Misplaced Pages

It's not that Kerry himself is "special", rather it's the unambiguous nature of the critical information which is available about him, but which those who tend pro-Liberal, resist allowing into the article. As for the "wound" issue, it's a small word "minor", but has great import.

The simple fact is that many on the Left want to slam Bush for having a cushy National Guard billet during the war, and for this reason, they want to keep one of the Liberal Icons (Kerry) from appearing to have gotten out of the service too easily himself (which he did). Kerry got out early on the basis of "three and you're out". That being three Purple Hearts. However, when examined in the light of the 1st so called "wound" being nothing more than a small scratch, it's clear that Kerry gamed the system to win early release from the service. And if that's true, then this undercuts criticism of Bush, (got off easy) because Kerry did the same thing (got off easy). And because the Left in America is anti-Iraq war, they need to undercut Bush whichever way they can on Military related issues. Bush's service record is a military related issue and as such, the Left needs to make it look singularly bad (see Killian documents). Because of this (and because Kerry is making noise about running again), the Left wants to accomplish the dual goal of making Bush look bad on personal military history, while making Lefties (such as Kerry) look good. got that? Rex071404 02:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What military service are you refering to? I don't think there's anyone claiming Bush saw active duty--anon editor 03:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you contending that the Air Force National Guard is not part of the US military? If so, you prove my point about the anti-Bush, pro-Kerry bias around here. Rex071404 03:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Bush never served in active duty, I don't see how that's biased, the national guard was never deployed, anywhereb, what bias is that? Is it as pervasive a bias as the one that told us his favorite type of chocolate chip cookie?--anon editor 05:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Some people in the U.S., on both sides of the aisle, can't stop talking about the 2004 election. In the first post-9/11 election, with the country fighting two wars, it was inevitable that the election would polarize the country. It didn't matter who Bush ran against - his opponent's name was going to get dragged through the mud no matter what. Nothing special about Kerry - he's just another politician. Rhobite 02:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Odd Edits by Rex071404

Removed almost all adjectives from the article, then labled then as POV removal, also removed reference to John Kerry owning a dog, as a blatent POV issue along with Favorite Food, and reference to him being a cyclist.. I could be missing something, but those don't actually seem like POV issues, unless of course this editor's idea of NPOV, is to remove anything that isn't negative, including what seem like rather neutral statments like John Kerry Owns a Dog, I'm going to rv the whole thing to back before the edit war--anon editor 02:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

More than a year ago, Kerry's campaign people leaked details about pet ownership. Any current status on the dog? Also, who says that Kerry is an avid cyclist? There is even less proof of that, than there is that his 1st wound was minor (please see above). Also, rather than just complain, why don't you ask me my line of thinking and see if we can agree on some edits? Also, when was the last time anyone had a current referrence that Kerry's "favorite food is chocolate chip cookies" and why should such minutiae even be in this article? Do we have such detail about all US Senators? Rex071404 03:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• So, what makes his pet ownership POV? or favorite cookie? I just dont' see any connection what so ever between your edit summaries, and the things you're re-writing--anon editor 05:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The connection between the deleted "cookie" referrence and POV is that such fawning minutiae, by being in this article, serves no editorial purpose of import. Rather, what it does is turn a biography into a hagiography. Rex071404 05:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what does hagiographic mean? --kizzle 05:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Bla, bla, bla, bla, you just keep talking, you're certianly the only one listening to you--Here I come to save the day 19:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

POV check tag for John Kerry

According to the edit summary by Szyslak for this edit, which states "rv {NPOV} - the tag is for disputes that can't be resolved after discussion; also removed gratuitous "See also" link)", it is clear that the correct course of action, on a disputed page (when issues can't be resolved after discussion) is to add an NPOV tag. This being the case, I am adding a POV check to this page and am reminding the other editors here of important details from the wiki article on "Consensus decision-making", which are: "Rather than simply list known alternatives, debate for a short time, vote, and then accept or reject by some percentage of majority (ex. over 50%, over 2/3), a consensus decision-making process involves identifying and addressing concerns, generating new alternatives, combining elements of multiple alternatives and checking that people understand a proposal or an argument. This empowers minorities, those with objections that are hard to state quickly, and those who are less skilled in debate. Therefore, consensus decision-making can be seen as a form of grassroots democracy."

I ask the editors here to take note that "combining elements of multiple alternatives" is an essential part of consensus decision-making and yet, the editors here have been reverting and deleting every edit I make to John Kerry (and has been doing so for well over a year and again, many times in the last few days). For this reson, it cannot be said that there is any valid consensus among the active editors on this article. As with that as my justification, I am adding the POV check tag to the article.

Rex071404 20:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Comparison of George W. Bush and John Kerry outlines

Here are the 1st (5) sections of each outline from each article. It's clear that the Kerry article goes into much more personal detail, the net effect of which is to "sell" Kerry to people. It was forced on us by the pro-Kerry editors during election 2004 and it remains the same way today. Rex071404 21:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? If you think the GWB article lacks information, go add it to that article. Gamaliel 21:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

My concern (as I have made abundantly clear - see above) is that this Kerry article has too much fawining detail. And, the few less flattering things which go in are immediately taken out. The outline speaks for itself - Kerry's article is imbalanced and there is no realistic correlation on the personal history outline between Kerry and Bush. Gamaliel, do you deny that Kerry's page has much more personal detail than Bush's? Also what is your justification for reverting at multiple pages on the Wiki - reverting me multiple times on political related articles? Do you deny that you have been reverting me multiple times, without talk page dialog and often with no justifying edit summary? Do you disagree with the details I have posted above regarding consensus decision-making? If not, please point me to the any edit I made in the last few days you (or one of the other Rex-reverters here) have allowed to my edits be "combined" into a poltical article, without being reverted or edited out. Rex071404 00:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex, John Kerry is a senator and a veteran while George W. Bush is a two-term president. Why do you expect their articles to be laid out in the same way? Rhobite 22:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Because disagreeing with him, according to his new page at User_talk:Rex071404/Liberal_bias constitutes a liberal bias. --kizzle 23:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The Kerry article was taking most of it's current form starting back in Summer of 2004. Between then and now, the pro-Kerry editors at this page have done all the can to keep embellishing it. And, Bush was not yet re-elected in July 2004, which is when I joined this Wiki - in part, to try to get some even handed treatment of the two pages. There is no denying the truth about the above outline comparisons: Kerry's has way more personal detail. And, now that Kerry is very well know, there no longer is any excuse for it. I am asking you other editors to please be more flexible on edits to this article and please allow some of my edits to stay in without reverting them. And as for Kizzle's comment - I'd prefer that he keep his personal taunts off of the talk pages of articles. He's welcome to criticize me on my personal talk page, but I feel that his comments such as that above are counter-productive here. Also, I'd ask that he stop stalking my personal scratch page list - it's not any of his concern that I am keeping a log of various edits, and by repeating my scratch page links all over, he's causing needless controversy. Rex071404 00:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex, I believe that adding to some liberal hit-list everytime someone simply disagrees with you is the very definition of counter-productive. It definetely doesn't help foster a sense of collaboration. As for your comments, I don't see a need to excise comments about a former presidential candidate simply because the election is over. I believe a policy of removing information when the subject steps out of the limelight is a bad way to go. --kizzle 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The only excuse there ever was (and a poor one at that) for having so much Kerry details, is that he was a national candidate and was perhaps not then well known around the country. However, that election is over and frankly, you know as well as I do that the ArbComm has already had a finding that election 2004 did intrude into this article. I contend that there is simply no justification for such copious detail remaining in this article. Especially since such simple things as a wiki link on the word "wound", the actual number of bills which became law "11" and an acccurate adjective applied to the 1st wound "minor" are kept out. Now as for your characterization of my log as a "hit-list", you are free to think what you may, but again I will ask you to keep your comments and suppositions of that nature off the article talk pages. I am asking you nicely and I believe that you are causing trouble by refusing to stop. Also, I do indeed contend that there is Liberal bias here and yet, I have softened the name of my log page to address the fact that there are some (such as you apparantly) who will offend themselves by snooping into my personal pages. That being the case, I went to a new page name which has less potential to offend uninvited perusers.Rex071404 00:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• As far as "stalking" is concerned -- every page on Misplaced Pages is for public consumption. If you want a private scratchpad, do it elsewhere. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You miss the point - Kizzle is complaining about something that he alone has been advertising. I did not point anyone to those page(s). If he kept his complaints about them to himself, there would be no controversy. And Kizzle's ad-hominem criticisms about me/my logs do not belong on this page - they are detracting from the dialog here. Also, have you read the above points about "consensus decision-making"? What about the fact that every edit I make to John Kerry gets reverted? How this that anything but bias? And what about Kerry's 1st wound, was it "minor", yes or no?Rex071404

Fundraising scandals

I intend to put details about this into the article. any comments? Rex071404 02:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is another link Rex071404 02:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• as if you care what anyone else thinks? Just keep on trolling--anon editor 02:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

And another, here Rex071404 03:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact that this is not even mentioned in Kerry's article is an example of the pro-Kerry bias I am talking about. Rex071404 03:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is another link Rex071404 03:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not an example of anything except the fact that no one here knew about that information yet. Once again you are true to form and attribute sinister motives to other editors instead of simpler, innocent, more realistic ones. Gamaliel 03:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Not so. Bias need not be sinister. If I love kittens, I am biased in favor of them. And I am unaware of anyone who considers those who love kittens to be "sinister". Rather, bias (which your comments above confirm - perhaps unwittingly) can also manifest itself this way: a) Various wiki editor(s) like Kerry. As a consequence, they never #2) look for anything to critique him on and because of that, #3) those who are biased in favor of Kerry, never (search for, or) find fundraising scandal details about him via Google. Now as you can see, this theory could also account for why you or various others never found those fundrasing stories. And it's true that you did not ever find them, because as you stated "no one here knew about that information yet". I suggest this is because you have not looked hard enough - and I further suggest it's primarily because you are not interested to see to it that the Kerry article be as firm of a critique against him as the Bush article is against him. Rex071404 04:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I admit I do not look for bad things about Kerry to put in the article. Neither do I look for good things about Kerry to put in the article. It is not because I am not interested in this article being a critique of Kerry, it is because I am not that interested in this article. Like all the other editors here, I have interests beyond this article. I spend much more time writing about poets and comic strips than politics. Unless I am writing an article from scratch, I don't do extensive searches for information, I just add the information I happen to come across. I imagine that none of us have spent the last year constantly googling Kerry's name for the latest tidbit of trivia. We just monitor this article for major changes, and that's about it. We've moved on since the election, apparently you have not. Gamaliel 08:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I am interested in this article as part of bringing to it a sense of "parity" to the various articles which I see concerning Conservative Polticians on this wiki. Suffice it to say, your concession that you do not Google for critical items for Kerry makes my point for me, which is; the bulk of the editors who have opposed me in total on Kerry etc, for the most part do not put critical items into pages for Liberal politicians. However, from time to time, a subset of that group (the particular persons vary) go to great lengths to keep favorable edits in the Liberal articles - for example JamesMLane (and others) blocking me on the word "minor". The simple fact is that these editing patterns have the net effect of biasing the Kerry article in a favorable manner (and interestingly enough, the same basic edit forces array in a reciprocal manner at the Bush page - resulting unfavorable tone and text there). In case you have forgotten how this all started, let me bring you back to July 2004, when I joined. My research indicates that my 1st edit appears to be this . This particular edit went right to the meat of the matter, which was that Kerry was then lying to the voters about whether or not he had released his full medical records. At the time, the biggest pro-Kerry editor was then, Neutrality. If I am not mistaken, it was his text which I modified to make my 1st edit. Now if you also recall, almost immediately after my 1st edit, I was emeshed in edit wars - one of the 1st was about Kerrry's medical records. Please go back and read the article and the talk page from those days - you'll see that I was knocked all over the place for trying to insist that Kerry had not actually released his full military/medical records. The pro-Kerry forces were adamant that I was wrong. Well then, guess what, look at this taunting edit left by Neutrality on my talk page this summer (when he certainly knew I could not respond due to 6 month hiatus). What does the edit say? It says that Kerry only finally signed his Form 180 (military service and military medical, records) release on May 20th, 2005! Har! Told you so. I was 100% right about that then and I am right about Kerry's minor wound now and I am also right that pro-Kerry Liberal editors are still up clucking their feathers and watching out for their champion. And if that's not true, then how would you explain the taunting edit Neutrality left for me (as linked above)? The bottom line is that the Kerry article portrays an excessively postive picture of him - positive to the point of falseness. That was true in July 2004 and it's true today. Final note, you may not care that Kerry has in the past done things like go around and falsely pretend to be Irish, so as to get the Boston ethnic Irish vote, (see Slate link - talk page). But I do, I am from Massachsuetts. I have followed his career for years and I feel it's important that when a local silver spoon hack politician tries to go for the brass ring, that everyone be afforded to have accurate information about him. The Liberal editors here have prevented that before and they still are trying to prevent it now. Kerry's an utter mediocrity - he's only gotten 11 bills passed in the US Senate in his ENTIRE CAREER. Why the pro-Kerry people are so intent on shunting those types of details under the rug or off to the side, is stunning to me. 11 bills - that's it and he wants to (still wants to!) be president! What kind of enyclopedia article keeps out such important details - while all the while telling me his favorite cookies are chocolate chip? In my mind, only a biased one does. Now, we might disagree on many things, but certainly we can agree that in order to evaluate a politician's effectivenes, bills signed into law is a more valuable data element than favorite cooke type, wouldn't you say? Rex071404 09:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

All this rant proves is your interest in dragging down a public figure you dislike and in rehashing old battles. If you want to make constructive edits, such as including information on the Sherwood lawsuit, go for it. But this article won't be served my removing information you dislike, however trivial that information may be, nor will it be served by you putting up a furious fight over insignificant issues where you are clearly in the wrong, such as wikilinking common words. Gamaliel 09:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Am I wrong to say that the 11 bills passed into law is a more important fact than chocolate chips? Also, why do you insist on harshly characterizing my edit as a "rant". If I put a pejorative of that tone into the Kerry article, you would expunge it. So why do you smack me with it? And as for "dragging down" Kerry, as Ronald Regan would say "there you go again". I am trying to put in a few, accurate facts and you call that "dragging down". Also, if Kerry were not so high in your mind, bringing even-handedness to this hagiographic sing song of an article, would not been seen by you as dragging him down. It's the opposite of the mind probe in "The Riddick Chronicles". In that movie, the mind probe detected a Furian and freaked out "Kill the Riddick - Kill the Furian". But with this article, it's "Protect the Kerry - He must not be dragged down". Please. If you were even vaugly familiar with Kerry and his track record in Massachusetts, you'd know that my assesment of him as a mediocrity is accurate. And if you think I'm trying to bring him down, you must think he's more than that. This to me, is your clearest admission of pro-Kerry bias so far. I assert that he's average. You assert that saying so brings him down. It's you who are exalting Kerry, not me bringing him down. Rex071404 09:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Kerry is being sued for defamation

I intend to add information about this to the article. any comments? Rex071404 03:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

More about this here Rex071404 03:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

We don't archive things after a handful of weeks

..just because some troll, wills it to be so, or do we??--anon editor 03:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Alot of us editors are just coming off a very contentious battle with a user named BigDaddy777. So Rex, please cut us a little bit of slack. Hopefully, you will be more civil and collaborative than he was. But that's why some of us are jumping on your back right away. I know it's unfair, but that's the reason. Thanks. --Woohookitty 03:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"Accountable 1135", aka "anon editor" has already in an edit summary, accused me of being bigdaddy777, but I assure you, I am not he. Rather I am one who, having stepped in the cesspool of making harsh comments about others and exceeding 3rr in the past, am back after 6 months, with a direct, but improved approach, intent upon seeing to it that I am able to have at least some input on various political articles that interest me. Since my return a few days ago, my article edits have not been shown to be frivolous or factually wrong or POV. Rather, they have been unilaterally deleted and reverted with no realistic attempt by others to take any of the input that I offer nor allow me to edit this article at all. Look at the above back-up I've provided for my views. And what is the result? My comments are dismissed out of hand. Rex071404 03:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps if you did not attempt to bring up the same insignificant issues that were resolved a year ago using the same frivolous arguments you used before your ban, then your contributions might be taken more seriously. Gamaliel 03:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

They were never resolved. Rather, what happened was that I messed up my own opportunity by making snide comments and exceeding 3rr. This time however, I am focused on staying within acceptable parameters while attempting edits and at the same time also lobbying the others to concede that there is bias here. Four points: 1) For example, looking at the outline comparison above; how can you justify continuing to keep so much personal detail about Kerry in the article, especially since he is now well known nationwide? The net effect of all that detail is to make the article too hagiographic. 2) Also, you don't deny that the Bush article is much more of a critique than the Kerry article, do you? and 3) Will you accept the wiki link I want to add to the word wound. 4) Lastly, the issues I am concerned about are not "insignificant" to me, but if they are to you, why do you oppose me on them? (and please do not call my "arguments" "frivolous". I feel that borders on a personal attack) Rex071404 03:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Your comparison is meaningless for two reasons. 1) It's nothing more than a list of headings and subheadings. This doesn't mean that this article has more information or detail or trivia, just that it is organized differently. 2) It doesn't matter that one article is more detailed than another. We don't do tit for tat comparisons like that. Different people work on different articles and different amounts of work go into them. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. If you feel that the Bush article lacks detail, go work on that article.

Arguing about the wikilink to the word wound is pretty much the definiton of frivolous. It's very simple, and you'd recognize it if you weren't hellbent on attacking Kerry. We don't create wikilinks to words that sixth graders know. We're not here to define common words. That's the end of it. There shouldn't be any other consideration, especially one like a POV interest in making this article read one way or another. Gamaliel 08:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I answer Gamaliel as follows: 1) My exmple of outline sections in comparison is not meaningless. Rather it clearly points out that Kerry's personal history gets more hands on details - this can be confirmed by simply reading the sections referred to by the outlines, on each respective page. 2) It does matter that biographies ought to be similarly handled for similarly situated persons. During election 2004, those two persons each had a 50/50 chance of being the next president. Certainly that fact called for more balance than the editors here allowed. And it's long over due that Kerry's page reigned in. 3) Again, I do not feel the Bush lacks detail, I feel that Kerry has too much and it's hagiographic detail at that. G, Do you deny that Kerry's page tends towards the hagiographic? As for the wiki link, there is no argument, if others don't oppose me on that. Therefore, if I am being frivolous, how much more so are those who are trying to trump me on that? Also, the issue of Kerry's wounds goes right to the heart of how dishonest this article is. It is an established fact that Kerry's 1st injury was minor. If any editor on this page has been "hellbent" about anything, it's those who deny this fact and refuse to allow that word in. Even with links to wound page(s) which make clear that the the word "minor" is the correct descriptor for a wound of that type, not one inch is being given by the pro-Kerry crowd on that word. So who's being "hellbent"? And please, don't shift the argument to one about "common words". This is not about the common nature of the word wound, because common or not, there are clearly great variances in the severities of wounds. And this is more true that the point you push. Think about it; whenever you hear that a friend was injured, the 1st thing you as is "how bad was it?". Bt refusing to tell the readers how bad it was, we are in fact commiting the lie of ommission, "conincidentally" in favor of Kerry. I could go on, but I'll simply say that for an editor who claims disinterest in political articles, you sure do revert me often enough. Rex071404 08:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This is very much about the common nature of the word "wound". That is why people keep removing the link. You just don't want to listen to the explanation. If you want to do a frivolous thing, are we then more frivolous because we wish to prevent it? That makes no sense.

I never claimed to be disinterested in political articles, I just clearly said I was not interested enough to be constantly monitoring google and the news for the latest minor story. Gamaliel 08:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The Kerry article, as currently comprised, is hagiographic. I've raised that point about 20 times on this page, yet none of the entrenched editors dare to deny it. So then, since this is the base line, all we should be discussing is how to make it less so. I've offered suggestions. Others here have balked at and opposed my suggestions, but offered none of their own. And the point I raise does make sense. It's you who says I that I am making frivolous edits, not me. And by that, it's you calling me "silly and foolish". My suggestion to you is, if you really believe that, why are you fighting me over things as minor a wiki linking the word wound? I suggest that it's because you are biased in your views and for that reason you are fixated on my edits. I could say that is "foolish", but I won't. I will leave the insults such as "rant" and "foolsish", etc. for you to hurl. Rex071404 10:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I deny it. I think the article is fine as it is.

Your logic is incredibly tortured. You are insistent upon doing a foolish thing, and thus we are more foolish for wishing to prevent this? As I said above that makes absolutely no sense. I'm only supposedly "fixated" on your edits because you put up inane, to the death fights over foolish things and remove information to suit your POV. I'm going to attempt to refrain from continuing to argue about this because we're just going in circles here and not accomplishing anything. If you restrict yourself to productive behavior you might find that reactions to your edits suddenly change. So are you up to that challenge? Gamaliel 18:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I object to you calling my logic "tortured". I object to you saying that am "insistent upon doing a foolish thing". I object to you saying my actions are "inane". Perhaps if you laid off the insults, you and I could work together more effectively. That said, here is where are are at today: Gamaliel says "I think the article is fine as it is". Rex071404 says "The Kerry article, as currently comprised, is hagiographic". Misplaced Pages Misplaced Pages:Negotiation says "Principled Negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Misplaced Pages usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article.".

My major view(s) are 1) there are too many words associated with Kerry's personal minutiae currently in the article 2) there are not enough words associated with Kerry's faults and shortcomings - such as his anemic track record in getting bills signed into law. The ball is now back in Gamaliel's court, he has challenged me and I have responded.

The remaining question is: Will Gamaliel allow some of my edits to remain in the article and thereby effect changes to the text of the article, yes or no? Rex071404 18:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Edits should be evaluated on a case by case basis, not by a quota system. You don't automatically get x% of your edits in. If all your edits are suspect and meet objections from a consensus of other editors, then that's how the cookie crumbles. Gamaliel 18:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

If the consensus (among themselves) of "others" refuses to incorporate any of my ideas, by definition there is not consensus on this page, there is no consensus decision-making going on here and there is not any bona-fide negotiation. Suffice it to say, the closed-mided finality of Gamaliel's "that's how the cookie crumbles" jibe makes clear that he has zero intention of ever backing off from his instransigence against me. Rex071404 18:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

When I started Little League, there were no outs, every person on the team got a chance at bat before the inning ended. That's not how it works here. The consideration is what makes a good encyclopedia, nothing more. I'm sorry if you feel left out, but we're not here to insure you get your chance at bat. Gamaliel 18:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Huh? That makes no sense to me - don't you mean that there is no assurance that I'll get a "hit"? After all, on a team of friends, everyone gets a chance to bat. And by extension, in your analogy, we are both players and umps - making plays and judging each other. My concern is that I am constantly being called "out" even on plays that are clearly "safe". For example, as of 12.2004, John Kerry had gotten only 11 bills passed into law during his ENTIRE SENATE CAREER. That is an important fact that should be "safe" but you keep calling it "out". Rex071404 19:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

On Iraq War

I would like to add information to the article, that deals with the fact that John Kerry promised not to criticise the President when he went to war, and then did so on the same day as the war started. I know that this news was reported in the media at the time. ComfortFood 04:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'd be curious to see some sources for this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I remember reading and hearing about that. I agree that he did break his word about that. Be cautious though, there are editors here who resist the insertion of critical items about Kerry. It's best if you post some links from mainstream media type sources, it you want less bones of contention here. Rex071404 04:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It's also best if you stop talking to your sockpuppets, but then, I know you don't use sockpuppets, and all these nice people with 2 or 3 posts just happen to gravitate to you and agree unconditionally with you--anon editor 04:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Anon, based on your intimate knowledge of various wiki procedures, I am sure you can get someone to confirm for you that I edit only from IP 216.153.214.94 and that no one else on this wiki does. Also, please direct your legitimate criticisms about me to my personal talk page. I am willing to dialog there. Please keep ad-hominem accusations off the article talk pages. That said, what are your views on the merits of the points I raised concerning the article (see above). I am interested in your legitimate comments. Rex071404 04:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently looking for links that will support these two assertions:

1. Democrat Primary Candidates agreed not to criticise the President during the actual war.

2. John Kerry criticises President on or right before March 20, 2003.

ComfortFood 05:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is something to get you started: "In May 2003, at the first Democratic primary debate, John Kerry said his vote authorizing the president to use force was the “right decision” though he would have “preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity.”

But then in January 2004, Kerry began to run as anti-war candidate, saying, "I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have." Rex071404 05:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the first claim: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50D17F93F550C7B8DDDAA0894DB404482

March 18, 2003, Tuesday (By The New York Times); National Desk Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 14, Column 3, 373 words DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 373 WORDS -Congressional Republicans gave unconditional support tonight to President Bush's ultimatum to President Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Democratic leaders expressed dismay over the failure of diplomatic efforts, but many said that with war imminent, they would mute their criticism and stand behind American troops. Most major Democratic presidential candidates also... ComfortFood 05:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears that only Dean did not take that pledge. This means Kerry did. Rex071404 06:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is an archive of the article text. It appears that NYT did indeed report that all candidates (this includes Kerry), except Dean made the same pledge. Rex071404 06:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is a CNN link to Daschle saying on 03.17.05 "If the President decides that force is the only remaining option to disarm Saddam Hussein, Democrats and Republicans will be unanimous in our strong support for our troops and for ensuring that they have all the tools and resources needed to be successful." Hmmm... looks like the rope-a-dope was being employed by Daschle here. Parse his wrods snd you'll see: strong support for our troops and for ensuring that they have all the tools and resources needed Rex071404 06:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Dare I ask, "So what?" --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• What? you don't see it, first he promised to support the troops, then he blatently defiled that promise, by daring to criticize the person he was running against during a general election, obviously an act of such unforgivable hypocracy that it must be inserted into the article, as we all know, criticism of the president means you hate america, therefore you must also hate the troops, see.. that's not insane at all--anon editor 11:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This is relevant for several reasons. The first reason is that he gave his word that he would not criticise the President, and then he immediately broke it aftewards. If it was done on purpose, it would make him a liar. The effect was that on the same day the war started, people were also reading his criticism, when they should have been focussing on the President's leadership during the start of a war. If Kerry had been a General and had criticised the President, he would surely have been fired. Remember the case of MacArthur, Truman and the Korean war. It's something that every good soldier knows. You don't criticise your commanding officer in public during a time of war. The President himself would have been distracted by these comments during a time when his attention was needed elsewhere. What we need to keep in mind here, is that Kerry was running as a Presidential candidate. If he had become President, would he have expected his subordinates not to criticise him in this way? There is an old saying, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I would argue that this event can be seen in one of two ways, either Kerry did not bother to think about what the events were leading up to, or he did this out of deliberate malice in a calculating way. Unfortunately, a lot of history depends on how you interpret it. But clearly what we know is that he criticised the President on the day the United States went to war in Iraq. I think it should be mentioned in his biography. This is especially true when opposition to the war was a large part of his campaign. This can be seen in the larger political context of the Democrats as a whole, not wanting to seem to be weak to the American public on foreign policy. It seems that politicians are willing to lie to people until whatever controversy is in the news, that week, has passed over.

I would ask that we come to some sort of agreement on this topic, Jpgordon, so that the addition of this fact in the article can be done without it being reverted back to a previous form.

ComfortFood 13:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• (checking watch) Y'know, it's October 2005, not October 2004. Your guy won; you can turn off the slime machines now. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping for a comment that was related to developing this article.

ComfortFood 16:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Some people here aren't really interesting in playing fair, just in glorifying their idol--Here I come to save the day 19:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Did Kerry pretend to be Irish in the past?

Read this Slate article here Rex071404 05:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• I agree, wonderful point, by any chance did you happen to read one of these articles here it certianly explains a few things, and with loads of credibility too--anon editor 11:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose if Bush were claiming to be a space alien, that would matter. As it is, I don't think he's every done that. Kerry, on the other hand, has falsely potrayed himself as being Irish, for personal political gain. Would you like some more links to better prove that? Rex071404 16:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't even bother, they'll just try and derail you, and drag you into a long and messy conflict, until the article looks like a kerry campaign comercial, best to ignore the buzzing sound they make and go straight to the article itself, be bold in editing and all that jazz--Here I come to save the day 20:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

BCCI investigation

A1sdf deleted the following paragraph:

One of the Bush administration figures criticized for his handling of BCCI was Robert Mueller who, in his then-role as Deputy Attorney General, was criticized about slow performance regarding the investigation. Kerry himself was criticized in some circles for not pressing harder against certain Democrats, and he was also criticized by some Democrats for pursuing his own party members, including former Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford. The BCCI scandal was later turned over to the Manhattan District Attorney's office.

Kerry’s role in the BCCI matter actually deserves more attention in this article, not less. The Washington Monthly article stated:

By the end, Kerry had helped dismantle a massive criminal enterprise and exposed the infrastructure of BCCI and its affiliated institutions, a web that law enforcement officials today acknowledge would become a model for international terrorist financing. As Kerry's investigation revealed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, BCCI was interested in more than just enriching its clients--it had a fundamentally anti-Western mission. Among the stated goals of its Pakistani founder were to "fight the evil influence of the West," and finance Muslim terrorist organizations. In retrospect, Kerry's investigation had uncovered an institution at the fulcrum of America's first great post-Cold War security challenge.

As our article notes, several agencies in the Bush 41 administration were culpable in not pursuing BCCI properly. Mueller was sent to debate Kerry on Nightline about the investigation. Although he was thus a prominent spokesweasel for the Bush administration, he was only one of several officials who were at fault, and who were mentioned by name in the Kerry/Brown report. It's interesting to note his involvement because he's now the FBI Director, but I don't see that fact as having enough bearing on Kerry's role to merit inclusion here. The rest of the paragraph, however, is perfectly valid information, and I've restored it with some tweaking. JamesMLane 21:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

In my view, JamesMLane's use of the term "spokesweasel", is indicative of bias on this topic. Likewise, his assertion of "culpable" - were there any findings or court rulings which held this to be so? If not, it's speculative POV. Rex071404 21:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course it's POV. POV is allowed on talk pages. I didn't use the term "spokesweasel" or even "culpable" in the article. JamesMLane 21:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but statements such as that are indeed indicative of a mindset which is likely going to color your editorial decisions - including those aimed ay blocking my edits. Rex071404 21:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

If you want to see why I called Mueller a "spokesweasel", you can look here for a passage from a book in which his Nightline appearance with Kerry is recounted. For the rest of it, my mindset isn't relevant. A biased editor has an obligation to rein in his or her bias and make edits that comply with NPOV and other Misplaced Pages policies. I've done so. JamesMLane 22:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

As I've made clear, I don't agree that you constrain your bias - as it applies to gatekeeping against other's political article edits - to the degree and extent you ought to. Rex071404 22:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources

A1sdf deleted a statement by Kerry on this basis: "using a website called 'peacecore' as a source, has got to be a joke, it's gone too". I can't see this as a sensible edit. Peace Corps Online is a public forum for returned Peace Corps volunteers. Does the word "peace" in the name mean that it must be completely ignored? Furthermore, the slightest research would show that this quotation isn't subject to any good-faith dispute. If you actually click on the link, you'll see that the Peace Corps Online post is quoting a Reuters dispatch. That should suggest that it's not some kind of left-wing propaganda lie. In fact, Googling the quotation turns up, as the fifth hit, a column by that well-known Bolshevik Ann Coulter, who cites the quotation exactly as it appeared in our article. I've restored the quotation (giving Kerry's complete sentence), with a citation to CBS News to forestall further such sniping from people who regard "peace" as a suspicious word. I've also removed A1sdf's characterization of opponents of the war as "far left" and his later reference to "much of the American Left", words that serve no purpose except to convey the impression (probably a false impression) that these views are held only by a tiny minority. JamesMLane 21:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• You might even say that this person is a *gasp* sockpuppet, but obviously that title is reserved for people who DISagree with bigrexy--172.150.95.165 16:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, I think we should find a better one than National Review Online if this article is going to claim the wound was "superficial". I checked the source; it was an account by a doctor who treated his wound, as told by NRO columnist Byron York. (By the way, the link I removed is here. sɪzlæk 06:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC))

By the way, Rex, that was only ONE edit I reworked, out of the six or seven you made. If I were reverting you "out of spite", I'd revert all your edits. sɪzlæk 06:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Byron York @ NRO

(copied here from User talk:Szyslak)

NRO is suffiently mainstream and Byron York is sufficently well regarded that when Byron quotes Dr. Louis Letson, you cannot simply reject this source out of hand as being invalid - and somehow not meriting discussion prior to your reverting my edit. Please dialog with me about this on Talk:John Kerry. I'll answer there promptly, as soon as you articulate a rationale for you rejecting the validity of Byron York's quoting of Dr. Letson. Thanks. Rex071404 06:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverts and John Kerry

(moved here from User Talk:Rex071404)

Hi there. I wish you'd please stop insisting that other editors follow your personal policy on reverts. All around Misplaced Pages, I've found that politically contentious edits to major articles tend to get reverted, with or without "discussion prior to reverting". I don't like being reverted any more than you do. Personally, I've been striving to explain reverts more, which is something most Misplaced Pages editors don't do nearly enough. However, few people are willing to accede to your list of demands about how they edit Misplaced Pages. It's tiresome to hear your demands that people follow your instructions, which have no basis in Misplaced Pages policy or common, everyday editing practice.

About my edit: I did discuss it—after I made the edit, instead of before as you demanded in your message on my talk page. Apparently that wasn't good enough for you, but if you continue to insist on things like that, nothing on Misplaced Pages is. sɪzlæk 07:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Sz,

• #1) Where have I accused you of "spite"?
• #2) Where is your proof that Byron York is an invalid source?
• #3) Since when is NRO an invalid source?
• #4) Are you saying the quotes attributed by York to the Dr. are falsified and that the Dr. did not really say those things?

Rex071404 07:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex, you accused me of "reverting you out of spite" or something to that effect on your "liberal bias" page, which I found in your edit history. (By the way, making pages like that is really considered uncool here. What's the point of it? You could be giving some editors the impression you're putting together a "hit list" or something to that effect, or that you're planning to file an RFC or RFAr against the editors you listed.)

Anyway, about the York source: I don't think opinion magazines are always invalid or inaccurate as sources for Misplaced Pages articles. However, I don't like the idea of using an opinion magazine to "prove" a disputed claim as "fact". And yes, it is disputed whether Kerry bled enough for his Purple Hearts. It's not absolute truth that his wound was minor. It's just a pointless "campaign issue" from last year, not worth rehashing over and over again. sɪzlæk 07:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Sz, if you were not snooping on my private edits log, you would not be reading what are clearly chronological notes about suspect edits, notes which are clearly meant just for me. Regarding my log, not once have I ever told you to read that page, nor have I ever linked a comment to you to that page, nor have I ever directed the word "spite" to you. However, your edit summary which caused me to make a note to myself does clearly accuse me of creating a "phony non-issue". Certainly, where I come from, it can be considered "spiteful" to call someone a "phony" or accuse them of being "phony" or doing "phony" things. Now, on to you and your assertion of "disputed"; the issue at hand between you and I right now is whether or not Byron York accurately quoted Dr. Louis Letson, not whether or the good Dr. was lying or not.

Q: Yes or no, are you willing to agree that the Dr. was quoted by York accurately? If not, what source can you point to which refutes York's quotations of the Dr. as being false quotes?

And FYI: the edit of mine, which you reverted, did not call the wound minor. Rather what it did was use terminology such as "small" and "superficially" as presented in the Dr. Leston quote. Rex071404 08:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex,

1. Everything you post here, including what's in your edit space, is accessible to anyone reading Misplaced Pages and shows up in your edit history. In fact, I have a "private" page myself, at User:Szyslak/Sandbox. (Go ahead, read it. I'm serious.) If you don't want anyone to stumble on your "private" pages, perhaps you should write down your "private logs" in a text file on your computer.
2. I never called you a "phony". That would be a personal attack, which I strive to avoid. I called this issue phony. There's a huge difference.
3. The doctor is probably being quoted accurately. I never disputed that. But his testimony is far from conclusive proof that Kerry's wound was trivial, nor does it settle this disputed claim as absolute proof.
4. Please try to assume good faith, as I've been striving to do. I'm here to write an encyclopedia, not re-create the acrimonious debate surrounding trivial issues.

sɪzlæk 08:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

(P.S.: I just made an edit that addresses the "minor wound" claim, without declaring one way or another whether it was "serious" enough for the Purple Heart.) sɪzlæk 08:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Direct Quotation vs. "Opinion"

I recently made this edit which relied on this as my source. My source article is written by Byron York and directly quotes Dr. Louis Letson, the man who personally administered the medical treatment to Kerry's 1st injury. Mr. York, in the article, quotes the Dr. thusly;

"What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about 1 cm. in length and was about 2 or 3 mm in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle.

I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps. I doubt that it penetrated more than 3 or 4 mm. It did not require probing to find it, did not require any anesthesia to remove it, and did not require any sutures to close the wound"

As any plain reading of the York article makes clear, Mr. York, is directly quoting the Dr. and it is Dr. Letson himself who uses the words "small" and "superficially". Based on those direct quotes, I used the word "superficial" to describe the injury and "small" to describe the shrapnel. Frankly, I fail to se how anyone can claim that my version is POV or warrants the edit that Szyslak made here and which has in it this statement "which some of his conservative critics have called minor."

If you read above, you will see the enormous opposition that had gone against the use of the word "minor". So much so, that I took the time (as Kizzle wanted - see above) to get a direct source quotation. Yet, to top it off, Szyslak seems to be confusing York viewpoint with Leston's personal words. Arrgghhh.... I am going to sleep on this and let it sit for a few days. Perhaps by then Szyslak will see that my source is valid and he is confusing Letson (fact) for York (opinion).

Of course, there would still remain the point of whether or not Szyslak will subsequently accept the Letson facts as true facts. Because even if he does come to admit that Letson said those words (in writing, which York re-printed, verbatim), there will still be the issue of Szyslak (and others) perhaps faulting Letson's recollection or calling Letson a liar.

Even so, to my knowledge Letson is the only medical staffer who treated Kerry's 1st injury, so he is the only trained authority on what the treatment was and what size/type injury he saw. So then, I guess what I am saying is, why are we so quick to refuse the accept Letson's statement as valid? We have many other sources, in many articles who do not have a 35 year unblemished medical career vouching for them, as Letson does. Rex071404 08:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Page Size

This page is 80 KB long, and should be shortened or split as per Misplaced Pages:Article size. In a similar way as George W. Bush, this article, too, is extremely long, and could use much shortening, for a variety of reasons, such as fact checking and general ease of readability, making it viable for FA status. Thanks, ] _{02:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)}

I agree. Time to either delete some stuff or spin off subsidiary articles. I have long stated that there is too much minutiae in the John Kerry article. Perhaps we can begin by deleting details such as this "His favorite food is chocolate chip cookies." Rex071404 16:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree. Several daughter articles have already been split off. I'm skeptical about whether more such splitting is sensible. The few items of personal details, like the cookies, do not add appreciably to the article's length. JamesMLane 16:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The cookie tidbit is one of dozens of excess sentences in this article. Rex071404 18:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• So, basically, you want to improve the article by adding verbiage that pleases your POV (such as going into detail about the nature of his wounds, for the purpose of belittling the plain unadorned fact that he received multiple Purple Hearts) while removing verbiage that doesn't please your POV in the name of removing excess verbiage. You're pretty transparent, y'know. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Please don't start that kind of hostility. By aggregate word count, my edits here have tended towards less words, rather than more. Rex071404 04:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex's removal of minor info

If you have done about 5 seconds of work on google and found the sources yourself, you could have found several sites which would have corroborated John Kerry's favorite food and his pets, rather than removing them and making other people find sources (which is ridiculous in the first place, is this passage really that controversial?). Please don't remove any more info citing lack of source unless you spend at least 5 minutes on google trying to find one. --kizzle 18:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is Kizzle saying that it's my job to prove the veracity of another's edits? Also, how timely is the Googled info? Is he sure it's current? Also, the source link must be provided in the article. Rex071404 19:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Because you are a participant in the editing of this article and you should share in some of the responsibility of factchecking and researching the article instead of demanding others do it for you. Gamaliel 19:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll wait for Kizzle's answer on that, thank you. Rex071404 19:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

In case you didn't realize, this is a public forum. If you want a private conversation with kizzle, use email. Gamaliel 19:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, is your name Gamizzle or is it Gamaliel? Because unless it's Gamizzle, I don't see how you feel you ought to answer for Kizzle, do you? Rex071404 23:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Fo'shizzle gamizzle. Gamaliel 23:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Umm, because its common courtesy. If you are here truly to build a better encyclopedia, than if you're unsure about the veracity of a statement, just spend 5 minutes on google trying to see if you can corroborate it. If a superficial search turns up nothing, then feel free to delete the info, otherwise add the sources you find. It took me about 5 seconds on the first page to find a good source for your info. It's not your job to prove the veracity, but you're setting a bad example that anyone can come in and delete any info they feel suspect without actually investigating themselves whether or not it is truly suspect. As for the "timeliness" of the info, they're mainly written around the 2004 election, but I really don't think we need to say "At the time", just put his pets and his favorite food as mentioned, then if a news report comes out saying that he's changed his favorite food or one of his pets dies or he gets a new one, we'll use that. I still can't believe I'm having this argument. --kizzle 20:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL --Kmf164 22:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex, if you go over to the George W. Bush article, you'll find that no sources are cited for the assertions that he was born in 1946 or that he's married to a former librarian named Laura. He might actually be ten years younger than that and be married to a former stripper named Boom Boom. Perhaps you should remove the allegation about this supposed "Laura" person until it's properly documented. JamesMLane 23:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I hear the Onion reports that the White House denies the existance of anyone named Karl Rove. Also, I hear it was a blue Fitzmas this year - no Karl Rove's head under the Fitzmas tree. JML's dreaming of a Rove Fitzmas... Just like the ones he used to know... Rex071404 23:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Nah, I had a wonderful Fitzmas this year, watching Bush squirm, Libby resigning, exposing the Republican party for the corrupt bunch they are, ensuring the chances of a Democratic senate majority come midterms... actually it should be more like Fitzanukah, cause its going to last for a lot longer than a day. --kizzle 00:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry's injury

A direct quote by the Dr. who treated Kerry uses the same three words I use: "injury", "superficial" and "small". Rex071404 00:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for NPOV and didn't revert your other changes which are okay with me. I think your taking the term "superficial" out of context of the quote. The term "superficial" has various definitions , the top one being "1. Of, affecting, or being on or near the surface: a superficial wound." In other words, a "shallow wound". --Kmf164 00:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Read Letson's statement again:

"That seemed to fit the injury which I treated.

What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about 1 cm. in length and was about 2 or 3 mm in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle.

I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps. I doubt that it penetrated more than 3 or 4 mm. It did not require probing to find it, did not require any anesthesia to remove it, and did not require any sutures to close the wound.

The wound was covered with a bandaid."

He uses the word "injury" 1st and "wound" last - so do I.

Now, as to the use of "superficial", I use that as I did because Letson said:

"a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin".

He is clealry stating that the injury was superficial.

Using the FACTS providd by Letson, I have assembled a non-POV sentence which uses all four key words and does not distort their meaning:

"Kerry suffered a superficial injury from a small piece of shrapnel in the left arm above the elbow . The shrapnel was removed and the wounded area was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged."

Other than to re-tweak it as:

"Kerry suffered a superficial injury from a small piece of shrapnel in the left arm above the elbow . The shrapnel was removed and the wound was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged."

I see no justifications for changing these two sentences. Rex071404 00:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

uhh

do photos count as original research? I think as long as there isn't a copyvio problem, you can use original photos. --kizzle 01:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Photos by Misplaced Pages editors are exempt from NOR. See Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#NOR vs. photos made by Wikipedians --Kmf164 01:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Original Research

All quotes below are verbatim from: Misplaced Pages:No original research

1. "Original research refers to original research by editors of Misplaced Pages."
2. "Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations". (my emphasis)
3. "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed."

Kizzle, please don't fight the obvious here, the image in question is indisputably original research - read the Summary for it:

Object: Support for election campaign of John Kerry, here at a residence in Arizona

Source: self

Photographer: Nils Fretwurst

Date: 2004

File:Private support for JK election.jpg

That image is an NOR violation and must be deleted.

Rex071404 01:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)