| Revision as of 07:28, 3 November 2006 editFairness And Accuracy For All (talk | contribs)3,995 edits Pre Election Desperation Syndrome← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 20:23, 17 December 2024 edit undoTessaract2 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,546 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2024: did it! |
| (578 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}} |
|
{{skiptotoctalk}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{WPBiography |
|
|
|
|action1=PR |
|
|living=yes |
|
|
|
|action1date=15:26, 25 Sep 2004 |
|
|class=B |
|
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/John Kerry/archive1 |
|
|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
|
|action1result=reviewed |
|
{{WPMILHIST |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=6920448 |
|
|class=B |
|
|
|
|
|
|US-task-force=yes |
|
|
|
|action2=FAC |
|
|Maritime-task-force=yes}} |
|
|
|
|action2date=22:08, 16 May 2006 |
|
{{Project Massachusetts}} |
|
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/John Kerry/archive1 |
|
{{facfailed}} |
|
|
|
|action2result=failed |
|
{{oldpeerreview}} |
|
|
|
|action2oldid=53583183 |
|
{{onlinesource2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
| section=September |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FFAC |
|
|
|topic=Social sciences and society |
|
|
|itndate=22 February 2004 |
|
|
|itnlink=Special:Permalink/2494456 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{afd-merged-from|List of legislation sponsored by John Kerry|List of legislation sponsored by John Kerry|12 January 2019}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=y|collapsed=yes|class=B|listas=Kerry, John|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|military-work-group=y|military-priority=Low|politician-work-group=y|politician-priority=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Biography=y|Maritime=y|US=y|Cold-War=y}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Vietnam|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=High|subject=person}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|USPresidents=yes|USPresidents-importance=Mid|importance=Low|USMIL=y|CO=y|MA=y|MA-importance=low|USPE=y|USPE-importance=Low|USGov=y|USGov-importance=}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|American=yes|American-importance=Mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press|year=2004 |
|
|
| section=Op Eds |
|
| title=News reports, public record contradict 'Willie Horton' ad by right-wing 'move on' group. |
|
| title=News reports, public record contradict 'Willie Horton' ad by right-wing 'move on' group. |
|
| org=OpEdNews |
|
| org=OpEdNews |
| Line 20: |
Line 38: |
|
| url=http://www.opednews.com/thoreau_090604_willie_horton.htm |
|
| url=http://www.opednews.com/thoreau_090604_willie_horton.htm |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
<div class="infobox" style="width: 270px"> |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
<div style="text-align: center">]<br /> |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
''']''' |
|
|
|
|counter = 28 |
|
</div> |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
</div> |
|
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
==Factual error?== |
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:John Kerry/Archive %(counter)d |
|
It appears that the article has a factual error that I can cite a reference to. It statees that John Kerry was promoted to Full Lieutenant after Vietnam. This is incorrect. He was givena temporary promottion to Full Lieutenant as the Admiral's aide. He reverted back to LT JG after he left active duty. I cite as the source the relevant documentation posted on John Kerry's own website, which has the temporary promotion document on it. |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Archives|auto=short|collapsible=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90|search=yes}} |
|
On a more controversial subject, John Kerry appears to have lied about his Naval Service. He stated that he was in the service until 1978, at the rank of LTJG. This would ahve violated Navy policy, as those years included the "up or out" policy in promotion. After getting passed over for Full Lieutenant 3 years in a row (1972-1974), he would have been discharged, which should have occurred by 1975. Thus, he could not have been in the reserves until 1978, as his own website attests. Again the cite is in reading his own records, on his website, and also knowing Naval regulations.{{unsigned|Mycroft 514|09:21, August 23, 2006}} |
|
|
|
|
|
===Specific cites (urls)?=== |
|
|
|
|
|
I looked at both www.johnkerry.com and kerry.senate.gov and do not see the claims you mention. Could you please provide a link to these items? While you are about it, can you provide a reference that documents what you say about the promotion policies in effect at the time? --] 01:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
He used to have a bunch of selected military documents on his web site. I just went back and they have all been pulled down. Probably because people like me can read between the lines from the documents. One of them was the temporary promotion to LT as an aide to the Admiral. I remember my father talking about the policy of "up or out" in the 1970's. Obviously it was documented somewhere, and this is just one piece of the strange discharge paper he had dated 1978. Well, that and the Navy performance reviews he had up during his campaign. Proper reading of them indicated an officer classified mediocre, at best.{{Mycroft 514|August 25, 2006}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== Clarification of "Reserve" status and "up or out poicy" === |
|
|
|
|
|
Documents in the Internet Archive from johnkerry.com show an official document indicating he was transferred to "Standby Reserve - Inactive" in 1972. That is still "in the reserves" but would not be subject to the up-or-out policy. I would have to see the "in the service until 1978" claim to assess whether it was stated problematically - need that link. Meanwhile, Kerry's sites clearly indicate what he was doing between 1972 and 1978 (going to law school then practicing as a prosecutor), so it seems unlikely any misdirection was intended, or occurred.--] 02:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
ALL Naval officers are subject to that policy. The claim of 1978 used to be up on his website, during the campaign - US Navy - 1966-1978. Further, his discharge paper was up there too, which is not like a normal discharge from the Navy, being signed at a much different level. It appears to give credence to him being discharged earlier and having the status changed in 1978. This is similar in occurance to my having 2 discharge statuses. The first was an honorable for medical, then a modification by the VA changing the status to service connected disability. |
|
|
|
|
|
Then Kerry covered it with the revised date. As for misdirected intended. If no misdirection was intended, he would release his entire military record, even now, and dispel this set of occurances. He won't, I would put money on it. {{Mycroft 514|August 25, 2006}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Kerry certainly did release his military records, whereas many public figures have not, who probably have claims about their military service in Misplaced Pages. (There is no adequate chain-of-custody process for release of a living person's complete service record with certification of authenticity. So there is no possibility of satisfying a smear merchant who claims to want someone else's record released to him. Release to an independent third party is the best that can be done, and it was done in Kerry's case - to the Boston Globe and LA Times, who vouched that there was nothing substantive new except for the Yale grades.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft 514, you have not substantiated a single claim with any links to references, and the claims you make have been debunked (and discussed ad nauseum) in plenty of more appropriate places on the internet. I also noticed that the Talk Page rules posted above state, "Please do '''not''' use {the talk page} as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." I have tried to keep my responses brief, but I feel that unsubstantiated allegations should not be allowed to stand. (Any veteran wikipedians want to weigh in on how to handle this?) --] 23:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Since the www.johnkerry.com website has seen fit to remove all this stuff, I had to go learn how to use the wayback machine, and suffer thru its glacial slow response time. So here you are: |
|
|
|
|
|
Links: |
|
|
|
|
|
Naval documents in the wayback machine for June 30, 2004 for website www.JOHNKERRY.com |
|
|
|
|
|
http://web.archive.org/web/20040707083924/www.johnkerry.com/about/military_records.html |
|
|
|
|
|
PDF with page 4 appointing John Kerry to TEMPORARY rank of full LT. Note the word TEMPORARY in the orders. |
|
|
|
|
|
http://web.archive.org/web/20040426002850/www.johnkerry.com/about/Temporary_Orders_and_Ranks.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
DD214 transfering LTJG John Kerry from active duty to reserves in 1972. (page 2). (Thus having the temporary rank STRIPPED from him) |
|
|
|
|
|
http://web.archive.org/web/20040614025903/www.johnkerry.com/about/DD214.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
At this point the wayback machine went down for maintenance. I will try for the second set after it comes back up. Mycroft_514 And logging in because I forgot to. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I changed the reference to his promotion to LT to reflect that it was a temporary promotion and cited the given source. Good call. --] 16:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
On the discharge, I finally found what was going on. The particular record needed is conviently hidden behind a "robots.txt" entry on the wayback machine. Galling, because it was there, but effectively removing the proof of what I was saying. Of course, why would Kerry hide it if it wasn't damaging to his case? Specifially just the final discharge papers, not all the rest of the "selected" records he had posted. Oh well, I can't prove what I have said until someday when Kerry releases ALL his records. |
|
|
|
|
|
So, as of now, this subsection of the discussion can be removed by the moderators / administrators. Of course, MoxRox might apologize for her comments, since her comment that Kerry released all his records is wrong, and I certainly proven my assertation of the factual error. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Where it this robots.txt on the John Kerry pages? I've looked at the wayback machine and I couldn't find it at any of their archives of the JK site. The current JK site only denies access to Googlebot to the pressreleases ] 22:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Curious Redirect == |
|
|
|
|
|
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 Misplaced Pages to act upon as they see fit. --] 09:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Is fixed. ] ] 18:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Swift Vets giving their first person accounts == |
|
|
Why is that an unreliable source? It is a primary source for actions they were a part of. As long as they talk about facts and not draw conclusions I see no reason why they can't be used as a primary source. Blog entries by the authors can be used as primary sources. --] 23:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Your checkuser was officially declined on the grounds that you play nice, that doesn't mean you can just ignore a previous arbcom ruling, or it might be ''un''ignored should it be determined that your interactions on this page are disruptive--] 00:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**I didn't make any requests for a checkuser. What are you talking about?--] 01:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"Swiftvets are an unreliable and partisan source." -- Gamaliel in edit summary |
|
|
*Wasn't John Kerry a Swiftvet?--] 06:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
** You know that I was referring to SBVFT. Cut the crap. ] 16:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*** Lighten up, Francis. It was funny.--] 16:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
''Human Events'' is a reliable source with credible journalists and journalism standards. You might not like it's editorial board but it has journalism standards. This was an interview of persons who were there. They disagree with John Kerry's account and how it was described on his citation. It is a point of view that requires telling. --] 15:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The arbitration committee directed in 2004 that the "telling" take place primarily in the ] article (and ]), which was created ''per'' the arbitrators' ruling on the matter. A mention of the SBVFT view here is appropriate. A rehashing is not. ] 05:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:First, the question I asked below is an attempt to ascertain whether or not these "alternate viewpoints" or whatever they are labeled are actually connected with SBVFT or some other folks. I think it would make a difference (primarily in their motivation) if these folks were unconnected with SBVFT. I think it unlikely that there is not a connection but one has to ask, right? |
|
|
:Second, how were we supposed to know there has previously been an ArbCom ruling related to this article? Can't they throw a template or something at the top of articles to alert editors of previous rulings? We can't seriously be expected to search through the ArbCom archives before editing every article, right? --] 06:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Makes sense. I was unware of the arbcom ruling as well. Where is the ArbCom ruling? I think a summary of the alternate accounts (SBVFT and others) is appropriate. It should be mentioned in the article (along with the link) in the sections that give the official version or the Kerry version whichever is the most appropriate. I don't think it is okay to have a separate isolated section that simply mentions the controversy with a single link. It should flow with the narrative of the article. --] 06:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::'Alternate viewpoints' is SBVFT. There is no template, because the arbitration was over editor behavior. However, that was centered on this article, so they addressed it. I'm not sure that was within their proper mandate (as a content matter), but it was excellent advice anyway and has served us well. |
|
|
::It was the first Rex case, ]. Note that the case was perfunctorily closed when Rex "left", though the remedy had been voted on and passed. I don't recall what the subtle distinction was on remedy 1 between the for and against votes, but all except Raul indicated that they wanted the controversy details gone from the main article and placed in a linked article. At any rate, based on that finding and personal discussions with the arbitrators, we created the ] article, created the ], & greatly expanded the ]. The arbitrators & everyone else (except Rex) found this satisfactory during the election, and for the past two years. Shortly afterwards, we handled the ] using the exact same approach, again resolving some serious conflicts. I believe Clinton has been dealt with similarly, again to great improvement in both the article and civility. |
|
|
::It is a very bad idea to try to rehash these sort of controversies in main articles. A summary of the dispute should of course be presented. But there was a pretty good & stable consensus summary in place for a couple years now. I'm not sure when it got changed, and thus re-emerged as an issue of contention. I'll just say this. We had something that worked as a consensus _during_ the final part of the election. That speaks well for it, and I'd recommend not re-opening that stale can of worms. Go back a ways and dig up the good neutral summary, and leave it at that. ] 07:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Makes sense. It seems the arbcom perception is that the article should be broad overview and not "blow by blow". I only saw that sourced material was being removed as a WP:RS claim which seemed absurd since the SBVT version of events was a major part of the election. I don't mind if it goes in a sub article that is referenced in the relevant section. --] 09:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Most of Kerry's crewmates are either dead, or they have denounced him, due to his poor leadership and skill. Even worse is that fact that three of his Purple Hearts were self-inflicted wounds. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::This claim is meaningless without being reliably sourced.] 10:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is there a section on SBVFT? This is ridiculous. It's a republican smear group. This is what wikipedia has come to, is it? -Anon |
|
|
|
|
|
== To Gamaliel == |
|
|
Unlike you, the swift boat '''veterans''' were actually there, what makes you think that you make a better source than they do?--—]<sup></sup> 12:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Are the people whom we are discussing the same group of people whose claims to have been present have been debunked (primarily those who came out of the woodwork during the 2004 presidential campaign) or a different group whose claims are more reliable? --] 16:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::How have their claims been debunked? As far as I know, they are simply eyewitness accounts that they have been telling since Kerry's Vietnam War Protester days. There are Dick Cavett debates between the two principles from the 1970's. There are multiple versions of the events but I haven't seen where one version is more accurate than another. This is valid POV and it should be covered. So should Kerry's. NPOV requires that it be covered expecially since it was such a big part of the election. Kerry's version is the official citation version and it should be given appropriate weight. The other eyewitnesses should also have their version told. --] 16:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I don't know if these particular person's claims have been debunked. That's why I was asking who they are which is really a very roundabout way of asking if these are the same folks from SBVFT. --] 17:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Why? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: ] |
|
|
:::: '''1.1 The neutral point of view'''<p> |
|
|
:::: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::It's significant as it arguably changed the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. It's published in both news and book formats. |
|
|
::::--] 16:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Assuming we know of no good reason to dismiss their accounts, I agree with Tbeatty that NPOV demands they be represented in a manner consistent with their due weight. --] 17:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Their accounts can be rebutted but not dismissed. They have their version of events. If they are wrong it should be straight forward to rebut them with reliable sources. Certainly the official citation on Kerry's award is very strong rebuttal. --] 17:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Their accounts ''could'' be dismissed but I agree that it's highly unlikely to occur. There would have to be some really strong grounds for doing so. But I'm just being pendantic at this point - I think we're in agreement on the major points. --] 17:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I am also not particularly attached to this version of "Military Honours". It can be rewritten as long as the major different major versions of events are maintained. I think the primary version should be the official version on Kerry's citation with the swift vets version as an alternate version. My only contribution was sourcing the claims with reliable sources. --] 18:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::It's a smear group. Jush mentioning them advances their cause. At the most, have a link at the bottom with the rest, but leave out the section. Imagine if you put in every single group that had an opinion on someone? Imagine what the Chavez page would look like? What relevance do they have with anything anyways? Isn't this article long enough? This section should be the first to go. It has nothing to do with NPOV because it's a non-issue. -Anon |
|
|
|
|
|
== Vandalism == |
|
|
|
|
|
First sentence in the article. Change it.{{unsigned|69.120.110.23|19:23, September 26, 2006}} |
|
|
:Thank you for your suggestion{{{{#if:notsubsted||subst:}}#if:{{{1|}}}| regarding ]}}! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Misplaced Pages is a ], so ''anyone'' can edit almost any article by simply following the '''{{MediaWiki:edit}}''' link at the top. You don't even need to ] (although there are ]). The Misplaced Pages community encourages you to ]. 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 ], or use the ] to try out your editing skills. ]. --] 01:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Fulbright hearing == |
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
] 07:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Where does it say that he wasn't under oath? --] 07:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Uh, just read the article - it's right there: |
|
|
<blockquote>Our chance came earlier this year when Kenneth Campbell was deposed. Among the first thing he disclosed was that this was the first time he had actually been put under oath in over 35 years of "testifying" about Vietnam "war crimes." Neither he nor any of his fellow "war criminals" – Kerry included – had ever been sworn in at any hearings, not before the Senate, the House of Representatives, or anywhere.</blockquote> |
|
|
] 05:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Er ]? 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 ] ] 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Way too long== |
|
|
I agree with the 'Too long' tag on this article (of a defeated US presidential candidate). Hubert Humphrey & Walter Mondale (former US Vice Presidents) articles aren't this long. ] 18:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Depends on what you mean by that. |
|
|
|
|
|
:If you mean the amount of total information in Misplaced Pages about those men: then those articles should be this long, and they would be if those men served today. There are fewer editors knowledgeable or interested in politicians who served when they were children or not even born, and certainly fewer on-line resources to provide sourcing for an article. |
|
|
|
|
|
:If you mean this article by itself, I'd agree partially. Some parts of this could be spun into daughter articles, with briefer summaries here. However, that's just an organizational issue. ] 20:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes, I mean the article by itself, I've no complaints about the information in it. Your're right, this article could have parts of it seperated into related articles. ] 00:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Spin off== |
|
|
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. ] 23:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Sounds good.--] 23:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Comments regarding those serving in Iraq == |
|
|
|
|
|
Added only the facts and stuck to neutral with sources. |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know who added this statement |
|
|
|
|
|
"Kerry caused much criticism and embarrassment for himself in late October of 2006 when he insinuated during a speech that U.S. troops in Iraq are “stuck” there because they did not do well in school." |
|
|
but it sounds pretty biased |
|
|
|
|
|
:It's a news article, I didn't write it. Are you saying now contributers are't nuetral because a news agency reporting it uses bias tones? Whole point of this project is to take news and filter to just the facts. Heres what was written: |
|
|
|
|
|
==== Comments regarding those serving in Iraq ==== |
|
|
|
|
|
During a speech on ], ] Kerry spoke to students at Pasadena City College in California. At one point during the speech he said "You know, education -- if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well". The comment has drawn fire from both parties and maybe veterans groups such as the American Legion and the VFW. . |
|
|
|
|
|
While Kerry at first said he would refuse to apologize he later said it was a botched joke. |
|
|
|
|
|
Its purely stating facts with verifiable sources (such as abcnews), and even says BOTH parties are heated over it. If you don't like the source then change to one you do but stop reverting content for whatever party you think this helps or hurts. If you want NPOV then read with a NPOV. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Kerry's botched joke == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm surprised to see that an edit I made to this discussion page was removed. This is not the article. Questions should not be deleted. I wanted to know if the theory that Skull and Bones ordered Kerry to help the republicans had been discussed anywhere. I can think of no other reason why a sophisticated politician would stick his foot so deeply into his own mouth by insulting servicemen. Moreover, he is handling the fallout really badly. I just can't believe he is acting so foolishly out of anger and bad feelings. Politicians at his level don't make these kinds of mistakes. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 23:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This is one week before the election and all news outlets are reporting on this as a major part of the 2006 campaign. This is a remark which Senator Kerry states was a misinterpreted joke aimed at the Bush administration and what the Republicans are claiming to be an attack on troops serving. Feelings on both sides of the aisle are becoming high and this at least needs to be mentioned in the article. Before I inadvertently kickoff an ultimately pointless revert war, what's everyone else's opinion?--] 06:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It's news. This is an encyclopedia. If we added a section each time politicians sniping made the news, this article would be a book. Can you even imagine what the Bush article would look like? If it has lingering notable impact, then add it. This happened two days ago, and Kerry's not even running for anything. ] 06:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Um - yeah, and if it were George Bush, George Allen, Dick Cheney or Tom DeLay making the comment, I'm sure everyone would want to ignore it as well... right.] 13:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It's one week before election day and Kerry is still a prominent figure for the Democratic Party, being the second most mentioned potential Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, following ]. I agree that if it was only Bush and Kerry jabbing at each other during their presidential race, or Kerry and Weld during their senate race, it wouldn't deserve any notice, but this is a situation where it's making such waves in both parties and getting strong reactions from people. Many people will be coming to this page to get a NPOV redux of the controversy. Not speaking about it does nothing in terms of usefulness or factuality for the Misplaced Pages --] 07:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The odds of us actually getting an NPOV section on that, and keeping it NPOV, within days is virtually zero exactly because it's so hot. That's one reason it's best not to try to lead the news cycle. This is a long-term project, and we shouldn't be adding & then deleting sections by what's in the news this week. I won't revert you again though, others can make the judgement on this. ] 07:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Agreed. A brief, one-line NPOV mention followed by a Wikinews link might serve us well. --] 07:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I agree as well. Encyclopedias should be a later draft of history, not the first. Wikinews is the appropriate location for this material, with a mention here. -] 08:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I agree with Folksong; this concerns more than two politicians, and Kerry is still a prominent figure. It's commentary like his that can sway elections. --] 12:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::If's its the view to not quote political blunders then we need to do the same for politicans on both sides. Otherwise its not neutral. As such I'm adding the comment back as its news and newsworthy. If you look at other running senators such as Rick Santorum, a close race, 90% of his entry is quote related. Hell democrats are putting up entries such as this comparing a running candidate to fecal matter, using bots to keep it up! Be neutral, not neutral for parties, peoples and subjects you relate to. {{unsigned|76.187.130.174|08:28, November 1, 200}} |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::It has nothing to do with "not quoting political blunders" but that it's too soon and too heated for us to even come close to giving this event due weight. I think nearly any event, quote, blunder, etc. made by any politician this close to an election is blown completely out of proportion and that makes our job that much more difficult. --] 14:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::I agree with '''Derex''' et al, especailly on the "undue weight" part. If you look, the section that is there now for this fiasco is longer than the section discussing his voting record/issues, as well as the one dealing with his stance on the Iraq war- and those sections actually are pretty important. Why does this gaff demand more attention than those things? For all we know, in two weeks nobody will even remember Kerry saying this. Now if Kerry winds up resigning (not saying he should), or something major like that comes of it, then by all means, it should have a section. --] 14:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Resigning is the best thing I have heard all day. I believe the section should stay. The comments he made have already made changes to history because Democrats are cancelling appearances. ] 19:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The above statement constitutes ] and a ]. When the articles and books are written that evaluate the 2006 mid-term elections, the impact of Kerry's remark will certainly be considered, and we will then have verifiable information about its importance. Until then, we don't know if it is a gnat or an elephant and it is impossible to write about it in an NPOV manner. ] (]) 15:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I am disappointed at the length of the section, especially compared to such important sections as Kerry's voting record, as stated above. But, unfortunately, the cat's out the bag. Perhaps after the election, when hopefully, everything will simmer down, we can trim up the section, But, it would be a great disservice to our readers not to discuss this in the article, as they trust Misplaced Pages to be a neutral recollection of the facts and I believe it's imperative to have all viewpoints in the section, especially Kerry's explanations, because it is a serious claim that his opponents are making, questioning his patriotism and his support for the troops. FWIW, I attended the speech and those claims are totally out of context, he even spoke about supporting the troops in the beginning of his speech.--] 18:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree with Folksong that it should be kept; partly because there are so many people adding it back in, there is really no practical way to keep it out. And part of the problem has been that when it is put back in, it is often a POV version. We should just make sure that it remains balanced, and that is the reason why it is going to be longer than this subject warrants. As for Folksong's final sentence, I also agree, and I think this whole thing is just political opportunism. When I heard what Kerry actually said, I knew what he meant -- and that was before I even heard his explanation. He was taking a jab at the President, not at the troops. ] 18:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It's interesting that the length of the section explaining (spinning?) Kerry's response & non-apology to the controversy is much longer than the part explaining the actual comment and its criticism. ] 19:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree that it's pretty much a lost cause to insist on keeping this section short right now. We can keep it in check and really clean it up in a week or two when the controversy has died down and we have the benefit of hindsight to give it proper weight. --] 19:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::All I put there was Kerry's response to what are seriously grave accusations against his character. Conservatives would ask the same if this was happening to George Allen or Donald Rumsfeld. At Misplaced Pages, it's either we write with NPOV about subjects that we might disagree with or might not like, or we don't write at all.--] 20:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Right on, Dubc0724. I also agree that the section could be revised after the election. Let's wait and see what affect the comment (If any) has on the election.] 19:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if we must keep it, could it be moved to someplace that makes more sense? Where it is now, it interrupts the flow of the article- it talks about his service in the Senate, then talks about this current situation, then goes back to the Senate and then his 2004 bid. I would say give it its own section, maybe just before the 2008 section. ''addition- the Vietnam Vet campaign theme immediately following seems out of place too- should be included in 2004 section, I think.'' --] 19:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I've decided to ] and move those two sections. --] 19:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Good idea.--] 20:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, good idea, let's bury any negative aspect of Kerry in a separate article where nobody will see it... ] 14:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Take your conspiracy theories somewhere else. We're here to contribute to an encyclopedia and not sling mud at one another. --] 15:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Huh? It's not a conspiracy theory; it's a criticism of the way this is being handled, especially when compared to other political scandals. I look forward to your apology for referring to me as a "troll". ] 16:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I didn't "bury" it in a "separate article where nobody will see it". I moved it further down the page to a place where it made more sense- like I said, the flow of the article was screwed up having it where it was. If you don't believe me, look at the article's history. Of course, since I moved it, someone has moved it again... but that wasn't me. I don't appreciate being accused of being party to some sort of partisan agenda (which is what you strongly implied by suggesting I was trying to "bury any negative aspect of Kerry") when all I did was made a simple fix. --] 16:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Even among those of us who have disagreed this was a very civil and productive discussion until you made an unsupported accusation of political bias. I'm sure that most of us here do have political biases of one sort or another but to accuse other Misplaced Pages editors of "burying any negative aspect" without evidence is completely out of line and unwelcome. --] 16:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I've already apologized to Darth on his userpage. I'm now here to apologize to everyone else... I initially misread the discussion above and thought sections were being moved to subarticles rather than to other sections of this article. I did not do a good job of assuming good faith, in part due to bad faith edits I've seen elsewhere lately. I have no problem with the article as it stands; I simply misunderstood what was taking place and reacted too quickly and uncoolly. Again, my apologies. ] 16:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Apology accepted. Well played! My faith in humanity and Misplaced Pages editors is restored. :) --] 16:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Made a small removal quoted unverified sources at ABC. Anyone can quote unnamed sources, but that doesn't make it newsworthy. If you can directly quote someone directly connected to the discussion thats understandable. {{unsigned|Sheepdog tx|12:59, November 1, 2006}} |
|
|
|
|
|
According to the current article, this one comment by Kerry, and the three handful of days' news coverage it has received so far, is 3 times more important to his biography than the entire 2004 Presidential race, and more important than all stances on issues and votes in the Senate that he has ever had. I think that the "Botched Joke" section is embarrassingly long, and I would trim it down myself to one paragraph with a small smattering of quotes (none from Harold Ford, John Murtha, or anyone except Kerry and the White House) if I didn't think that it would get me in such trouble. --] 15:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==RfC response== |
|
|
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 ] it doesn't deserve undue weight or space. ''']''' 21:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Adding more to the Remarks Section== |
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 22:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Bcody, done. Added image from DrudgeReport.com that the troops in Iraq made. The image was also displayed on the MSNBC show "Tucker". ] 00:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: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 . 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. ] 03:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: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. © 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. ] 04:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::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 Misplaced Pages 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. --]<s>]</s> 12:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::This got brought to my attention at my user page. Per ], any attempt to influence the outcome of an election is well outside Misplaced Pages's mission. Write to your newspaper or start a blog instead. ''']''' 04:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::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.--] 05:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::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. ] 16:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I never did understand how they tried to play it off as a joke... 16:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==link not working== |
|
|
|
|
|
This isn't working and its used as a reference in the controversy section.--]] 23:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Troops holding sign mocking Kerry comment == |
|
|
|
|
|
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. ] 03:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: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. ] 03:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The soldiers in the picture are from the Minnesota National Guard 34th Infantry division I believe.--] 04:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: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. --] 04:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::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 . - ] 05:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::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.<br>The only problem is probably the ] 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. ^_^ ] <sup>]</sup> 06:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::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. --]<s>]</s> 12:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Israel Bassey Asuquo == |
|
::Misplaced Pages 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. ] 14:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--] (]) 19:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Do u guys thing i will be the next best soccer defender in the world--] (]) 19:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
== Botched joke section too large == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Editing Error within this article == |
|
I agree it should be covered but it's about as large as the "Personal Life" section. That's way too much text. ] 16:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the first paragraph, George W Bush is no longer incumbent president ] (]) 05:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
:I agree. Someone else mentioned stripping it down to the actual comment, the criticism of it, and Kerry's response/apology/whatever-you-call-it. I'd say that'd be better than it is now. ] 16:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:It is unlikely anyone thinks he is still the incumbent president, but he was in 2004 so this is not an error. ] (]) 08:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's not an error. It's not saying Pres. Bush is the current president. It's saying he was the incumbent at the time of the presidential race that the sentence is talking about. ] (]) 00:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== wrong birthplace given for current wife == |
|
:Hmm - at first I thought I agreed, but then I checked two similar career-altering episodes, Dean's scream, and Lott's ''Strum Thurmond'' meltdown, and I'm not so sure now. ] 20:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the marriages and family section, it says "Kerry and his second wife—Portuguese-born businesswoman and philanthropist Teresa Heinz..." She was NOT born in Portugal. She was born in Mozambique. This needs to be corrected, but apparently, we can't edit anything on this article currently. Someone who CAN edit it needs to. I don't know how this slipped by, because it's been very well-known for many years that she is from Africa. ] (]) 00:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
We need to summarize and we can leave out the block quotes from every single US politician. A seperate article on this minor incident is not needed. An instructive comparison is ], which was deleted. ] 20:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Main Photo == |
|
::I strongly oppose a new page at this point. If in two weeks, this is still seen as notable, then a new page would be fine. Notable would mean something like pundits think, or polls show, that it had a notable effect on the elections. "Dean Scream" unquestionably fit that, and so did "Strom". There is no evidence at all of that happening here. If anything, it seems to be causing a mild backlash against Bush. |
|
|
::We could equally have an article on the furor over Bush calling the war "just a comma", and I think that would be equally ridiculous. Someone just needs to have the balls to edit this thing to the proper size. I kept it in check for a while, see ], but didn't want to edit war and would be hitting 3RR anyway. ] 20:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that we should change the main photo of this article to his ]. This is because the 2013 photo is more aesthetically pleasing than the one currently used, and since articles about politicians on Misplaced Pages tend to use official portraits. ] (]) 00:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::I don't think it's a matter of us having balls to edit it; we need a little bit of cooperation from those who keep putting everything that everyone said about the controversy in this article. In my view, it should have 3 parts: |
|
|
:::#What Kerry said |
|
|
:::#How/Why it was criticized |
|
|
:::#How Kerry attempted to explain it away |
|
|
:::We don't need to talk about Harold Ford or Bob Casey or Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or Ted Kennedy. Obviously we don't all agree on whether it was a "botched joke about Bush" (it wasn't, IMO) but we can present the material in a concise, NPOV way. ] 21:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:This seems like a reasonable idea, however it may also be worth considering the ], his nomination for President was arguably the highlight of his career and what he will be remembered for so I'd be more inclined to use that image as the lead, however I would be fine if the Secretary of State photo is used as well since it is a major office and was taken only 8 years after his candidacy. ] (]) 08:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::: Agreed, except that we do need point 4 (or 3a): The response to Kerry's explanation, just enough for the reader to understand that the explanation wasn't universally accepted, and why. ] 23:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2024 == |
|
There must be a full moon out, or a severe shortge of 'tin' foil. Kerry's written 'script' WITH the joke was shown to reporters. The line right before the botched joke was also about bush. One flubbed line can't be described 'comments of Iraq and education'. Maybe the conspiracists here can work some more 'Skull and Bones' claims into the article too! Thank God WE'RE not so desperate that when Bush misspoke and said he was always thinking of new ways to hurt the troops, we claimed that he meant it. Most blogs, including the one the wacky claim came from, aren't acceptable sources. ] 02:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|John Kerry|answered=yes}} |
|
== Error == |
|
|
|
Please add the following to the Out of Government section: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
In June 2024, Kerry became an exclusive speaker with the Washington Speakers Bureau. <ref>https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/washington-speakers-bureau-presents-distinguished-statesman-john-kerry-a-vital-voice-for-corporate-audiences-302183459.html</ref> ] (]) 22:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
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. --] 21:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> I don't think this necessarily rises to the level of notability, particularly on the strength of a single press release. ] (]) 17:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:He actually was supposed to get 252- a ] in Minnesota accidentally voted for Edwards instead. Cheers --] 22:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Right, but he ''actually'' received 251. There is a difference. --] 22:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
::Change made :-) ] 23:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2024 == |
|
== Pre Election Desperation Syndrome == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|John Kerry|answered=yes}} |
|
''"Voters want Democrats, rather than Republicans, to control Congress by 52% to 37%, a 15-point margin. The spread matches the widest ever recorded on this question in a Journal/NBC poll."'' |
|
|
|
Please add the following succession box to the article: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{S-start}} |
|
What we have happening here on the John Kerry article, and all over the Internets, now has a name. |
|
|
|
{{s-ppo}} |
|
|
{{s-bef|before=]}} |
|
|
{{s-ttl|title=] nominee for ] |
|
|
|years=]}} |
|
|
{{s-aft|after=]}} |
|
|
{{s-end}} ] (]) 14:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
: {{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ]<sup>]</sup> 20:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
It has been officially coined as . - LOL ! - ] 07:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
In the marriages and family section, it says "Kerry and his second wife—Portuguese-born businesswoman and philanthropist Teresa Heinz..." She was NOT born in Portugal. She was born in Mozambique. This needs to be corrected, but apparently, we can't edit anything on this article currently. Someone who CAN edit it needs to. I don't know how this slipped by, because it's been very well-known for many years that she is from Africa. 76.202.192.102 (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion met.jpg)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg)
Not done: I don't think this necessarily rises to the level of notability, particularly on the strength of a single press release. PianoDan (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Done 
