragraph about Kerry to the plagarism article.  I'm not a political junkie and this is the first time I've heard of this.  Can those knowledgable about Kerry and his history please take a look at this to make sure it's legit?  The paragraph has some citations but it's definitely strange.  It almost reads like the reporter who wrote the article cited in the paragraph wrote the paragraph itself as it has some strange details such as the identity of the reporter's wife and a citation of an award he received for unrelated work.  --ElKevbo 17:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagarism

message: Kerry is in a category called "Mob-Busters". I don't seen anything in the article and have not heard anything about him being involved in taking down the Mob. Can anyone clarify this? If Kerry was involved in "busting the mob" we need a source to verify it. --Geoffrey Gibson 01:52 24 November 2006 (UTC)
::Well, aside from prosecuting a couple of well-known gangsters, he also created organized-crime, political corruption, and arson task forces while he was a Middlesex County prosecutor.  
::In addition, he conducted investigations into the Noreiga and Contra drug connections, and the BCCI scandal, as a fairly new Senator back in the '80s. 
::He also wrote a book about global crime organizations. 
::Hope this helps. --EECEE 02:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mob-Buster?

message: I'm sorry for not realizing in my initial edit summary that the image of John Kerry taken at PCC was deleted by another editor, and not because of the ongoing clamor between people who hate Kerry, love Kerry and have no personal involvement. First of all, the image is not "redundant," it is a photo of Kerry at the event in question (and not featured anywhere else in the article), and it was even used on an external website to illustrate the event.--Folksong 11:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You left out the people who are lukewarm to Kerry but who choose not to stand by idly and let the far-right attempts to 'Swift-boat' Kerry over a 'slip of the tongue' go unchallenged. Wiki is not Newsmax or Worldnetdaily. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Image 

message: To avoid an edit war, maybe we can discuss proposed edits here first.
What is now the second para of the section, just following Kerry's explanation, used to say something like "Others disagreed."  Then it mentioned the demands for apologies for "insulting the troops."  I corrected it for sense - the demands weren't a disagreement with the explanation.  But it seems to me the para still needs a qualifier of some sort because the fact is that even though Kerry offered an explanation these guys were still insisting he was insulting the troops.  That is the only context in which makes sense, and has nothing to do with whether an explanation "should have stopped" the demands or anything else.  --EECEE 05:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the original language wasn't mine, and I was trying not to change things too drastically in my edits.  I do think there is some sort of context needed for the demands - the reader is otherwise left to imagine that the intended insults to GWB were insulting the troops.   And the fact is that the demands for apologies pretty much came before the explanation was known.  Maybe something like, "some believed Kerry intended to insult the troops and demanded an apology... ."  I dunno, something like that. --EECEE 06:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some on the right claim that Kerry did intend to insult the troops, and the 'botched joke' explanation was devised the next day, after the criticisim started. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They claim it despite the explanation, then.  By the way, McCain's call for an apology (cited in the article) acknowledged that Kerry had said it was a joke . And Kerry's explanation was given the same day the criticism started - October 31 - and in fact was ignored by GWB in a speech later the same day  --EECEE 07:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But that is hardly unusual.  When either the right or left does something that requires explanation, the other side ALWAYS claims the explanation is bogus.  Just state the facts and smart readers will understand it. Dumb ones we cant help anyway :) Dman727 07:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it needs a qualifier. We just need to state the facts.  Qualifiers like "Nonetheless" are a form of stealth pov and  imply that the critics of Kerrys remark are wrong.  Now maybe that critism is wrong, or maybe is not, but thats up to the reader and his individual politics.  Dman727 07:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it needs context. Otherwise it doesn't make sense. --EECEE 07:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shrug.  I think the context is there.  After all the para's ARE right next to each other.  If you want the qualifier in, thats cool I won't fight anyone on it. But I do think it is stealth pov. Dman727 07:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be interesting to hear from someone who put some of the original language in, and get their take. --EECEE 00:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, hunt through the history and figure it out! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits in "botched joke" section

message: For John McCain we have an extensive list of political views, and for Hillary Clinton we have Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton.  But we don't have something similar for John Kerry.  Simesa 00:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Views of John Kerry

message: Apparently, all the links to kproxy.com that are being used as reference are dead. Someone should update/remove them, as they are not useful right now. -- ReyBrujo 01:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they were just plain vanalism again, and so i reverted them. Extremely sexy 15:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  kproxy.com problems