Jump to content

Talk:John Kerry/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 28

Newly located Brinkley quote at Washington Post unequivocally establishes "minor"

With JamesMLane having argued strongly that Brinkley is a valid source and with Gamaliel agreeing, "Brinkley is a perfectly legitimate source" [1], and with the both of them opposing basically every edit I make, we are now at the point where virtually no progress can be made with those two towards agreement, unless we use a Brinkley quote from such a valid source, that it is beyond challenge. With that thought in mind, I went looking for one and found it at the Washington Post ("Keen Focus on Lt. Kerry's Four Months Under Fire" Lois Romano, Washington Post Staff Writer; Friday, April 23, 2004; Page A01). Surely, the Post is at least as reliable as Snopes. That being the case, and with Brinkley being a accepted by both Gamaliel and JamesMLane, there is now no longer any acceptable basis to block the phrase "minor wound" from the First Purple Heart section. Here, for the edification of all, is Kerry's highly esteemed biographer, referring to Kerry's wounds, all three of them as "minor". And of course, "his three wounds were minor" includes the first:

In an interview, Brinkley said Kerry "was not medal-hunting." In Vietnam, the historian said, there was "historical medal inflation," to keep soldiers engaged in the war. "That was not John Kerry's fault," he said. "The fact is, John Kerry was exceedingly lucky in Vietnam that his three wounds were minor," he said. [2]

James and Gamaliel, what are your objections now? I will wait 24 hours; if by then, you offer no proof that Brinkley is herein a) lying or b) mistaken, your objections to "minor" are rendered meritless and if pressed, will be obstructionism.

Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 20:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not Kerry had a bandage is a fact. Whether or not Kerry's wound was minor is an opinion. Gamaliel 20:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, please note the exact words of the highly credible and authoritative Brinkley "The fact is...". Is Brinkley lying? Is he not telling us a "fact"? Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 21:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
He is obviously using a turn of phrase quite common in the English language. His use of this phrase does not magically transform his opinion into a fact. Give it up, Rex. Rhetorical slight of hand will not get you anywhere. Gamaliel 21:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

In such a case, minor would only be acceptable if Brinkley's context was put in, namely that (a) Kerry was not medal hunting, and that (b) there was "historical medal inflation". Without those qualifiers the use of the word "minor" would suggest that Kerry was indeed being accused by the article of "medal-hunting", and that would breach NPOV rules. (I'm tempted to limerickise my reponse!) But even then the problem is that while wound is a fact (a puncture of the skin is what is generally understood by wound and that is what happened to Kerry) minor is an opinion. It would need to be defined as such clearly in a medical report before we could say it as fact. The most we could do is say something making it clear that "minor" was an opinion of someone supportive of Kerry, but with the proviso that the PH had not been sought but reflected a "one for everyone in the audience" approach of the military, possibly for propagandistic reasons (ie. Look at how brave our men are, with all these purple hearts!) FearÉIREANN(caint) 21:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Rex, please. You've been carrying on about this for over a year now. Even if you are right about anything now, people are going to oppose you because you're being such an utter nuisance. You've blown your credibility clear to hell. Yes, you're technically more polite than you were for your first two? three? arbitrations; it doesn't mean you're any better behaved or any better justified in your continued determination to own this article. Please find something else to do; all that energy could be devoted to improving dozens of articles in the time you've wasted trying to get individual trivialities memorialized in this article. --jpgordonUser talk:Jpgordon 21:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

So now all of a sudden, Brinkley is an expert on bandages (one he didn't personally see) and for that reason, his word choice describing an arm wrapping as a "bandage" is a "fact", but his word choice describing the wounds (which he also didn't see) as "minor" is only opinion? How do you arrive at that conclusion? I think Gamaliel (and others) are confusing a "binary" problem with an "analog" one. Allow me to explain. Binary is like a light switch, it's either on or off. Kerry either had a dressing on his arm or he didn't. That's a binary question, the answer to which is yes, he did have a dressing on his arm. However, as to what exactly that dressing ought to be called, that's an analog question. Analog questions are like dimmer switches with many possible positions. so too with the dressing. It's been suggested to be, a) Bacitracin alone, b) Bacitracin with gauze or c)Bacitracin with gauze and bandage. I see now why some have been fighting me on the "dressing" question. They have been trying to eliminate the analog variables of a) and b) thereby forcing the conclusion of c). And since in your mind there is no question that the dressing was in fact a "bandage" you incorrectly think the dressing question is binary, when in fact it's analog. And then you go further and arrive at the confused conclusion that binary questions are questions of fact and analog questions are questions of opinion. Suffice it to say, the same biographer (Brinkley) has gone on record for each question, both of which are analog questions and to both of which, his answers to are (unless he cites a Primary Source) nor more than his opinion. Even a blind hog will find an acorn once and a while and I have found one this time. Whether for "bandage" or "wound", the "opinion/fact" dichotomy is false and does not suffice to block "minor wound" from sourcing to this Brinkley quote. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 21:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


bandage is a "fact", minor is a "characterization". i'm quite certain i saw where brinkley also calls kerry a "hero", shall we insert that characterization as well? i thought not. we have already covered that some people think the wound was too minor to merit the purple heart ... we we note that here and then point to the whole freaking article on it. Derex @ 21:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)\
Derex, please note the exact words of the highly credible and authoritative Brinkley "The fact is...". Is Brinkley lying? Is he not telling us a "fact"? Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 21:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The fact is that you are willfully obtuse. I'm not even going to discuss this or any of the rest of this trivial nonsense with you again. I'm tire of you wasting everyone's time. Put it in the article; I'll revert it. Take out bandage; I'll revert it. Same to the rest of the picayune quibbles you got banned for a year ago. I again note that the arbcom made a finding that you were POV pushings. I'll revert, flat out. No questions asked, no quarter given. As I've said before, you've squandered all right to AGF. Take me to arbcom, I'm begging you. Do we understand each other? Derex @ 21:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Brinkley is not an expert on bandages, nor is he a firsthand witness. But he is a perfectly legitimate source of information on Kerry's life and in this case you have offered no source to dispute this particular fact provided by Brinkley other than your own speculation. Gamaliel 21:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

In this passage,I am not arguing against "bandage". Rather, I am arguing for "minor" and to quote you "in this case you have offered no source to dispute this particular fact provided by Brinkley other than your own speculation". Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 21:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not a fact. It's his opinion. Gamaliel 21:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't we should reject use of the word "minor" as being an opinion. If we do then we need to be consistent with our treatment of all subjective adjectives and take them out of the article unless they are within a quoted source. We routinely use adjectives in this and other articles. Many of these adjectives are completely unsourced and require judgement calls to be made by editors. Here are some examples from a recent version of the article:
1. Kerry's family returned to their home state of Massachusetts shortly after his birth.
Who decides what constitutes "shortly"?
2. Summers were spent at the Forbes family estate in France, and Kerry enjoyed much greater extravagance there than he had come to know in Massachusetts.
Who decides it was much greater extravagance, not simply greater extravagance? Who decided it was extravagance to begin with?
3. When the Germans fled, they bombed Les Essarts and burnt it down.
Are we sure the Germans fled? Maybe they were just attacking in a different direction. "Fled" could be considered POV by some.
There are many other examples in just this one article where we use a ssubjective adjective. I picked the first three I found. The word "minor" is far better supported by the evidence here than any of these above three examples. I think we should use the phrase "minor wound" in the article. Johntex\talk 22:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
1. Minor is un-necessary as the reader can judge for themselves the seriousness of the injury from the surronding context. Not so with "shortly". If you'd like to give a number of months in the surrounding context, then "shortly" would also be superfluous.
2. Again, if you provide some examples in the surrounding context of the amenities which afforded "extravagance" at places A & B, then the adjective becomes superfluous.
3. Whatever.
4. Intent also matters. The thing that pisses me off is that Rex is trying to insert characterizations in order to further push his POV. The arcom explicitly made that finding. There is absolutely no need to insert a characterization here, when the facts can be succintly provided. If anyone challenges the neutrality of "much more extravagant", then we either ought to strike it or replace it with facts so that the reader can judge for him/herself. Derex @ 22:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Derex, thank you for your thoughtful reply. Here are two more that I am wondering about:
4. In addition to Kerry's four D's in his freshman year, he received one D in his sophomore year. He did not fail any courses.
If we list the D's, do we need to say he didn't fail any courses? Wouldn't that be obvious by omission?
5. Kerry received several combat medals during this tour, including the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts.
We list his medals, so why do we alsso need the word "several"? Why not just stick with the list? Johntex\talk 22:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I can't imagine why we would state that he didn't fail any courses. I think the sentence would work better as "Kerry recieved four D's his freshmen year and one the following year." Clearly if we're going to list D's, then we'd list F's. But this gets a little silly, should we list his A's, B's, & C's for each year too? Also, no we don't need "several", just say he "received the following combat medals". Just be bold and change obvious stuff like that, there's no need to ask me. Derex @ 00:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

"Minor wound" has been proved. This debate is over. Time to move on

Derex, in addition to obviously being angry at me (see above) you are also confused about this. Other than Kerry, Brinkley is the most informed person in regards to Kerry's wounds. Indeed, he made a detailed examination of every aspect of Kerry's service, so much so, that he was able to state as a fact (so you claim) that there was a "bandage" on Kerry's arm. If we accept Brinkley's knowledge of Kerry to be sufficiently accurate and encompassing that he can arrive at "bandage" as a fact, there is no way we can then turn around and say that his knowledge of Kerry's wounds is limited - especially since he wrote about all of them. Now as to the "hero" point, that is rightly deemed opinion because unlike his expert knowledge of Kerry personally, we have no information to suggest that Brinkley is an expert on heroes. Likewise, since we have no evidence that Brinkley is an expert on "luck", what we can only take from this sentence "The fact is, John Kerry was exceedingly lucky in Vietnam that his three wounds were minor," is that the "fact" which Brinkley is referring to is the "minor" nature of the wounds, not that Kerry was "lucky". Brinkley is an expert on Kerry's service history, including his wounds, not on luck per se. Brinkley's statement on "bandage" can only be taken as proof of that "fact" if he is an expert regarding Kerry's service details. Likewise, since he is, his statement regarding the wound severity is also to be taken as proof of that "fact". No amount of threatening me with reverts or saying I get no AFG will change the truth here, which is: I have provided a verbatim quote which directly speaks to the issue at hand, from a recognized authority, as cited in a reliable source. And further, this verbatim quote unequivocally supports the use of the term "minor wound". Furthermore, if we were to go with what I recommend, there is no likelihood that the reader will get a POV message. I recommend this:

During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating near a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began running and failed to obey an order to stop. As the men fled, Kerry and his crew of two sailors opened fire on the sampans and destroyed them, then rapidly left. During this encounter, Kerry suffered a minor shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow.[3] Later, medical staff removed the shrapnel and applied bacitracin dressing. [4] The next day, his arm bandaged, Kerry returned to Swift boat patrol duty. [5] During the 2004 election, this incident and Kerry's Purple Heart for it were disputed by some critics. Also in 2004, the Navy conducted a review of the existing documentation and determined that Kerry's medals were properly approved. [6]

Please note: Even though Snopes is less valid than WAPO, I have re-inserted it because some editors like it and it because they want it to support the "return to duty" and the "sampan" story. Also note that since we are using Brinkley for "minor", others here are entitled to use him for "bandage" which I have also re-inserted. Suffice it to say, now that I have proven "minor wound" using the standards set out by the wiki, it's time for the obstructionists here who promise to revert my every edit (such as Derex [7] here) to desist from what clearly is a personal threat (and editing to make a point) and get with the program. I have won this debate. "Minor wound" has been proved to the standards of this wiki which pertain to truth of facts. Anyone here who says otherwise, must cite a wiki guideline or principle which proves otherwise. I have proved "minor" by wiki standards. To those who claim it's only Brinkley's "opinion" and won't even concede it to be expert opinion (in regards to Kerry, Brinkley is an expert), then I call on you to put up or shut up. I challenge you to cite here, now, one or more wiki guidelines which make clear the standard you are using to adjudge this quote as invalid due to being non-expert opinion (as opposed to expert opinion regarding Kerry) instead of fact (arrived at after the lengthy processs of writing a book). Anyone who can't or won't do this, has no basis on which to object to "minor wound" going into the article. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 22:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

And if that's all too confusing, let's make it simple. The wound is minor. How do we know? Because Brinkley is an expert (on Kerry and his wounds) and he said so. If a properly informed credible expert says something, absent superior proof, we take the expert's statement as true. That's how you prove Fact ("A statement of an event or condition where the statement can be proven and shown to be correct (or disproven and thus shown to be incorrect) on the basis of some evidence, generally by other facts") and I have done that here. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 23:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Your justification of "minor" but not "hero" based upon dismissing expertise on "heroes" is invalid. I'm sure Brinkley knows what "hero" means and thus applied it from his personal knowledge of Kerry's performance. According to your logic, either "minor" and "hero" (which are 2 subjective characterizations, unlike "bandage") go in, or both come out. --kizzle 23:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

And by the way, citing reliable sources does not necessarily mean you need to adopt them into the official tone of the article. --kizzle 23:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, you may be right in that Brinkley's assessments of Kerry's actions as "hero" may be based on expert knowledge of the subject matter of heroes and Kerry's action in that context. I'd like to see your source, but if indeed you have a valid source and provided you can work it in in a manner that is not too POV, I would agree to support it. From what I know about Kerry's history, any "hero" designation must come from the incident where he pulled that man from the river or from the Silver Star episode. That being the case, if hero is supported by proper citation and you agree to work it in in the right place (and that place is not 1st PH), like I said, I would agree to it. Something like, Kerry's actions in pulling Rasmussen from the river were heroic and earned him a Bronze Star, would not be objectionable with the right Brinkley source. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 23:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I have a problem with including either "minor" or "hero" uncited into the official tone of the article. For such a short summary paragraph, I also have a problem with citing opinions ( as opposed to citing things like bandage or objective facts that draw more detail to the subject and not subjective characterizations ). Leave those for the daughter article. --kizzle 23:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Kizzle, it is true that "heroic" is mostly understood in terms of admiration, which is very hard to objectively assess. That being the case, getting a source for that would be very tough. On the other hand, wounds are assesed based on levels of severity which have clear boundaries of delination. For example, difference between a "simple" fracture and a "compound" fracture is not subjective. Following this analogy, if Kerry's had twisted his arm to the point of injury, he would have at most a sprained shoulder. The term "minor wound" is no more essentially subjective than the term "simple fracture" or "compund fracture". Perhaps if we had not previously been caught up in the pissing contest between SBVT and Kerry, there would be no emotional attachment to the word "minor". The point is that heroics are very hard to define, but levels of injury have recognized lines of demarcation which are certainly clear. If we were calling Kerry's wound a laceration which is the precise medical term, there would be no question that it was minor. Kerry got no sutures and no butterfly bandage. Absent those, it's impossible to think that he had anything other than a minor laceration. US military medical treatment would not leave out sutures and/or butterfly bandages if it was anything more severe. The tug of war has always been over SBVT's derision regarding "wound" as an exaggeration. Yet at this point, with everyone agreed that no allegations from SBVT are going in, we do not have to over compensate towards avoiding emotional triggers. In the current context, the dry assesment of "minor" is devoid of any POV bias. Perhaps we should say "Kerry suffered a minor laceration shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow". This would make things 100% clear that "minor" refers only to the degree of the injury and is not being dismissive of the "merit" of the wound.
Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 00:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Ahh, thus we come to the fundamental premise that we simply disagree on, that "minor" is "no more essentially subjective than the term "simple fracture" or "compound fracture". Here's one site:
  • Simple Fracture: an uncomplicated fracture in which the broken bones to not pierce the skin[8]
  • Compound Fracture: bone fracture associated with lacerated soft tissue or an open wound [9]
  • Minor Wound: No definition found [10]
Here's another:
  • Simple Fracture: A bone fracture that causes little or no damage to the surrounding soft tissues. [11]
  • Compound Fracture: A fracture in which broken bone fragments lacerate soft tissue and protrude through an open wound in the skin[12]
  • Minor Wound: Sorry, no words matching "minor wound" were found. [13]
Clearly, there is a difference between "minor wound", "simple fracture", and "compound fracture". The latter two concepts name specific objective criteria (inside/outside body)for their inclusion, while the first term is simply a subjective characterization with no clear and distinct characteristics for its application or use. This is why "minor wound" doesn't show up as a term in these searches and does not reach the level of authoritative medical terminology that you claim it does. At the very least, the distinction between simple and compound fracture is not on the same level as "minor wound" as you claim it is. You acknowledge that simple/compound distinction is not objective, then proceed to say "minor wound" is "no more objective", which I assume means you're implying a similar level of objectivity to "minor wound" as you did to the previous two terms. If this is true, then tell me what specific objective criteria merits a minor wound, making sure not to quote simply a home-care guide like last time? --kizzle 02:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think all this is getting off the point. Here is why we should say "minor wound":
  1. We have several pieces of evidence that support the fact it was a minor wound. These range from use of the word minor by Brinkley, to the fact that Kerry returned to duty the next day, etc. I'll not take up space to paste them all back in again here.
  2. We have zero pieces of evidence and zero claims by anyone saying the wound was not minor.
  3. Based upon the above, a reasonable person concludes that the evidence says "minor wound" has a factual bassis. Then we ask ourselves if there is any reason to exclude the word "minor", that leads us to:
  4. Is the word helpful to the reader? Yes, Using the word "minor" is helpful to the reader so that the reader does not have to go and read side articles, read the definition of specific types of dressings etc.
  5. Does this piece of description take up too much room? No. It is one word. In fact, if we use the phrase "minor wound" then maybe we can drop several other words and actually make the paragraph smaller.
  6. Does the word push a POV? No. The only explanation I have seen for how this word is POV is that it somehow makes his Purple Heart medal illegitamate, but that does not hold up to scrutiny. Regardless of whether the wound was major or minor, it still qualified for a Purple Heart, so calling it a minor wound does nothing to revoke the legitimacy of the medal.
Therefore, the phrase "minor wound" is factual, referencable, undisputed-by-reputable-sources, helpful-to-the-reader, short, concise, and NPOV. We should use it in the article. Johntex\talk 00:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Johntex, I agree with you 100% Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 00:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Disagree, for reasons elucidated above. Derex @ 00:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Something is irking me here. Everyone said "let's stop discussing this with Rex" when we did the vote. And now. We're all discussing it with Rex. Stop. It's pointless. Ignore him. He's just trying to unsurp consensus. Once he starts playing a different tune, we'll listen again. And no Rex, I'm not going to help you. Sorry. But even from your comments on my talk page, it was obvious that I'd just be there to feed you lines. No thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Shame on you woohoo. You know darn well that the consensus of the other day is limited to choosing "wound" over "injury". Therefore, for you to advocate others to ignore me and refuse dialog, is simply rotten. Frankly, I was foolish to think you capable of honest and fair dialog or worth reaching out to for help. If you are going to advocate a dialog embargo against me, I am pretty sure you are eligile for sanctions. Frankly, if I had the power to ban you for 24 hours for that, I'd consider it. You are just totally out of line here. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 00:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex, I'd be please to nominate you for admin, if you would accept. Then you could ban Woohookitty. You'll also find some people who need blocking listed over on the noticeboard (User:Rex071404_2). Derex @ 01:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
From the man who has been banished once by ArbCom and once on his own. Besides Rex, look above. I wasn't the first one to say what I said. Look at all of those stop signs. "This issue is now closed. Please do not discuss this issue with Rex071404. It simply gives him an angle to come back and repeat himself ad nausaum. He has talked the issue to death and is in a minority of one". That was the text with the stop sign. Please do not discuss this issue with Rex071404 is exactly what I said with different language. Doesn't matter. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

What kind of excuse is that? Those others were wrong, so you join them? Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 01:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)







I agree with Woohookitty about not discussing old issues anymore. I'll just add my response to a new (hypothetical) example given by Rex. A statement like "Kerry's actions in pulling Rasmussen from the river were heroic and earned him a Bronze Star" would also violate NPOV. It's a sound opinion, but still an opinion. There is no form of citation, to Brinkley or anyone else, that would convert it into a fact. JamesMLane 02:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Given that the Bronze Star Medal is awarded for "bravery, heroism or meritorious service", it wouldn't sound too NPOV to me to use phrasing like that you have quoted. Saying a medal of heroism was awarded for a heroic act is pretty safe; I must say, it's also rather redundant, though. —HorsePunchKid→龜 03:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
In many instances, HPK, I would agree with you. The problem here is that Kerry's opponents argued that the Bronze Star was improperly awarded. Their allegation was garbage, in my opinion, but Wikipedia has to be fair to different opinions, even political smears. Therefore, we couldn't simply assert as a fact that Kerry acted heroically. The NPOV version would be that Kerry was awarded this medal and to quote the criteria, or to say that the Navy concluded that Kerry acted heroically. I agree with you about the redundancy. The version that's NPOV and succinct is to report that he was awarded the Bronze Star and wikilink it so a reader can read the criteria. JamesMLane 10:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Closure Motion

In parliamentary procedure there is a thing called a closure motion which is used to end endless debate on an issue. Once proposed two things happen.

  • all discussion ends immediately, with not another word said on the issue.
  • a vote takes place immediately on whether to take a decision.
  • If the vote is yes, lets take a decision, that vote to take a decision takes place immediately without comment;
  • If the vote is no, the whole issue is dropped without comment.

In either case no more debate takes place.

Maybe using a version of that system might end this painful discussion once and for all. So I am proposing we follow that procedure. It would have three parts:

  • everyone agree to bide by the agreed set of rules
  • we vote on whether to take a decision
  • if yes, we vote on alternatives, (one by Derex, one by Rex) if no the discussion ends until 1st January.
Derex here, why me? How about we just vote on the version as it existed a month or so back, pre-Rex-reincarnation.
Just a suggestion. By all means propose that version. Once there is a clear alternative that is all that matters. FearÉIREANNuser_talk:Jtdirl 02:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The rules are simple: (1) once we agree to abide by the same set of rules: all discussion stops, whatever the decision on whether to pick a paragraph now or not, until 1 January. (2) Anyone who breaks that agreement and tries to return to the topic before 1st January to face an immediate 24 hour block from WP. (Admins would be asked to police this.)

Question 1: Does everyone agree to follow the procedures?

  • yes


  • no

If yes (only vote here when first decision taken), CLOSURE MOTION: Do we agree to take a decision?

  • yes


  • No.

If no, issue closed until 1 January

If yes, Please vote for your choice of version:

Derex's version of paragraph

<add in text>

  • yes
  • no


Rex's version of paragraph

<add in text>

  • yes
  • no


Decision taken: <x's> version. Issue now closed until 1 January 2006. Anyone breaching closure is to be blocked by an admin for 24 hours.

The Cloture Motion is absurd and invalid on its face

It is axiomatic that legitimate proceedings can never legitimately install an absurd result. Suffice it to say then, since the position of some editors here is that "minor wound" as stated here by Brinkley is unusable opinion, then there is no point in setting up a "vote" which offers "minor wound" as a choice. This is because any editor who takes the "opinion" position and still willingly participates in that vote, is knowingly participating in a what for them is a sham vote. From the perspective of the "opinion" editors, this vote can be nothing but a sham. The correct thing to focus on now, is to insist that those who say "minor" is out, but "bandage" is in, must prove using wiki guidelines why they are correct. If they cannot prove "minor" to be opinion only and not fact at all, then it's only their "opinion" that Brinkley was offering his "opinion" rather than his expert assessment of facts which are external to him. If Brinkley were on record saying "large bandage" would that be "opinion too"? Certainly not if he were referring to the available sizes of military bandages. Likewise, since Brinkley is obviously well informed about the nature of wounds Vietnam vets received, it's clear that his placement of Kerry's injury on the "minor" end of the wound scale is supported Kerry's wounds relative seriousness in relation to what's possible when getting wounded in combat. Brinkley did not fart his assessment out his ass and those that suggest he did are just trying to obfuscate the truth that wound severity is measured by empirical evidence. Brinkley has obviously done that and we have done the same here. We have tallied up the empirical evidence and laid that out on the scale of what's a possible Vietnam War era wound, and have concluded, after measuring, that the wound is minor. Measurements of this type are not "opinion" they are ascertations of fact. It is fully possible to ascertain [14] and state fact, without rendering an "opinion". We have done that and so has Brinkley. The wound is minor. This statement of certaintity is based on a large body of unrebutted accurate evidence. Those who say otherwise have not made their case. By the logic of the "opinion" crowd here one could not say that an elephant is a large mammal or that ebola is a severe infectious disease.

Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 03:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

(copied from above)

Ahh, thus we come to the fundamental premise that we simply disagree on, that "minor" is "no more essentially subjective than the term "simple fracture" or "compound fracture". Here's one site:
  • Simple Fracture: an uncomplicated fracture in which the broken bones to not pierce the skin[15]
  • Compound Fracture: bone fracture associated with lacerated soft tissue or an open wound [16]
  • Minor Wound: No definition found [17]
Here's another:
  • Simple Fracture: A bone fracture that causes little or no damage to the surrounding soft tissues. [18]
  • Compound Fracture: A fracture in which broken bone fragments lacerate soft tissue and protrude through an open wound in the skin[19]
  • Minor Wound: Sorry, no words matching "minor wound" were found. [20]
Clearly, there is a difference between "minor wound", "simple fracture", and "compound fracture". The latter two concepts name specific objective criteria (inside/outside body)for their inclusion, while the first term is simply a subjective characterization with no clear and distinct characteristics for its application or use. This is why "minor wound" doesn't show up as a term in these searches and does not reach the level of authoritative medical terminology that you claim it does. At the very least, the distinction between simple and compound fracture is not on the same level as "minor wound" as you claim it is. You acknowledge that simple/compound distinction is not objective, then proceed to say "minor wound" is "no more objective", which I assume means you're implying a similar level of objectivity to "minor wound" as you did to the previous two terms. If this is true, then tell me what specific objective criteria merits a minor wound, making sure not to quote simply a home-care guide like last time? Finally, is there a difference between the amount of clear and distinct characteristics of "minor wound" versus "bandaged"? --kizzle 02:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, don't jump the gun here Kizzle; My last comment to you [21] was regarding "laceration" which is the medical terminology for a certain type of wound. My reading is that Kerry had an extremely minor laceration. Read [22]this for yourself. I will be adding more about lacerations shortly. Kerry's wound was not a burn, it was not a broken leg, it was not blindness. No, it was as I said above, a "minor laceration shrapnel wound". To say it was not, is patent falsehood. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 03:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


  • It certainly appears that "minor laceration" is a bona fide term [23]
  • Here is a US Military web site which mentions "minor laceration" along with "moderately severe laceration" making clear that each has different levels of severity. [24] Uh, this Military one sure supports Kerry's as being minor, even extremely minor.

Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 04:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Shame no specific response to the questions I posed. Once again, I see no distinct medical terminology of a "minor laceration" as opposed to a "laceration" in the link you provide. Thus, your statement that to say it was not minor "is a patent falsehood" is false itself, for such a subjective statement you propose, as defined by a lack of clear and distinct characteristics for "minor laceration" as opposed to "laceration", is not falsifiable, as it is a subjective opinion. As for the second link you just posted now, the mere fact that you found "minor laceration" means nothing, that publication may or may not introduce specific objective criteria defining a laceration as "minor". As for the third link, interesting you supply this link, which specifically states "minor" whereas Kerry's official record is comparatively conspicously missing any such qualifier. Does this mean, if "minor laceration" and "minor wound" are officially designated medical terms, the lack of this term on any of Kerry's papers mean that his wounds or lacerations were, in fact, not minor? --kizzle 04:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC) (p.s. thanks for giving me about 5 edit conflicts)
Fifteen entries in all of PubMed hardly establishes "minor laceration" as an official term with a specific medial meaning. Also, whatever you do, avoid the ungrammatical word-blob "minor laceration shrapnel wound". Three nouns in a row is a recipe for a quick revert. ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


Rex revealed: This farce has gone on long enough

So I guess the closure motion has revealed Rex's true colours. He is not interested in taking a decision. He just wants to go on and on and on and on hammering this page until he gets his way. And he knows that if a consensus vote took place he'd lose.

His response pretty much shows that while his language is different, his motivation is the same as got him repeatedly censured here before. His reponse method (ignore other people's points — as Kizzle found out in the last edit) pretty much shows that he has no interest in debate, let alone decision-taking. Instead he wants his points conceded and will keep bringing them up until either he is allowed win or until people get so fed up (as some people have) that they leave the page in disgust. If enough people leave he can then get his way.

I would suggest in this case that as people have talked this issue to death and he isn't paying any heed, people simply stop the discussion, report his behaviour to admins and request the enforcement of the arbcomm rulings. This farce has gone on long enough. FearÉIREANN(caint) 04:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Compromise: If a compromise paragraph can't be reached in 20k from now, then we vote. That ok? --kizzle 04:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Is that 20k in terms of space of twenty kilometres of talk from Rex? lol FearÉIREANN(caint) 05:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

US Military web site source(s) for "minor laceration"

You guys are really grasping at straws. Here again is the link which I just posted and which you both must have ignored. It's an "APPENDIX A" casualty analysis from the US Military for a Pacific theatre (New Georgia was Pacific theatre) 1943. It's part of a .mil (US Military) web site [25] based on a report called "MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, UNITED STATES ARMY, WOUND BALLISTICS" and it was published by "OFFICE OF THE SURGEON GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WASHINGTON, D.C., 1962". If you want official, this is as about official as you are ever going to get. Anyway, the term "minor laceration" certainly appears to be offical US military lingo.

Also, here is another: link, talking about "minor lacerations" in the Navy.

Even so, what I am hearing from Kizzle and Horsepunchkid is that for them, there exists no terminology by which the lacerations or other wound types are indentified by severity...?

If a US Military text (c) 1962 [26] using the term "minor laceration" repeatedly, in the context of wound analysis does not prove this, nothing will.

Uh, here is US Army photo of a KIA caused by "laceration" [27] You guys aren't saying that there is no objective difference between this "laceration" and Kerry's are you? Things that are obviously true on their face seem to elude some editors here. This KIA had a severe laceration, which killed him. Kerry had a minor one, which did not kill him. Any questions?

If you guys won't concede that Kerry's minor wound did not rise to this level or anywhere near it, then what can I tell you. Perhaps Kerry had a severe wound and these other guys were not injured?

The bottom line is that "minor wound" alone suffices. Everything else was to try to accomodate you guys. Brinkley knows about Vietnam war wounds. He says "minor" that's good enough for me. At the same time, I've offered "minor laceration shrapnel wound", which I am virtually certain is the most precise possible term. If you guys won't accept that, what can I say? You are going to do whatever you want here anyway, right?

Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 05:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Sigh, I'm starting to see what James is talking about when you consistently avoid questions I direct at you. Your link specifically states "minor wound" and "minor laceration" whereas Kerry's official record is comparatively conspicously missing any such qualifier. Does this mean, if "minor laceration" and "minor wound" are officially designated medical terms, the lack of this term on any of Kerry's papers mean that his wounds or lacerations were, in fact, not minor? Also feel free to answer any of the other numerous questions you've ignored. --kizzle 05:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, you asked me to prove the usage of "minor laceration" and I did that. Now you shift back to Kerry's Sick Call Treatment Record and ask "Why is the term minor laceration/wound not in it?" Who the heck knows? Perhaps because Kerry did not get any sutures and his "wound" was so minor that it didn't even rise to the level of a "laceration"? Perhaps there is no wound description at all because the shrapnel was right on the surface of the skin - just as Letson said it was "superficially clinging" and no sane medic would call that a "wound"? Of course, even with this staring you in the face, you'll still say "no!" it's only the biased opinion of a crazed few. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 05:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, seems like your argument is inconsistent.
1) "minor wound" is an official medical diagnosis, and not a subjective term;
2) "minor wound" does not show up anywhere on Kerry's records of his wound.
Therefore, you conclude that "minor wound", an official medical diagnosis that is nowhere mentioned in any of the documentation of Kerry's wound, should thus be used? --kizzle 05:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
*Applause* Derex @ 06:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle if you claim that the absence of a "medical diagnosis" on the Sick Call Treatment Record is to be accepted as proof of something, I'll agree to that - it's proof that whatever happened to Kerry was no more than a "fingernail scrape" and Hibbard was right. It's also proof that Kerry was at the time a big baby and a faker, but that's not relevant. With your reasoning I'd be happy to go with "Although Kerry's Sick Call Treatment Record lacks any medical diagnosis which would prove the severity of his wound, he was able to eventually, on his 2nd try, get a Purple Heart for this wound, after being turned down by now Ret. Lt Gen. Grant Hibbard, who when asked about this in 2004, said that Kerry's wound was like a "fingernail scrape". However, also in 2004 Navy, bla bla verbatim from USA Today". This is what you are asking for Kizzle, yes? As to your ha ha "Gotcha!" above, I do not agree to that and will post about that in a few minutes. Rex071404(all logic is premise based)

Rex's Further reply to Kizzle

No, Kizzle, my argument is as follows:

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

I know this page is a pain, but has it really driven you to drink??? lol FearÉIREANN\(caint) 07:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Brinkley says the wound was minor

According to Brinkley, the noted historian, Vietnam War expert and Kerry service details expert, the wound was "minor". [33] I have sourced this to a verbatim quote, but all some editors here have done is mock me and deny the obvious.

Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 08:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected

This page has been locked from editing due to edit warring. If anyone wants to propose new/modified text, then do it on the talk page. It is fine to make edits, or even bold ones; but if they continue to get reverted, and you effectively revert as well, then no progress is made. That is what is happening here, and so the talk page is the place to make new suggestion.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 08:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

We did just have a vote about Rex's edits. [34] Are we to hold another one now? We've talked this issue to death, Rex refuses to let the issue drop, and it's clear there's community consensus against Rex's edits. And this page was just protected over this same issue: [35] [36]. I really don't think protection is a viable solution in this case. -- Mr. Tibbs 08:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The only option is to report Rex's behaviour as a breach of the arbcom restrictions placed on him, which it unambiguously is. Otherwise this nonsense will go on to next year and he'll still be whining about wounds. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 09:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think we need a combination of both things. The page should be protected because of the edit warring. Rex, if you want to cooperate and compromise, great. I hope you do. But if you show no signs of doing that, I think we should persue arbcom and keep this page protected until we can get some order. 40+ edits a day is ridiculous. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I have put up a Request for Clarification regarding Rex here: [37] -- Mr. Tibbs 20:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Unprotected.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 00:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

essential, non-hagiographic, salient facts

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

Also, some editors here say I am the only one advocating "minor", yet in recent days Wwoods and Johntex (Johntex several times) have supported me in that. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 19:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


Finally read your 50 point argument, which could have easily been condensed down. Unfortunately, it didn't really address what I was talking about and went off on several tangents about describing the situation in a way that tried to minimalize him earning the purple heart. Generally speaking, in my experience, it has been the person who says their point in the smallest amount of words possible who wins the debate. But anyways...

Simple three questions:

  • 1) If you are using this link to justify "minor laceration" as an official medical term, then "minor wound", used in the same context, must also be an official medical term, right?
  • 2) If "minor wound" is an official medical term that doesn't show up anywhere on Kerry's official wound documentation, you're suggesting we include such an official medical term anyways?
  • 3) Is there a difference in clear and distinct characteristics that define the concept of being "bandaged" and a wound being "minor"? Can both terms be defined by objective criteria, or only one term? If so, what are the objective criteria that make up each concept? --kizzle 19:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


Rex answers 3 Kizzle questions and asks 2 questions of Kizzle

Again Kizzle, I will repeat my concerns:

  • 1) Unless we are trying to tell the reader that Kerry was nursing an injury, then there is no reason to say "With his arm bandaged... bla bla bla". It's enough to say that "Kerry returned to duty the next day.... bla bla bla"
  • 2) If the presence of a so-called "bandage" on Kerry's is notable enough to mention, lets call it by the term most supported by the evidence "Bacitracin dressing" or "Gauze bandage". Plain old "Bandage" is too imprecise and should not be being mentioned anyway as its' simply not notable.
  • 3) With the unqualified and speculative "bandage" in there, the section reads more hagiographically than the available facts warrant.
  • 4) Hagiography is a form of POV and must not stand.
  • 5) We can either go with a medically precise term such as "minor laceration shrapnel wound" or we can go with more of a layman's term such as "minor wound".
  • 6) Either of these would clarify the narrative so as to avoid any hagiographic effect caused by the imprecise, nonessential, non-salient, contested "fact" of "bandage".
  • 7) I have said this five ways to Sunday and Johntex has agreed with me.
  • 8) Since you don't listen to me, why don't you ask him your questions?

Now as to your questions about "objective criteria", I googled that term and came up with this paper [38] about "Objective, Subjective and Intersubjective Selectors of Knowledge". Also, I found this link [39] regarding "To identify injury priorities for a US Army public health organization's injury prevention program". Now regarding such esoteric knowledge as represented by those links, we are not trying to become analysis experts here and as such, an ultra detailed answer is not called for. Rather, what we are supposed to do, is write a coherent narrative which accurately and in a NPOV manner tells the story succinctly. And we are supposed to do that collegially as possible, while respecting each others reasonable views. to that end, I have several times offered this:

During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating near a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began running and failed to obey an order to stop. As the men fled, Kerry and his crew of two sailors opened fire on the sampans destroying them, then rapidly left. During this encounter, Kerry suffered a shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow. The shrapnel was later removed and Kerry was treated with bacitracin dressing. The next day, Kerry returned to Swift boat patrol duty. Kerry was subsequently awarded his first Purple Heart for this wound. During the 2004 election, this incident was the focus of considerable contention.

This version has no "bandage" and it has no "minor" so if we agreed on this version, the conflict would be resolved. So again, rather than keep picking at the minor scab, I ask you Kizzle; will you agree to this? And if not, why not? And if you want changes (other than bandage, etc) and I agree to them, will you then support it? And if as you have said before, the last sentence bothers you, what words could were use instead? Now, to answer your specific three questions:

1) I would agree to "minor laceration shrapnel wound" if that would mollify your concerns about any lack of precision or lack of "official medical term" status for "minor wound"

2) I am not offering that minor wound is an "official medical term", but rather it is a reasonably accurate layman's term which refers to a degree of injury, that being those wounds which are not "severe", nor "moderate". Reasonable people might disagree as to where the boundaries are, but it's unreasonable to suggest that it's impossible to discern the difference between say getting a cut on your arm and say getting your legs blown off. Clearly, losing ones legs is "serious" and clearly a cut which gets no sutures is "not". I will remind you that I had offered "not serious" as an alternative to "minor wound" but you refused. And I'll also remind you that my specific choice of words is less relevant to me than what the words ultimately chosen convey, which is; the wound was not that serious. In this context, perhaps you see that "bandage" is indeed gratuitously hagiographic and imprecise and ought to be dropped. With that, I'd be happy to let "minor wound", "not severe", "gauze bandage", etc., be dropped too.

3) You last question is vague, but I will try to answer; To me, unless we are trying to reinforce the idea that "Kerry was wounded, Kerry was wounded" (such as how we say he suffered the wound, rather than incurred or received, which are more NPOV), there simply is no need to add the gratuitous detail of "bandage", especially since a "bandage" is covering something but we don't know what. Hmmm... he was bandaged? Wow, they mention they bandage, must have been a bad wound for them to mention the bandage. Now, that's how I see it and that's why I feel that "minor" or something like it is needed. It's needed only to balance out the narrative so it does not mislead. Neither "minor" nor "bandage" are in and of themselves POV. Rather, it's the manner in which they are used. To me, bandage implies "this injury required additional wrapping", ooh must have been serious. And since the wound clearly was not serious, such connotations offend my sensibilities. To me saying "with his arm bandaged" has the same effect as saying "While it ws a minor wound..." You do see the POV in the 2nd example I am sure? Well gues what, I see the same amount of POV in the 1st example. So then, my aim has been to as NPOV as possible, and supply the readers with the NPOV factual basis concerning severity so as to mitigate the clear POV problem "with his arm bandaged" causes, but which your side does not acknowledge. And contrary to what some say I am not trying to fight POV with POV. Rather, I am trying fight against POV with NPOV.

That said, so you won't claim I failed to answer, let's see what I can do. If you agree that "dressing" and "bandaging" are discrete steps, I can list for you (cited to sources) some elements of "bandaging" and I can also point out that Kerry's SCTR says nothing about "bandaging" but only dressing. If you accept that "bandaging" and "dressing" are specific medical terms which mean differing things, then it's only a matter of each of us finding and linking to a list of what those things mean. I've done that already with "dressing" and also in the same medical dictionary supplied a link which explains "bandage". Now then your question of "Is there a difference in clear and distinct characteristics that define the concept of being "bandaged" and a wound being "minor"? makes no sense to be, due to the word "difference". to me, it reads as if you are saying that "wounds" and "bandages" are so similar that they should or could be compared? Even so, I have answered that yes, "bandaged" (and "dressed") have individual specific meanings and I have shown links to a medial dictionary which makes this clear, along with various other links which underscore the distinctness of "bandage" and "dressing". This leaves us with the remaining point of "minor", and the question of can the word minor, if applied to wound severity be reasonably correlated with various elements on a severity scale? Now, if I had to put together a list, based on the common knowledge of military injuries, I'd come up with something like this:

minor
1) no evidence that wound was bleeding
2) Bacitracin dressing only
3) sutures not given
4) no time lost from duty
5) return to duty (not sent to hospital)
moderate
1) some sutures given
2) wound needed medical treatment to stop bleeding
3) possibly sent to hospital instead of return to duty
4) some duty time lost
severe
1) much medical attention required
2) considerable hospital stay required
3) likely cannot return to duty now or ever
4) likely might be killed

Now, am I saying that there exists an "official list" for the term "minor wound" from which we can draw these? No I am not saying that. However, I am saying that there does seem to be an official classification system using variants of the term "laceration" and that "minor laceration" is one of the variants used. Further, looking at the link I supplied [40], we can see that the more severe injuries were not referred to as "minor" but rather "moderately severe" and "severe". This being the case, it seems to me that both a layman's vernacular wound discernment scale and an official vernacular one would both use the word "minor" to refer to wounds of lesser severity than moderate and serious. Also, I am pretty sure that I have given enough links from various sources such as to make clear that wounds which receive no sutures are simply not serious or even moderately serious. And if you think my layman's scale is of no value because it's "opinion", would you at least concede that the classification of injuries by severity is something that the military does via case studies from time to time? And would you at least concede that as per this link [41], that minor wounds are less severe than severe wounds? And let me again ask you:

  • 1) Yes or no, is it your contention that we have so little information, we are unable to know if Kerry's wound was "serious" or not?
  • 2) And if it's not serious, why is the term "not serious" a problem with you?

Now Kizzle, I have answered your three questions. Please, I ask that you personally (not someone else) answer these two.

Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 21:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

1) It is not my contention we are "unable to know if kerry's wound was serious" based on that "we have so little information." It is my contention that the inherent subjectivity of "minor" or "serious", which is not an objective descriptor like "compound fracture" or "simple fracture", renders usage of either into the official tone of the article as uncited subjective characterization, which is unacceptable.

2) See 1. --kizzle 23:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

"Minor" seems to be quite vague itself, a medical term is prefered. However, how severe it was seems to depend on who you talk to. Lets just leave "wounded" here, and deal with the rest on the subpage.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 00:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I will consent to "minor", but only if Rex will hammer a piece of shrapnel into his arm & post a picture of it. Derex @ 00:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Seconded. --kizzle 01:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
If there is such a term, thirded FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Not appropriate. I have problems with Rex but he doesn't get violent and he isn't that insulting. He's just persistant. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
It's not insulting. If it's so minor and doesn't even count as a wound, why wouldn't he? You only think it's insulting or violent because you have the laughable idea that driving a piece of shrapnel into your arm is something of a big deal. Clearly you are wrong about that, as the previous 10GB of discussion by Rex amply proves. Derex @ 17:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

That's an understatement. He is persistent to the point highjacking a page to hammer his points home over and over again even where not merely is there a consensus but a massive consensus against his viewpoint. He is not simply persistent but fanatical in his determination to get his way, and paranoid in the way he reads the most NPOV terminology as POV, and his own anti-Kerry POV as NPOV. I have only ever come across 3 other users who were as determined to force their viewpoint on a page. Two were banned, one permanently. Two of them were also obnoxious, but neither were banned specifically for that alone, but also for their endless demands that other answer their answers, endless in their insistence that NPOV information was POV and their own POV claims NPOV. One of them filled six talk pages with the same points over and over again. Again as here the end result was that users refused to talk about the issues with him. He went nuclear at that point in his rage. Rex's behaviour is less abusive, but every bit as effective in trying to take over the page, which is why it now is in the hands of the arbcom again. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"It is my contention that the inherent subjectivity of "minor" or "serious", ... renders usage of either into the official tone of the article as uncited subjective characterization, which is unacceptable."
Rigorous application of such a principle would lead to a general war on adjectives and adverbs. What's the objective definition of "wealthy", "elite", etc.? I notice the article already refers to "four most seriously wounded sailors", accepting gradations within "seriously wounded".
Come on--aside than an unwillingness to let Rex have his way, why would anyone oppose characterizing the wound as "minor"? Only minimal treatment given and no imparement of function, even temporarily; that's minor.
—wwoods 03:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Why? Not speaking for myself here, but there plenty of Americans I know who think that the muckraking by the SBVT cost Kerry the election. Characterising the wound as "minor" could lend support to the SBVT arguments. I don't care much about this issue, since I don't think it was really the determining factor in the election, but hopefully that helps you understand why some find it so important. —HorsePunchKid→龜 03:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I still don't agree with the comments made earlier. If you want to joke around, fine, but it wasn't clearly a joke so it doesn't belong here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
That's just words from frustration, of course I don't mean it. I apologize if it hurt anyone's feelings. --kizzle 05:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, Wwoods, all things being equal, such intense scrutiny of every single word is not necessary if not impossible. However, the underlying connotations by deciding to include "minor" or not refer to Rex's viewpoint that Kerry did not deserve the medal. There are two highly contentious sides to a debate directly linked with the wording we use to describe his wound, thus such rigorous application of my stated principle is warranted in this case. --kizzle 04:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

So basically, the argument against "minor" boils down to "Rex wants it, so we are opposed" and "if we allow it, we are agreeing that this particular criticism by SBVT was true". Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 06:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Page locked

Oh Sweet Jesus. Does this farce on this page (all of it) ever end? Now we have a numbskull adding in cocksucker to edits. I've protected it *yawn*. This page is f*****g ridiculous. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 07:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone put that word on my text formatting subpage, fortunetely, someone of human intelligence reverted it out even before I could.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 07:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I know it was not your doing. It was someone else. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 07:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Stay calm. We'll get through this somehow. Btw, as Voice of All saw, putting the protected tag on the article does not protect the page. Admins are given an option for "protect this page". That's what used. It doesn't even automatically put the tag on the page. They are 2 separate things. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Nevermind, I though a regular user just put the tag there, which I see happen quite often. I re-added the tag, since it actually is protected....I scrolled over the red text to quickly :-). Unless someone came in and protected after I removed the tag...Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 07:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
BTW, that didn't last long, I just unprotected it earlier today :(.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 07:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I still think that it should remain protected until we get an arbcom case going against Rex...resuming his old one anyway. Otherwise, this will just continue. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Both "minor" and the alternative of "not serious" have been cited

Kizzle says that "minor" is "uncited subjective characterization", but he is mistaken in that. Both "minor" and "not serious" have been cited to valid sources. "Minor" to Kerry biographer Brinkley, [42] and "not serious" to retired Admiral Schachte [43]. As to whether or not these two persons, when they made their assessments, drew only subjective criteria is not established. Therefore, Kizzle's complaints that the statements made by these two are "subjective" is not supported. And, especially since we are using Brinkley for other points, it's absurd to now say that his statement of "minor" and only this particular statement by him, is invalid as being "subjective". I know I've said this before, but the opposition to "minor" is based on an uneven application of editing standards. If "bias" is the wrong word for that, then "disequal presumptions" perhaps is better. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 07:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Uhh, you're not citing it in the passage but adopting it into the official tone of the article. That's what I mean by uncited subjective characterization. --kizzle 07:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

But isn't that what we are doing with "bandage"? And with bandage, we have a conflicting source. That's because the Sick Call Treatment Record (the only primary source) uses the term "Bacitracin dressing", not the term "bandage". So why should we be "adopting... into the official tone of the article" the word "bandage"? Isn't the conflict between "bandage" and the SCTR term of "Bacitracin dressing" enough to establish the subjectivity of "bandage"? Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 07:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle explains "citing" and "official tone of the article"

Regarding the two sentences under dispute, I'd like Kizzle to explain what he means by "you're not citing it in the passage but adopting it into the official tone of the article". Here are the two sentences in dispute; "a)" shows the "bandage" sentence as it currently reads, "b)" shows the "minor" sentence as it would read if minor were allowed in:


a) "Bandage" (currently in the article):

The next day, with Kerry's arm bandaged, he returned to regular Swift boat patrol duty. [44]

b) "Minor" (currently not in the article):

During this encounter, Kerry received a minor shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow. [45]

Kizzle, I think we are close to a breakthrough here. Please give me your best answer.

Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 08:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

  • A) objective descriptor with clear and distinct characteristics
  • B) subjective characterization

--kizzle 18:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, you simply saying this "subjective characterization" for "b)", but not for "a)" does not make it so. You need to explain in detail why you contend this is true. All you have done is re-assert your position. Kizzle, your retort is not an explanation and does not suffice to support your contention. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 20:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Look up on this and the last 5 archive pages. I've supported my position plenty. I'll even point out where i said it, look for my question to you asking whether both "minor" and "bandage" can be defined through objective criteria, and what clear and distinct characteristics make up each. But that's as far as I'm going, as I'm done talking past you. --kizzle 21:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I only have patience for a few more replies, so don't take whatever comment I stop replying to you on as a sign that I don't have a rebuttal. --kizzle 18:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, I just scrolled up the entire page, and viewed the last 3 archives, two of which were archived within a matter of days, and viewed James's link to the archives. I'm done. This is never going to end. --kizzle 19:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

A blast from the past

I hunted up one of the old threads about "minor": Talk:John Kerry/August 2004 archive 1#Account of Vietnam service. The discussion there isn't hugely different from what we've seen in the past few weeks. Dealing with Rex is like plowing the ocean. JamesMLane 13:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It's deja vu all over again. --kizzle 18:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Invalid "Final" Vote

Place your version of Kerry's 1st PH here, once we have a few up we'll vote on concensus. A good-faith attempt at concensus building was attempted (which is the biggest understatement I have ever been witness to) and failed, thus we should vote on where people stand. Let's try and get this done pretty quickly as I want this whole thing over with as soon as possible so that the rest of us can get back to building an encyclopedia. --kizzle 19:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, Wwoods and Johntex also both support "minor". Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 21:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Still. Doesn't change the fact that consensus was reached. And apparently, this was an issue you were harking on what...14-15 months ago? Give it up. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex and anyone else, fill out an alternative below...once we have 3-4, we'll vote tommorow. --kizzle 21:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The status quo version is plenty good enough for anyone who doesn't have an axe to grind, time on their hands, and loves a fight more than creating a great encyclopedia. Wikipedia is about making a great encyclopedia, and anyone whose efforts clearly hinder or handicap that goal can find themselves dealt with accordingly. Rex can and will pursue his goals whatever they may be (and I can't claim to know them), but rest assured everyone ELSE will also pursue THEIR goals. Expect no less. I could go into arguements about what exact phrase is better and which is worse, but wikipedia is subject to constant editing and no version is ever final, thus anyone arguing ad nauseum for some perfect or trivially better version is just wasting everyone's time. WAS 4.250 23:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Version A - Status quo

See also: John Kerry military service controversy

During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating near a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began running and failed to obey an order to stop. As the men fled, Kerry and his crew of two sailors opened fire on the sampans and destroyed them, then rapidly left. During this encounter, Kerry suffered a shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow. [47] Later, medical staff removed the shrapnel and applied a bacitracin dressing. [48] The next day, with Kerry's arm bandaged, he returned to regular Swift boat patrol duty. [49] During the 2004 election, this incident and Kerry's resulting Purple Heart were disputed by critics of Kerry. [50][51] Also in 2004, the Navy conducted a review of the existing documentation and determined that Kerry's medals were properly approved. [52]

Version B - Derex

During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating near a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began running and failed to obey an order to stop. As the men fled, Kerry and his crew of two opened fire on the sampans, destroying them, and then rapidly left. During this encounter, Kerry received a shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow. Medical staff at base removed the shrapnel, and Kerry returned to Swift boat patrol duty the next day. Kerry was subsequently awarded his first Purple Heart for this wound.

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

Derex, you made a commitment to this version verbatim. Now all of a sudden you change your mind? And I did NOT copy this to here. I copied it below. Someone else pasted it here.Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 04:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

This "vote" is a call for 1st PH stasis and as such is invalid

Each wikpedian has a full right to edit. No vote can force an editor to waive that right. I do not agree with the contention that article stasis can be mandated by vote. Any vote for that is invalid. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 21:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Your view on the issue is irrelevant. A vote has been called. It is happening. A decision will be taken. Get over it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Jtdirl says "Your view on the issue is irrelevant". Indeed, this has been clear for some time. Be advised however, that my editors rights are in full force and I will not agree to waive them on the basis of a vote for stasis. I am not offering a version to be voted on; rather, I am still attempting to see to it that the editors who support "bandage" but oppose "minor" demonstrate a proof as to why Brinkley should be accepted as a citation for one, but not the other. So far, some editors have offered contentions, but no proof. Without a proof that Brinkley is not valid for "minor", then my concerns have not been addressed and I am stil dialoging. Any motions for cloture, or votes for versions, while unproven contentions are still being used as editors foundations, are invalid. And in any case, any vote for stasis is also invalid. There is not any "Rex" version being offered by me. Any vote regarding that at this time is a sham and is invalid. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 21:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

A consensus was reached. Long long ago. You are continuing to buck that consensus. Believe it or not Rex, you don't have the right to disrupt Wikipedia by bucking consensus FOREVER AND EVER. Take responsibility for your actions and quick acting like this is some conspiracy against you and that you are just a poor picked on editor. Please. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want agreement on the "bandage" "minor" problem, appoint a single spokesperson for your side (I choose JamesMLane) and instruct that editor to lay out a proof here that Brinkley is valid for "bandage" but not valid for "minor". This proof must include elucidated citeria by which the proof is arrived at. I will not accept mere assertions that "minor" is "subjective" as being determinative. Offer proof or expect that I will not agree. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 22:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


Come on Rex. It's a gambit and you know it. Just like you writing on my page that I could help you come up with the santient issues and then you would respond. This while you were basically saying what you were going to decide at the end anyway. This is directly from my talk page...
"Then you can review and challenge me. If you and I can agree on what the actual essential salient facts which should be included there are, then we can next perhaps fiqure out the best way to describe those facts. For example, I see no need to even mention that Kerrry had a bandage or gauze on the next day. No one, not even Kerry has said he was nursing an injury, so why is such a thing notable? The Sick Call Treatment Record establishes the basis for the Purple Heart, not any bandage. Suffice it to say, because I see the mention of the bandage as gratuitious hagiography, I am staunchly opposed to it and am insisting that James prove bandage."
It was a gambit. If I said yes, then you could say "well hey. He was once on your side but now look. He believes exactly what I do". This is similar. We'll pick James and then he'll present his arguments. It will look "fair and balanced" but then you will rip his arguments to shreds and we'll go right back to where we were, except that you can then go "well I gave it a shot but they wouldn't listen to me". I know your game. I've seen it in other disputes I've been involved in. It's called gaming the system. You've done it a few times just since I got here and that was only a week or so ago.
It's just like with this "prove" business. Again, it's a gambit. How can anyone prove bandage. What? Do you want us to time travel back and see what they actually used? All we can do on here is use source material. If there are competing sources, then frankly, I think we should drop all mention of bandage or wound and just say he got the Purple Heart. But you know...the consensus is to keep bandage in there. But again...the bandage side has shown you all of the evidence they have. And you know it. It's valid evidence. But this "prove" business will fail, because...#1...they aren't going to satisfy you. No way. Even if they found mountains of evidence, it's not going to satisfy you...because...you are a conservative and you don't think Kerry deserved the Purple Heart and you will do anything to prove that. I mean the election is over and you still feel a need to prove that he didn't earn that medal. And #2 And the thing is Rex...I know that if we went...ok...fine...we'll except little wound...we'll except no bandage. Then. You will find something else to bitch about. You will decide to go after the 2nd Purple Heart. Or some other issue. And in any case, you'll win. If we accept your side, then you win. If we don't, well then you can cry "you guys don't respect my editing rights!" or something else and then you can pound away some more.
But that's why you are also quick to jump on any advantage...like when Katefan0 made comments that weren't attacks but you labeled them as such...or how my mention of things happening to you if you continue this ranting became me "threatening you". it's just like how I'm an admin...I'm a referee here. I am not on one of the "sides". The consesus is all I care about. But somehow I'm supposed to nominate someone on "my side". You do that because you want this to be black and white. You don't want people to help. Conflict helps you. It energizes you. It makes others look bad (which is why I keep deleting these jokes. STOP THAT kizzle and others. it's not any better than Rex). It helps your side because then the other side looks evil and wrong and like they are picking on you.
Anyway, my rant is over. I'm leaving this article now because this is completely pointless. I'm not trying to be negative, but you guys on the bandage/wound side really need to get an ArbCom going. Never ending votes is not going to end this. Rex will not accept votes. You should know that by now.
Anyway, have fun Rex. If you do win, you will have badgered people for months and months on a collaborative, online encyclopedia that is free and that many people aren't even aware of. Congrats. (--Woohookitty)
BTW, that "your mom" wasn't Rex's mom, I was just trying to lighten the mood. Tensions are high, so i was just trying to be funny, which I clearly failed. --kizzle 22:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You have been repeating the same stuff ad nausaum. It is standard procedure in the event of a dispute to decide a consensus position based on a vote. If you do not choose to participate your edited version as endlessly inserted will be used. If after a vote to continue to highjack this page an immediate request will be made to the arbcomm requesting that you be banned for continuous disregard of Wikipedia rules on consensus and working with the community. Now stop endless harping on the same topic and put up your version. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It's fine if you don't want to supply a different version, that just means there will be no alternative when we vote tommorow. It's entirely irrelevant whether you deem this vote to be invalid or not, as you're welcome to your opinion but it has no bearing on the truth of the matter here. No more discussions. No more talks. Those options have been exhausted at this point. An extremely good-faith attempt, consisting of several hundred kilobytes of dialog, at Concensus decision-making, concensus building, whatever you want to call it, was made by an extremely large majority to try and satisfy your concerns. You can disagree all you want, but after tommorow, you must respect the decision that we all make regardless of whether you agree or not. --kizzle 22:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
My only other suggestion for you, Rex, is if you, James, Derex, me, and whoever else wants to get in on this meet on IRC and discuss this in real-time, which prevents talking past each other. That is the only medium for which I would be willing to discuss this further, and I make no promises that any agreement can even be reached. --kizzle 22:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
....... --kizzle 22:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
As I understand it, the vote is a last-ditch effort to quantify consensus because discussion has been fruitless. You have every right to not participate in the vote, but I believe you are very mistaken if you think this in itself will invalidate the consensus. —HorsePunchKid→龜 23:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It matters not if you claim "consensus" as the choices, as offered, are invalid on their face. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 23:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

That remains your opinion. Unfortunately, you will have to respect the decision made by the rest of us. --kizzle 23:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Any invalid vote taken here, will be respected as such, an invalid vote. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 23:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Any attempt to ignore the concensus of your fellow editors will be subject to dispute resolution. --kizzle 23:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps in a formal setting, mere votes cannot be used to install "bandage" as valid and dismiss "minor" as invalid. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 23:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

After one year of debate, endless repetition, and Rex's constant repeating of the same over vast amounts of space this debate is now over. A vote has been called. (an invalid vote Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 23:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC))

We'll still have a vote tommorow to make it official. --kizzle 23:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Jtdirl, what next? Do we just block Rex or leave the article protected for the next 2 years? I think this poll might be a good way to quite things down.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 23:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex has no interest in letting a decision be taken. All he wants to do is keep dragging out the issue until he forces everyone to agree with him. His endless re-opening (sorry, his re-re-re-re-re-re-opening) of the same issue is just a ruse. The longer people discuss things with him the more he can drag on a long dead debate on which there has been a clear consensus for months. That is why he goes ballistic when anyone suggests a vote (even though there have been repeated votes). So the issue is closed. We have filled talk page after talk page with his repeating ad nausaum of his viewpoint, and overwhelming majorities have told him at least fifty times that he is in a minority. There is no point for the fifty-first time repeating the same points. If you do that he'll repeat it a fifty-second time, and a fifty-third, and you'll be still here in January with exactly the same consensus, and exactly the same points being made by him. On other pages when one user behaves as he has done here their behaviour are seen as not in good faith but cynical stunts. The usual advice in those circumstances is summed up by the message emailed around and put on pages, usually by admins: don't feed the trolls. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I call on JamesMLane to prove that "bandage" is valid and "minor" is not

James, I call on you to prove this, here, now. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 23:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Asked and answered. JamesMLane 03:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Not true. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 04:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it is.

(copied from User talk:Derex)

Rex is correct about ArbCom, re: reverting

Please read this. Please take note of "It appears that enforcement #7 (the penalty related to reverting articles) is in relation to remedy 4.1 (the prohibition on reverting articles). As such, it appears that enforcement 7 expired when 4.1 did. →Raul654 07:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raul654".

As I told you Derex, I am not being a d*ck and I am trying to do my best to stay within both the letter and spirit of the rules. You do see that I did not just jump right in with edits in when John Kerry opened up for a while again today, yes? Frankly, I fail to see why you won't support the removal of "bandage". I've already agreed to drop "minor" if bandage is removed. Why is that not a good compromise? Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 08:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I already told you, drop minor, drop dressing, drop bacitracin, drop bandage, drop everything but shrapnel was removed. Then, I'm good with it. Derex @ 17:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


Derex, I think this would do; what about you?

During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating near a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began running and failed to obey an order to stop. As the men fled, Kerry and his crew of two opened fire on the sampans destroying them, then rapidly left. During this encounter, Kerry received a shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow. Kerry was treated at sick call and the next day, returned to Swift boat patrol duty. Kerry was subsequently awarded his first Purple Heart for this wound.

Benefits of this version are a) no links to battle over b) no mention of 2004 and c) driest possible tone, no POV left or right.

Would you support this, as-is, verbatim? Let me know. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 20:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


I would support this below verbatim, unless someone gives a compelling argument against it:

During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating near a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began running and failed to obey an order to stop. As the men fled, Kerry and his crew of two opened fire on the sampans, destroying them, and then rapidly left. During this encounter, Kerry received a shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow. Medical staff at base removed the shrapnel, and Kerry returned to Swift boat patrol duty the next day. Kerry was subsequently awarded his first Purple Heart for this wound.

If you post it on Talk:john Kerry and ask for the others' opinions, I feel that agreement can be reached. If this version [53] of yours is accepted by the group as-is, I will also accept it. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 23:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Issue and debate closed. Just propose an version and we'll vote on it. No more waffle on the issue. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Issue and debate open. Either agree with the Derex version or prove the merit of "bandage" and the deficiancy of "minor". Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 23:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

D'uh! Very clever. Using a stop sign say a debate is open!!! BTW no-one has to prove anything to you. Whether it satisfies you or not is 100% irrelevant. A consensus exists. You disagree. You cannot highjack this page. You have done it for a year. Those days are over. Issue is closed. Period. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You do not own this page. Prove your points and I will drop my objections. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 00:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No-one has to prove anything to you. Given that you are in a minority it onus is on you to convince others. You have failed completely to do so. Issue closed. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Why can't I edit this page?

It seems to be frozen in this horribly pro-kerry form, how can I edit it? isn't this supposed to be a free source open encyclopedia?--Anonrtgtt 00:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick question anonrtgtt, what intrigued you so much about John Kerry, specifically his first PH, that made this one of your first edits? --kizzle 01:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: Anonrgtt and a subsequent series of suspected sockpuppets using variants of the name were later blocked by various Wikipedians on suspicion of being an impersonator of, or of being, Rex, and posting abuse on the pages of some editors here. FearÉIREANN\(caint)

Jtdirl, watch your mouth. Don't accuse me of using socks. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 04:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously you know as little about human biology as you do about Kerry. Unless your eyes are in your nose you cannot watch your mouth. lol. Really, is there no end to nonsensical comments from Rex? BTW I didn't accuse you of anything. I stated in NPOV language that anonymous figures posting abuse were blocked as being suspected either sockpuppets of yours or impersonators of you. That is why they were blocked. (I didn't block them, BTW). I simply explained why they were blocked and what the presumption was that was made by the blockers. I did not accuse you of anything. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 04:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

This is all a scam aimed at falsely accusing me. Jtdirl and Mr. Tibbs know more than they admit, I am guessing. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 04:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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


As is all too typical of Rex's behaviour here, he accuses overyone else of bias and blames everyone else. As with so much else Rex has said here lately the above allegation is so worthless it is not worth wasting time answering. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 04:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Failing to log in, if same IP is always used, is NOT sockpuppet editing. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 04:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

That's hokum. My IP was common knowledge amongst you guys by then. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 05:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

No, I was refusing to log on as protest. If you bothered to look into this better, you would know that. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 06:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

But you were also refusing to identify yourself as Rex. --kizzle 06:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex and sockpuppets

So how are you, Rex? Good? Let's see. You leave at 00:30 or so...around that time, I start getting hit with vandals up the wazoo. it took redwolf and I 3 hours to get it so that I wasn't getting hit with a new variation of anonxxxx every 10 minutes. And then an hour later...look...it's Rex! And we have more evidence. Rex posts on the Talk:Price-Anderson Act page at 00:03 and lo and behold, the first vandal posts to P-A at 00:20. Try deleting this, Rex. You deleted my valid post off of your talk page. Yes, I'm an admin with over 11,000 edits...I threatened to leave the project and I have several people begging me to stay. Yeah, I have alot of reason to vandalise your page with garbage. I'm really tired of how we treat bad actors. We go through all of this red tape and nothing works. Rex has been through it twice...been punished twice...and yet...here he is. And Rex, according to Kizzle, you pulled this once before. You spent months claming that your username and the IP you now admit to using were not the same person. And conveniently, the sockpuppets all used AOL, which you know darn well we can't trace. You could've set up an AOL account tonight for this purpose. In fact, you could've been on Wikipedia with both accounts at the same time...yours...and the vandal address...because as most people know, you can get on with AOL and another ISP at the same time. You just use one to get to the other. Or you can alternate both. You know this. And I love this charge about us somehow getting together and deciding to accuse you of using sockpuppets. Look at User:Woohookitty/Vandals. Do you think we went to all of this work just to accuse you of being a sockpuppet? I got hit with 5 vandals...all with similar names...2 more were going to be created (anoni and one other one), but they were stopped before they could. There were also 2 impersonators of me formed.

And the thing is...this can't be all coincidence. Come on. I go on a diatribe against you today and look...I get massively attacked for the first time in my 10 months here? I had been vandalized before but nothing like this. Come on. Get real. Yes it's all a coincidence...the fact that just I was hit...the fact that you had 2 posts on the Price-Anderson page 17 minutes apart with 2 accounts...the fact that you hit basically just the political pages I do plus any admin stuff I tried...yep. Coincidence. And I'm sorry for putting this here. I know it doesn't belong here, but it shouild be posted somewhere and apparently he's going to delete any attempts that I make to put this on his user page.
Again, I really am done with this page, but I had to put this here because I have nowhere else to place it. And it is germaine to this article because I angered Rex today and guess what happened? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

This: "the fact that you had 2 posts on the Price-Anderson page 17 minutes apart with 2 accounts" is a flat out falsehood. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 06:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404: "no proof he suffered"

This edit, combined with the gem of an edit summary I've quoted, pretty much sums up the value of Rex071404's actions here. I absolutely hate it when people do this to me, but I'm going to quote the dictionary[54] here:

suf·fer v. tr. 1. To undergo or sustain (something painful, injurious, or unpleasant)

You have got to be kidding, Rex071404. What possible "proof" could satisfy you at this point? —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"Received" is NPOV. "Suffered" implies the injury was worse than it was. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 06:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

So you contend that either Kerry did not "undergo or sustain" such an injury or that the injury was not "painful", "injurious", or "unpleasant"? I think we can rule out "injurious", since it was, after all, an injury. That just leaves "painful" and "unpleasant". I have not actually hammered shrapnel into my arm (yet!), but I suspect it would at the very least be unpleasant... —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Rex, get on IRC. anyone else monitoring this page now, get on irc. --kizzle 06:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I am happy to talk right here thank you. Here, there is a record of what is said. I am not going to expose myself to any more false accusations by going off record. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 06:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobody's going to listen to you here. At least in real-time we won't be talking past each other. you can copy and paste the transcript. Go download www.mirc.com then click here. --kizzle 06:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm on IRC now, but honestly, I am rather ignorant of IRC chatting conventions. Somehow it's one form of communication I have managed to avoid since I first tried it in '95 or thereabouts. :) —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Still on if anyone wants to come. --kizzle 06:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I signed off after the conversation became circular in the same way that much of the discussion here is. Tangents turn into other tangents until you find you're talking about the same thing you were an hour ago, and you're no closer to a conclusion. I can post a link to a transcript up to the point where I left if anyone is interested. Thanks, kizzle, for trying to be proactive and setting up the chat, and thanks Rex071404, for participating! —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The Brinkley citation validates "minor" as being legitimate

Brinkley is valid for both bandage and minor or he's not valid for either. There has been no proof offered otherwise, only unsupported contentions. I have met my burden to offer citation for "minor". [55] I am citing to the exact same person who says "bandage". There is no escaping that this is true. Those who disregard this and refuse to offer proof that one is valid and the other is not, fail to meet their burden, plain and simple. Come what may, I will not agree to an illegitimate vote. If "minor" is illegitimate, then there is no reason to offer it for a vote. If it's not illegitimate, then there is no reason to exclude it. Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 22:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

.....--kizzle 06:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Busy beavers

Wow, I take Sunday off and look at how busy everybody has been. Well, as the rest of you have surmised, it also seems clear to me that the way to proceed is to place several versions of the disputed paragraph on the page and let people pick which one they support best. In an ideal world, consensus should be unanimous and everyone should be happy, but sometimes (ahem) that's not possible. Once a consensus is reached, attempts to change that paragraph can be reverted as vandalism. As an aside, I have no idea who these sockpuppets were run by, but I find the behavior absolutely appalling. Let's all try to take a deep breath and ratchet down the rhetoric just a bit. I'd also just mention that if you feel like you're being baited, you probably are -- so don't hit the edit button, just let it go. I'm going to copy the earlier versions of the vote back down to the bottom of the page where they'll be immediately obvious. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to add another version below, but limit it to one per person please. I note that Rex has said he won't edit the JK page while arbitration is ongoing, which I think is big of him. But that doesn't mean, Rex, that you can't propose a version here on the talk page. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of the different versions

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

Does version C intentionally omit all citation of sources? I suppose a reader who persevered could find the later link to the daughter article and wade through that much longer material to try to find a particular citation, but it seems a disservice to the reader. JamesMLane 04:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm voting for A, but that "Also, in 2004" part really pisses me off. Can we change it to "Several months later", "Later", "Subsequently", anything else? --kizzle 05:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Version B did not intentionally omit sources, those from A should be included. I generally like A, however, I think this is not the appropriate place for a discussion of the controversy or the IG report. SBVT challenged every single one of Kerry's 5 combat medals. Putting that info here makes it seem like a scrap over just that first PH. I agree with jpgordon that it ought to be linked under the campaign. It also ought to be included using the "see also" template at the very top of the military section, where it's quite prominent. Then, don't mention it again in the military section. After all, SBVT criticized virtually every aspect of his career we mention; it would be silly to link every section, and selective to link just a few. So I'd vote for A with the last two sentences stripped and the "see also" at the very top of military service. Derex [[User_talk:Derex|@]] 16:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Version A - Status quo

See also: John Kerry military service controversy

During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating near a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began running and failed to obey an order to stop. As the men fled, Kerry and his crew of two sailors opened fire on the sampans and destroyed them, then rapidly left. During this encounter, Kerry suffered a shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow. [56] Later, medical staff removed the shrapnel and applied a bacitracin dressing. [57] The next day, with Kerry's arm bandaged, he returned to regular Swift boat patrol duty. [58] During the 2004 election, this incident and Kerry's resulting Purple Heart were disputed by critics of Kerry. [59][60] Also in 2004, the Navy conducted a review of the existing documentation and determined that Kerry's medals were properly approved. [61]

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

Version B - Derex

During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating near a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began running and failed to obey an order to stop. As the men on shore fled, Kerry and his crew of two opened fire on the sampans, destroying them, and then rapidly left. During this encounter, Kerry received a shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow.[62] Medical staff at base removed the shrapnel, and Kerry returned to Swift boat patrol duty the next day.[63] Kerry was subsequently awarded his first Purple Heart for this wound.

I vote for this version. I would like this sentence reworded to make it clear who left rapidly (Kerry and his crew or the men?: As the men fled, Kerry and his crew of two opened fire on the sampans, destroying them, and then rapidly left.Dubhdara 01:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
done Derex [[User_talk:Derex|@]]

Version C - minimalist - Jpgordon

During the night of December 2-December 3, 1968, Kerry was wounded during an encounter with the enemy. Kerry was awarded his first Purple Heart for this wound.

  • I vote for Version C - this whole incident isn't even a footnote in History (if he had been elected Prez, maybe....) Who really cares about what the 30-year-old service record of the losing Prez candidate was? Can you even recite whether the losing candidates in the last 30 years served or not? -Jcbarr 01:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • not disagreeing with your vote, but the reason it's more than a footnote is that Kerry very likely lost the election because of SBVT attacks on his service record, including the merit of this PH. Derex 01:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
      • possibly. Or because he couldn't explain the Iraq war vote coherently. Or because he's a Yankee Liberal. Or because Diabold cheated. I could keep this up all night but I really shouldn't  :) -Jcbarr 01:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
        • If it was anyone, it was Triad, not diebold. --kizzle 06:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Oh, I agree with Derex. But how many times does it have to be pointed out? SBVT was after him for one reason only: revenge for Winter Soldier. Their activities can and should be discussed in the appropriate places -- but they aren't in the least related to his actual Vietnam experience. --jpgordon01:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

IT'S SO ORANGE IT MAKES MY EYES HURT

MAKE IT STOP!! PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!--205.188.117.68 23:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes, in the night, I wake up screaming that too. Derex @ 00:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
any chande of grapefruit?Sandpiper 17:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
What's a chande? --205.188.117.68 20:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
He meant chance, he just mispelled it. --kizzle 20:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows

Rex071404's arby case has been accepted. Place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404_4/Evidence if you would like to. The general arby page for him is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404_4. For those who don't know, yes, this is his 4th arbcom case in a little over a year. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex is very quiet. There hasn't been a mention of wound, minor or bandage for how long??? Gee I'm almost missing him, not! User talk:Jtdirl 08:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW you may have noticed that the template on the page has been proposed for deletion. It is of the latest nutty proposals on the template for deletion page. Feel free to tell them what you think. (I have. Gee but the deletionists are mad at what I said. Did I really say 'Gee'? Zeech! I must be hanging around with too many Americans on WP these days. If I ever salute George Bush please shoot me!) User talk:Jtdirl 08:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm a deletionist (though not rigid), so watch your mouth! :) Anyway, the other thing is that there is a move for a temporary injunction against him Here.
If you are a party in the case, please support it. It bans him from this article. He says he won't edit this article while the case is going on, but I don't trust him. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
<rex23> and I am quitting the wiki forever after i post the log from this chat to my talk page

So far he seems like he's sticking to it. --kizzle 21:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

He's said he would quit before. Gamaliel 22:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Yep. In fact his last exile (which lasted from April 18th to October 18th) was self-imposed and yet when he returned, it was back to the same crap. We just need to end this once and for all. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

So

Number 1 is I'm back. :) Rex is gone and we don't have an edit war anymore. isn't that amazing? :) So. Do we have any other issues we can address during his absence? Anything bothering anyone about the article that we can change? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, yes, but it's something I haven't had the energy to tackle due to the Rex problem. This article should have a section on the 2004 election. While there's already an article on the election itself, we really should have some sort of summary here. Gamaliel 09:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Couple of things

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

Been gone, but I think Tibbs already nailed it. Derex [[User_talk:Derex|@]] 04:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Vote is already 4-0 to ban him from this article for good and from "problem edits" on all articles for good. I have a feeling that the arbys had been watching him on here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


Wow a 4-0 vote? That sounds like it represents the people. Who voted, the four fathers of the Chinese mafia? (Youngidealist 03:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC))

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

Protected

I'm only protecting this page for a few hours, so hopefully the vandals will quiet a bit. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected it now. Titoxd(?!?) 04:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Really, I believe it is irresponsible for an administrator to unprotect this page without providing an Over/Under line on how long before the next vandalism. I would recommend a number in the minutes, the optimists can use hours, the pessimists seconds. (Naturally, I'm kidding  :) (32 is my guess) Wikibofh 04:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

persistent troll

This page just isn't the same without everybody's favorite persistent troll, I wonder what sockpuppet he's moved onto now--I172.142.98.29I 02:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to kick him while he is down... Titoxd(?!?) 02:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Kerry and Patriot Act

I wish there was a Criticism section in this article. I'm trying to figure out where I can work something like this in: Kerry authored the money laundering provisions in the Patriot Act. Some feel this is one of the most privacy-invasive parts of the Act. These provisions were used to prosecute a Las Vegas strip club owner.

Where can I put this in? This article needs a Criticism section. RJII 03:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the article needs a separate "Criticisms" section. We should continue to include criticisms where appropriate in the subject-matter sections. For the specific point you mention, I think that a mention could be made in the discussion of his Senate career. As with other legislative issues, however, the full elaboration of the pros and cons should be in the article about that legislation. JamesMLane 16:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Kerry/Archive_24&oldid=1145854840"