Talk:John Kerry/Archive 25

This is an archive of past discussions about John Kerry. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Has anyone heard about Senator Kerry calling for the impeachment of President Bush? 192.168.139.130 15:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It's the damndest thing. When a President violates the Constitution, people get all in a huff about it. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 18:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

JP, your comments sound very POV to me.192.168.128.130 07:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

- Of course they are! What's your point? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 07:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You sound too biased. Please recuse yourself from editing this article. 66.98.130.128 07:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that someone has expressed concern with your potential bias, and you have dismissed it with a little bit of smark and a "bush joke", not very professional--Ytrewqt 04:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

- - I get to be as biased as I want on talk pages. I just don't get to let my bias leak onto the article pages. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 08:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That sounds silly to me. If you were KKK and said that, everyone would laugh. Just because you are a whatever does not mean you can get away with being biased. 66.98.130.138 14:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

- - - He can push opinions on talk page... if there is evidence of him pushing bias in article that's another story. He's perfectly entitled to shill for a known traitor and push Al Qaeda approved agitprop. -- Jbamb 15:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      - Exactly! And I'll defend to my death...hey, wait a minute, what did you just say? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 05:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
        Not exactly civil in the traditional sense, but it's good that we have such an easy-going enviroment around here.--Sqrfrk 06:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

According to this (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_120405.pdf) CBS transcipt, from the Dec. 4th, 2005 show, Senator Kerry said this:

"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the-of-the historical customs, religious customs."

I think this should be mentioned in the John Kerry article. Comments? Suggestions? 192.168.139.130 15:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are these comments noteworthy? They don't seem very controversial. Unless you are saying that you think that American soldiers DO need to be going into homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children.

In what context? From this and the other two questions, it seems you might want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

JP, I am not sure what your concerns are. Are you saying that we should not tell the readers about Kerry's Face the Nation comments? This seems noteworthy to me. Should I log in and make the edits myself? 66.98.130.139 16:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're not sure what my concerns are, please read WP:NPOV. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the above suggestion is a good one - the quote by Kerry about "American soldiers" "terrorizing kids and children" is an important one - considering the current crisis in Iraq. Did Kerry mispeak? Does anyone have more information about this? 66.98.131.200 17:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The interview's theme as a whole seems relevant, basically just Kerry opposing the war. Pinpointing in on one sentence in a nine-page transcript for no real reason other than the fact that it seems factually unfounded? This doesn't seem very relevant to me.139.62.186.250 22:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

According to this photo here: http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/4678/alhubbardkerry15vj.jpg, John Kerry was accociated with Ramsey Clark during his Vietnam War protest days. And, according to the Canadian Press (in the Vancouver Sun, December 05, 2005, ), Ramsey Clark is Saddam's laywer. Has anyone else read anything about the connection between Kerry/Clark and Hussein? Is Kerry still close with Clark? 192.168.139.130 15:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ramsey Clark is Saddam's attorney because Ramsey Clark is a media whore. That's just how he rolls. I'm not sure what the point of trying to connect the dots is here.. -- Jbamb 15:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

- Wait a minute! are you...:O...are you actually trying to imply that Hussein and Kerry are allies? wow that's low! Rush Limbaugh would say that is low! wow!<<Coburn_Pharr>> 23:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

- - This is like the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.--Exander 07:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I edit anonymously for a variety of reasons, all of which I feel have merit. I'd prefer to keep it that way. "Semi-protection" is a true assertion, but "temporarily restricted" is a falsehood. Those who pushed this policy through are certainly focused on keeping protection of this type "always-on" at various political articles. 192.168.183.77 01:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I was reading the talk page archives for John Kerry and I see that there was a lot of arguing and bickering about a bunch of crap, but I also see that something valuable may have been lost in the shuffle. What about Kerry's 1996 and 2004 fundraising issues? Why is there no mention of that?

"Senator John Kerry, D-MA, unwittingly tried to help a Chinese espionage agent and arms dealer in 1996 in return for campaign contributions for his Senate reelection campaign, according to congressional and other documents, interviews, and photographs."

"The Kerry campaign was also confronted with a report in the current issue of Newsweek that the senator's office contacted federal regulators to assist a friend of Johnny Chung, a central figure in the 1996 fund-raising scandals, shortly before Chung threw a fund-raiser for Kerry's Senate re-election campaign that year."

"A controversial Chinese-American businessman embroiled in the much-investigated 1996 fundraising scandal has re-emerged as a donor to three Democratic presidential campaigns"

"According to the Federal Election Commission records Kerry has taken money from Bernard Schwartz the CEO of Loral Corporation, convicted China-gate figure Johnny Chung, convicted China-gate figure John Huang, and convicted fundraising scandal figure Mark Jimenez."

"On the campaign trail, Kerry routinely attacks the president for his ties to big-dollar donors. Kerry championed campaign-finance reform, and refused money from corporate or labor political-action committees. But in some ways, he has played the Washington money game as aggressively as the Republicans he scolds."

"Stung during the 1990s Democrat fund-raising controversy, John Kerry is returning a $2,000 check from the son of South Korea's disgraced ex-president after learning the donor was charged with tax evasion."

"The Justice Department's Campaign Financing Task Force filed an information today charging Johnny Chung with using straw donors and his own donations to exceed federal limits in contributing to the Clinton/Gore reelection campaign, and to U.S. Senator John Kerry's 1996 reelection campaign."

"Kerry has received more money from lobbyists over the past 15 years than any other serving senator. Some of Kerry's close links with lobbyists have raised eyebrows among supporters used to his campaign slogan: 'From the moment I take up office, I will stand up to special interests.'"

I think some of this information needs to be mentioned in some form. 67.15.77.183 02:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't checked any of the links, but, just going from memory, I think the story was something like this: Chung wanted to make donations in excess of the legal maximum. He knew that, if he did so directly, the campaign would refuse the money. Instead, he gave money to employees and/or family members, so that the recipients could make the donations in their own names, giving the impression that the donations were coming from separate individuals and were therefore legal. The scheme later came to light, and Chung was indicted. Neither Kerry nor any of his campaign staffers were charged with any wrongdoing; prosecutors determined that there was no way the campaign could have known what Chung took pains to conceal. Nevertheless, once Kerry learned that the donations were illegal, he returned the money.

If that's the essence of what happened, I'd say it's a nonstory -- at least for purposes of this article -- because it doesn't shed much light on John Kerry. It's not at all uncommon for candidates (Democratic or Republican) to find out after the fact that one of their donors has broken the law. There are cheaters like Chung, and then there are people who are just oblivious to the fine points.

Are there some other facts that make this matter worth including? JamesMLane 07:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"How deeply involved in Kerry's fundraising was Chung? And how did Chung get involved in Kerry's campaign to begin with? American electoral law forbids foreigners from donating money to American candidates, and one would presume that consular officials would be held to an even higher standard. Now that Chung has been identified as an intelligence agent, the Kerry campaign needs to answer questions about how he gained access to their donors -- who introduced him, who benefitted, and how much money changed hands."

"This is not the first time Kerry has been associated with Asian intelligence services looking to penetrate his campaigns. As I noted back in February, Kerry met with a woman who turned out to be a Chinese spy after a $10,000 donation to his Senate campaign from Johnny Chung, who later went to prison for illegal campaign funding" 66.98.131.200 22:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"Although Kerry supported McCain/Feingold, he has been a prolific fundraiser has been caught up in some of the nation's most well-publicized campaign finance scandals."

"As chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in the 1980s, Kerry selected Florida banker David Paul to head an important Democratic fundraising organization. Paul was later indicted in the Savings and Loan scandal. He was also among the congressional recipients of illegal contributions from a San Diego-based defense contractor, Science and Applied Technology, whose head was charged with 40 counts of conspiracy, illegal campaign contributions, and fraud." 70.84.56.166 22:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"According to Newsweek magazine, Kerry met with Liu Chaohying, a Hong Kong businesswoman who wanted to have her company listed on the U.S. Stock Exchange. Kerry lobbied on her behalf by helping to organize a meeting between Liu Chaohying and a senior Securities and Exchange (SEC) official. In return, Kerry accepted a $10,000 contribution in the form of a Beverly Hills Fundraise on Sept 9, 1996, less than a month before the election, Newsweek reported. It would later be established that Liu Chaohying was not simply a profit-motivated businesswoman, but rather a lieutenant colonel in the Communist China’s Peoples Liberation Army. Newsweek reported that more than $28,000 in illegal contributions were funneled into the campaign of then President Bill Clinton and Kerry, and that “the contributions came out of $300,00 in overseas wire transfers sent on orders from the chief of the Chinese military intelligence – and routed through a Hong Kong bank account controlled by Liu Chaohying." The Los Angeles Times reported that Senator Kerry sent 28 letters on behalf of San Diego defense contractor Parthassarthi “Bob” Majumder between 1996 and 1999 in order to “free up federal funds” for a guided missile system designed by Majumder. In return, court documents show, Majumder induced his employees to contribute approximately $25,000 to Senator Kerry’s campaign, while paying them proceeds from the government tracts in return." 67.15.77.161 22:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

For the record, the woman's name is spelt Liu Chaoying. For more information on her and Johnny Chung see: 1996 U.S. campaign finance scandal (Also known as Chinagate. --Jayzel 13:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"Ben Barnes, former Lieutenant Governor of Texas, will tell CBS audiences that he arranged for Bush's assignment, expecting that the Bush family would be grateful for the assistance even though no one asked him for his help. CBS also will tie in the fact that Bush had a drinking problem at the time, although Bush himself admitted that years ago... [B]en Barnes' status as the third largest contributor to John Kerry's campaigns should render any testimony from him completely invalid... Do you think that the Tiffany Network will mention Ben Barnes' finance connections to John Kerry when discussing his testimony regarding George Bush, in that he has half a million reasons to make up bogus charges against the President? Not likely.

"Ben Barnes has a large vested interest in the outcome of the 2004 election. He is a co-chairman of John F. Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign. Barnes, as CBS News reported in June 2004, has made bundled contributions of more than $500,000 to Kerry’s campaign. Barnes owns a home near his friend Kerry’s home in Nantucket on the Massachusetts shore."

Another interesting fact about Kerry fundraising - Kerry's 3rd biggest contributor (Ben Barnes) was one of the primer-movers of the Bush/ANG storyline. 66.98.131.200 22:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

interesting--Ẅ 23:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not think two ominous sounding pull quotes amounts to a proper section of an encyclopedia article. I will continue to remove any section which consists solely of large quotes and no real material unless consensus arises that the inclusion of such a section is desired. Gamaliel 03:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Unilateral threats are not nice. Also, the fundraising issues certainly are notable. Simply because you don't like these uncomforable facts, does not give you carte blanche to delete them. And, by my reading above, several editors have already agreed about these over the last 10 ays or so. Instead of making a fight, why don't you look for a softer way to report the notable fact that Kerrry has had some fundraising issues? Also, Gamaliel, I am pretty sure you have violated 3rr. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.15.76.24208:22, January 6, 2006 (talk • contribs) .

I don't find these facts "uncomfortable", I don't find them to be anything at all. My objections have nothing to do with the substance of these issues or the POV, I simply don't think that a section entirely consisting of two large quotes is a proper format for an encyclopedia article. Stop making assumptions about my motives and making false 3RR accusations and please address the objection I actually have. Gamaliel 08:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

My math is pretty good and I have counted Gamaliel's edits. He has indeed exceeded 3RR in the last 24 hours. Also, he is the one who has problem with these facts and the presentation of them. Therefore, if Gamaliel doesn't like the presentation, he should help improve it. If not, then his complaints and reverts smack of POV whitewashing. Fact: Kerry has had some campaign $$ problems. Fact: Other than this section which Gamaliel keeps deleting, there is nothing in the article which speaks to that. Fact: Gamaliel's continual reverts on this are a gross violation of community spirit are POV.

How are your false accusations of a 3RR violation and "POV whitewashing" in the spirit of this community? Gamaliel 08:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel violated the 3RR rule at John Kerry 1/5-1/6. Here are the diffs:

05:19, 5 January 2006 -
05:23, 5 January 2006 -
09:03, 5 January 2006 -
02:54, 6 January 2006 -
08:18, 6 January 2006 -

If you study the reverts he made, they were clearly made against non-vandal edits. For this reason, Gamaliel should not be allowed to flaunt the 3RR simply because he's pushing his own preferred text instead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.15.76.242 (talk • contribs) . 08:22, January 6, 2006

Nice try, but the first two "reverts" are simply replacing material from different sections in different edits, with an explaination in each edit summary. This is totally unlike your real 3RR violation, hiding behind different IP addresses. Gamaliel 08:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

- Ok, I've looked here and on the Kerry page, and I'll probably look more, but don't expect any action. I generally don't deal with 3RR because people can't do the reports the right way. I'm even less likely when they are on my userpage or in the article page as opposed to WP:3RR. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Work out your differences. I see we have an edit war getting some fire. If it continues, I will protect the page. Work it out. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Can one of the people who have been dealing with this article for several months look at the recent edits and make sure the article isn't being made worse? I'm not knocking the anons...alot of their edits look good...but it's so many that I'm having a hard time following them. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

A lot of detail is being removed under the guise of "tightening things up". For example "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." has been replaced with "Kerry eventually quit the organization in disagreement over methods." To me this isn't an improvement; this isn't tightening anything, it's making it much more vague, which serves no one.

I don't know the agenda, if any, of the person or persons making the edits, but some edits make me suspicious, such as the removal of the fact that his first wife supported Kerry's presidential bid, or that Kerry's BCCI investgation targeted prominent members of his own party. This coupled with the repeated insertion of this vague "fundraising" non-section makes me thing there's some subtle pov-shifting going on.

Many of the edits I disagree with fall under the "colorful detail" department; quotes or pieces of information, while not absolutely vital to the article, make it in my mind more interesting and less dry. Gamaliel 19:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Another thing I just noticed. The sentence "John Kerry is member of the Democratic Leadership Council, which advocates centrist and neoliberal positions, and he has co-sponsored Senate legislation with such prominent conservatives as Pennsylvania's Rick Santorum." has been removed from the "Issues and voting record" section with the edit summary "tighten this". This so-called "tightening" has stripped that paragraph of any mention of Kerry's centrist positions and left it with nothing but a discussion of how liberal Kerry is or isn't. Is this really tightening?

And didn't Rex keep removing that particular sentence when he was here? Gamaliel 19:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gamaliel. I haven't been keeping close track of this page, partly because I got so sick of all the edit wars here and I hoped that things would quiet down with Rex's departure. Quick looks, however, gave me the impression that useful information was being removed. I'll try to find a bloc of time to look at the recent changes. JamesMLane 20:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of the complainers here would do better to step back and see this article for what it is - overstuffed with too many details. Kerry's track record and past history is interesting enough without all the overkill. In fact, when you have too much "colorful detail" in an article, it turns to crap (mix a whole box of crayons in a blender and you get crap color). Kerry is not under attack and we do not have to justify him to people. Has anyone seen the Hillary Clinton article? The same thing is starting to happen over there - people keep trying to stuff extra stuff in to make here look "good", but all the extra stuff makes the article itself look stupid. Some editors here have been tricked by past POV wars. All the past battling made you loose sight of the goal that an article must be interesting to read. It must be precise, succinct, accurate, fair and interesting. What good is a narrative that tells us about the good things Kerry has done, while been so overstuffed with non-notable irrelevancies that the article itself ends up sounding like an apologist's excuse screed? This article has at least 30% too many words in it. 70.84.56.185 02:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You make some valid points, but we could talk generalities at each other for days. How about you discuss some of the reasons for a few of the specific edits you have made? To have someone remove a large amount of material at once, including some of the details I noted above which some might see as favorable to Kerry, while at the same time inserting a vague non-section of nothing but two ominous quotes about Kerry fundraising looks suspicious, and discussing your reasons for some of these specific edits might alieviate the concerns people have about these changes. Gamaliel 04:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

hmmm, article is too long -- has too many details is not a very compelling argument. it's the same argument Rex started to use towards the end; i believe he also felt it was about 30% too long. that may be true, but it's so generic as to be a useless complaint. it's also a dangerous argument, as one can "justify" just about any removal of fact using it. the standard procedure when an article starts to get bogged down in detail is to move the excess detail to a daughter article while leaving a reasonable summary in the main one. see e.g. the bill frist cat-executioner article. (i'm sorry you had to see that reference, woohoo).Derex 22:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Article is semi protected after a number of unsubstantiated edits and deletions by anon user(s). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the protection. The anon user was removing sourced information, quoting that "he wasn't sure they were right." Furthermore, he said that removing content was not vandalism, and that his edits were "good edits". After I warned him for the first time, the user left an insulting message on my talk page, saying that "my edits are better than anything you have ever contributed". Therefore, I agree with the temporary protection of this article, to ensure that the sourced information on this page remains intact.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 05:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The correct course of action when there is a single problematic IP is to block that IP rather than restricting all IPs. This should be unprotected post-haste; and you should be quite sure that the edits were in bad faith before labelling them as simple vandalism. -Splash^talk 05:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
It would have to be a range block, as at least 8 different addresses were used to make these edits. I'd think it would be better to restrict access in this minor way (since people can just get accounts anyway) than to block a whole range, including possibly legit users both with and without accounts. Gamaliel 05:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, that would make sprotect the right course. Are all those edits really bad-faith vandalism? Or is this just a content dispute with an anon? (PS: remember there's a 4 day delay after registering to edit a semi'd page.) -Splash^talk 05:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I forgot about the 4 day delay, though IMHO that's still better than a range block. Gamaliel 05:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

................ In the paragraph 'Return from Vietnam', I corrected the false implication the Kerry completed all his obligations. When commissioned, Kerry's obligation was three years on active duty. He signed an extension to that obligation. At one time, some of Kerry's military records were on www.johnkerry.com. Has anyone seen the records lately? CorvetteZ51 13 January 2006

Anon 70.64.56.165 has created Talk:John_Kerry/sb1. I've asked him to explain his intentions here. In general, stuff like that isn't allowed in the main namespace unless it has been discussed with others first. I'm very close to protecting the main page. Not a sprotect. A full protect. We seem to have a brewing edit war and I'd like to nip it in the bud. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Will you please stop over-reacting. These edits, in aggregate, are fair, accurate, NPOV and serve the noble goal of trimming this article from being too large ("My main goal on Wikipedia is to make it as clean and concise as possible"). Wiki tells us to "be bold" and yet, whk goes round making protection threats. Personally, I feel the burden is on the complaining party (in this instance woohookitty) to specifically critique the edits he/she now complains about. And as for SB1, are you saying you'd rather not have a sandbox? If I were trying to be sneaky, I would never have saved the page - I would have used preview only. The sandbox page was to engage in full-transparency editing. I am sorry if that offended you. 192.168.165.56 10:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think you are the one overreacting. I am not complaining about your edits nor am I labeling you "sneaky" or anything else. I have a feeling that you are lumping me in with the people that have reverted your changes. I'm neutral on this article...always have been. It takes 2 sides (or more) to edit war. So me saying I might have to protect the page is not me judging your edits or anything else. Honestly, I don't have a feeling about what's going on here. I just see a brewing edit war and in general, we try to stop those. As for the sandbox, no, sandboxes are generally not permitted in the article namespace. I don't know how much you are familiar with Wikipedia, but we have several namespaces. Sandboxes are usually limited to the Wikipedia namespace (Wikipedia:Sandbox) or userspaces. I would suggest creating an account, so you can have your own sandbox. You can use your userpage for basically anything, including sandboxes. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

70.84.56.165, would you mind if your Talk:John_Kerry/sb1 page was moved to User talk:70.84.56.165/sb1? It's not that the sandbox itself is the problem, it's location is. -- Mr. Tibbs 00:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to say. I need to take succinct classes. ;-) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look at the latest changes since I've been away. This time it's a whole bunch of new items removed, including, puzzlingly, any mention of Kerry's first wife's clinical depression which ended their marriage and Kerry's involvement in a small business. Troubling is, among other things, the continued removal of material showing Kerry's centrist leanings and the anon's refusal to discuss his/her edits in any significant way beyond saying "I'm trimming". Gamaliel 02:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that User:66.98.130.204 and User:70.84.56.165 appear to be the same person and 66.98.130.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has recently taken to vandalizing userpages. -- Mr. Tibbs 05:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I protected the page to nip this brewing edit war in the bud. You guys are using the edit summaries to "discuss" this. No. Discuss it here. Work out your differences. I'm keeping it protected until that happens. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

And before I hear "you protected the wrong version!". :) I'm neutral on this. I happened to protect an anon version but I don't favor any of the sides here. I just want it worked out. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

===It seems even an objective section on John Kerry is deleted, is that the point we are at?? The truth about his Vietnam centered presidential campaign is not allowed to be discussed. If it were Pres. Bush, I would imagine it would stay up for a long time..

There is no mention of Kerry's fundraising issues. Why does this keep getting deleted? 67.15.76.110 23:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please add {{wikisource author}} under the external links section? Thanks!—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 20:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No discussion since this last round of protection was implemented. We'll unprotect and see what happens. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I recently semi-protected the article because of anonymous users blanking large parts of the article without consensus or a good reason. Please discuss major ommissions of sourced content first. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 09:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried adding " Boston College, 1976 " to the infobox, but I am not permitted to do so. Someone with editing capacity can add it. Potatoe 22:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I did it consistent with the other congressional biographies you've been doing. NoSeptember ^talk 22:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

nobody cares about Kerry's childhood friends. This article should feature, Kerry's, Senate career, 2004 presidential campaign, and his political beliefs.--CorvetteZ51 09:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - there is too much irrelevant and fawing detail in this article. 66.98.130.204 07:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this section needs to be seriously re-considered. It, by nature, drifts from the focus of the article and, can be surely said more concisely. I would do this myself but I feel that someone more well informed should be the one to do it, not me. -- Greaser 09:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - there is too much irrelevant detail in this article. 66.98.130.204 06:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've begun doing it. A lot of information, which may be encyclopedic about Kerry's grand mother. Here is the information: "A Czech historian believes that Ida was a descendant of Sinai Loew, one of three older brothers of Rabbi Judah Loew (1525-August 22, 1609), a famous Kabbalist, philosopher and talmudist known as the Maharal of Prague. Two of Ida Kohn's siblings, Otto Loewe and Jenni Loewe, died in the Nazi concentration camps (Theresienstadt and Treblinka, respectively), after being deported from Vienna in 1942."

Whether or not that's worth making a seperate article on is a seperate debate entirely. It starts to get really murky thereafter though. -- Greaser 08:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This article was quiet for a couple of months in November and December 2005. Not sure why we're back to vandal heaven. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty, I don't know where you get off labeling all the edits you disagree with as "vandal heaven". This is a personal attack - please stop. 67.15.76.244 07:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Kerry was divorced and subsequently was granted a Catholic Church annulment. That annulment had no legal force or effect. Had Kerry not been divorced 1st, under civil law, he would still have been married to his 1st wife. Please see CNN which clearly states he was divorced. See WashingtonBlade.com which clearly states "Kerry eventually received the annulment from the Boston diocese despite Thorne’s vehement objections." and "John Kerry obtained both a divorce and annulment". In fact, the sidebar of the article is so illuminating on this topic, it's worth printing verbatim, here: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.168.244.76 (talk • contribs) .

copyvio removed by Derex 07:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Since Derex is deleting important information from this page, please go to the WB article itself and read the sidebar there: http://www.washblade.com/2004/3-5/news/national/kerryback.cfm 67.15.76.244 07:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

First, you simply can't post a copyvio, you already linked it. Second, the article already stated he was divorce in 88 & annulled in 97. What's your issue? Derex 07:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Derex, I could ask you the same question. The sentence you are trying to hide "Kerry eventually received the annulment from the Boston diocese despite Thorne’s vehement objections." is properly sourced but bugs you because of the misleading Thorne angle you prefer to push. The above FACT is true, sourced and NPOV. The onus is one you, Derex, if you want it excised. 192.168.232.76 08:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "hide" a thing. That's why I just asked you a question. Your retort and accusation is incredibly rude, and I'd suggest you read WP:AGF. You were caterwauling about no mention of a divorce, when there was one. Then you made a quite large and redundant edit. Feel free to add the phrase "annulment over Thorne's objection" to the current text .... that doesn't really require a whole new and redundant paragraph, does it? And, it would be nice if you could find a more credible reference than the Blade. Derex 14:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, for the record, the information the anon was trying to insert was in fact wrong. Thorne did not contest the annulment, and supported Kerry's remarriage: an April 10, 1997 story in the Patriot Ledger:

"[Julia] Thorne said she does not think she needs to contest Kerry's request for an annulment because she does not recognize the validity of the proceeding, and wants to allow Kerry and Heinz to participate fully in church practices." There are multiple other sources in credible newspapers for this. For example, Washington Times: "Mrs. Thorne says she still supports Mr. Kerry politically and is glad he is happy in his new marriage to Heinz food fortune heiress Teresa Heinz." Derex 17:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Derex, your supposed proof that the information you are censoring is "in fact wrong" suffers from three flaws: #1) You do not have a source link, but the other information does 2)You are quoting from 1997, the other information quotes from 2004 and 3) The Patriot Ledger is a podunk, biased, Eastern Massachusetts pro-Kerry newspaper and is NOT as good of a source as the Washington Blade. Once again, for the record - see WashingtonBlade.com which clearly states "Kerry eventually received the annulment from the Boston diocese despite Thorne’s vehement objections." 66.98.130.224 11:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

it is meant for the talk page, not the main page. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please provide link to Wiki page that says that. 67.15.76.242 12:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Read the tag. The tag says

"Important: This article is becoming very long. Please consider transferring content to subtopic articles where appropriate.

See Wikipedia:Long article layout and Wikipedia:Longpages for more information. To propose reduction methods, please post on this talk page."

"This talk page" suggests the tag is on the talk page. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's your interpretation and it's not a link to a Wiki page which explains this - which is what I asked you for. Frankly, I interpret that to mean it should post redundantly on the talk page, not exlusively 70.85.195.239 12:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If you look at "What links here" for the tag, it is about 50/50 talk and article pages. It just seems a bit silly to me to ADD to a page you are claiming is too long. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 13:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So Woohoo, were you lying above when you said "it is meant for the talk page, not the main page" or were you just confused? And as for your opinion of what's "silly", such insulting comments ought to be left aside. Please do not call others "silly". 192.168.225.195 15:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree with Woohookitty; the toolong tag should be on the talk page. --Ashenai 15:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether you agree or not, the Wiki consensus, site-wide, clearly is either a toss-up (see 50/50) or is in fact mostly used on BOTH (50/50 = balanced = both). Stop being such opinion bullies. As shown on Wikipedia:Longpages, John Kerry is clearly too long and must be shortend. The tag is VERY IMPORTANT to stay on the article page itself. We need more editors to help shorten. The current ones such as Woohookitty and others are not pitching in enough on this. 192.168.225.195 15:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are several reasons why I agree with Woohookitty and Ashenai that the {{toolong}} tag belongs on the talk page:

The tag is more relevant to those editing the article than to readers. If you look through the templates listed on Wikipedia:Template messages, you'll notice that most tags meant for article-space pages are warnings to readers. This is especially true for neutrality and accuracy dispute tags, but it also applies to "cleanup"-style tags, such as {{cleanup}} and {{copyedit}}. In the latter case, editors need to know about articles that are substandard and need work, and readers should be aware that the article they are about to read is of poor quality.
The point I made above ties in with another issue: Excessive article length is not an issue the reader needs to be notified of with a big, ugly box on the top of the article. We should assume our readers are intelligent enough to distinguish between a long article and a short one.
Because adding the tag to the talk page places this page in Category:Articles that are too long, it does attract the attention of editors who are able and willing to trim its length.
There are no hard and fast "rules" about the length of Wikipedia articles. While this article is longer than most editors would prefer, its length does not "violate policy".

Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 23:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Szyslak. His opinion that a box may be "big" and "ugly" is irrelevant to the quality and length of the article. And in fact, if he removes it on that basis, he's editing to make a point, which is wrong. Also, it's clear that his suggestion of keeping the tag on the talk page only is not a powerful reason. That's because the editors here have consistantly failed to shorten this excess length article, so appealing to them is ineffectual "preaching to the choir". We need to inform and invite new readers to havee at improving this article. In my view, Szyslak's reasons are threadbare and insufficient to justify repeated removal of this tag. I am re-inserting. 192.168.232.76 09:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think most of those who edit and watch this article agree it could be shorter. But why hasn't there been any real progress in shortening it? It is not because we're a bunch of lazy editors who are shirking our very important duty to make this article shorter, as the anon who is arguing for leaving the article page tagged with {{toolong}} seems to be insinuating. I think it boils down to two basic reasons:

There are much more pressing concerns on Wikipedia. When there are thousands of articles undergoing NPOV disputes and thousands more of generally poor quality, should we forget about them because the Kerry page is 20 or 30 kilobytes bigger than some prefer?
Previous efforts at shortening this page have consisted of deleting large chunks of text. Here at Wikipedia, most editors don't like it when you go around chopping off large parts of contentious, controversial articles. Hence the edit war last month, between the editor(s) who tried to cut out substantial parts of this article, and those who reverted the changes, suspicious of possible POV pushing.

Even many of those who reverted last month's attempts at "trimming" would support cutting this article down to a more manageable length. But how?

My personal suggestion: instead of chopping out information, we should strive, whenever possible, to:

Rewrite for tighter, less wordy prose, whenever appropriate, and/or
Move anything cut from the main article to subpages.

This is anything but the only way to trim this article. Any other suggestions? Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 01:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Who here thinks that somebody as obsessed with this article as REX, would simply just go away after a 2 year long history of stalking this article? Impossible I'd guess, wondering which one of these anon ips he is--152.163.101.7 04:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The top of this talk page looks like a little bit of tag overload perhaps...it takes 1.5 pages to scroll down and get to content on an 1152x8.. resolution. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 03:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ya, we should do something about that. And since this is the LOL section, why does the trillian definition for John Kerry say this "YOU VANDALIZE THIS PAGE I WILL **BLOCK** YOU.-->"--KelticK^Talk 07:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Haha, you're right, it does! There seems to be a comment at the beginning of the article. I think it may be useful to remove it. — Ilyan e p (Talk) 17:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no comment :\ — Ilyan e p (Talk) 17:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that a toolong tag keeps getting edited in and removed here. I was thinking that the Bush article is itself too long and was thinking of inserting that tag there. I'd like to avoid edit wars over that there.

Any recommendations? Merecat 08:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus appears to be that the toolong tag belongs on talk pages only. There's a section on this Talk page discussing this; please add your thoughts! --Ashenai 09:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems non-sequitir to mention John Kerry and Rick Santorum sponsoring legislation in the issues and voting section without a citation. I am not quite sure what the editor was trying to juxtapose with that sentence. Was it that the DLC often aligns itself with Rick Santorum? Is it meant to say that Rick Santorum often votes as liberals? Is it trying to add breadth to Kerry's voting record by trying to say he sometimes votes with a conservative? Rick Santorum isn't an issue or vote so a particular vote or sponsorship of legislation doesn't seem to add any light to the section. I think a citation is needed. Otherwise, fans of the DLC will think this is a POV attack on DLC or fans of Kerry will think this is a POV attack by aligning him with a conservative or Kerry detractors will use this to say that this is an example of "flip-flopping". None of these conclusions would be fair so I think this sentence needs clarification. Tbeatty 18:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are so many people hating on the Santorum factoid? Rex wanted it out because (presumably) it showed that Kerry was bipartisan and wasn't Liberal Number One, somebody else wants it out because he thinks it shows Kerry as a "sell out"... Why all the hating? It's a discussion of his voting record, and the types of people he works with is surely useful information. Gamaliel 18:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I answered it above. It's not detailed enough. Just because it's true doesn't make it necessarily a "factoid" that needs to be in an encyclopedia. There is a whole section on sponsorship of legislation. The factoid would sound pointless if it was standalone. Think about this standalone sentence in the legislation sponsorship section. "John Kerry co-sponsored Senate legislation with such prominent conservatives as Pennsylvania's Rick Santorum." It lacks context and citation. Everyone would question why this statement would be made. Is it to show Kerry is conservative? Santorum is liberal? What legislation? What context? Tbeatty 19:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverted image vandalism (Image:413px-anus.jpg John Kerry after doing his mom.) made by User:Dontlookatme. Commented on User_talk:Dontlookatme and in page history comments. 139.76.128.71 15:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Made a few copyedits here just now. Please look at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush and see if you can chip in there. Merecat 05:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

WE gotta get a nother picture up there im telling you, that cartoon guy is even better.AgreeToBe

A lot of other prominent politicians have a section outlining their core political beliefs and positions. Shouldn't Kerry have one as well? And please try to avoid serious refrences to the whole "He's a flip flopper he doesn't have real beliefs!". --Berger 13:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The Kerry report generated a firestorm of controversy ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}

Kerry's findings provoked little reaction in the media and official Washington.

From:

"Defining John Kerry". The Nation. 2001. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Without a source, I will believe the Nation article.Travb 05:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"Yet when the report was released on April 13, 1989, coverage was buried in the back pages of the major newspapers and all but ignored by the three major networks. The Washington Post ran a short article on page A20 that focused as much on the infighting within the committee as on its findings; the New York Times ran a short piece on A8; the Los Angeles Times ran a 589-word story on A11. (All of this was in sharp contrast to those newspapers' lengthy rebuttals to the Mercury News series seven years later --collectively totalling over 30,000 words.) ABC's Nightline chose not to cover the release of the report. Consequently, the Kerry Committee report was relegated to oblivion; and opportunities were lost to pursue leads, address the obstruction from the CIA and the Justice Department that Senate investigators say they encountered, and both inform the public and lay the issue to rest. The story, concedes Doyle McManus, the Washington bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times, "did not get the coverage that it deserved."

From: Peter Kornbluh (January/February 1997). "Anatomy of a Story, Crack the Contras and the CIA: The Storm Over Dark Alliance" (HTML). Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved April 22, 2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link) Hosted on National Security Archives

I am going to delete The Kerry report generated a firestorm of controversy, which is clearly not true, and replace it with the Corn quote.

Signed: Travb 05:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Under the family heading---What exactly is a bonesman legacy?

A bonesman is a member of the Skull and Bones secret society. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones), like John Kerry and George W. Bush. I assume a bonesman legacy is a member with some male ancestor who was also a member (usually father and/or grandfather). The term 'legacy' is sometimes used in the US to refer to a student or applicant to an ivy league school who's parent(s) or grandparent(s) attended the school. It might make more sense to simply refer to Heinz as a "himself a member of Skull and Bones" or "a bonesman" (with link), since I assume both Kerry and Bush are legacies, yet that's not pointed out, and the term can confuse readers. Holmwood 00:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I came to this article for the first time and had some quarrel with the following paragraph:

According to some of these who know him, Kerry is a religious man. A practicing Roman Catholic, he is said to carry a rosary, a prayer book, and a St. Christopher medal (the patron saint of travelers) when he campaigns. However, he supports policies such as abortion, which is in opposition to Roman Catholic beliefs.

I changed it to the following:

According to those who know him, Kerry is a religious man. A practicing Roman Catholic, he is said to carry a rosary, a prayer book, and a St. Christopher medal (the patron saint of travelers) when he campaigns. However, he supports policies such as abortion rights, which the Catholic Church opposes.

First of all, for those who claim that only "some of those who know him" consider him religious, I'd like to know who the detractors are. Second, I don't think it's accurate to say that he "supports abortion" just because he supports it remaining legal--that's why I changed it to "supports abortion rights." Third, saying it's "in opposition to Roman Catholic beliefs" will be viewed by many as simplistic; in fact, the majority of identifying Catholics in the United States claim to be pro-choice. So it's better to say that abortion rights are opposed by the Catholic Church, not "Catholics" in general. marbeh raglaim 12:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I'm not even sure it's accurate to say that the Catholic Church opposes abortion rights. They oppose the practice of abortion (as well as contraception), but I don't know if they explicitly argue for making abortion illegal. Someone who knows more about the subject than I do may want to rewrite the above paragraph yet again. marbeh raglaim 13:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right about Catholics (concerning contraception and not necessarily making abortion illegal). Your change seems to be more in line with the NPOV, not to mention more accurate. It may be more accurate, however, to state that he supports a "woman's right to choose" and separation of church and state, and that he doesn't necessarily favor abortion. If I remember correctly, during one of the 2004 presidential debates, he was asked a question by a young woman in the audience concerning his stance on abortion. I remember him stating that he has respect for her pro-life stance, but that it's not fair/constitutional for him to turn her stance into legislation. I'll try and find the transcripts for the debate. Good work on the change nonetheless. --Ubiq 21:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I found it. This is from the second presidential debate from 2004:

"AUDIENCE QUESTION: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder, and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion. What would you say to that person?

KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now. First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic, I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today. But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, protestant, whatever. I can't do that.

But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society. But as a President, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment.

Now, I believe that -- that you can take that position and not be pro-abortion. But you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the Constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise.

That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning. You'll help prevent AIDS. You'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies. You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question and I truly respect it."

Though one speech may not necessarily be a representation of his stance on the issue (I'm aware people have said he's "wishy-washy"), I'd argue that saying he "supports abortion" is quite misleading, not to mention inaccurate (and clearly not NPOV). It's up to you whether or not you want to change it though, Marbehraglaim. --Ubiq 21:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I changed "which the Catholic Church opposes" to "which some consider at odds with the views of the Catholic Church." A little wordier, but I think it conveys the basic point without seeming biased.

I didn't take your advice, however, to change "abortion rights" to "a woman's right to choose." I think the former is by far the more informative term, not to mention the most neutral and unbiased. With the latter, you're almost tempted to ask, "a woman's right to choose what?" Of course those of us who are familiar with American political discourse know exactly what the phrase means, but that's just the point: it's more of a coded expression, designed to be vague, and to implicitly malign the opposition. (Those who want abortions outlawed are then "anti-choice.") It's the same thing that the other side does when they say "I support life" to mean they want abortion outlawed (and to imply that those who support abortion rights are "anti-life"). marbeh raglaim 08:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. You're probably right, considering the object (in terms of the issue) is usually abortion instead of choice. And now that I think about it, a "woman's right to choose" sounds a bit cliched. I like the change for the part concerning the Catholic Church. Let's all keep an eye on it to see that it remains unchanged (for worse anyway). --Ubiq 21:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The Truth, John Kerry, and The New York Times Very interesting. Sound true to me. I don't know why Kerry keeps going back to this stuff - it makes him look bad.

Oh, please. Aren't you people tired of pushing this nonsense two years on? Derex 15:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh please? "You people"? No, I wouldn't rehash this now, but if Kerry runs again, it will be fair game, just as was the Bush National Guard crap, which a major news organization used, publishing fraudulent documents in the teeth of a presidential campaign. -- Cecropia 16:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to ask if I can change the image from the current one to this one I found in the commons - I think it looks better than the current one. --Blue387 19:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I like your image much better. Kerry isn't a very picturesque man (I think he's a good guy though) and the current image doesn't look as good as the prior image on this page or your proposed image.--Folksong 07:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no! Kerry needs to look like a walking cadaver. What would the political cartoonists do otherwise? And oh, by the way, be bold. marbeh raglaim 10:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

... some believe [support of abortion rights] is at odds with the Catholic Church.

The "some believe" is weasely and needs to go away. Abortion IS at odds with the Catholic Church. This is not a matter of opinion. These words downplay it as a debateable issue among Catholic officials, but there is no even semi-significant disagreement within the Catholic Church on abortion, and the official doctrine says it's absolutely wrong. I am not debating abortion morality, Kerry's wisdom or lack of wisdom in supporting abortion rights, or whether or not the Church is right to oppose abortion - this discussion is about WHAT Church teachings are. Please keep this in mind. Karwynn 21:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm, just realized there was also a discussion about this. Make no mistake about it: The Catholic Church DOES support making abortion ILLEGAL. At least Catholic-based organization that I've seen puts up ads about it. The Church puts out notices of (and sometimes even organizes) anti-abortion rallies, and you can't walk into a Catholic church without seng at least half a dozen fliers against abortion, including at least one calling for it being made illegal. The fact that you all didn't know that surprises me, but since you asked in the above discussion for someone with more knowledge to re-write the paragraph if necessary, I did. Karwynn 21:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I distinctly remember reading a book that reported Mario Cuomo, a pro-choicer, having claimed that he accepts the Church's rulings on abortion. I'm not saying I'm necessarily going to trust a politician's word over that of a Church official, but I'd still be interested to see a little more proof that the official Church (not just individual churches) openly calls for outlawing abortion. Do you have any proclamations from Pope John Paul II on this matter? marbeh raglaim 10:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Church is firmly opposed to any form of abortion. What Cuomo has said is that as a civil and political matter, he would not interfere with the abortion rights of others, but that as a practicing Catholic, he accepts the church's ruling that abortion is sin. -- Cecropia 16:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am well aware that the Catholic Church firmly opposes the practice of abortion. My question was whether the Church openly calls for abortion to be made illegal. That is a distinction that many partisans on this issue refuse to consider, but which I think is important. However, I have done a little research myself, and it does appear that the Church is officially opposed to the legality of abortion, not simply the practice of it. I have found that information on a Catholic pro-choice site, which takes the stand that the Church is out of touch with the views of most practicing Catholics. I thought of including this source in the article, but unfortunately it is a lengthy PDF file. For what it's worth, here is the relevant quote (p. 15), and the URL:

"The church maintains that this decree [about abortion] should become civil law, and continually works to keep abortion illegal, and where it is legal, difficult to obtain."

It then quotes directly from the Catechism:

"The inalienable right to life of every innocent human being is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation.... 'As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights." []

The line in the Wikipedia article now reads "However, he supports policies such as abortion rights, which the Catholic Church opposes." marbeh raglaim 02:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It would more directly linked to Kerry the way it was worded before. Are you purposely trying to intend to soften the impact it would have on Kerry's faith's appearance? If not, I welcome another explanation, but for now I'm reverting it back. The point is not that the Church opposes it, the point is that it's at odds with the Church. It's more directly tied to Kerry that way, and makes for a stronger article, instead of one that intentionally dances around the issue. Karwynn 16:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think "which the Catholic Church opposes" is far stronger than "which is at odds with the Church." Since you asked, I'll take you through the evolution of this sentence since I came here.

When I first read this article, the sentence read, "However, he supports policies such as abortion which is in opposition to Roman Catholic beliefs." I changed this to "policies such as abortion rights, which the Catholic Church opposes." Then, unsure if the Church really did openly oppose it in civil law, I changed it to "...which some consider at odds with the views of the Catholic Church."

Later, someone edited it to say "which is at odds with the views of the Catholic Church." We discussed it here, finally deciding this was an accurate assessment. However, I changed it back to "which the Catholic Church opposes," deeming it more concise, less wordy, and more to the point.

I don't know why you would think "is at odds with the Catholic Church" sounds better. It is wordier a bit vague. Saying the Church opposes it gets entirely to the point. What information do you think the earlier construction gives us that the newer one doesn't? marbeh raglaim 16:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I JUST told you why it would sound better. Reread what I originally said; it may not be right, but it's something, and you're acting like I offered no explanation ("I don't know why you think 'is at odds with the Catholic Church' sounds better"). You, on the other hand, offered no explanation; you just took me on an evolutionary tour of the sentence. The way it reads now, grammatically, is that the Church opposes specifically his postion on abortion rights, instead of abortion in general. If you say that it's supposed to say that the Church's opposition is directed at the "abortion rights" noun, I'd say that since this article is about Kerry, not abortion, the subject of this clause should be Kerry's position, and to say that the Catholic Church opposes specifically his position is a minor misrepresentation, and makes it sound like the Church specifically spoke out against Kerry regarding abortion (individual clergymen may have, but the Church itself never did). It makes more sense to say that it is at odds with the Church; it makes it clear that the conflict with the Church over this is implicit, rather than explicit. Karwynn 18:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I did offer an explanation: I said that your preferred version is wordier and vague. And I don't see my preferred version as ambiguous in the least. While the word which can modify an entire sentence, in normative grammar the default assumption is that it modifies the word directly preceding it. For example, if someone says, "I oppose the legalization of drugs, which will only cause problems in society," we assume the sentence to mean that drugs cause problems in society, not that the person's opposition to drugs causes those problems.

Moreover, the juxtaposition of the words support and oppose makes it clear that the sentence is talking about abortion rights in general, not Kerry's position in particular. What it's saying is clear: Kerry supports it, the Church opposes it. I seriously doubt anyone is going to read the sentence as saying that "the Church opposes Kerry's support for abortion." That's just too roundabout and unlikely. marbeh raglaim 19:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a possible solution: we could change the sentence to read, "However, he supports certain policies that the Catholic Church opposes, such as abortion rights." marbeh raglaim 19:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you'd read what I'd said earlier, I was saying that since the focus of the article is Kerry, the clause ought to be directed towards his position, not toward abortion rights. Do you have any objection to that?

And as far as your proposed sentence, It's accurate, but it kind of sounds a little soft to me, especially the word "certain". It's almost like the sentence would downplay the discrepancy between Kerry's and the CHurch's positions, either to minimize Kerry's "heresy" or the Church's fault in remaining against abortion - it could be interpreted either way. WHile I would be more receptive (that sounds like I'm saying I have the final say, but I swear I'm not) if "certain" were to become "some", but even then, I think it would be best to a) focus the sentence on Kerry's position and it's discrepancy with Church teachings (which, depending on one's view of the Church, could be taken as good or bad, so it's NPOV) and b) make it plain that this is an inherent conflict with the Church without making it look too much like it's an open, specific Kerry vs. Church conflict. Does that make any sense at all? I feel like the way it is now just gives a blank statement of fact without any putting implied judgement or measure of the discrepancy. It will let the reader decide for themselves whether it is serious or not. Karwynn 20:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lie Detector TV show had Stever Gardner from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth on tonight. The show had also asked John Kerry to appear on the show but he never responded to the invitation. I only watched part of the show but I saw Steve Gardner take the polygraph test and they announced he passed it. They asked Gardner about the death of a young boy (or man) and whether it was mentioned in an After Action Report. I do not know much about the issue, but it sounded like Kerry did not mention a key fact in the report that led to one of his medals. The website is www.liedetector.tv. Perhaps they will post clips from the show on the website. It was my first time watching the show. Is the fact Kerry refused to be on the show notable enough to be mentioned in the article. It is obvious the Swift Boat Vets will be around if Kerry chooses to run for president again. Any thoughts? RonCram 04:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't sound really credible to me, and we shouldn't speculate about future presidential elections too much. It doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would fit well into the article. Karwynn 19:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need words like "liberating" in the article regarding Kuwait. It imposes a personal point of view and the neutral term of "mandating the Gulf War" gets the same point across.--Jersey Devil 21:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed it because changing it to "mandating" sounded to me like forced neutrality, weakening the sentence for the sake of avoiding a word with a good connotation.In this case, I think "liberating" is pretty neutral, opinion wise. People may disagree with the U.S.'s motives, methods, or competence; they may also disagree on whether the result was worth the casualties, money spent etc. But I don't think many people disagree that before we went in, Kuwait was under foreign control, and afterwards, they weren't, and that sounds like liberation to me (if that's even a real word). Karwynn 22:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The piece of legislation he voted against was with the purpose to "mandate the Gulf War" there is no reason to put "libertaring Kuwait" in there. With regard to the rest of your post, I suggest you read WP:NOT a political forum. I won't discuss partisan issues on here and you'd be advised not to either.--Jersey Devil 22:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So you can tell which party I belong to with that paragraph? I think not. I specifically said it was not a matter of interpretation or opinion and you ignored, rather than refuted, me, choosing instead to flash your WP: links in the hope that I'd shut up. Go back, read my last comment IN WHOLE, and explain to me a reasonable argument saying that we did not liberate Kuwait (NOT saying why it was a good or bad thing, only whether or not they were liberated or not. This is called a proposition of fact, unless you can show that it's a matter of opinion).

Let me make myself clear: I am not asking for a debate on whether or not it was good, legit, or whether or not we had ulterior motives. I am discussing the RESULT of the fighting, and it's your own fault, not my insistence on "using Wikipedia as a political forum", if you miss that this time around. Karwynn 22:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:Civility regarding your above post. I will wait for others to comment on this to see if a consensus can be formed.--Jersey Devil 22:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I hereby voice my support for the view that "liberating" is too POV. I think Karwynn, as the abortion discussion above demonstrates, has an aversion to language which is too neutral, even though that's exactly what we strive to be in Wikipedia. marbeh raglaim 23:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The form of information we present here is just as much as the content, Karwynn, thus it is important to consider how we present information in addition to whether the information is true or not. There are other possibilities besides "liberated" that warrant consideration. --kizzle 03:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"Liberating" is POV. Kuwait was not a free country before Iraqi invasion, it was not a free country during the Iraqi occupation, it did not become a free country as a result of the Gulf War, and it is not a free country today. Even more important is that, as the rest of the paragraph notes, Kerry did not oppose the goal of getting Iraq to leave. If that's what you mean by "liberating", it's actively misleading to suggest that Kerry was opposed to it. The issue was the choice between military and nonmilitary means. JamesMLane t c 02:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

kizzle, we're on the same article yet again. What a pleasant and mysterious coincidence!

Jersey Devil, I like your new sentence; it's more accurate and shows a sense of compromise. It's a shame, though, that you couldn't show that in discussion, instead of spewing more WP:Shut up and do what I say links at me. I read it anyway, hoping to gain something from it, but nope - turns out I was beng civil enough. Regardless, I'm more than happy with how it reads now, and I assume you're okay with it too, so I guess I'm done. I might throw in a couple of words, please review and, if necessary, comment.

marbeh raglaim, let me try and clarify myself, since I apparently failed to make my position clear. I don't oppose strong neutrality, I oppose forced neutrality, neutrality that dodges around factually true wording with a good or bad connotation at the cost of a weak sentence. For example, I would object replacing "We went to Normandy to liberate France" with "We went to Normandy to enter France" for the reason that the replaced word "liberate" has a good connotation. I just don't think that a true word should be replaced because it "might make someone look good". If that was the policy, all achievements and awards of all politicians would have to be absent from the articles, since they *might* make them look good, even if they are true. And as far as the abortion issue went, you mischaracterized my position, which was that the sentence was better in ways related to the subject of the article, grammar, and, incidentally, complete but unbiased information aimed at achievng neutrality. I wish you would've asked me to clarify that, or called me out on it in the appropriate section or at my talk page, before condemning me for it in an unrelated talk heading. If you're so interested in my views on neutrality and my views on the above abortion minor dispute, I can re-explain my position and you can criticize me then.

JamesMLane, I'm stumped, who was in control of Kuwait before and after the war? Or is this just part of a diatribe about "economic imperialism?" Regarding fact, Kuwait was liberated, it's not POV and I'd be interested to hear an explanation, rather than statement, about why it wasn't (really, I would). If you care to tell me, but feel like it would be crowding up this talk page and you want to share your thoughts, you can hit up my talk page. If you don't really care, that's fine too :-) However, it's moot now I guess, because I for one like the current wording. Karwynn 15:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Karwynn, sorry if my comment was too elliptical. I was noting, without elaborating, that "liberating" can have more than one meaning. Generally, it means "making free". The Gulf War made Kuwait free of Iraqi control but did not make it a free country. After the war, Kuwait was returned to the control of an entrenched oligarchy that did not (and does not) respect human rights or allow a meaningful democratic process. Therefore, it's not a free country. Note that Dubya and his apologists trumpet the "liberation" of Iraq by means of "Operation Iraqi Freedom", although they don't allege that Iraq had been controlled by some other country. Quite obviously, our invasion increased rather than decreased the extent of foreign control of Iraq. If you think it's NPOV to say that Kuwait was liberated (presumably on the theory that "liberating" means "freeing from foreign control" and cannot mean anything else), then you must also think it's NPOV to say that Bush is lying when he refers to the "liberation" of Iraq in 2003. For my part, I think it would be POV to call Bush a liar (although my POV is that he deserves that appellation more than any other President in my memory).

As for the current wording, it's an improvement, but I'm not completely satisfied with it. One problem is that "invading" suggests an invasion in progress. The Iraqi army didn't take long to complete the invasion, so they had become occupying soldiers rather than invading ones; but "occupying" could be seen as a POV rejection of Iraq's claim to lawful sovereignty over "Province 19". Incidentally, there were some right-wingers who objected to the use of the term "invasion" to describe the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, because, they said, it had pejorative connotations (see Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/archive#The title of the entry is not NPOV!). I didn't agree. Perhaps some of those right-wingers will show up here objecting to your use of such a pejorative term in this context, too (i.e., unfairly biased against Saddam Hussein). And perhaps pigs will fly. I agree that what Iraq would've characterized as the liberation of Province 19 can fairly be termed an invasion, but perhaps we need to make the chronology more clear, although of course it's not directly on point for the Kerry article. I will ponder on this. JamesMLane t c 16:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise could be to note that Kuwait was liberated "from Iraq", which would not falsely imply that the Kuwaitis were liberated from their own tyrants? Note that in any case, "liberate" has become a propaganda term. While it is still often used to refer to real cases of actual liberation, it is just as often used by an aggressor nation to rationalize and justify conquest, as in "we weren't conquering a nation that never attacked us - we were liberating them from $INSERT_ENEMY_NAME." The term is subjective. It's better to avoid such metaphor and stick to the concrete facts: country x did this to country y, then country z stepped in with their armed forces, and here's what resulted. Like that. Kasreyn 16:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed (you must get sick of me saying that). --kizzle 16:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Not so much of a coincidence, Karwynn, as I've been editing this page far before I ever knew you, thus it was on my watchlist. --kizzle 16:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right about "invading", JamesMLane. I'll change it back in a jiffy!

But just a general comment about words like this: just because they are modernly used as propaganda doesn't mean they lose their original meaning. So be careful what you change on that basis. Karwynn 17:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why hasn't there been some sort of passage included in the article about his various positions throughout the years and how they seem to change w/the times. This can be done in a neutral manner w/appropriate sources,but it seems wikipedia is almost developing a liberal bias..I can't believe it's come to this.--Bairdso66 04:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think your quest should begin with sources. Kasreyn 06:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to mention that many critics (including Bush himself) have accused Kerry of flip-flopping, and to give some examples. But the article should also mention how his defenders (including Kerry himself) respond to these charges. marbeh raglaim 09:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A pertinent question here is, during the 2004 election, was it the Republicans or the Democrats who first raised the issue of Kerry's service in Vietnam? Because if it was the Democrats, then Kerry did indeed do something at odds with his previous statements. If it was the Republicans, it could instead be interpreted as defending himself from attacks upon his character. The difference between these seems significant to me. Kasreyn 03:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Kerry had made a point from the outset to declare because of his combat experience, he would be a good war-time leader. If you remember the convention in Boston, the theme of the night was Vietnam and he even had a video produced by Steven Spielberg about his combat experience.--Bairdso66 04:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a source indicating that Kerry made such a declaration ("Because of my combat experience, I will make a good war-time leader"). You say he "made it a point from the outset", so I'm guessing you mean he said this multiple times. Simply mentioning his military experience in speeches -- with far less regularity than his critics have claimed -- doesn't mean he made his military experience a "crucial issue" of his campaign. I don't think it matters at all who first mentioned Kerry's military background. I'm sure it was Kerry, as he certainly kept it no secret from anybody...why would he? It was the Republicans who relentlessly (and baselessly) attacked his military record, and successfully turned it into an issue.--Hal Raglan 03:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Kerry used the F word in a Rolling Stone interview while running for Prez in '04. Can someone add this to the article? Dubc0724 16:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? Who gives a fuck? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

- If Bush saying "shit" is notable in his article, Kerry saying "fuck" certainly should be. And please remember to be civil. Thanks Dubc0724 17:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

- - Profanity by politicians is not inherently notable. The news coverage of Bush's remark is what made that worthy of mention in his article. Did Kerry's remark receive a similar level of news coverage? Gamaliel 17:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

- - - I haven't seen any more coverage of Bush's swearing than Kerry's. But I don't think "news coverage" is the point. The article is not about the media. It's about the individual. If one's notable, the other is as well. Dubc0724 17:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

- - - - Why do you think that profanity by politicians is inherently notable? Gamaliel 17:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly. Thanks Dubc0724 17:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- That wasn't a point, it was a question. Gamaliel 17:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  - I've rewritten the question to make my original intent a bit more clear since you seem to be missing the point of it. Gamaliel 17:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  - Well, the question proved my point. Thanks Dubc0724 17:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Not missing the "point" at all. My point is that a politician's use of profanity is not notable. I ask to make mention of it here and people get riled up. I take it out of the Dubya article based on the same argument and people get riled up. You can't have it both ways, folks. Dubc0724 17:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody wants it both ways. It is the news coverage of the event, not the inherent nature of the event itself, which is the basis for inclusion. You can disagree with that basis if you like but you can't pretend people are including it on an entirely different basis. Gamaliel 17:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It couldn't have anything to do with the (gasp!) political parties, now could it? PS Why am I having two separate arguments with you? :-) Dubc0724 17:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course. It's all about bias. God forbid you actually listen to someone else's reasoning and actually believe that it is sincere. Gamaliel 17:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep. God forbids me to do that. Life's more fun when you're a skeptic. At this point we're both dealing with our opinions of why something may or may not be notable. Maybe others can weigh in on the topic. We've probably spent more time than it's worth already, though. Dubc0724 17:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What a moron. --69.67.230.110 05:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be included. There was plenty of coverage at the time. The same level of coverage of "Major League Asshole/Big Time" and Cheney's "go f*** yourself." It's relevant also because of the audience Kerry was trying to reach by so blatant a use of profanity. Kerry's use was calculated and in the tone of the Rolling Stone article and is very notable as both a news event and a political strategy. --Tbeatty 18:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Should John Kerry's memebership of skull and bones at Yale university be included on this page?--Lucy-marie 08:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's already there. Probably doesn't need the GWB reference but it reads okay.--Tbeatty 18:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

GWB?--Lucy-marie 20:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Impeachment?

Kerry on Face the Nation TV show 12.04.05

John Kerry / Ramsey Clark / Saddam Hussein connection&nbsp;?

Semi-protection policy

1996, 2004 and other Kerry fundraising issues

John Kerry and Ben Barnes (of Bush National Guard fame)

fundrasing section

3RR violation at John Kerry

Please

Request

Semi protected

Hmmmmm

Protected

Fundraising problems

interwiki template

Sigh

Semi-protected

Law school

too much pre-history

Family background

We're nearing SP again

Divorce then annulment - both must be mentioned

The toolong tag

Yes, let's shorten this article ... but how?

obvious question

LOL!!!!!!!

George W. Bush and John Kerry

John Kerry and Rick Santorum?

Reverted Image Vandalism

copy edits

No political beliefs?

Little reaction or firestorm?

bonesman legacy?

Abortion

New Kerry article regarding SWIFT Boats, etc.

Change image?

Abortion/Catholic Church

Lie Detector TV show

"Liberating"

Flip-flopping

Re: Vietnam as a Campaign Issue

F Bomb in Rolling Stone

Skull and bones

John Kerry / Ramsey Clark / Saddam Hussein connection ?