Jump to content

Talk:John Kerry/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28

John Kerry won't run in 2008

Has anyone else heard that? 64.74.153.189 07:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes: it was featured in my newspaper. Extremely sexy 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a movement to draft him as a presidential candidate in 2008. See: http://www.draftjohnkerry08.com Draftjohnkerry08 19:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

World Economic Forum section

This section looks to me like it is in need of a lot of help. The last sentence is totally disconnected from the first: Kerry spoke about global warming and AIDS, and then Iran took his remarks as supporting them on nuclear power? Only one Iranian website's view is now mentioned. Is that what Kerry actually said? The linked article really quotes Kerry very little and devotes most of its body to Iranians, not Kerry. Surely it is not correct to only report on the Iranian spin on what Kerry said. Imagine how different George Bush's article would look if that were the standard. I'm hoping someone knowledgeable can clean this up. Mullibok 15:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Repetitive information in Trivia section

Since I am explaining the reason for my edits to the Trivia section, and they are still rather unceremoniously being reverted, I am going to explain myself here and hope that I can get feedback:

I deleted two trivia pieces in the John Kerry article, because they can already be found in the Personal Life section. My impression from other pages is that it is Wikipedia policy to cut down on Trivia sections as much as possible and to work it into the actual article. Since these pieces ARE in the actual article, they should be gone from trivia. I think it looks very bad and disjointed for an article to repeat itself this way, and I cannot imagine a print encyclopedia doing the same. Pick one place such information belongs, and remove repetition.

I also see no reason why the Trivia section would repeat that he is an ice hockey fan, but not repeat that he is an avid windsurfing fan, or an avid cyclist.

If someone really thinks this information needs to be repeated as trivia, I would appreciate their explanation here. Otherwise, I think it should go out. Mullibok 21:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I did explain this on my talk page. Extremely sexy 23:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Reading what is on your talk page, I am not clear what your position is. Do you agree that his height IS mentioned in the Personal Life section? If so, why does it need to be mentioned again in trivia? And what makes his like of ice hockey so notable it needs to be mentioned twice? Why repeat it in trivia specifically, and not repeat windsurfing, hunting, etc.? The way the article is now makes it look like one section doesn't know what the other section is saying, which I believe is poor form. I'm hoping someone else will be able to weigh in on this. Mullibok 14:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
As I wrote, I agree with you if his height has already been mentioned somewhere else, but I can't find it anywhere att all, hence. Extremely sexy 19:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotection

This page needs to be semiprotected. I did so earlier but it seems the protection has been removed (the page was consequently immediately vandalised again). I've reverted or amended at least 4 vandalisms to this page from anonymous IP addresses (and newly registered names) in the last 2 hours! matt.smart talk/contribs 15:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that the page is actually semiprotected, someone just added the template saying it is.--Mbc362 16:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the template as its going to deter legitimate edits from anon users. If you want the page protected, you need to ask an admin do it.--Mbc362 17:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I will request that this page be semiprotected, as now several IP's are vandalizing this page like every day or so. --Andrewlp1991 00:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up: Grr! My request was denied! --Andrewlp1991 05:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Kyoto accord and global warming

"Whereas the Senate in 1997 during the Clinton administration voted down the treaty 95-0, including Senator Kerry" => this is part of his public record. It should be included as he is commenting on it. See: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00205 135.245.8.35 19:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Reading the link implies the motion passed and was not voted down.--Lucy-marie 09:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Exact date for Bryant Park rally

Does anyone know the date for that rally? Based on the coats they are wearing I feel like summer is too broad a term and probably also wrong. (unsigned comment)

Good catch. I did some research and have come up with a likely date of May 12, 1972; possibly April 1972. Neither is actually part of "summer." I edited the image page with links to sources and discussion of the date question on the talk page, but am out of time at the moment to edit the linking pages. I'll come back and do it later if no one else has. --MoxRox 13:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
okay I changed it just to say "in 1972." I really don't think the exact date is needed, and shouldn't be given if there is some question of the accuracy of the date. Since the two most credible sources I came up with both stated 1972, I believe that is correct. --MoxRox 13:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Davos 2007

Is what he said really that controversial, given what else he has said in life? Curious what folks thought about that, more or less. 132.162.250.118 07:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Controlled fashion?

just stumbled on this one, have you seen it, do you find it relevant, interesting? Lovelight 17:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. No. No. --EECEE 06:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

New TIME article

Good article by Bob Shrum about Kerry's choice of Edwards in 2004. Apparently it is an excerpt from Shrum's upcoming book. Not extremely kind to Edwards.

  • Shrum, Robert (2007-05-30). "Kerry's Regrets About John Edwards". TIME Magazine. Retrieved 2007-05-31.

- Crockspot 23:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kerryedwards.JPG

Image:Kerryedwards.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over comments on Iraq and education - possible bias

Some may argue that this section is biased, because the entire controversy is described for the point of view of John Kerry. This is especially evident from the layout of the section, where Kerry's eventual explanations for his statement are presented before the criticism for that statement has even been mentioned. The Kerry side of the controversy has also been given undue weight as compared to those criticizing his statement, since it would certainly be more informative to the reader to learn more about the criticism, it being considered a controversy after all, rather than one-sided excuses from Kerry.

A more neutral point of view in this section would thus benefit the credibility of the article. Sarnalios 19:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this section is biased in his favour. Right from the start, we already know his remarks were inadvertent, caused by mispeaking, so any "controversy" arising from those misstatements are purely the efforts of his detractors and to give list them out in detail would itself violate NPOV. Kerry's detractors want it to be a controversy (given how close it was then to election day), despite the fact that it was a simple mistatement. For Wikipedia to treat it as a genuine controversy would be to bias this section against Kerry. Furthermore, this article is about John Kerry, not about his detractors, so I don't see why we couldn't given more weight to his statements relative to the others. Ethereal 01:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The very structure of the section (inadvertently?) gives the reader a Kerry biased version of the events. If a NPOV is adopted, the events should be presented chronologically rather than read as something produced by a Kerry spokesperson. The motivation of different parties in any controversy may be of some interest, but the Kerry "stuck in Iraq" comments were undeniably controversial. To claim otherwise is simply to ignore the media storm that was caused by his orgininal statement and also from the way he tried to handle the event. Sarnalios 21:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you feel that the section is not NPOV because it is not biased enough against Kerry to your liking?--Folksong 20:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I took out the statement in parentheses about Cheney and Bush not serving in Vietnam, because that did really seem like an editorial aside that was a swipe at those two and didn't contribute much to the section. Other than that, it seems fine to me. Mullibok 20:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone still have objections to the neutrality of this piece? If so, I would appreciate specific suggestions on what to change. If not, I think it's time the neutrality tag was dropped from the section. Mullibok 17:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I know this debate took place a little while ago, but I definetly have an objection: there is a quote by Kerry pretty much just slamming Republicans and justifying his actions. What follows it? Nothing to show the other side and no quotes by those arguing against what he said. Talk about bias! Happyme22 00:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I have now removed that quote, article flows just fine without it. Since that seems to be the end of the bias charges against the section, I'm dropping the tag of neutrality being disputed. If anyone else has further objections, please bring them up. -- Mullibok (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Reducing this section to minimalist gold may be ideal in this dispute. Just say what Kerry's staff allegedly wrote for him initially, and then say (or even say it before, who cares?), and then say the majority political party in Congress at the time saw it, and then look into examples of how the minority politcal party handled it. Do not say how the 2006 Elections actually fared at this time becuase that is stupid and people know and there is no tangible proof (that I know of at least) of any effect of this event on the larger scheme of electoral things. Tacobellis 08:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Multimillionaire

How is the fact that Kerry's a multimillionaire relevant enough to be included in the introductory paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.143.236 (talk • contribs)

Very good question indeed in my humble opinion. Extremely sexy 20:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't belong. Removal is good. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed it. In addition to the fact that detailed info is included later in this article, I haven't seen where any of the other wealthy Senators have such info in the intro to their articles. --EECEE 07:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Add quote of John Kerry's Vietnamese Reeducation Camp comments

It would be of greater value to readers and researchers to be able to see quoted statements made with citations.

John Kerry on Washington Journal, C-SPAN. 18 July 07. In response to a callers comments about her concern that leaving Iraq now would yield a similar situation that happened in Vietnam after the American pullout in S.E. Asia.
"Let me just say to the first part of your question with respect to boat people and killing, everybody predicted a massive bloodbath in Vietnam. There was not a massive bloodbath in Vietnam. There were reeducation camps, and they weren't pretty and, you know, nobody, you know, likes that kind of outcome. But on the other hand, I've met lot of people today who were in those education camps, who are thriving in the Vietnam of today."

The relevance of this quote is critical to the subjects mindset at this time in history and should be preserved for those wishing to research on the subject. It is not intended to be partisan in any way but is a critical part of this subjects historical dynamic. Delta359 13:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


I removed the entire entry at the article. Aside from the obvious POV in the way it is presented, there is no indication that this response to a call-in question has resulted in any sort of "controversy" outside of various negative comments in the blogosphere. I agree that anyone wishing to research the statement should read the actual, full statement. But it's not worthy of a Wikipedia entry, in my opinion.
I removed the Davos entry for pretty much the same reason. --EECEE 05:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Quayle quote incorrectly attributed

... Kerry made a joke about then President-elect George H.W. Bush and his running mate, saying "if Bush is shot, the Secret Service has orders to shoot Dan Quayle" ... UseNet posts in early 90s suggest that Senator Bob Kerrey is the author of this quote, not John Kerry. Pádraig Coogan 22:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

September 11, 2007 ban lift date

Anybody else see that date as a little odd? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.52.77 (talk • contribs)

Only if you're seeing a pattern without checking the protect date. The protection was added on August 11, so obviously the admin just added 1 month protect time. Dstumme 01:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

September 17, 2007 John Kerry involved in present at involved in police taser incident

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=5692 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.230.82 (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

absolutely needs to be included into the article. Connör (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The full article is at University of Florida Taser incident. There should be a link there from this article. Johntex\talk 23:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
ok, I included it, its just a start though. just a really short section that says "Main Article: University of Florida Taser incident" at the top of it. Connör (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this is relevant to Kerry's biography. The header of this section is deceptive too. Kerry was not "involved" at all. I adjusted that. I object to this going into the article unless a case is made for its relevance to Kerry's notability. - Crockspot 23:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it was better before, perhaps it should have been a subsection, but still, it deserves a section. Connör (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
How, in the totality of Kerry's life, could this incident possibly deserve a section? Can you point me to other politician articles where a random deranged moonbat that was dragged away from a speech is covered in its own section? If Kerry had run over and jammed his heel into the guy's throat, or started pulling cops off the guy, then it might deserve that kind of coverage, but he was just there. - Crockspot 00:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
yeah, thats why I said it should be a subsection, just so it would be easy to find in the table of contents. Connör (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Full agreement with crockspot on this one. This deserves a sentence, maybe, but not a section or subsection. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 00:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a pretty significant event (many of the videos of the event you can find on youtube have well over 250,000 views. It needs a subsection, maybe even just a sub-subsection. Just so it could it be found from the table of contents. Connör (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not significant at all, it's a minor news story that will soon be forgotten. This is an encyclopedia, not a news blotter. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 00:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, first it should say "involved in" not "present". He was definately involved. He was the one who was asked the question, he was the one who unsuccessfully tried to tell the police to stop. Connör (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that Kerry was involved in the incident. The whole thing occurred because Kerry was speaking. The student's questions were about Kerry and adressed to Kerry. Kerry spoke to the officers to tell them he planned to answer the question. Kerry make a joke about the student after the student was taken away. Kerry issued a statement after the incident. Clearly Kerry was "involved", not merely "present". Johntex\talk 02:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Therefore, the incident diserves a section. Also, the section that the incident is mentioned in now has nothing to do with the incident. I'm giving it a subsection. Connör (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I have mixed feelings about it having its own section. A one sentence section is a little awkward, but on the flip side it does make the information easier to find. It is reasonable to believe that in the next couple of weeks, a lot of people will be coming to the John Kerry article for precisely this information. Over that time, maybe Kerry will have even more to say about this. Therefore, I support the incident having its own section for now. We can re-examine that in a few weeks. Wikipedia is not going anywhere. Johntex\talk 18:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Florida Taser incident. Badagnani 05:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Refusal to endorse John Edwards in 2008

Kerry and Edwards apparently had a falling out sometime after their campaign and Kerry steadfastly refuses to even mention Edwards. This is relevant to both Kerry's past and current political activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.221.30 (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 12:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Except that any addition should include objective, factual support. In this case, the absence of an endorsement is not the same as a "refusal" to endorse. It does not necessarily indicate anything more than a lack of an endorsement, unless there are statements indicating a reason for the absence of an endorsement. --EECEE 18:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. There seems to be a tendency to make leaps here on wikipedia that are not supported by verifiable info. The lack of a denial does not equal a confirmation, the lack of a libel lawsuit does not verify the truth of an allegation, and the lack of Edward's name passing over Kerry's lips is not a refusal to mention him. Without reliable secondary sources mentioning some sort of falling out, or some sort of refusal to endorse, including this information would qualify as original research. - Crockspot 18:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
You are a good watchman, Crock. --EECEE 01:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kerryedwards.JPG

Image:Kerryedwards.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

User:Zombie621 entered info which is clearly vandalism, but I can't revert as a mere anon. 199.71.183.2 16:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

BC Law

Boston College Law School was still located in Boston at the time of Kerry's maltriculation: http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/alumni/ebrief/history.html Hudsons (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Claims of Being a Closet Atheist

He seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic Church. His claims that the question of abortion is purely "religious" is totally fake. Some believe he´s a closet atheist, and only pretends to be a Catholic because american politicians can´t be atheists or agnostics.17:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)~

Fair use rationale for Image:Kerrydoonesbury.gif

Image:Kerrydoonesbury.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

New GI Bill

I think it should be noted on Kerry's page that he is not only working with representative King on the new GI Bill, but also working with Bill O'Reilly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan314 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Rotten.com link in the "Information" section. It's not so much information as a POV piece, not even commentary. Sorry that my history note was entered before I could include the reasons for removal. --EECEE (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What the F?

Yeah, John Kerry, kinda, ISN'T IN THE COMING FRICKIN' ELECTION. JESUS H. CHRIST! OH GREAT! NOW I HAVE TO TAKE IT OFF MYSELF! WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW! OH MY GOD I HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING! JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ!

Have a great day! Kodster (Talk) 02:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't have a heart attack, man! I took it off! Jeez! Kodster (Talk) 02:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC) (Totally different from top)

The intro was a bit wordy and stated that he was defeated. Another candidate, Ralph Nader, does not have similar wording. To make both articles similar, "defeated" has been replaced by "unsuccessful" Spevw (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edit changed the sentence to say "he unsuccessful in winning the 2004 presidential election to the Republican incumbent President George W. Bush." That is poor English and really convoluted, so I'm changing it back. Mullibok (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the election notification! He is not currently running for president anymore, but yet the notice is still there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.251.29 (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Signature image

Please see the signature image used in the infobox - Image:JohnKerrySignature.JPG. It has an obviously false source. Does anyone know where the signature can be found online at a gov't site? --B (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

How is the source obviously false? Can we have User:Jeick chime in? Kingturtle (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Umm ... unless Jeick is John Kerry, I'd say it's guaranteed to be false or a forgery. --B (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Early Political Career Conflict

It says that he barely won his LG democratic primary but then he and Dukakis easily won the general election. Yet in the next paragraph it says that Dukakis lost (?) Is the second paragraph vandalism or is the author talking about different campaigns? Please be clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookatim (talk • contribs) 08:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The easy win is refering to Dukakis and Kerry running for goverenor of PA. The loss is refering to Dukakis' 1988 presidential run. The question is, why is it mentioned at all, let alone in this way? Was this memo on the nuclear plan siginificant in the 88 campaign? If so, this needs to be a lot clearer, if not then this probably needs to go. Enlightened Bystander (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Office holder infobox

Relative to another senator, the discussion came up about the correct name in the infobox. This should follow the name as listed on the ballot by which they were elected, and by the official documents associated with the office. In this case: http://senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/one_item_and_teasers/massachusetts.htm. There also exists the Senate page created by Kerry's staff: http://kerry.senate.gov/. Unfortunately, in this case, the Senator's individual page does not give the identical spelling to that the Senate historian's staff provides. However, I happen to have been a Massachusetts voter, and have seen that the 'F.' middle initial is used on ballots.

The name of the article title should follow most commonly used name (as it does), and the name in the lead should be full and complete name (as it is). The infobox should follow the official documents of the office associated. LotLE×talk 18:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I dispute the infobox one. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes):

The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the item. This does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title.

In this case, the full name of the person is "John Forbes Kerry". I don't know where this precedent of "official Senate papers" comes from, but I would be interested to know. —Kurykh 02:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

2008, presidential template

Hello there a 2008, presidential campaign template here and it should be the 2004, presidential campaign template. but, I cant change it can someone it for me. thankyou. 24.128.245.177 (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:The New Soldier.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Start of Senate service

This article and Paul Tsongas both say Kerry succeeded on January 3rd 1985, but List of United States Senators from Massachusetts (and, implicitly, Seniority in the United States Senate) states that Tsongas resigned a day early and Kerry was appointed so as to give him a boost in seniority. Which are right? Timrollpickering (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I was also just wondering this. I will ask on the senate seniority page. --KarlFrei (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's the source: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=BG&p_theme=bg&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EADEAC2FA16B6C1&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM —Markles 18:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Iraq

5.4.1 Iraq states that no weapons of mass destruction were found. The cited reference contains misleading information; it should say no nuclear weapons, because by definition, mustard gas is a weapon of mass destruction (and Saddam clearly had that). My suggestion is that a better reference be found and/or the wording be changed from "weapons of mass destruction" to "thermonuclear weapons." Gefreiter (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

split articles

John McCain has like 7 articles about him just because he was his party's nominee. How about we make other articles for Kerry like Early life and career of John Kerry, Military service of John Kerry (was a central part of his campaign), and Senate career of John Kerry.--Levineps (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers, I thought this article would be shortened, after the 2004 election. It was recentism then, that caused this article to bloat up. Same as what's happend to the McCain article, now. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

District Attorney

This article used to claim that Kerry once served as a District Attorney. That is incorrect. It is well-known in Massachusetts that he was an *Assistant* District Attorney. Kerry's own campaign site mentions only that he was a prosecutor. I easily found a good reference confirming what I already knew.Bostoner (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Error in Family Background section, John Kerry

I have never participated in the Wiki, pedia or otherwise, process. I also just made the mistake of writing my comment, then deciding to click the 'what is a minor edit' link, and losing the comment I'd just typed up. So I will not try to get any more technical than just attempting to submit, and perhaps properly sign this comment, and hope it makes it to the right place, where all you pros can then provide the proper authority to edit and make what I believe is a necessary change. The opening text states that Sen. Kerry is one of eleven children, then goes on to say that he has three siblings, with no attrition due to deaths recorded. I believe that this statement contradicts itself on the face of it, and that it was in fact his mother, Rosemary, who had eleven siblings. So if anyone agrees and would like to make this change, it would be lovely. Ubiki (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It said he was the eleventh child and has three siblings, so it's conceivable that there could have been seven deaths (unmentioned in text, as you note) and it means three living siblings. I'm pretty sure that's not the case, though, so I've removed "eleventh".
By the way, all that this "pro" did was to click on the "Edit" button to the right of the "Family background" section and then, in the edit window, delete the word "eleventh". Go ahead and try something like that yourself next time you see a mistake. Our motto here is: Be bold! Include an explanation in your edit summary and if you stumble on a formatting issue, someone else will fix it. JamesMLane t c 22:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

article a little too big?

is it just me or does this article seem to have an aweful lot of unnecessary information. This should be trimmed down abit to be more readable.. -Tracer9999 (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam War images

Probably been asked a thousand times, but there does seem to be images of Kerry in Vietnam available, wouldn't the inclusion of one be appropriate? They would all, presumably, by PD-USArmedForces? --SGGH ping! 21:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yacht and other personal tax issues

I added this but someone else took it out. I see someone else had also previously added the yacht thing but that was taken out too. So let's see what other editors think:

In 1983, Kerry put some of his income in an offshore tax shelter in the Cayman Islands.[1]

In 2001, when Massachusetts cut its top income tax rate rate from 5.85% to 5.3%, and people who opposed the tax cut had the option to pay the older, higher rate, Kerry chose to pay the newer, lower rate.[2]

In 2003, while the average middle class person paid approximately 20% of their income in federal income taxes, Kerry, who had $6.8 million in income, paid an effective tax rate of only 12.8%.[3]

In July 2010, it was reported that Kerry stored his luxury yacht in Rhode Island instead of in Massachusetts because doing so saved him approximately $437,500 in sales tax and an annual excise tax of about $70,000.[4]

  1. ^ An off-shore tax shelter, Boston Globe
  2. ^ If liberals want to pay higher taxes, here’s a way they can., National Review, June 17, 2005
  3. ^ Middle Class Said To Pay Higher Tax Rate Than Heinz Kerry And Kerry, Drudge Report Archives, October 11, 2004
  4. ^ Sen. John Kerry skips town on sails tax, Boston Herald, July 23, 2010

Five dollar milkshake (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the yacht issue but the other ones, I'd have to think about. $6 milkshake (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(a) So what? There's no obligation for a person to maximize the taxes they pay, and there's nothing requiring a person to keep their toys in the place where they live.
(b) Is there another sort of yacht besides a "luxury yacht"?
(c) Actually, it would be really stupid for a person to spend a half million dollars in sales tax when they could easily and legally avoid it.
(d) Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. -- Judge Learned Hand
This is just political noise; including it in the article is undue weight and an NPOV violation in the absence of context. --jpgordon::==( o ) 13:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A good biography doesn't need to hit every issue that the press decides will sell papers. Only time will tell what has lasting meaning in a person's life and what is a side issue, but it's a good bet this yacht kerfluffle will fade rapidly. Tracking the daily news in a BLP like this is likely to lead to problems with WP:Undue weight. Jojalozzo 20:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The 2004 debates link is dead dead dead dead dead dead. Would like to relive "bad man" moment. Thank you. - 04:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.137.237 (talk)

"Controversial Comments"

The part about something stupid he said in 2006 should not be longer than the part about his being the 2004 Democratic nominee for President of the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.149.237 (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Medals

Please post the full quote from the 1988 issue of Current Biography Yearbook: " . . . the [medals] he had discarded were not his own but had belonged to another veteran who asked him to make the gesture for him. When a Washington Post reporter asked Kerry about the incident, he said: 'They're my medals. I'll do what I want with them. And there shouldn't be any expectations about them.'" That sentence could start with "The Swift Boaters claim ..." or "Kerry admits ..." or "The New York Times wrote..." The ellipsis invite the question but I don't have the $200 to access the text being quoted.

Also, I think we need more info on the medals displayed in Kerry's office. Are they the originals or re-issued medals or some that he held back? What is our source for the claim that they are there? Thanks, Jojalozzo 20:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Lead Re-write

The current lead is, IMHO, in need of a thorough copy-edit to provide a more basic structure and to mitigate redundancy. The following is offered for comments/suggested edits...

John Forbes Kerry (born December 11, 1943) is the senior United States Senator from Massachusetts, the 10th most senior U.S. Senator and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in the 2004 presidential election, but lost to incumbent President George W. Bush. Before entering the Senate, he served as Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts.

The son of an Army Air Corps serviceman, Kerry was born in Aurora, Colorado. He attended boarding school in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and went on to attend Yale University where he majored in political science. He enlisted in the Naval Reserve in 1966 and, during 1968-1969, served a four month tour of duty in South Vietnam as officer-in-charge (OIC) of a Swift Boat. For that service he was awarded several combat medals to include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. After returning to the United States, Kerry joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in which he served as a nationally recognized spokesperson and as an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam war. During that period, he appeared before the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs where he deemed his superiors to be "war criminals".

After graduating from Boston College Law School, Kerry worked as an Assistant District Attorney and co-founded a private firm. He served as Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts under Michael Dukakis from 1983 to 1985, where he worked on an early forerunner to the national Clean Air Act. He won a tight Democratic primary in 1984 for the U.S. Senate and was sworn in the following January. On the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he led a series of hearings from 1987 to 1989 which were a precursor to the Iran–Contra affair. He was an early backer of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but became a strong opponent of the subsequent war.

Kerry based his 2004 presidential campaign on opposition to the Iraq War. He and his running mate Senator John Edwards lost by 34 electoral votes. Since then, he has established the Keeping America's Promise PAC. As of 2011, he is currently the 10th most senior U.S. Senator.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not much of a change, so there's not much to comment on. I say just be bold and add it. Some of the grammatical changes are weird, though: why "to include" instead of "including"? —Designate (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

John Kerry VVAW controversy AfD petition

For the consideration of interested editors, the article John Kerry VVAW controversy, a subject currently residing within this article and to which this article now links, is the subject of an AfD petition. Comments are solicited. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

False claim

No one has stated that Susan Rice had a "role in the 2012 Benghazi attacks". Susan Rice had a role in the administration's response to the attacks, not the attacks themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.17.172 (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

"Subject to Senate Confirmation"

There is an asterisk at the bottom of Senator Kerry's military service summary that says "Subject to Senate Confirmation" yet the asterisk doesn't seem to correspond to anything in the article. Looks like a leftover from something related to his pending Secretary of State appointment and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.144.56 (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

And or But

I thought that "and" sounded more neutral, but "but" fits the sentence better actually. I also thought about changing it to something else but that involved using the word, "defeated"- and that was going further to the negative connotation? I think the "P" looks much better and fits MOS24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

2004 campaign

Did Kerry really base his 2004 campaign on opposition to the Iraq War? That seems distinctly wrong to me. john k (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That seems distinctly wrong to me.
Preferred, uncited wikipedia narratives often are. There is a plethora of RS sourcing opining as to what Kerry's 2004 campaign was "based upon"...and it won't take any digging to find them. Good luck should you elect to wade in here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

New Official Sec of State Photo

http://www.state.gov/secretary/photo/index.htm

Could someone change this photo (if possible?) Keith G.J. Cody (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems awfully low-quality compared to the current photo. There's no rule that we have to use the "official" photo, it's just a good practice. I think we should keep the existing one. —Designate (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead is too long

The lead is too long. It should be 4 normal sized paragraphs at most (see WP:LEADLENGTH). Anyone want to take a go at trimming it? FurrySings (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Syria has his paws all over it, But the word Syria does not even occur once

Kerry is the main war advocate on Syria, yet this article does not make a mention (in any way) of Syria. --Inayity (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

What a fascinating view! That an entire article on one man should predominantly about the Syrian civil war and the use of chemical weapons against the populace after Obama said that we would intervene had they been found to have been used. Yep, Obama is now Kerry and Kerry is Syria and some other inane nonsense. The article is about Kerry, not Syria. Kerry is currently the Secretary of State, not the President of the United States of America. The Syrian civil war and the current intent to intervene was long in coming, especially after Obama waffled after the first well proved chemical weapons attack. If you want to see some mythical Kerry ordaining all US actions throughout the world, I suggest you start a blog that only the insane will read.Wzrd1 (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

"Health"

There have been reports of John Kerry's face looking very... different. As though he'd had a facelift, botox, or something else extreme. I've seen posts on this going back since he took office as US Secretary of State. Any credible reporting on this? Phil Wolff (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Definite facelift. Probably around 2009. Extensive dental reconstruction. No real improvement, though. 173.72.63.150 (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Fredrich Beobachter

Inappropriate Comments in Tenure Section

I recently saw that someone on this page wrote that John Kerry is called "aloof" and other stupid stuff. I did attempt to remove it however SOMEONE undid that. Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it belongs on wikipedia. There are over thousands of pages criticizing Barack Obama over Obamacare and his wiki page doesn't attack him aloof over his job or Obamacare.

I think the following below should be removed:

In the State Department, Kerry quickly earned a reputation "for being aloof, keeping to himself, and not bothering to read staff memos." Career State Department officials have complained that power has become too centralized under Kerry's leadership, which slows department operations when Kerry is on one of his frequent overseas trips. Others in State describe Kerry as having "a kind of diplomatic attention deficit disorder" as he shifts from topic to topic instead of focusing on long-term strategy. When asked whether he was traveling too much, he responded, "Hell no. I’m not slowing down." Despite Kerry's early achievements, morale at State is lower than under Hillary Clinton according to department employees.Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is not a hagiography. Criticism of government officials and politicians exist and should not be whitewashed. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well your wrong Plot Spoiler, your attacking John Kerry and it is wrong to attack a government official. John Kerry does not deserve to be attacked on his own Wikipedia page. So I disagree with you. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Structuring the tenure

Thanks to my colleagues for giving the tenure section a more concise structure. I don't think negative comments on this important political figure are appropriate. I find his influence and international leadership extremely valuable. Of course, there might be disagreements expressed by the Syrian rebels but we all know that they also profit from the removal of those chemical weapons.(Osterluzei (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC))

Lets Just keep this page positive. That's all. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Assassination threat

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Fatah-wants-Kerry-prosecuted-before-ICC-for-threatening-Abbas-340127

Worth noting here? Hcobb (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Requesting protection

Since there has been lots of disruptive editing and vandalism from IP's on this article lately, I am requesting that the page be protected. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

McCain criticizes Kerry re Ukraine

"McCain is also amazed at what he sees as the Obama administration’s total lack of foresight that Russia would have moved troops into Ukraine. As of Thursday evening, U.S. intelligence officials were saying they saw no evidence that Russia was planning a military intervention in Ukraine. On Friday morning, Secretary of State John Kerry said he had received assurances from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that Moscow would not do anything that could even be misconstrued as a military intervention.

“Kerry’s statement was laugh out loud ridiculous, if it wasn’t so serious,” said McCain. “This is prima facia evidence of the delusional attitude that the administration had toward Vladimir Putin.” [end quote]

Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/01/exclusive-mccain-tells-obama-how-to-punish-putin.html

We clearly need a new section on Kerry & the Ukraine, recalling of course WP:NOTNEWS. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Article Status

I've noticed this has gone through peer review and was nominated for FA though failed the nomination. In addition to providing more sources, what can be done to at least get this up to GA? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

skull and bones

cite it or delete it. --173.79.76.211 (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Boston Globe

This was excised in the latest propaganda offensive. http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/10/12/ten-years-later-revelation-john-kerry-ancestry-has-new-chapter/89pyoQEfOJs8PqvazCYqHO/story.html

What exactly are you trying to say? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Kerry's strategic terrorist attack

Haaretz's Ari Shavit has reported that Kerry's attempted mediation in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict was called a "strategic terrorist attack" by "very senior officials in Jerusalem".[1]

Fair enough? Hcobb (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2014

Please replace alma_mater = Boston College with Boston College Law School [2] Koncurrentkat (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Languages spoken by Kerry

Can there be some mention in here about the languages Kerry speaks. I believe he is competent in a few and surely that is a relevant part of his biography. It would also be interesting to learn when and how he picked these up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.63.226 (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Possibly English. It's rumored that when he answer's the phone he says, "you rrrrang?"

Ivory Tower survey

How do you look at that survey and get 11th from it? WeldNeck (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm also curious where "most effective" comes from when the source seems pretty clear. Ravensfire (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the source, one could use a literal interpretation to say "most effective" because the title of the poll says "most effective" even though it places Kerry dead last and you could say "11th" because I dont know is one of the top answers, but its not an honest presentation of the material. WeldNeck (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The poll asked for scholars to name the most effective SoS during the past 50 years. Kerry made the top 11 out of more than two dozen Secretaries of State. "Dead last" is not an honest presentation of the material (but quite a popular conservative talking point). Xenophrenic (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There haven't been two dozen secretary of states in the past 50 years, there have been 15. Multiple RS's have commented this poll places Kerry last. Your edits are bordering on tendentious. WeldNeck (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Whether you count two dozen (which would include "acting" SoS and temps), or only 15, having only 10 of those place ahead of you does not make you "dead last" or "least effective". Your edits are bordering on mathematically challenged. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Xenophrenic, if you want to get technical, there were 16 names on the list, including "I Don't Know", so 15 people. In the past 50 years, we've had 15 Secretaries of State, excluding anyone who was just "acting". So the article notes all possible candidates. Out of those 15, Kerry is tied for 12th place. Your phrasing totally mis-represents the source. Ravensfire (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes; let's get technical. There were 15 names (not 16), and a "Don't know" choice. Only 10 Secretaries placed ahead of Kerry, 3 placed below him, and one tied with him in 11th place - just as my edit conveyed, and just as the source conveyed. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I slightly tweaked the statement to match what I noted, saying Kerry is among the least effective, finishing tied for 12 out of the 15 people confirmed as SoS. Is that better? Ravensfire (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I think thats acceptable.WeldNeck (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I re-tweaked the statement to match what the reliable sources noted, rather than what you noted. Neither source says "least effective", and there was no polling question for "Least effective Secretary of State". The WaPo source notes that 3 SoS received fewer votes than Kerry & Eagleburger, who tied for the 11th position (with one appearing on the list before the other by virtue of alphabetized name only). Xenophrenic (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
You've cherry picked the most favorable details from the source misrepresenting it as Ravensfire illustrated above and ignored the primary message. Ill revise that again and add a few more sources. I have to stess again that he wasn't ranked 11th, he was ranked 13th. Your interpretation is WP:SYNTH and cannot be allowed in a biography. WeldNeck (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
If you can name the 12 SoS ranked above him, I'll concede he is ranked 13th. Until then, I'll stick to what the sources convey. As for your cherry-picking, you chose to quote "dead last", but ignore that the source immediately describes that as "odd", and continues: Odder still, the Foreign Policy chart didn’t note that Nixon’s first secretary of state for four years, William P. Rogers, Ed Muskie under Carter or Al “I am in control here” Haig, who was secretary for 18 months under Reagan, all got no votes at all, according to the survey. So Kerry did better than those folks. "Dead last" indeed. Just like old times, eh? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The source says 13. Its explicit. WeldNeck (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a pretty marginal thing to include, anyway. Comparing a sitting or recent SoS with those that have the weight of history behind them doesn't say a lot; we won't know how effective Kerry compared to his predecessors until we get some perspective. In other words, it's an essentially meaningless poll as regards the current office holder. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Its no more marginal than his SOS approval ratings. WeldNeck (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Not really; those are real-time things, which readers could compare should they choose to other approval ratings from other SoSses at similar points in their tenures. They'd be similarly marginal if we had "this is where SoS Clinton was rated by these scholars at this point in her tenure", for example. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2014

Under DUTY ON USS GRIDLEY, second para now says "During his tour on the guided missile frigate USS Gridley Gridley..." we need to get rid of one of the Gridleys. Under MILITARY HONORS, last paragraph ends "Without the "V" indicates that the medal was awarded for exceptional service or achievement. With the "V" indicates heroism.) Change to "indicates valor". If it were for heroism, it would be an H. Also, the last sentence isn't a complete sentence. Thanks155.213.224.59 (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Vsmith (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Under MILITRY HONORS. 2nd to 3rd paragraph reference to "Reached the Gulf of Thailand" (that is impossible without airlift of his boat over Laos or Cambodia?) perhaps it means Gulf of Tonkin? Please resolve. --113.187.0.210 (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it is correct. The Bo De River in Cà Mau Province is adjacent to the Gulf of Thailand and the Gulf of Tonkin is far to the north. Vsmith (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

leg

Kerry broke his leg cycling in France, near the Swiss border. He's returning to Boston for further treatment. Perhaps this should be added to his "health" section? I know some lot may say it's not notable, but that fact that as a Catholic he carries rosary beads, somehow is. That he cycles is. His height is. So is his health. Someone please add this without argument. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/kerry-suffers-leg-injury-in-bicycle-accident-transported-to-hospital/2015/05/31/24bd2630-077a-11e5-a7ad-b430fc1d3f5c_story.html

Donald Trump frequently mentions this in his speeches, "you wouldn't see me in a bike race." Maybe that makes it more notable. --2001:4898:80E8:5:0:0:0:6B (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

1st shrapnel wound

The omission of information makes this article biased. Kerry's 1st "wound", according to official military medical records, required nothing more than bacitracin and a small adhesive bandage (a Band-Aid). It was, by common measures, nothing more than a small boo-boo. Therefore, by omitting this fact, this article denies readers the insight they need to understand how Kerry may have (as some have reasonably claimed) over-stated his "injuries" to gain early release from military service. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on John Kerry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Erroneous reference

The article erroneously reports that Kerry's running mate, John Edwards, was a senator from South Carolina, when in fact he was from North Carolina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.207.77 (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed. Many thanks for pointing out the error. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Non sequitur

Currently, this article contains the following statement:

In 1982, Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts Thomas P. O'Neill III declined to seek a third term to run for Governor of Massachusetts, though he would fall foul of the state Democratic Party's rule changes and failed to make the ballot.

This strikes me as nonsensical, but I can't correct it, because I can't figure out what they're trying to say. Unschool 08:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2016

Please remove the 0 in 05 for the access-date for the reference with the title "Remarks at a Ceremony Awarding the Grand Cross 1st Class of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany to Secretary Kerry" because this causes an error. For the same reference, please add "=" after "url" because it is not between the parameter and its value(there are no spaces between the two).

47.148.79.80 (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2017

Religion in infobox? The text says that Kerry is Roman Catholic. Could someone please add that to the infobox? The line would be something like "| religion = Catholic Church".--64.134.223.125 (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done the text does indeed say that, but religion is only supposed to be listed in infobox when it is a key trait one is prominently noted for per consensus at WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes. Kerry isn't one of those people where religion is a key defining trait. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Maybe we should semi-protect this article, as someone keeps changing Kerry successor from Shannon to Tillerson. GoodDay (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The article already has been indefinitely semi-protected since 2014. If this is a content dispute, then temporary full protection might be in order until the dispute is resolved. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I think we need to decide on a criteria as to when we list acting secretaries, if we do list them. GoodDay (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Acting predecessors aren't listed for any other Secretary of State:
It appears we don't list Acting Secretaries of State in infoboxes. OCNative (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Note we've got acting secretaries listed in the infobox & navboxes of the other recently confirmed Trump cabinet members. GoodDay (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
We appear to have an established criteria of not listing them that simply seems to be violated only in the cases of the Trump cabinet members (and once with the Obama cabinet). What I've described for the Acting Secretaries of State is also true for the other major Cabinet positions: Acting Attorneys General, Acting Secretaries of Defense, and Acting Secretaries of the Treasury are not listed in infoboxes & navboxes (other than one pre-Trump aberration of the transition from Timothy Geithner to Jack Lew in 2013). OCNative (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
If you're willing to fix all those examples (Infobox and Navbox), then I won't oppose such changes. GoodDay (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm willing to do so, but here's the sad part: the confirmations have been so slow that Elaine Chao is the only other Trump Cabinet member this applies to. OCNative (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the amicable resolution and for making the change on Kerry and on Timothy Geithner. In fact, when I went to change Geithner, I got an edit conflict notice from your edit making the same edit I was going to do! Thanks! OCNative (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
You're welcomed :) GoodDay (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

"Retired"?

The "Post Obama" section of the article states that he "retired" while the citation provided indicates nothing of the sort.

Short of a citation saying otherwise, I would argue that Secretary Kerry's leaving the job (for incredibly obvious reasons) in no way indicated that he wouldn't pursue future work in the field (which is a pretty important requirement of "retirement") or even a desire to leave the job in the first place.

What happened is more akin to not extending his contract, rather than his retiring. 2601:248:4000:34DF:E1F4:4DB8:E763:7B2B (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Mistake in the article intro

"Kerry was the Democratic nominee the 2004 presidential election..."

Notice how there's no connective between "nominee" and "the". It should read "Kerry was the Democratic nominee OF the 2004 presidential election" or "Kerry was the Democratic nominee DURING the 2004 presidential election". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.51.155 (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Just for future reference, it wouldn't be "of"--it'd be "in" or "for". 2601:248:4000:34DF:E1F4:4DB8:E763:7B2B (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Kerry did not "narrowly" lose the 2004 election. Please remove left-wing bias.

The first paragraph of this article includes the sentence: "He was the Democratic nominee in the 2004 presidential election, losing narrowly to Republican incumbent George W. Bush." The word narrowly seems extremely subjective and does not reflect reality. The fact is Bush won 286 electoral votes to Kerry's 251. Bush carried 31 states in comparison to Kerry's 19. Bush had over 3 million more votes, winning the popular vote 50.7% (a plurality) to Kerry's 48.3%. There is nothing "narrow" about these numbers. The word "narrowly" should be removed to eliminate the viewpoint bias from the introduction. The same bias does not seem to exist in the article body. Doorzki (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed. I wouldn't call "narrowly" a biased/subjective term, but it definitely was misleading in this case. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Regarding Doozki's comment that 50.7% is "plurality": that is is a mistake; anything over 50% is a "majority" not a plurality. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Athletics and sailing

This section title is misleading as it omits mention of the Yacht Tax Controversy in the title, thereby downplaying that issue. A google search "john kerry sales tax boat" returns many, many reliable sources about this 2010 issue. Those references to tax are germane, accurate and relevant; hence; the section title should mention the tax issue.

98.118.62.140 (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Honorary Degree fro Yale University on 5/22/17 - Doctor of Laws

170.37.244.37 (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBriTalk 00:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Kerry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on John Kerry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Kerry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Missing education detail:

Secretary Kerry did not just graduate from any boarding school, he graduated from St. Paul’s school in NH. It says “boarding school” I think this should be fixed Nikhil.vootkur (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2018

Though the text is not provided an entry before Syria with the Egypt heading detailing Kerry's support of the Egyption coup d'état which brought an end to that democracy. His words "restored democracy" with regards to the coup.

Kerry's involvement in the Egyption coup d'état that took place on the 3 of July 2013 by army chief General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is important because it destroyed the egyptian democracy. We only need to look at Egypt today conducting mass trials with hundreds of defendants in cages getting death penalties en masse for protesting or the regemes killing of journalists. Kerry supported this destruction of a democracy. There were only 2 1/2 years left of Morsi's term in office and polls suggested he would not win reelection. Nothing Morsi did compares to the events that followed his removal. Another despotic chapter in US foreign policy that needs visibility. Why is it missing?

United States Secretary of State John Kerry said that Egypt's army had "restored democracy" by removing Morsi from power.[233][234] The annual $1.5 billion was never interrupted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Egyptian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/world/middleeast/egypt-warns-morsi-supporters-to-end-protests.html Commuted (talk) 09:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Spintendo  19:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Plastic smile listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Plastic smile. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 20:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The "automobile" engine shown in the side photo, is a heavy truck engine...

By: height, number of cylinders/length, and turbocharger, that is not an engine used in any Chinese passenger car of any era. It is, rather, typical of mid to heavy duty trucks: eg competitors to Detroit/Caterpillar/Cummins in US, or producers such as Isuzu/Hino/Kubota in Japan.

In correctly captioned as it stands... it is showing poor knowledge and "pre digested" captioning by political campaign, or by unskilled reporter. This draws the readers attention if the fallibility of the entire article. 68.151.178.83 (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

"John L. Kerry" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect John L. Kerry. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 13#John L. Kerry until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Paper Luigi T • C 16:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Institut Montana

The Institut Montana has never been an "elite" school in terms of teaching and learning performance. Rather it is an expensive boarding school for kids of rich (foreign and Swiss) families who do not make it to the real elite schools of Switzerland and Central Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1206:45BC:6F70:184E:C44F:CBB:E965 (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Opinionated History Again

As someone who voted for John Kerry for President in 2004, I find a significant amount of opinionated bias in this article such as “ it appeared to be” statements which is someone’s opinionated prospective and a lack of the detail about the claims of the Swift Boaters while giving extensive detail about the positive aspects of John Kerry’s Service. Deification Of Kerry appears to this contributor to be the common theme of this Wikipedia page.

Too bad the page is locked to ensure that other opinions or prospectives are not given the same freedom of speech rights that the person or persons who where allowed to present their prospective on this page were given.

To bad we continue our rapid decline into a society of giving more rights of personal freedoms to some members then others.

As a person who always try to support Wikipedia when asked for financial support, I will discontinue that practice and allow those that Wikipedia grants “”Special” freedoms to express their opinions and prospectives as factual History to provide all the support that Wikipedia needs. Catmandu57 (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Catmandu57, "appeared to be" appears once in the article, sourced to this reliable source. which backs up the statements in the article. Nothing opinionated there. We don't give the claims of the swift boaters any weight because they were fallacious. If you have any other specific complaints beyond the bizarre claim of "deification", please bring them up with specifics, what specifically is wrong and what specifically should be changed about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Catmandu57, PS, your "freedom of speech" cannot be abridged by the government, but it absolutely can be by a private enterprise like Wikipedia. That's called free market capitalism. I thought conservatives liked that? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Hombre, we don't do "Opinion" on Wikipedia. The "Swiftboat" complaints are a well documented fraud, and it *doesn't matter* if you have a different opinion, what matters is whats true, and we actually know those allegations are not true. So repeating them would violate multiple wikipedia rules on articles about living people, and worse, would be perpetrating things that aren't true. Duckmonster (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2021

Please add a footnote regarding the 1971 arrest on the Lexington Battle Green. The antiwar march that resulted in this arrest is the subject of a new book that Mr. Kerry, in providing a blurb, has approved. Here is the bibliographic information:

Lemire, Elise. Battle Green Vietnam: The 1971 March on Concord, Lexington, and Boston (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2021).

Please link the bibliographic entry to the publisher's page for the book, provided here: https://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/16230.html

Below, I've indicated where the footnote should go with an X, namely before what is now FN 62.

Kerry was arrested on May 30, 1971, during a VVAW march to honor American POWs held captive by North Vietnam. The march was planned as a multi-day event from Concord to Boston, and while in Lexington, participants tried to camp on the village green. At 2:30 a.m., local and state police arrested 441 demonstrators, including Kerry, for trespassing. All were given the Miranda Warning and were hauled away on school buses to spend the night at the Lexington Public Works Garage. Kerry and the other protesters later paid a $5 fine, and were released. The mass arrests caused a community backlash and ended up giving positive coverage to the VVAW.X[62][63][64]

I am the author and will respond to any questions about this request at elise.lemire@purchase.edu.

Thank you. Jttevl (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: If current sources already provide verification for the next, additional sources don't necessarily need to be added. Current three sources are other offline works, so adding in a fourth one doesn't help the ease of verifiability of anything. Instead I have added in an online source from Boston Globe that supports a lot of the paragraph. Also you posting a notice about WP:COI on your talk page. You aren't COI with the article subject, but if you wrote the article it might not be best for you to add the source into articles yourself. WikiVirusC(talk) 14:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Official Portrait change?

Kerry's Climate Envoy portrait

There is an official portrait of Kerry as the Climate Envoy, should it be the lead image? My main point is the most recent pic/portrait should always be the lead image. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this new portrait looks better if compared to the current portrait with higher resolution. I think we should change it. --Aidilfarhn (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree that we should change to this portrait. It is the most up-to-dat portrait of Kerry. Also, it is an official portrait in his current capacity in the U.S. government, so it makes sense to use it rather than the prior one.--FeralOink (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ "US fuming over Israeli criticism of Kerry"
  2. ^ http://www.biography.com/people/john-kerry-10673562#synopsis
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Kerry/Archive_27&oldid=1138876391"