Jump to content

Talk:John Kerry/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

SBVT

If the anti-Kerry link regarding his medals cannot be included on this page then neither can the opposing viewpoint. A neutral view can only support both views or none. - Tεxτurε 00:57, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The anti-Kerry link is the internal link to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth article. The policy is to prefer internal links to external ones, isn't it? The SBVT website -- http://www.SwiftVets.com -- is of course included in the "External links" section of the SBVT article. JamesMLane 01:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Apart from that, a neutral view surely doesn't mean having to include all wild accusations about anybody in a encyclopedial article... It is one thing to e.g. make sure all pov are represented when one is writing about e.g. Kerry's politics, as these are things reasonable people can disagree about, but when you are talking about facts, things are either true or not. I personally would not have included the SBVT controversy here, though I would've mentioned it in a more generalised criticism section, as I feel there is no substance to their allegations.

--Martin Wisse 07:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This particular accusation is, IMO, politically motivated and a complete smear job. Unfortunately, however, it's gotten a lot of attention. Even a lie about the subject of the article merits inclusion if it's objectively significant in terms of its impact, the number of people who believe it, etc. JamesMLane 11:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If you look at the George Bush page and compare how Bush's critics are handled there and compare that to the way that critics of Kerry are handled on this page, you can't come to any conclusion other than this forum is irredemably biased. Bush's page is little more than a laundry list of criticism, where Kerry is protected from any criticism here because "it's a smear job". If he's worthy of election, he can handle some criticism, right?

Kerry's Fulbright testimony tainted

User:Neutrality doesn't like the qualification in the last sentence. Quote is from Pitkin's affidavit. -- (SEWilco 03:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC))

On April 22, 1971, Kerry became the first Vietnam veteran to testify before Congress about the war. Wearing green fatigues and service ribbons, he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the conclusions of the Winter Soldier Investigation during the Fulbright Hearing. Kerry summarized the statements of participants who said they had seen such acts, but he did not claim to have seen them himself. However, one participant says "Kerry and other leaders of the event instructed me to publicly state that I had witnessed incidents of rape, brutality, atrocities and racism, knowing that such statements would necessarily be untrue." [1]

What on earth is the credibility of this source? The "freepnet" qualification certainly doesn't say much for it. john k 05:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Irrelevant to this article anyway. Detailed accounts such as some guying saying some people including Kerry told him to say something at a meeting 30 years ago belong in the John Kerry VVAW Controversy article. At least that's the Arbcom finding on this level of detail. Wolfman 03:00, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Wolfman. We had kb upon kb of hassle over this kind of thing before settling on spinning off such details to related articles or daughter articles. This article should summarize Kerry's testimony with a link to Winter Soldier Investigation. Pitkin's affidavit is precisely on point for Winter Soldier Investigation. JamesMLane 03:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Kerry creating stories removes the impersonality of "Kerry summarized the statements of participants" and the impartiality of "about the conclusions", as well as the veracity of what he was saying. What phrasing do you think is appropriate? SEWilco 03:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Kerry characterized his testimony as a summary of ...". Wolfman 03:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Childhood years section

The childhood years section is pretty lame. But surely the way to make it better is not to insert silly parentheticals to insinuate that Kerry didn't see the rubble of Hitler's bunker. john k 06:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Well, people can have fuzzy childhood memories, just like Arnold and those Russians Tanks that were not in Austria anymore by the time he was born. GeneralPatton 06:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I will not insist on my addition, but I agree that the whole chapter should be rewritten. GeneralPatton 07:21, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As I just pointed out on the talk page, there is no discussion of apocryphal soviet tanks in the streets of Graz followed by mockery of the subject of the article, in the article on the Governor of California. As I said there, it seems to me that if we know for a fact that he couldn't have seen the rubble of Hitler's bunker, we should just excise the entire story. Otherwise it's just silly point-scoring. And that's the biggest problem with all of these articles - they're not designed to write a good encyclopedia article. They're designed to score political points. I think that's a bad thing, whether or not my guy (Kerry, for the record) is the one having points scored on his behalf or not. So, all I'm saying is, let's avoid cheap shots. If you want to remove the whole story, I wouldn't object. john k 07:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I've put it as "exploting the ruins", I really don't like political controversy and all that stuff. GeneralPatton 08:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That looks fine. Sorry to have jumped down your throat. john k 08:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Violations of Geneva convention

I'm pretty sure we're getting vandalized or at least massive POV entered by this anon user: 168.171.60.45. I don't know enough about the section to check...anyone game? Lyellin 17:48, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Looks like he's looking for a place for Kerry's two admissions to having violated the rules of warfare. I can't find where this was previously discussed. SEWilco 03:54, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There's someone else trying. Any suggestions for NPOV phrasing of what he tried? SEWilco 06:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • On April 18, 1971, John Kerry appeared on Meet the Press and admitted to committing attrocities in Vietnam.
quote the statement in its entirety, without otherwise characterizing what he said. Wolfman 06:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
OK, there are the statements. Now what? SEWilco
I think it belongs in the Anti-Vietnam section. They took place in that time and context, but not quite fitting as a group in the existing subsections (VVAW, Senate testimony, DC protest, POW). Seems to call for a new subsection. Hmmm.. He doesn't refer to international law in all statements, not all applicable laws are connected to Geneva, and he may be wrong about some violations, so "Violations of Geneva convention" is not the right headline. "Awareness of improper wartime actions"? "Unusual wartime activities described"? "Public peer group bonding"? SEWilco 06:11, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Meet the Press 1971 statement

April 18, 1971, NBC's "Meet the Press"

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used .50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

Washington Star statement

June 6, 1971, Washington Star

"We established an American presence in most cases by showing the flag and firing at sampans and villages along the banks. Those were our instructions, but they seemed so out of line that we finally began to go ashore, against our orders, and investigate the villages that were supposed to be our targets. We discovered we were butchering a lot of innocent people, and morale became so low among the officers on those 'swift boats' that we were called back to Saigon for special instructions from Gen. Abrams. He told us we were doing the right thing. He said our efforts would help win the war in the long run. That's when I realized I could never remain silent about the realities of the war in Vietnam."

Cavett Show statement

June 30, 1971, ABC's "The Dick Cavett Show", during a debate with John O'Neill:

"Well, I have often talked about this subject. I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty."

spin-off military service

Is there any discussion about the military service being expanded into a separate article? Seems like there is excessive detail into his military record that should be referenced outside the main article. Sorry, I haven't kept up on this talk page to know if there had been a decision reached. --kizzle 17:58, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

The controversial stuff was spun off into SBVT. I think that this article could benefit from spinning off a lot of detail about military service stuff into 'John Kerry military service'. Then, at the bottom of that page, we could add a 'controversy' section with the details of the medal controversies (moving that section over from SBVT). Wolfman 18:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree... I think readers will be bogged down by the minutia of his military service which is only there for examination purposes due to SBVT. --kizzle 18:22, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
I think this is the correct long-term goal. The 'medals' section in SBVT should also be included. However, it might be best to wait till after the election. This page has been relatively peaceful of late. At the moment, election related pages (particularly spin-offs) seem to be getting a lot of heat. And no one wants to end up in arbcom again just now. So let's wait a couple months. Wolfman 17:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
sounds good to me, just sad we have to not edit a page in fear of edit wars :( --kizzle 18:21, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

I removed this from the article. I couldn't find any reputable news source that confirmed it (and believe me, they would mention it).

Update: After William Schachte spoke out, Kerry's campaign has backtracked on its support of the original story of the first Purple Heart, sheepishly admitting that Kerry's wound "might" have been self-inflicted. They've also backtracked on Kerry's original story of the Bay Hap incident for which he received his third Purple Heart and Bronze Star. They've admitted that Kerry's boat immediately took off when the mine exploded under the other boat, that the other swift boats didn't leave, that there was no enemy fire at all, and that when Kerry's boat returned he "rushed" to rescue Rassmann just seconds before another swift boat was maneuvering to do the same. It seems that many of the Swifties' allegations are true after all. By the way, Kerry, in 1971, admitted that he had written most of the after-action reports himself.

DJ Clayworth 13:30, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

seems highly unlikely that was a relevant (or constructive) edit, unless someone can tell me otherwise and put my foot in my mouth. --kizzle 23:11, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

The book was authored by Kerry's ex-wife, Julia Thorne, several years after their divorce. It's not about their marriage, though. In the history of this article, it's been added and deleted more than once. I personally think it's a close call but I lean toward deletion. JamesMLane 23:30, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If it's not about Kerry, it doesn't belong in his article. It belongs where it is, in the Thorne article. Wolfman 01:22, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pitkin affidavit

SEWilco has added this hidden comment to the section on Kerry's 1971 testimony: "Pitkin statement calls for phrasing that testimony was presented as truthful, even though it is now known that it might not have been". There's been some discussion of this topic on Talk:Fulbright Hearing#The FoxNews link. An anonymous participant there argued that none of Kerry's testimony was based on anything Pitkin said. I haven't yet seen any evidence to the contrary, i.e., showing any particular importance to Pitkin's role, but I haven't really looked into it in detail. JamesMLane 23:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anyone know what exactly Pitkin said in his testimony? Wolfman 01:20, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What the anon said in his comments on Talk:Fulbright Hearing#The FoxNews link was accurate for the Pitkin testimony I could find. He talked about the press coverage. I think he talked about his training at Fort Dix, practicing a capture of a Vietnamese village... in the snow. He said nothing about having committed atrocities. I just wasn't sure that I was reading the complete text. JamesMLane 02:16, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Kerry spoke as if all the WSI testimony was true. Pitkin says some is not and Kerry knew it. We do not know how many more may have had similar experiences, only that there was pressure to have additional participants. I see that the above Fulbright discussion is covering this, so follow up there...and the results can be echoed back here later. -- SEWilco 03:46, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The 'anon' also said that Pitkin had recanted his initial statements under affidavit on August 31st. After admitting errors in recollection, Pitkin has changed his stories and reissued a new affidavit on Sept. 15th, claiming now that he travelled to the Detroit Winter Soldier hearings with different people than originally stated; claiming he was discharged on a different date; claiming different circumstances under which he joined the VVAW... Copies of older versions of Pitkins stories are still in blog archives, like here. Newer versions of the morphing sworn testimony usually appear here if you wish to compare statements.
Several factors have caused 'anon' to question the veracity of Pitkin's motivations: His admitted recollection problems; the convenience of his statements against Kerry 33 years later, during a political campaign; revising 'sworn statements' on the fly as needed; claiming in those statements that he "lied," yet no lies are evident; alleging "coercion" by a participant (Kerry) that was not in a position to coerce; etc. (Please note that Kerry was not a "leader of that event" as Pitkin misrepresents in his new statements. He was an observer, and briefly a volunteer moderator. Kerry was a relative unknown still.) After speaking with other WSI participants, 'anon' has learned that Pitkin (more a groupie than an activist) wanted to speak, so space was made for him on the "miscellaneous panel" during the third day. They had more participants than they had time for, and the moderators were struggling against the clock. Other WSI participants confirm that no participants were ever "pressured" to testify, and the only "coaching" of testimony done by the moderators was to remind participants to stay on the topics of war crime, racism and illegal policy. SEWilco's statement above, "We do not know how many more may have had similar experiences, only that there was pressure to have additional participants" appears to be false and a potential "straw man" foundation. -Rob

new spawned article

John Kerry Military Service Controversy

John Kerry Military Service

have been created. A few other editors and I thought that the military service was entirely too detailed for the normal reader, thus I copied the entire section verbatim along with an intro by Wolfman to John Kerry Military Service. There should be a *summary* paragraph along with a Main Article: John Kerry Military Service ... In addition I took all the detailed Allegations and Evidence from SBVT and spawned John Kerry Military Service Controversy ... this should contain all material and analysis statements that do not specifically refer to SBVT (i.e. allegation of Republican ties stay in SBVT, descriptions of Ads, organization, but specific arguments against medals moved to JKMSC)... Also heard a couple people who wanted John Kerry Vietnam Service Controversy, I don't care either way....

If concensus is reached, first step we should take out all the military service that is not duplicated in JKMS and replace with a summary paragraph. What does the group think? --kizzle 02:46, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

I don't care much whether the material about the attacks on Kerry is in a "controversy" article or left in SBVT. Obviously, wherever it is should be linked to from here. On the other part, though, I don't think the military service section of this article is overly long. The most obvious example is the Silver Star incident. Kerry killed a man. That would be significant in anyone's life even if he hadn't gotten a medal for it. There's also the nontrivial problem of writing the summary in a way that people of different POV's could accept. I find that, in general, it's easier to be NPOV when you go into greater length about a subject. JamesMLane 03:18, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I just feel that it's a little bit excessively detailed, but just my personal impressions as a casual reader. I feel that the military service is detailed enough to warrant its own article, and similarily it's about as long as George Bush's Foreign Policy article and there's a separate one for that. I'm not going to Rexily insist on it, as I don't have a problem with it either way, but as a casual reader not editing this page for a long time, I feel that there's a bit too much specifics in the article. Where did he serve? When did he serve? How many medals did he get? Besides that and a few other questions, I don't need to know a day by day account unless I am specifically interested it, and just like George W. Bush Foreign Policy I'll click on John Kerry Military Service...
Just a thought :). Glad to be debating this on a normal basis without personal attacks again. --kizzle 03:43, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
Also, I created User:Kizzle/John_Kerry_Military_Combined In a extremely rough attempt to combine Military service of John Kerry and John Kerry military service controversy, edit mercilessly. And can the admin who combined the pages say why they renamed the page from John Kerry military service to Military Service of John Kerry? just curious :) --kizzle 04:02, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
We don't have to take out all the duplication, and reduce to a single paragraph. Leave in enough that it reads well on its own, and covers the important items -- maybe a few paragraphs. But direct the reader to a subarticle for the extra details. Wolfman 04:56, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree that the two pages should be combined, any more than the bush conspiracy theories article should be merged into the main bush article. Wolfman 19:54, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have removed duplicated material from SBVT, with a pointer to JKMSC. Has anyone yet made a stab at condensing down the important details of Kerry's service for the main article? Or is it best to wait till after the election on that (to avoid conflict)? Wolfman 02:37, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kerry genealogical information

At one point the article went into much more detail on this subject. There was a consensus that it was excessive. I pruned it to get to roughly where we are now. See Talk:John Kerry/September 2004 Archive 1#Trying again on the genealogy. I don't think we need to mention Queen Elizabeth in the text when anyone who wants to can follow the link at the end of the paragraph and find her listed (along with a whole bunch of other people, like David Crosby). JamesMLane 21:56, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Claiming he's related to Muhammad is just silly. Evercat 22:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The part you're questioning seems to be

John Kerry is also related to Queen Elizabeth II of England (as is his presidential rival George W Bush), Princess Diana, all of the European Royal Houses, and the prophet Muhammad via the Shahs of Persia.

, which I just removed. The part about Muhammad is unsupportable as established fact, Queen Elizabeth is not Queen of England, a middle initial takes a period, and I agree with you that Liz doesn't add much. All humans are relatives of all humans; a sufficiently distant relationship is unremarkable. - Nunh-huh 22:05, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. This came up at William Shockley too, but that was actually less absurd. The general consensus is that all Europeans are descended from Mohammed, so this information is just worthless. (And of course we're all related; yes, Xed is related to you and me.) VV 22:09, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
All Europeans aren't descended from Muhammad - don't be silly. --Xed 22:11, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes they are. It's mathematically highly unlikely there's even one exception. VV 23:08, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Prove this assertion--Xed 23:36, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
But he is descended from Muhammad - see here: [2] - Burkes peerage, can't argue with that.--Xed 22:09, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Don't believe it, it's bullshit, and it's not the Burke's Peerage that publishes "Burke's Peerage and Baronetage": it's Harold Brooks-Baker, who bought another of the "Burke's" brand names, masquerading as a reputable genealogist, and who usually uses the U.S. presidential elections to make publicity-seeking pronouncements (usually he predicts the candidate with the "most" royal blood will win). There's no genealogically established link to Muhammad, and the Washington Times has been taken in by a press release: apparently Dan Rather is not the only newsman not to check his facts. - Nunh-huh 22:14, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
irrelevant anyway, but the cited passage does not say that Kerry is a direct descendant of Mohammed. Wolfman 22:15, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Now your grasping for straws - the article says "Kerry is kinsman of the Shi'ite shahs of Persia (the most famous was Shah Abbas I, who reigned from 1587 to 1629), as well as the Muslim kings of Tunisia, all of whom — Democratic presidential nominee included — descend from the prophet Muhammad."--Xed 22:18, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I stand corrected, I missed the hyphenated portion. But, as I stated this is utterly irrelevant to Kerry's notability. It is also of questionable veracity according to Nunh-huh. Wolfman 22:22, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

it's quite probable that everyone here is related to Mohammed somehow. is it notable? no. Wolfman 22:13, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you or Mr Nunh-huh can find any evidence to the contrary, you can remove it. Otherwise, it's notable, especially considering the relations between the Muslim world and the US. It's simply an interesting fact--Xed 22:32, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A "fact"? No, it's not a "fact", interesting or uninteresting. Document his purported line if you want to add it as a "fact". - Nunh-huh 22:43, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
descent, not related. --Xed 22:16, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The number of generations between us and Mohammed is about 50. That means the number of ancestors I have from that period of time is about 2 ^ 50, a phenomenal number. My family tree back at that point would contain 2 ^ 50 names. Now, even granting that there's a lot of duplication in that tree, the odds that I am descended from him are quite high, I would think. Granted, this assumes that his DNA got into the European population, but that probably happened relatively quickly... Evercat 22:23, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


But the same could be said of a person in 700 AD who had no descendants. The statistical argument is to some degree tautological (if X was ancestor of anyone alive now, X is ancestor of everyone alive now) and fortunately doesn't have to be hashed out in this case, as what's being alleged (but not presented) is a specific descent - which doesn't exist. Let Brooks-Baker present the alleged descent (I suspect it is through the alleged "Princess Zaida") and we can then say why it's wrong to present it as fact (and whether Bush shares it...which he does). Till then it's just a bogus claim in a press release. - Nunh-huh 22:28, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Genealogists have long known that virtually any European can claim descent from Mohammed, from Charlemagne, certainly from Julius Caesar or Nefertiti, indeed any non-European probably could for the last two except maybe Papua New Guineans or the like. There's just a huge amount of diffusion over time. In the case of Mohammed, it helps that one of Fatima's descendants moved to Spain and I believe their family married into royalty. VV 23:17, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's actually the argument of mathematicians, not genealogists. There are proven genealogical descents from Mohammed and Charlemagne, but none from Julius Caesar or Nefertiti: proven genealogical links stop at about 400 A.D. Unfortunately for the "Muhammad" theory, it requires the identification of one of Alfonso VI of Castile & Leon's two wives named "Isabella" with a concubine called "Princess Zaida": that identity, while sometimes advocated, and certainly not impossible, has no documentation supporting it. Yes, the mathematical argument is often seriously held, but its circularity is that it assumes the ready genetic diffusion that it seeks to prove. In any case, the assertion is that Kerry has a proven specific individual descent, not the same mathematically-likely descent as everyone else. - Nunh-huh
Whats your point? Tell me when you have one--Xed 22:25, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The distant relationship between Kerry and Bush is arguably too minor a matter to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. I favor inclusion but I consider it borderline. The relationship between Kerry and Mohammed is incomparably more distant, so I don't see a basis for deeming it to be notable. JamesMLane 22:26, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The notability is due to the relationship between the US and the Muslim world. If you find it so uninteresting as a fact then why are you so adamant to have it removed? Leave it be--Xed 22:32, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's an interesting argument. Any text that's proposed for inclusion in any Wikipedia article, and objected to on grounds of importance, would have to be included, because the objection shows the information to be important. If your concern is for why I care more about this particular point than others, it's probably because this article has a long history of having overly detailed sections, and many editors have worked to sharpen it. My personal opinion is that it still has too much non-substantive material. Ideally, I'd trim some of the current fluff (like meetings with JFK), and add more informaton about Kerry's career in the Senate. Adding fluff (genealogical or other) is not the way to go. JamesMLane 22:40, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Xed, you have now reverted 8 9 times in 3 hours. You have reverted 6 other users. Please convince at least one other person to support your position before reverting again. Thanks. Wolfman 22:45, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV claim from POV source

Do we really want to advertise a supposed-to-be-NPOV article with a claim from a highly POV source?: "A fair and well-documented biography of John F. Kerry" [1] (http://www.bushcountry.org/news/aug_news_pages/n_080204_kerry_facts.htm) — BushCountry.org (August 2, 2004). (See above). I know it says fair, but bushcountry.org is extremely POV. Chewyman 23:41, 3 Oct 2004 (NZT)

It's a favorable comment from a non-Wikipedia source about a Wikipedia article. What the BushCountry article does is take some of the facts that we report, such as that Kerry's paternal grandparents were Jews who converted to Catholicism, and put a pro-Bush spin on them: "Kerry has a family history of flip-flopping ...." Our article is accurate. The religious conversion is a historical fact. The note here quoting their praise shows only that they found it useful as a source of such facts. I think the note should stay. It's nothing for us to be ashamed of. Whether the absurd BushCountry article is something for Republicans to be ashamed of isn't our concern. JamesMLane 14:39, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The gossip page

Xed keeps adding that Catherine Oxenberg had a daughter sometime after Kerry dated her. To include this fact on the basis of speculation that maybe Kerry was the father seems to me completely unencyclopedic. JamesMLane 15:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

agree. have also reverted. note that Xed's edit summary for re-instating this was 'minor edit' -- willfully misleading, given that the entry was already under challenge by JML. Wolfman 15:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Is there anything in this sentence that can be denied - 'In 1991, Catherine Oxenberg had a daughter named India Oxenberg, whose father's name she has never revealed.' If you can refute this sentence please feel free to revert the article. Otherwise, you're best off leaving it alone. --Xed 15:17, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, Xed, that's not the standard. I could make a truthful statement about what color tie Kerry was wearing when he accepted the Democratic nomination. You wouldn't be able to refute it. So what? It wouldn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article about Kerry. As my comment above made absolutely clear, the issue is whether this random fact belongs in the article. I haven't looked into whether it's true.
A human being is equivalent to the color of a tie? What kind of person are you? And the sentence is true - look it up.--Xed 15:33, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
With regard to the separation from Thorne, I see no confirmation that Thorne's depression could be called "debilitating" or "suicidal". If we're going to mention it -- and we get into the issue of how much detail to give about other people in Kerry's life -- then we should note that she asked Kerry for the separation. I suggest the following:
In 1982, Thorne, who was suffering from depression, asked Kerry for a separation. [3] They were divorced July 25, 1988.
According to a review of Thorne's book (in the Boston Globe) on depression - "One night in 1980, Julia Thorne put her children to bed and then sat on the edge of her own bed to contemplate suicide. She was exhausted - overwhelmed by despair, self-loathing and pain. She wanted to lie down. Curl up. Sleep forever." That sounds debilitating. That sounds suicidal.--Xed 15:33, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Including some level of detail about Kerry's ex-wife is one thing, but Catherine Oxenberg's daughter isn't even a close question. JamesMLane 15:21, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You've admitted you don't know the facts. That is very clear. It's probably best if you calm down and keep away from this page.--Xed 15:37, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Xed, if you want to include a 'fact' it is incumbent on you to support it with evidence. Or do you know every single detailed fact about Kerry's life? If not, by your logic you should also keep away from this page. As for calming down, I do smell some hysteria in the air, but I don't think JML is the source. Wolfman 15:54, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The evidence is a google search away dummy. In this case - yes, I know the facts. You clearly don't. Several articles on Catherine Oxenberg mention that she has never said who the father of India is. Come back and comment when you have done some research--Xed 16:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks. I assure you, I am no dummy. Wolfman 16:53, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't know the facts about whether Catherine Oxenberg had a daughter,
No, you clearly don't. I've noted your pride in your ignorance. Well done.--Xed 16:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
let alone whose father it was. I do know the fact that this article is about John Kerry. (Gossip patrol alert: Xed has also edited the Catherine Oxenberg article to add his insinuation that Kerry had an illegitimate child. Editors who agree with me Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer should add that article to their watchlists.)
Whats wrong with having an illegitimate child anyway? Why is that labelled as an 'insinuation'?--Xed 16:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Xed, instead of condescendingly urging me to "calm down", perhaps you could address the specific wording I proposed above concerning Thorne. JamesMLane 16:03, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Your wording is incomplete. You will notice my version is fuller. Thanks for contributing.--Xed 16:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with JML here. Some mention of Oxenburg's depression at the time of the separation may be worth mentioning, although characterizing it as suicidal is 1) making a second-hand clinical diagnosis and 2) inserting a unnecessarily prejudicial bias. As for the child, that is purely speculative and has no place in an encyclopedia, IMO. older≠wiser 16:15, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A quote from her book on depression:
"February 1980, five months after my 36th birthday, my mind ravaged by corroding voices, my body defeated by bone rattling panics, I sat on the edge of my bed minutes from taking my own life. For weeks I had silently prepared my death. I believed I was a failure. I could no longer pretend I was of use to my husband or my children. ... I was emotionally, spiritually, and physically exhausted by a life destroying affliction - depression ... I was also alone - dying a lonely death in a vacuum of misunderstanding, ignorance and shame."
That sounds suicidal to me.--Xed 16:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Today's Xed revert count (on this issue): 12 so far against 5 different editors. Will update here, as the count grows. Wolfman 16:10, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's shocking: 3 different editors are trying to block a truthful assertion.--Xed 16:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What is more shocking is one lone ranger repeatedly inserting both unsubstantiated and irrelevant gossip and inappropriately biased, though tangentially relevant, information. older≠wiser 16:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's also true that Kerry has never denied beating his wife. Should we put that in? Wolfman 16:21, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The difference is that the things I put in are true, and you have been unable to refute them. --Xed 16:34, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"Kerry has not denied beating his wife." Refute that, Xed. Wolfman 16:46, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You argue more like a lawyer than a human being--Xed 16:56, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To suggest that irrefutability trumps everything is fallacious. The placement of Oxenberg's having had a child in that paragraph has no other reason than to maliciously insinuate that Kerry is the father of her daughter, so the questioning of its relevance is very cogent. As an aside, that is also an innuendo actionable under libel law. -khaosworks 16:26, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
'maliciously insinuate' - what do you mean?--Xed 16:34, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If you place two facts together - "John Kerry dated Catherine Oxenberg. Catherine Oxenberg had a daughter at the same time," then any reasonable person reading it would take it to mean that you meant to imply that one fact was the cause of the other - why else would they be placed side by side? That's an innuendo - an insinuation - because it relies on the reader to piece it together rather than the writer making it explicit... which is the intent, since the logical connection cannot be proved.
It is malicious because the false connection is placed intentionally, with intent to damage the reputation of Kerry. The original innuendo could conceivably have been unintentional, but once the connection has been pointed out, the repeated placement of it becomes reckless, since you are now aware of the effect and continue to execute the action. -khaosworks 16:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm illegitimate. Whats wrong with that? Can you explain the 'damage' to, say, my mothers reputation? Do you, with you peculiar world-view, see her as a whore or something? You seem to get your morals from a Victorian novel.--Xed 16:56, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Don't retreat into this kind of petulant counter-argument. It has nothing to do with you personally, or your mother, or the rightness or wrongless of legitimacy (although the word itself suggests a moral dimension). In addition, you're not India Oxenberg, and your mother not Catherine Oxenberg - it's also nothing to do with the latter two people. But, it would be very difficult to argue that, given the standards of moral behavior that the public at large holds public figures to, that the assertion that Kerry has an unacknowledged, illegitimate child would not damage his reputation, rather like the Bush campaign falsely asserting in a phone poll that John McCain had an illegitimate child. -khaosworks 17:03, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You haven't explained how what's wrong with illegitimacy - Whats wrong with it? Explain the 'damage' to my mothers reputation. Do you see her as a whore, a slut, or just a woman of loose morals? What form of 'moral behavior', as you put it, has she failed at? Thanks. --Xed 17:20, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What part of "it has nothing to do with your personally, or about your mother, or the rightness or wrongness of legitimacy" do you not understand? It's the damage to Kerry's reputation that is at issue here, no one else's, and such damage is actionable in law if unproven or malicious. Please don't shift the argument. You haven't explained the purpose of putting in the claim that Kerry fathered an illegitimate child, either, I might point out. -khaosworks 17:35, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)(UTC)
Khaosworks has identified the key point. Millions of Americans would think ill of John Kerry if they thought he had fathered an illegitimate child. That's just a political fact. If you think those millions of voters are getting their morals from a Victorian novel, take it up with them. (You certainly wouldn't be alone in thinking that too many Americans have Victorian attitudes about subjects related to sex.) In the meantime, because such an allegation (whether express or implied) would be politically explosive, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia unless there's some substantiation. That a man dated a woman who later had a child of undisclosed paternity doesn't constitute substantiation. JamesMLane 17:16, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So you are saying that Wikipedia should be held to account by people who think, as Mr khaosworks appears to, that my mother is a moral degenerate?--Xed 17:24, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm saying that whether someone believes that fathering a child out of wedlock is a grievous sin or a noble achievement, there's no substantiation for a suggestion that Kerry did this. Regardless of your view of morality, this factoid about Catherine Oxenberg doesn't belong in an article about John Kerry. It would really help if you'd focus on the arguments people are actually making. Just because you call someone a "dummy" doesn't justify your putting words in his mouth. JamesMLane 17:41, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What's next an RFC, mediation? Best course of action? Wolfman 16:53, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mediation seems like the next step if Xed keeps insisting on the Oxenberg addition. -khaosworks 17:03, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
File:Indiakerry.png
Left-Kerry, Right-India

Since we're playing show & tell, here's a pic of India's mother Wolfman 17:43, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Xed, we have explained at great length why Oxenberg's child is neither relevant nor appropriate for inclusion. Why don't you tell us why Oxenberg's child is relevant and appropriate for inclusion in an article about John Kerry. Wolfman 17:34, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay Xed, let's take this slow. If you think India Oxenberg is Kerry's daughter, there has to be actual evidence to back this up. The fact that he dated the mother (around 9 months before India's birth? I have no idea) is not itself evidence. If you are not trying to say that India Oxenberg is Kerry's daughter, it is completely irrelevant to an article about Kerry to mention her. As to Kerry's first wife's depression, the passages you quote are from 1980, but the implication of your version is that she was suicidal in 1982. That does not necessarily follow. john k 17:37, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A Google search on "india oxenberg" & "kerry" reveals only 3 hits. Of these, only 1 alleges that Kerry is India's father, and that's a letter to the editor. Not only is there no evidence, there's not even an allegation floating around. Wolfman 18:01, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I intend to request mediation with Xed over this issue. Xed, will you agree to mediation? Wolfman 18:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No. I'm happy with a disputed tag - disputed due to lack of factual content.--Xed 18:20, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since mediation has been declined, shall we take it to arbitration then? -khaosworks 18:26, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think so. Do we need an RFC first? User:Xed has tagged the article with POV, without substantiating a basis (see my Google ref above). Further he has reverted 20 times in 2 days. Further, he has refused to debate the actual arguments being made, or to provide an affirmative arguement for inclusion. Further, he has refused mediation. Finally, note that Xed has only recently returned from a one-week ban; he is clearly a vexatious editor. Wolfman 18:30, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Let's go with ArbCom. When more than ten people agree–of all different political leanings–it's time to do something. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:01, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
I'll sign off on it. This might also apply: Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Insinuation. I'm wondering how "no original research" applies though. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:22, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Xed Arbitration

Notice: Xed has quit Wikipedia decided not to edit JK further (see my Talk page). So this arbcom petition is now moot. Wolfman 05:58, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If I can get everybody to sign off on this, we can go to ArbCom. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:16, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration is non-sensical. I haven't declined mediation - I only said that I would decline mediation if the Disputed tag was put on the page. It wasn't. In fact it was removed--Xed 20:37, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So are you saying that you are agreeable to mediation now? -khaosworks 20:47, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Users bring charges (in alphabetical order):
  • Users agreeing with these chargse:
  • Summary of Charges:
    • User:Xed has engaged in systematic warfare against the John Kerry article to push unsubstanted gossip and controversially sourced facts. When Xed's edit was reverted – by nine different users with a broad spectrum of political opinion–s/he continued to revert. At the time of writing s/he had reverted 25 times in a two-day period. Xed also made misleading edit summaries, falsely marked edits as minor, refuses to respect consensus, and has made multiple personal attacks, (implying that others were Nazis and "victorian (sic) moral guardians."). S/he has also declined mediation.
  • Evidence: See the page history of John Kerry, as well as Talk:John Kerry.
  • Relevant polices:
  • Relief requested:
    • We request some form of temporary injunction to stop Xed's rampage, preventing him from forcing page protection. We also request permanent relief in the form of a personal attack and revert parole and/or temporary ban.
What 'rampage'? The witch-hunt is getting hysterical. I have said I'm happy with the page with a disputed tag.--Xed 21:03, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The John Kerry reversions happened only 9 times, not 25 as you imply. Again, I haven't declined mediation--Xed 20:37, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Note User Evercat attempted to remove my comments in this section.--Xed 20:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Uh, no I didn't; I reverted your edit where you changed "users" to "witch-hunters", then, noticing that you had indeed made 2 comments in the same edit, I restored them. [4] Evercat 20:46, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On this page Xed hasn't called anyone a Nazi. I suggest:

Xed also made misleading edit summaries, falsely marked edits as minor, refuses to respect consensus, and has made multiple personal attacks (calling one person "dummy" and implying that others were Nazis and "victorian (sic) moral guardians").

I haven't verified the count of reverts. Just to make sure it's not misleading, we might clarify that it was different disputes (two of them, I think, "Mohammed" and today's, although today's might be further broken down into the Thorne and Oxenberg matters). Also, "unsubstanted gossip and controversial soured facts" should presumably be "unsubstantiated gossip and controversially sourced facts". In the last sentence, I'm sure Xed already has "permanent belief", not subject to change by facts or argument, so what we need is "permanent relief". JamesMLane 20:49, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I marked ONE edit as minor - does the witch get drowned for that? The dummy was a dummy (it's a term of endearment, you big dummy). As for "unsubstanted gossip and controversial soured facts", there IS NOTHING in the sentence "In 1991, Catherine Oxenberg had a daughter named India Oxenberg, whose father's name she has never revealed" that is either unsubstantiated or contraversial. --Xed 21:03, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is if you're using it to imply that Kerry fathered a child out of wedlock. That's what we've been trying to tell you all along. -khaosworks 22:46, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Xed's Nazi comment. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:55, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think he was calling anyone a Nazi, but rather arguing that concensus-based decision making is flawed. Evercat 20:59, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Neutrality seems obsessed with imaginary Nazis. --Xed 21:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My count of reversions is 9 yesterday on 'Kerry is a direct descendant of Mohammed' and 11 today on the India Oxenberg issue. (Somebody else should verify my count; mistakes do happen). Xed has also reverted on some other issues in the past couple days, but has not broken the 3 revert rule on those (that I have noticed). It is perhaps worth noting, that Xed was fully aware of the number of reverts made, because I was tallying each one up on the Talk page. While today's dispute included 2 issues, all reverts included both issues, so there is no practical distinction. The name calling & misleading summaries are more minor issues to me which help substantiate the main complaint, but are not of themselves worth requesting relief over. Wolfman 21:46, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Xed, are you now prepared to stop reverting, or willing to accept mediation? If not, a request for arbitration is unfortunately required. Wolfman 21:59, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Xed, what "cheating" are you babbling about? Can you be more specific as to why that misplaced 25 needs to be there rather than just saying that it's cheating? -khaosworks 23:02, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That 'misplaced 25' is what I first responded to. If you change it it looks as if I am making it up. I wrote 'The John Kerry reversions happened only 9 times, not 25 as you imply.' - and then you removed the 25. --Xed 23:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Read the rest of the paragraph, specifically the sentence that says: "At the time of writing s/he had reverted 25 times in a two-day period." It's still there. -khaosworks 23:28, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, and in the original the implication was that I reverted the Thorne issue 25 times. You removed this after I responded to it. Shameful--Xed 23:37, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What Thorne issue? You realize that uncorrected, the sentence makes no grammatical sense? That's why it's a typo. -khaosworks 23:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
User:Xed has repeatedly edited the proposed statement of charges against him. Xed, please do not touch the proposed charges again, that's quite unacceptable. As a complainant, Khaosworks is within his rights cleaning up the proposal. If you have objections to the proposal, state them below. If you wish to avoid arbcom, go to mediation. Wolfman 23:06, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have not 'repeatedly edited the proposed statement of charges' against me. Khaoswork has. Khaosworks altered the meaning of his proposal after I had responded to it. I simply kept the original statement - otherwise my response would have been meaningless--Xed 23:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So, change your response. You don't get to decide how the charges against you are written. I don't get to edit your response either. Get it? Wolfman 23:21, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So charges can be rewritten at will!!!!???? The show-trial has begun--Xed 23:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The charges have not yet been filed. You seem not to understand the process. First, complainants agree on a statement of complaint. Then, when that is agreed to, and signed, it is filed with arbcom. The statement above currently has no formal status, it's just a working proposal right now. That's why mediation is still an option. Wolfman 23:33, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Why not change it to murder while you still have the time? Mediate away--Xed 23:37, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What does "mediate away" mean? Are you requesting mediation? Wolfman 23:42, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Never mind, I see that you are not ignorant of this process after all. You in fact filed an arbitration complaint against User:Jimbo Wales, when your user name was only a week old. You've compiled an impressive record of conflict for someone who's only been around since late August. Wolfman 00:05, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I was almost crucified for criticising the benevolent dictator after he harassed a user out of Wikipedia for being not pro-US and right-wing enough. Not a friendly beginning. No wonder I can't stand elements of the Wikiclique. Now I'm getting it from Kerry fans.--Xed 00:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't understand your problem. From your behavior in conflicts, I would have thought you were a troll. But, it looks like you are actually making productive contributions in some other places, so that's not it. You have produced no evidence whatsoever that Kerry is India's father, or that it is even believed by many. You don't even know when Kerry dated her mother, see Talk:Catherine Oxenberg. Why then, are you so insistent on the allegation being included or at least insinuated? I don't get it. Wolfman 00:22, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's simply interesting information. That's one of things you read an encyclopedia for. The name of Kerry's canary isn't interesting, yet it was in his entry for a while. But this information, though much more interesting, is deemed to be not worth including. But interesting information should be heard, and Wikipedia editors shouldn't act like a bunch of Thomas Bowdlers--Xed 00:39, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Secondly, it's not an allegation - the sentence says 'In 1991, Catherine Oxenberg had a daughter named India Oxenberg, whose father's name she has never revealed.' Nothing in that sentence is untrue.--Xed 00:45, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
the point is that it's not information, it's an unsupported suspicion apparently held by Xed and one other person on the planet (see Google results above). The only reason to include anything about India here, is to insinuate the completely unsupported theory that Kerry might be her father. Well, Bill Clinton might be too, and that's just as well supported as your theory. But it's not going on his page either. Wolfman 00:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Of course it's information. Anyway, I'm giving up on Wikipedia. I feel I tried my hardest. I tried to put interesting information into articles and was attacked. I tried to defend users who were forced out of Wikipedia and was attacked. I set up User:Xed/CROSSBOW to try to get people to write about subjects beyond the traditional Wikipedia ones (and had some success in publicising this weeks COTW) and was attacked. Only people outside Wikipedia seem to have given me some support [5]. Fuck it. --Xed 01:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
OK. People here seem pretty reasonable to me. You seem to feel differently. Wolfman 01:08, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The sad part is that CROSSBOW is, I think, a worthwhile endeavor. But this has nothing to do with CROSSBOW. It's just Xed trying to force an issue rather than trying to achieve consensus. -khaosworks 01:10, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree. That's what I find so puzzling, Xed is clearly no Rex. He's made real contributions, and was trying to achieve big things. Why toss all that aside over this? I'd understand if, for example, Kerry really were India's father and we tried to supress that. But, no one has even alleged it, let alone proven it. A crazy thing to get so hung up over. Wolfman 01:23, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Kerry/Archive_14&oldid=1136850120"