Talk:John Kerry/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

John Kerry lost?

Is it really true that Bush has won the election? I know Kerry conceeded, but that doesn't mean that he's lost. I realize that the current results show that he lost (and I don't really doubt that he did) but wouldn't it be best to wait until Bush is inaugerated before we make this declaration? Have all the votes been counted? Is there any kind of legal appeal or recount still going on, or is this thing actually finished?

I think the fact that it's a foregone conclusion means we can say it here. --ABQCat 04:36, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This thing is not actually finished. There are legal appeals, investigations, and a recount pending in Ohio. The winner is not determined until all legal disputes/actions that may affect the outcome and officially began before Jan. 6th have been resolved/completed. Kevin Baas | talk 04:44, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

I'd say it's over, have you won the election if you've conceded and will not be taking office following the election? --Flockmeal 04:45, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

The outcome of those legal disputes will not change the outcome of the election. It's the way things work. If (as some suggest) large-scale fraud was perpetrated, they won't get caught at this point. No judge can rule based on the rule of law that election results ought to be invalidated (appeal all the way to SCOTUS if they did) and the republican judiciary (sorry, but they proved that in 2000) will rule for Bush. The other possibility (more likely, in my mind) is that all the votes will be counted and as Kerry concluded, there is no way they will swing the results of Ohio back the other way. --ABQCat 04:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A concession is legally meaningless, and even if you don't want to take office, you will be forced to. Kevin Baas | talk 04:48, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

No person can be conscripted to service as president. If he didn't want to take office, he wouldn't. It's that easy. --ABQCat 04:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's the law. The law says that he will indeed be conscripted. He may chose to resign, but when the sealed envelope is opened and the votes are counted, if he wins, whether he likes it or not, he becomes the president. It's that simple. Kevin Baas | talk 04:54, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

Now we're delving into hypotheticals. (Nevermind that I doubt the results could be certified by the House if reversal occurred). The issue at hand is that it's statistically VERY unlikely that the vote recount in Ohio and other legal precedings change the outcome of the election. --ABQCat 04:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary my friend, the statistics have been done, and it is in fact more likely that Kerry would win a recount than it is that Bush would. But that is not, as you say, the issue at hand. The issue at hand is, probabilities aside, whether or not the winner has been officially determined. Kevin Baas | talk 05:04, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

Well, if we really want to get technical, then no US Presidential Election is decided until January 20th, but I'd say at this point it is highly likely that George Bush will be the next US President and not John Kerry. --Flockmeal 05:07, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I've been looking for the source, but basically, if the percentages go as they normally do, the "hanging chads" + the provisional ballots puts kerry over the top by over 10,000. Unlike Florida, Ohio has a state-wide objective rule for counting hanging chads, so they'll be no supreme court ruling to stop the recount. Kevin Baas | talk 05:41, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

I'm not sure about there being a possibility of Kerry winning (I'd like to see the statistics that point to a 10,000-vote victory in Ohio), but I think the fact is that he hasn't lost yet. Maybe we should wait until January 20th, until the result is legally decided, before we declare it.

Responding to anon above, didn't want to thread in that far. - The election is not determined by Wikipedia's declaration. Perhaps we could, instead of deciding for ourselves, state that Kerry has conceded meaning he has given up hope of winning, state that CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox News, CNN, BBC, etc have all "called" the race for Bush, and that though there is ongoing legal maneuvering, he is expected to be re-inaugurated in January 2005. --ABQCat 04:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why think for ourselves? Hmmm... let me think about that... on the other hand, I probably shouldn't think about it.

We are not deciding ourselves. The election is not determined by Wikipedia's declaration, nor is it determined by CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox News, CNN, BBC, etc.'s declaration. (nor Kerry's or Bush's) So what's the difference between saying that CBS "called" the race for Bush and saying that Wikipedia "called" the race for Bush? Neither is more objective or informative, and both are secondhand pov.

Why don't we just be encyclopedic and state the facts? the unofficial vote count shows x. (not the electoral vote count - the electoral college has not voted yet) the legitimacy of the vote count is in question, and legal actions are being taken. One such action is a recount eminent in Ohio (awaiting the certification of the results on x), which may change the outcome of the election from what is currently expected by the vast majority of American citizens. On x, the electoral college will meet and vote, and seal the votes in an envelope. on x, the envelope will be opened and counted by congress. whoever has the most votes in this count becomes the xth president on x. Kevin Baas | talk 05:20, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

If you would just try to see my point instead of putting words in my mouth, perhaps you'd see that we agree on this point? Just state the facts. That's what I'm saying. The facts are that Kerry conceded, the news orgs and nearly all americans accept that GWB will be the next president. the electoral votes will likely (~99% liklihood) be submitted in the way that has been reported by the news. the House will meet to certify the votes - some discussion may take place, but guess what? This is all info for the presidential campaign article. Facts for this article: Kerry conceded, he lost the popular vote nationwide, will LIKELY lose the election (after votes are certified). If we're to nit-pick (which I'm fine with as long as ridiculously long discussions on simple facts don't get out of hand...) then I think we can state that he will have officially lost the election when the votes are counted by the next session of the House. --ABQCat 07:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be noted here that the presidential election has not yet happened? People in each state have chosen electors (although some states might theoretically still be in doubt, although I'm dubious). The election for president (by the electors) does not occur until, what, December 17? john k 08:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Kenney understands what I'm saying. ABQCat says he's saying the same thing I am, and then he says something completely different. "Accept" and "expect", minus the spelling similarities, have little in common. Accept means to acquise to what has already been established as irrevocable. Expect means to predict an outcome which has not yet been established, regardless of whether one intends to accept it.

The likilihood is completely irrelevant, but FWIW, is more like 55% Kerry, 45% Bush. This is not an intuitive guess, this is the result of a statistical analysis based on prior probabilities, skewed to favor bush because it's reasonable to expect resistance and obstruction from Kenneth Blackwell and other interested gov. officials. Go ahead and repeat you're "99%", maybe I didn't hear you throw out that number arbitrarily, with nothing to back it up. Maybe if you just repeat it over and over and over and over again, I'll believe that Saddam Hussien has weapons of mass destruction.

Also, ABQCat and Flockmeal don't seem to realize that their opinions do not belong in an encyclopedia article. Comments like "I'd say it's over." are utterly irrelevant.

We cannot "state that he will have officially lost the election when the votes are counted by the next session of the House", because, although some of us have this opinion, none of us know this.

I agree with John Kenney. Kevin Baas | talk 15:29, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Baas' viewpoint on this one. As an encyclopedia the Wiki article should contain the facts, and the fact is that he hasn't lost yet since the election is not yet over.

It IS encyclopedic to explain the current state of affairs. It is in no way opinion that the majority of the American public EXPECT (yes, that's the word I use) and ACCEPT (i'd say they do both) Bush will take office. I don't want my opinion in the article, and I'm not advocating including it (I haven't advocated any particular side of the issue, just a representation of pertinent facts - read my contributions to this discussion).

Can we agree on including just the FACTS here? The fact is that all of this discussion is better suited for the presidential campaign page - it's not biographically pertinent. I would advocate including this information for the BIOGRAPHICAL article: "Kerry conceded the election. The breakdown of popular votes was XXX for Bush and YYY for Kerry as of $Date. The breakdown of elctors was XXX for Bush and YYY for Kerry (just check CNN) as of $Date." Nothing else is BIOGRAPHICALLY pertinent, but certainly this discussion and some content generated as a result of it could benefit the presidential campaign article. On a separate note, can we please restore some civility to this discussion? It's awfully heated for a simple biographical point. --ABQCat 22:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ofcourse I am for the facts. We seem to disagree on what is "fact" and what is imagination. (possibly social imagination (link?!)) I do not accept "Accept" - one cannot accept something that is not yet established. FACT: The breakdown of popular votes is unofficial. FACT: It is factually impossible for the breakdown of the electoral votes to be x for bush and y for kerry because the electoral college has not voted yet. FACT: the Ohio votes will be recounted. FACT: there are many more than 132,000 (136,000 - 4,000 resulting from a "computer glitch") provisional ballots+"spoiled votes", and thus it is possible that the final Ohio vote will be for Kerry. Therefore, we cannot say "Bush will win" (notice we cannot say that anyone has won, as there has not yet been an election in the electoral college for someone to win.) with certainty; i.e., it is not a FACT. Do you dispute any of the facts I presented in my above comment beginning "Why don't we just be encyclopedic and state the facts?"? Kevin Baas | talk 23:24, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

I think your facts are quite valid, well put together, and very accurate. I think on a biographical article, however, it is probably not apropriate to outline them all as you have. They would be hugely valuable for the presidential election article, however. I think it IS valid to say Kerry has conceded and that as of a certain date (today, November 10, the newest estimate you can pin down) Kerry is ESTIMATED to have a certain percentage of the popular vote and EXPECTED to receive (based on popular vote breakdowns in each state) a certain number of electoral votes - according to $NEWS_OUTLET. Expectations *as reported by cnn* (for example) are not fact, but it is fact to report that CNN has reported the expectation with a high degree of liklihood. I think that's where we're getting tangled up here. --ABQCat 23:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So your desire is brevity for proportionality sake. Granted. What I wrote is too long. I think there should be some mention of fraud investigations, possibly dubious results in ohio, and the pending ohio recount. At minimum, the pending ohio recount. Kevin Baas | talk 00:31, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

spin-off military service

Wolfman, a few other editors and I have talked about spinning off the military service of John Kerry. It is highly detailed and IMHO deserves a separate article. No material needs to be changed/edited, the article already exists (Military service of John Kerry)... the only thing that needs to be done is craft a paragraph or two summarizing what the average reader would want to read, putting the rest in the separate article and linking it with a "Main Article:" tag like many other articles. If someone has a significant problem with this it's not a vital change, the military service just reads a bit dry if it weren't for the SBVT charges. Also, SBVT charges are in the process of being merged into John Kerry military service controversy... this will make the pages a lot cleaner, but let me know what you think. --kizzle 19:07, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

I don't care whether there's a separate article, but this one needs to retain a fair amount of information about Kerry's Vietnam experience. It's been described by several people who know him as having a major influence on his life. If you want to shorten this article, I could more readily see leaving the military service section alone and reducing the entire section on JFK to a single sentence. Does that seem good to anyone else? JamesMLane 01:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If he becomes President, we're clearly going to need to make some space. And a fair bit of the detail could be removed from the main article without much loss, still leaving maybe 4 paragraphs about the experience. On the other hand, if he loses, there probably won't be a whole lot of reason to save space by spinning off an article, since failed candidates tend to disappear politically. My feeling is we should just leave it be for a month. Then, the best course will be clear. This has the side-benefit of avoiding a major re-write of a contentious section (because of SBVT) at an extremely tense political point. Wolfman 04:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If he becomes President, we can create a Kerry Administration article. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:12, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

So, what's your feeling on a spinoff now? I'd be more comfortable making the switch right now (within a month of the election) if somebody proposed language for the condensed main-page version of military service. This month is a bad time to invite edit conflicts on the main page; vetting the new language first on Talk would help a lot with that. Wolfman 14:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Changing Kerry redirect

I hope nobody minds me changing the Kerry page to a disambig. Not only is having it redirect to John Kerry dubious in terms of need, but changing it removes the need for the Kerry redirects here... notice at the top of the page. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 20:52, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Interests

Surely the piece under home life and interests isn't worth including? I don't think anyone cares whats his favourite movie or cookie and whatsmore I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 22:50, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I do! I think it's interesting. Besides Wiki is not paper. :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:01, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Silver Star controversy

An anon made several edits to add that the enemy soldier killed by Kerry was fleeing at the time. These were reverted, but then Kizzle added the circumstance that the man was still armed, and so let "fleeing" stay in. This still doesn't really explain the situation -- for example, that Fred Short said, "The guy was getting ready to stand up with a rocket on his shoulder, coming up. ... [T]here's no way he could miss us."

What we did before was to put the pros and cons of the controversy in the other article, now at John Kerry military service controversy. We could go back to that approach, and return the Silver Star language to what it was a few days ago, or we could amplify more here. It just seems misleading to say only that he was fleeing without adding that he was still close enough to the Swift boat that he could have taken it out if he weren't being pursued. JamesMLane 18:43, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just trying to compromise between two sides, I hate edit wars... I have a problem with simply "fleeing", I'm not sure if you're going to get concensus on a quote from Short (can you post a link to that btw?)... I think that in order to avoid edit wars in the future seeing as this is the single-most edited line in JK, just quote verbatim from the medal citation, so:

Kerry "leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hootch and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber."

Leaves less room for future arguments. Just my opinion, I'm fine either way, I just didn't want "fleeing" by itself, its slightly misleading seeing as he was carrying a loaded rocket launcher. --kizzle 20:42, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I think quoting from the official citation is a good solution. The quotation from Short is included in John Kerry military service controversy#Silver Star, along with other quotations from crew members who agreed that the enemy soldier was a real threat. The quotations are sourced there to this link, which no longer works. We'll have to see if the story is elsewhere on the redesigned ABC News page. JamesMLane 21:21, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Addendum: I couldn't find it on the ABC News site, which has been redesigned. I've emailed ABC asking if they can provide a valid link. If they can't, the Nightline story was picked up and quoted extensively here on the website of a liberal columnist, but I'd rather link to (and credit) ABC as the original source. If ABC doesn't get back to me, I'll substitute the other link. JamesMLane 00:17, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VVAW and assassinations

So is this stuff about VVAW debating (and voting against) the idea of assassinating pro-war senators actually true? Is there any evidence? Is there a reputable source? Evercat 23:04, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that it's mentioned on our page on VVAW. Interesting. Evercat 23:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

The edits by Jgardner are a pastiche of every right-wing attack on John Kerry. Among the most notable violations of the NPOV policy: characterizing Kerry's views on Vietnam as calling for a "surrender"; the claim that he "negotiated" with a foreign power, as if a President has the right to forbid every meeting between a U.S. citizen and a representative of a foreign government (wouldn't that be handy for concealing outright lies such as those engaged in by Bush); adopting as true the allegation that some WSI participants weren't vets (go to Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation and join in addressing the specifics there); a completely biased presentation of the Iraq issue. I believe it would be justifiable to revert the whole mess, but in the interest of trying to accommodate Jgardner, I'll try to substitute a neutral description of the portion of Kerry's Senate testimony, and of the issue of Iraq. JamesMLane 00:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I had been chipping away at the bit about the VVAW assassination "discussion" trying to make it NPOV; it seems possible, maybe likely, that he was either mistaken or lying when he said he wasn't there. This is the best mainstream source I've found... Evercat 12:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The trouble we encountered over the summer was that the back-and-forth about each person's memories of a 1971 meeting were overwhelming much more substantive points. That's why we ended up creating John Kerry VVAW controversy and linking to it a couple relevant points. If there's some new information on the subject it should be added there. JamesMLane 22:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry said he was not in a protest rally. I tried to delete the pitcure of would-be John Kerry arrested in a protest rally, he's already a good man for president. User 14 Oct 2004

When did he say he wasn't in a protest rally? I doubt he'd now be denying that he was, but even if he denies it, I think the photo should stay unless there's an issue of its authenticity. JamesMLane 22:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry was not involved in a rally, it could be Bush was involved in anti-war activities, the photo could prove that's Bush arrested in a 1972 anti-war protest rally. Kerry needs to win.

Eh? Wikipedia is not the place to stump for John Kerry. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 02:58, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Seriously, and sign your edits whoever you are, if its true then its true regardless of whether it makes the subject look bad or not. --kizzle 06:18, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the Constitution designates the President as having the sole authority to conduct foreign relations. Constitutionally, Presidents do have the right to forbid others from "negotiating" with foreign powers. Meetings with representatives of foreign governments are regulated under federal law under numerous statutes to codify this constitutional power.

stuff to do

This article's 63 KB long - it should be shortened. Among other things, perhaps we should remove the "personal" stuff at the bottom (not the family info) - few other biographies include a "hobbies" and "what his canary's name is" section... ugen64 19:07, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry was a rock musician as well, also had few classical lessons, before attending Yale University or going to Vietnam, after he returned home from the country in 1970, he became a long-time Senator, Kerry has denied he was the leader of VVAW, now. National Public Radio said nothing about John Kerry's past as being leader of "Vietnam Veterans Against the War". I think someone or Bush was involved in the protest rally of VVAW.

"He was spanked by incumbent president George W. Bush in a close race (see John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004)." That doesn't sound very neutral.

Military Service

Right now there exists a current daughter article at Military service of John Kerry... yet all that information is duped in the main John Kerry section... we either need to merge the two or replace the duplicated information in this article with a summary paragraph or two with a "Main Article" link... I'm not sure what we agreed to before when the article was spun off in the first place. what should be done? --kizzle 18:52, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

I, for one, was very dubious about the spinoff, because I thought that the information about Kerry's military career was important both as part of his biography and because of its role in the campaign. I'd suggest that anyone who favors a drastic chopping of this article should post the proposed summary here first. I also think there's a lot of merit to Wolfman's suggestion that we just wait until after the election.

Meanwhile, in keeping with the idea of not making drastic cuts without discussion, I haven't taken a hatchet to the section about Kerry's meetings with John F. Kennedy, but if someone else voices support for that idea, it would be one way to trim this article. JamesMLane 19:51, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

with the election coming up, I guess duping is a better alternative to partisan edit wars. --kizzle 06:42, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Joining the Vietnam Veterans Against the War

I added and documented the information (now confirmed by WeeklyStandard, WashPost and NYTimes) that John Kerry had met on two different occassions with Communist leaders - in 1970 and again in 1971 - in Paris. This seems highly relevant to any discussion about his possible motivation in joining the VVAW since (a) he joined this organization almost immediately upon his return the first time in 1970, (b) the positions he advocated closely paralleled what the Communist leaders were asking for and (c) the FBI documented that he had plans to return a third time before a falling out with the VVAW leadership. Why would someone then delete the first and last sentences below which then results in portraying his actions in isolation? Would someone please restore. Thanks

I will just add back myself - after all, it's true

John F. Kerry met with a Vietnamese communist delegation in Paris in or around May 1970[1]. Once back in the United States, Kerry joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Numbering about 20,000 [2], VVAW was considered to be an effective component of the antiwar movement. VVAW's members, including Kerry, could speak with personal knowledge about what they had seen in Vietnam. Beyond such specifics, however, they were seen as having "paid their dues" in Vietnam, and therefore being entitled to at least a respectful hearing. Americans who opposed the war were grateful for VVAW's work. Many Vietnam veterans saw the organization as giving voice to the views of the common soldier in exposing official deceit. Many other veterans, however, such as those who in 2004 formed Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, deeply resented the VVAW's activities, feeling that their own military service was being attacked or cheapened. Kerry had a second meeting in early 1971 with leaders of the two Communist delegations-North Vietnam and the Viet Cong's Provisional Revolutionary Government-that were negotiating with U.S. representatives at the Paris peace talks[3].

This is one of many criticisms made of Kerry concerning his work with VVAW. Whether it's true or not -- and I haven't reviewed your wording in detail -- the problem is that all the true things people want to say about Kerry, pro and con, were overwhelming this article. That's why we have several daughter articles: on the election, on his campaign, on the military service controversy, on SBVT, and maybe others I'm forgetting. This stuff belongs in John Kerry VVAW controversy if anywhere. JamesMLane 19:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How can a fact be a criticism? It was an integral part of his anti-war effort. Many in the movement saw it as commendable. It is also a fact that the Communists wanted soldiers to join the antiwar movement and VVAW to push their agenda. Whether one views that as controversial or not is their interpretation of a fact, not the fact itself. These facts would also seem more legitimate for inclusion than editorial comments such as "Americans who opposed the war were grateful for VVAW's work" when in fact a large number of soldiers who were against the war felt betrayed by VVAW for their methods. I think it is Wikipedia's loss as a credible record were it removed. I know it undermines any incentive to contribute. Thank you.

There are lots and lots of statements about John Kerry that could be defended as facts. He won the Iowa primary. He saved the life of Republican Senator Chic Hecht. And so it goes. If we were to put all the facts in this article, it would become unreadably long. That's why we summarize here. The additional details, such as the pros and cons about whether Kerry's Vietnam medals were justified, have to be developed in "daughter" articles, which are linked to from here. Your questioning of Wikipedia's credibilty rests on an incomplete quotation. The full passage reads: "Americans who opposed the war were grateful for VVAW's work. Many Vietnam veterans saw the organization as giving voice to the views of the common soldier in exposing official deceit. Many other veterans, however, such as those who in 2004 formed Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, deeply resented the VVAW's activities, feeling that their own military service was being attacked or cheapened." This is how we apply the NPOV policy -- we report significant opinions. We've done that here, reporting the very point you mention, that many soldiers didn't share the positive view of VVAW. I haven't removed that sentence. (In fact, I think I wrote it, though by now I'm not completely sure.) JamesMLane 19:58, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

May I suggest the following then - say "Some Americans who opposed the war," not "Americans who opposed..." Also "Many other veterans who also opposed the war or the way it was being fought - as well as many who didn't oppose the war - were hurt and offended by VVAW's activities and intentions." But all of this opinion or subjective fact would seem to belong under a daughter article as you suggest, "How the VVAW was viewed by other soldiers," whether controversial or not, instead of the summary if it is to remain that short.

The fact that a person "met with the enemy leadership while still an officer in the Navy" just prior to joining an organization - which is what the subsection is about (joining the VVAW) - that advocated much of the enemy's position seems to come prior to a discussion of how the antiwar activities were viewed by others. Leave those sentences about the two meetings in Paris (the more diplomatic ones I have originally) and reference a daughter section on "Overlapping VVAW Advocacy and the Goals of the Vietnamese Communists." We now have physical documents showing this relationship: "The significance of the documents lies in the way they dovetail with activities of the young Mr. Kerry as he led the VVAW anti-war movement in the spring of 1971.[4]" Here is a captured enemy document which supports this relationship: [5] I agree with that being in a daughter section if need be. But it seems the summary has to be large enough not to mislead people who read through it that an important issue is involved. It is not as though one is talking about joining the YMCA. Thank you for your patience and time.

With your first paragraph above, you've confused me. We don't say or imply that all Americans opposed the war. The phrase "Americans who opposed the war...." is obviously referring to the antiwar segment of the populace. Your second proposed change merely spells out that there were also differences of opinion about the war among veterans. This passage is mostly to give a one-paragraph picture of VVAW, though, so it's more important to note, as we do, that veterans differed in their attitude toward VVAW. My guess is that your suggested topic of "How the VVAW was viewed by other soldiers" doesn't deserve a separate article, but if you think there's enough material, you can take a stab at creating it. (Don't be surprised if someone lists it on VfD, though.)

The current article does mention in passing that Kerry had met with both delegations in Paris. As with other subjects (like saving Hecht's life), it's a question of whether the event was notable enough in Kerry's life to merit a detailed discussion, a mention, or neither. I'm not sure what's supposed to be accomplished by "Overlapping VVAW Advocacy and the Goals of the Vietnamese Communists." The article reports VVAW's view that the U.S. should withdraw from Vietnam. How much space do we need to devote to the startling revelation that some of the people we were shooting at didn't want us to keep shooting at them? I don't see how it would be worthwile linking to a genuine captured enemy document solely to make that point. (In this instance I also find it more than a little surprising that the "captured enemy document" presented by an anti-VVAW group was written in English. Presumably that's explained elsewhere on their website, which I haven't bothered to check, given the irrelevance of the document even if it were authentic.) JamesMLane 21:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Allow me one last point as an example (I know I'm trying your patience, and there are many other subject areas). Because you haven't read the material, of course you are at a disadvantage. You say, "The current article does mention in passing that Kerry had met with both delegations in Paris." The critical points here are (a) Kerry was talking about his meeting in early 1971. He did not divulge his first meeting in 1970 with the Viet Cong just prior to joining the VVAW (nor is it mentioned in the current article), regarding which some may say his joining was not coincidental. (b) a misleading impression was left in saying he met "with both delegations." Most people and articles, not just here, assume this meant the North Vietnamese and American delegations - an evenhandedness - when in fact it means he also met with the Viet Cong's Provisional Revolutionary Government, not just the North Vietnamese. (c) This is important not because there was some abstract generalized common ground with the North Vietnamese about needing to end the war. If that was the case, you're right, it would have no significance. After all someone could have a Christian point of view, for example, with the intent of trying to bring the two sides together (a Jesse Jackson type of action) from sheer altruism (an important hypothesis in this case). The important information here is the number and specificity of the North Vietnamese strategic and tactical objectives and what was done subsequently by the VVAW.

It is not up to me to act as judge and jury as to whether or at what point this "fraternizing with the enemy" if it be such may have crossed the line. But there are many people who feel it did cross the line, and that it encouraged the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong to hold on when they knew they could not win militarily. To leave out this factual information the merits of which can then be debated means that a large segment of the population will find the information non-credible or misleading in its omissions. The dots may not connect, but again they may. After all, Kerry himself resigned from the VVAW later in 1971 possibly due to finding it too radical. JK may well have found himself used, so I don't go as far as those in charging complicity; instead I'm assuming the odds are he was negligently naive (just as I would hypothesize Jimmy Carter - a very admirable, honorable and decent man - was religiously naive about the possibility of Russia invading Afghanistan). My opinion, of course doesn't matter, but the presentation of the facts does.

Here is an example short article that provides an argument along with the supporting documents for making the case[http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41142]. Again, I am not in a position to rule on their merits, but to exclude the issue leaves the reader in the dark. I am more than happy, in fact I would be glad for everyone involved, to see the information refuted if that is the truth, especially while the people involved are still alive and can comment before it passes as a permanent question into history. I would therefore make a motion to reference the Paris meetings and the issue of Hanoi influence as a key issue (again as worthwhile as how some people against the war "felt" about the VVAW) that merits summary page standing, and then a daughter article. I will defer to your judgment (and other historians) given your praiseworthy personal investment of time in this article. Thank you.

Thanks for your kind words. The main point that I think you're missing is that this article isn't "Here's everything you need to know to decide whether to vote for John Kerry." It's Kerry's biography. We have a separate article on the Vietnam War, which includes a section on the antiwar movement. It notes, for example, that HUAC investigated the movement on the suspicion of aiding the NLF. (Perhaps we should have a separate article on the antiwar movement in the U.S., 1965-75; right now, [[Antiwar movement]] redirects to Peace movement, which is international in scope but which also includes a lengthy discussion of opposition in the U.S. to the Vietnam War. A single article on that subject could merge the information that's now in two different places.)

The text we now have makes clear that Kerry was a prominent antiwar spokesperson. Some people will presumably base their assessment of Kerry on what they read about the pros and cons of American involvement in Vietnam. For them it would be a convenience to include that sort of information here. It's not an efficient way of organizing Wikipedia, though. They'll just have to follow the link to Vietnam War. JamesMLane 03:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While looking at the antiwar movement at your sugguestion, regarding both sections Vietnam Veterans Against the War and Winter Soldier Investigation it mentions a "Mark Lane." As JamesMLane, there is no relationship is there? (Sorry to have to ask, which by-the-way doesn't mean one cannot be objective even if there is).

Well, you didn't have to ask. 3 people at my branch bank share my name. 5 people in my (not large) profession share my name. And I'm not named John Smith, or anything else obviously common. So, JML shares a last name and one initial with some guy from 30 years ago mentioned in passing on a related page. I have as much reason to ask if you, anonip, were involved in these historical events. Wolfman 14:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regarding my involvement, my draft number was not called, but several people in college with me at the time entered the service. I think everyone was impacted one way or the other that we are still coming to terms with. It was a very sad and confusing time for the country. After we prevented South Korea from being overrun, many people were perplexed why the same in South Vietnam had not been possible. The media war of which the anti-war movement was an important part has been used by some to try and square the circle. My hope is that reconciliation might be possible after understanding what happened so as a country we can solve the problems ahead of us.

I thought the gentleman I was speaking with originally, JamesMLane, might have an interest in the subject as possibly the son or nephew of Mark Lane knowing the odds were against it; there was no offense intended, hopefully none taken - if there were, I apologize, but still wonder how it could have been raised politely. It is not as spurious as you suggest: here is someone effectively editing a topic, VVAW, which also had as one of its important players a person sharing the same last name and first-name initial as the editor's last-name and middle initial. The subject of conflict of interest is a standard one in journalism, and I'm not aware of how it is dealt with in Wikipedia. The limits of the system seem to create this problem. The interjected phrase "to decide whether to vote for John Kerry" threw me, since it wasn't anything I mentioned, and so unconscious bias became a possible consideration - and who isn't susceptible to this where I also include myself? I was trying to follow the strict format of "these meetings took place at these locations at these times raising these issues" without saying there is only one correct interpretation. Regarding anonip, the two sentences I originally submitted above along with the other factual information were documented, and I did not pretend to have any knowledge or the ability to rule on their merits other than what was contained there. It was that which I had hoped would be the focus. The record, from what I can tell, still doesn't reflect this factual information. If I have erred or been over-the-top in anything I've said, please let me know because I would like to see Wikipedia be a success.

If only I could claim to be related to the James Lane who was an antislavery leader in Kansas! The Mark Lane you mention is best known as one of the proponents of half-baked conspiracy theories about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, a view I definitely do not share. I have no reason to believe I'm related to James Lane or to Mark Lane -- or to the Mark Lane tube station, for that matter. JamesMLane 18:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Correction, this is not "the Mark Lane you mentioned." Please see my comments while you were posting yours. With little effort from my previous documentation you would have seen from Vietnam Veterans Against the War: "At this time, VVAW is said to have received significant financial support from Jane Fonda and other celebrity peace activists. Fonda and Mark Lane had press appearances in July and August 1970 announcing the Washington, D.C., VVAW office."

Also, from Winter Soldier Investigation: "The groundwork for what would become the Winter Soldier Investigation was laid by Jeremy Rifkin, Tod Ensign, Michael Uhl and Bob Johnson of the CCI, with support from VVAW co-founder Jan Crumb. During the summer of 1970, the CCI were approached by Al Hubbard who had become a full-time organizer with VVAW. Al proposed that CCI join forces with Jane Fonda, Mark Lane, Rev. Dick Fernandez of Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam (CALCAV) and Donald Duncan (the Green Beret who had testified at the Russell Tribunal in Denmark)."

Correction to your correction: As far as I know, the Mark Lane who wrote a book about the Kennedy assassination and the Mark Lane you mentioned (the one who had some involvement with the Winter Soldier Investigation) were, indeed, the same person. See this article in the San Francisco Chronicle. If it turns out they were two different people, fine, they were two different people. I've never made an edit that assumed it to be the same person. I have no reason to believe I'm related to him (or to either of them, if you're right). And with that I bid the subject adieu. JamesMLane 20:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wow! You're right, it was the conspiracy theorist: "The first of these was the "Winter Soldier Investigation" (Jan. 31-Feb. 2, 1971) organized by such antiwar celebrities as Jane Fonda and conspiracy theorist Mark Lane. At this event, individuals purporting to be Vietnam veterans told horrible stories of atrocities: burning villages, using prisoners for target practice, and gang-raping women as a matter of course." ..."I read Mark Lane's 1970 book, Conversations with Americans, and the transcripts of the Winter Soldiers Investigation, I was struck by how implausible most of the atrocity claims were. I was apparently not alone. Lane's book was panned by James Reston Jr. and Neil Sheehan, not exactly known as war supporters; Sheehan demonstrated that many of Lane's "eyewitnesses" either had never served in Vietnam or had not done so in the capacities they claimed....In a recent letter to the Wall Street Journal, author Gerald Nicosia alleged that no impostor veterans were ever found to have taken part in the Winter Soldiers Investigation — but that's not what government investigators discovered. When Sen. Mark Hatfield inserted the transcript of the Winter Soldier testimonies into the Congressional Record, he asked the commandant of the Marine Corps to investigate the war crimes allegedly committed by Marines. When the Naval Investigative Service (NIS) attempted to interview those who allegedly had witnessed atrocities, most refused to cooperate, even after assurances that they would not be questioned about atrocities they committed personally. Those who did cooperate never provided details of actual crimes to investigators. The NIS also discovered that some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans. Guenter Lewy tells the entire story in his book America in Vietnam." [Review Online "But Was It True?"] You have made a connection I would have never appreciated. Could this be one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated of all times by "a half-baked" conspiracy theorist!? And he was brought in by Al Hubbard who we now know was a fraud: (Kerry and Al Hubbard - then executive director of VVAW - appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" on April 18, 1971 to argue for an end to the war. Shortly thereafter, Hubbard, who had been introduced on the NBC program as a decorated Air Force captain, was exposed for having exaggerated his military credentials. A separate news investigation revealed that there were no military records showing that Hubbard had either served in Vietnam or was injured there. Adieu

Purple Hearts

• Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry insisted on being awarded his first Purple Heart in Vietnam even though his injury amounted to no more than a "fingernail scrape," his commanding officer at the time now says. Retired Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard tells the Boston Globe that he can still recall Kerry's wound, and that "it resembled a scrape from a fingernail," the paper said. "I've had thorns from a rose that were worse," Hibbard insists. [6]

Is the above quote suitable for inclusion in any Wikipedia article about John Kerry and his Purple Hearts? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd say no. The "insisted" part sounds like POV to me. AFAIK, the procedure for handing out Purple Hearts was mostly automatic at that time. Also, it promotes the statement of Hibbard to absolute truth. More neutral would be something like "According to a statement made in 2004 to the Boston Globe by Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, Kerry's commanding officer at the time, the wound for which Kerry received his first Purple Heart was very minor. "I've had thorns from a rose that were worse," Hibbard insists. [7].

I agree that "insisted" is POV. The substance of the view taken by Hibbard and other Kerry critics is presented in this passage from John Kerry military service controversy, which is linked to from the John Kerry article:

Grant Hibbard, Kerry's former commander, and other SBVT members have questioned Kerry's first Purple Heart, received for a wound sustained on December 2 1968. They assert that the injury was much too minor to merit a citation since the only treatment Kerry received, after the removal of a piece of shrapnel from his arm, was bacitracin (an antibiotic) and a bandage, and that he returned to service immediately.

Thus, Hibbard's opinion is presented. Do we need to give him more of a soapbox? Quoting his exact language adds color but not much else.

I see no reason to wikilink Hibbard where he's now mentioned in the other article. There's no reason he'd ever have an article. He wouldn't be mentioned in Wikipedia at all if he hadn't taken a potshot at Kerry. A Yahoo! search on "Grant Hibbard" -Kerry comes up with 11 hits, many of which seem to be other people.

By the way, that right-wing site you linked to is pretty sleazy in invoking Max Cleland as they do. They say that he lost three limbs and didn't get a Purple Heart. I guess the purpose is to emphasize their attempt to paint Kerry as a whiner. It would be less misleading if they added that Cleland's injury didn't occur in combat and therefore didn't qualify under the regulations. It's especially despicable for them to try to exploit Cleland, given the way the Republican smear machine went after him in 2002. JamesMLane 21:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bush, Kerry: Short term page protection?

The recent edit histories of George W. Bush and John Kerry have been a slew of petty vandalisms and their reverts. Barring some major unexpected developments that will necessitate serious additions to their respective articles, I suspect that more of the same is about all we can expect over the next few days. I think temporary vprotected status for both pages to election day might be warrented. Objections, comments? (this same text added at Talk:George W. Bush, Talk:John Kerry, and Wikipedia talk:Protected page). -- Infrogmation 19:34, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have protected both pages. Please direct discussion to Wikipedia:Protected page where it can be reviewed by people following either page as well as those Wikipedians concerned with page protection in general. Please note, I have deliberately placed the {{vprotected}} at the bottom of the page for cosmetic reasons. Officially it is supposed to go at the top but that is merely a holdover from the days before a warning appeared when sysops edited a protected page, to be sure that any sysop would be aware of the protection before editing. No longer justified now that we have the warning. uc 20:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Might this be a good time for short-term protection again? Very few if any substantive changes, very, very much vandalism? (Apologies if insertion above below comment is not allowed- it seemed irrelevant to, and vice-versa...) Schissel 21:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note to the poster above who complained about the "right-wing" site and Max Cleland's lack of purple hearts: Max Cleland was not eligible for a purple heart even though he lost three of his four limbs simply because Cleland's injuries were inflicted during training with a grenade and not under enemy fire. The rules for awarding purple hearts are very clearly spelled out, and Cleland did not meet the criteria. This is no right-wing smear or Republican spin machine, Cleland actually doesn't qualify for the medal.

Err, yes, anonymous poster. That was exactly the point James was making. The right-wing site that mentions his example without explaining why he didn't qualify is trying to make it sound like Kerry's getting special treatment, while Cleland, the "more deserving" case doesn't qualify. PaulHammond 04:10, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Slovenian interwiki

Please add: sl:John F. Kerry --andrejj 05:32, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Resignation from Vietnam Veterans Against the War

Would not John Kerry's resignation from the VVAW six months after his very public testimony in front of the Sentate Foreign Relations Committee and the reasons why not deserve some space (given what seems like disproportionate space to individual medals on the summary page) since Joining the VVAW is there? According to different sources, the reasons for his resignation range from the VVAW having become too radical (violence against public officials raised by some members) to discovering people were not who they represented themselves as being (Kerry and Al Hubbard - then executive director of VVAW - appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" on April 18, 1971 to argue for an end to the war. Shortly thereafter, Hubbard, who had been introduced on the NBC program as a decorated Air Force captain, was exposed for having exaggerated his military credentials. A separate news investigation revealed that there were no military records showing that Hubbard had either served in Vietnam or was injured there) to wanting to run for public office, etc. Those who were fellow VVAW at the time may have some insight as to how they understood the resignation as well as if Kerry himself could clarify the reasons. Some opponents of VVAW feel his resignation validated points they were making all along. I am agnostic as to the merits of any particular detail. Thanks

We have a summary in this article with a link to a more detailed article. The discusson in the John Kerry article is:

Despite his important role in Operation POW and other VVAW events, as time went on Kerry found that VVAW was becoming more radical. Kerry was trying to moderate the group, to push it in the direction of nonviolence and working within the system. Other members, however, were more militant. Kerry eventually quit the organization over this difference in approach. Some have raised questions about exactly when Kerry left VVAW; see John Kerry VVAW controversy for a full discussion.

This summary omits the speculation about Hubbard. From what I remember reading about Kerry and VVAW, I don't think that issue was prominent enough to be worth mentioing here. JamesMLane 02:37, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Shortly" disambiguation

From the article (emphasis mine):

Kerry says his first memory is from three... The memorable visit came shortly after the United States had liberated Saint-Briac... on August 14, 1944.

Kerry was 8 months old in August, 1944. Obviously, the author of this sentence meant several years when he or she wrote shortly. For clarity's sake, can we change this to several years? Yes, I'm being pedantic, but this sentence gave me pause when I first read it — all of our articles should flow seamlessly. And there's no good reason to be imprecise. • Benc • 06:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Infobox

Since the page is protected i won't do it myself butImage:John_kerry.jpg needs to be cropped to get rid of the black borders and the infobox in this article needs to decrease in width, to bring it in tune with the George W. Bush article. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:06, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

---

Well, if you ever doubted JFK was put in to fall on his sword pointy chin for his blood-oath pal Shrubabdubdud, his concession before all the votes are even counted ought to settle it. The replay of 1930s Germany continues... Kwantus 19:26, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)