Misplaced Pages

To get to "bandage", we must make an inference, there is no verbatim proof

Jtdirl, again, I will remind you that "wound" does not appear anywhere and that we are inferring that we can use that word based on (albeit, reasonably good) evidence. Likewise, the reasonably good and official wording of "Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl (sic) bacitracin dressing. Ret to Duty." supports the usage of "minor". Now Jtdirl, think about what you are suggesting. You are suggesting that "wound" can be used because Kerry got medical treatment. And you are also suggesting that "minor" can not be used, because it's not literally in the Sick Call Treatment Record. Well you do know that all along Gamaliel, yourself and JamesMLane have been insisting we use a sentence which says: "The shrapnel was removed and the injury was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged.", but the word "bandage" does not appear anywhere in the official record. You guys keep saying Rex is "POV", but I have been giving you way more than the official record even states. There is nothing in the official record which states that Kerry got a "bandage", bandaging" or even a "band-aid". The official record regarding treatment, says only "Shrapnel removed and appl (sic) bacitracin dressing". There is no proof whatsoever beyond the term "bacitracin dressing" which indicates anything was applied. Bacitracin is referred to in medical vernacular as a "dressing". And for those of us who were scouts, we will remember our wound/injury dressing training. "Dressing" and "Bandaging" are not the same thing! Kerry's "wound" was not even bandaged yet you guys call me POV, when your side has been flat out (lying?) making things up about bandaging all along. That record does not say "bacitracin and a dressing", which might imply a bandaging. No, what is says is "appl (sic) bacitracin dressing". >>> Note the absence of any statement such as "wrap arm with bandage" <<< Bacitracin. Only. In other words "boo boo creme". Only. That's it. No bandage. No bandaging. Nothing more than a topical ointment dressing of bacitracin. So please, Jtdirl, get off your high horse about being such a good researcher and learn how to read plain English (/snide reference to Jtdirl's previous insults to me about "research"). And, according ot the BBC's "Learn English" guide " dress a wound by cleaning it and covering it". . It certainly is true that any covering which attends to a wound or injury, including Bacitracin alone (as long as it covers) is a "dressing". A bandage is a type of dressing, but so is Bacitracin by itself. All elephants are mammals, but not all mammals are elephants.

Rex071404 01:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex, I am going to politely ask that you drop your crusade about "wound." Something that wasn't a wound doesn't need a dressing. Any other discussion is hopeless POV rhetoric. Beyond which, consensus is not with you on this point and there is therefore nothing more to argue. However, your stubborn insistence on pushing this point -- even in the face of a dissenting consensus of several editors -- makes you appear frustratingly obstreperous and I fear that it is making it difficult for other editors to work with you on other points of disagreement that you might find more success with. Please consider respecting consensus and dropping this pointless harangue about the word wound. I say this with the utmost respect. · Katefan0 03:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Kate, see my reply, below. Rex071404 15:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment?

I'm sure this has been done before on the Purple Heart issue, but while the page is protected I think we should give the RFC process another try. To get the ball rolling, I suggest something like this, to be posted on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Politics:

• Talk:John Kerry How serious was the wound that led to John Kerry's first Purple Heart, and how should the article address this issue? Some editors consider the injury "minor" and want the article to assert this claim as truth. Others say such a statement would be non-NPOV editorializing. Also, are there too many biographical details? If so, does this constitute an NPOV problem? One more issue: What should the article say, if anything, about claims that Kerry has misrepresented himself as Irish American?

I'm not commmitted to this wording, so feel free to suggest changes. I'd like the RFC to go up as soon as possible, though, so we can come to a satisfactory resolution and get the page unprotected soon. We don't need to continue these long, pointless debates at the expense of Wikipedians who are denied the privilege of editing this article. sɪzlæk 02:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

They are only "pointless debates" to those who think they are. Rex071404 02:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Which is why I wouldn't suggest putting that in the RFC. sɪzlæk 02:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and listed this article on RFC, noting that the article's currently protected. sɪzlæk 05:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that we wait until we can reach an agreed-upon framework for the questions to be answered. Ah, well, it doesn't matter. Regardless of what the questions are, and regardless of what the answers are, Rex will go on edit warring as soon as the page is unprotected. The only times he hasn't been doing so since his arrival at Misplaced Pages have been the periods when he was restricted from doing so. (In fact, he made at least one anti-Kerry POV edit to this article in violation of an ArbCom restriction. ()) Nevertheless, I don't see how we can expect anyone who hasn't edited the article before to give a useful response unless we do some structuring. As an example of what I have in mind, see this RfC. In that instance, we didn't post the RfC until all editors were happy with the way the issues were presented. That's the ideal way to proceed, as long as no one raises absurd objections to the wording. JamesMLane 06:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that's the ideal way to proceed with an RFC. However, the page's current protected status made it seem urgent to me that we get some outside input as soon as possible. Who knows, maybe someone who hasn't even been participating in this debate will come up with a solution none of us have even thought of. We'll see how it works out. sɪzlæk 22:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

James are you saying that Kerry was not "soundly" defeated? Rex071404 16:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex proposes a solution

(in answer to Kate, above)

Katefan0, I am amazed that you do not understand my view here. The issue about wound is raised only as it relates to how it was arrived at, which was inference. Personally, I feel that any word which should be reasonably inferred, should be reasonably inferred. And certainly, without resorting to making an over-stretched inference, the use of wound can be considered reasonable and hence, acceptable. However, that is not the point. The point is that "minor" goes to the crux of the debate, which is: "are Kerry's critics about this wound completely full of crap or is there a rational basis on which they build their complaints?".

The critics contend that Kerry's 1st wound was either:

• a) accidentally self-inflicted or
• b) so small that no sailor with any backbone would seek a PH for it and
• c) Kerry was so bent on getting it that he went around Hibbard for a 2nd bite at the apple.

The defenders say:

• a) so what, he did get the PH and therefore
• b) that proves he was wounded and
• c) too bad if it was insignificant, the critics just want to make Kerry look bad.

Suffice it to say, both sides could be telling the truth and it would still be possible to frame the sentences which refer to these parallel (but distinct) views in a NPOV way.

Let's see what reasonable people might accept:

a) Kerry was wounded , b) The wound was not severe, c) Kerry was alert enough to recognize that (minor or not) he might want to seek a medal, d) Kerry was persistent enough to go get the medal on 2nd try, even after being turned down, e) Like Kerry or dislike him, Hibbard did indeed say it was "scratch", f) If we allow for Kerry (a respected Senator) being biased in favor of himself, it's basically not going to be any more or less than Hibbard (a respected General) being biased against him. We therefore give them both equal weight, g) The Sick Call Treatment Report does not say "wound" but we accept wound at face value., h) However, unless we are trying to suggest that the wound was more than "minor", then we cannot interpret the plain language of "appl (sic) Bacitracin dressing" to mean anything other than putting smear of Bacitracin on the wound., i) Even if you stretch that to include some gauze (not mentioned, but arguably, perhaps weakly inferred), trying to get "bandaging" from that is simply too much of a stretch., j) This is why, if we go with the JML desired text, we have to go with "minor". All the inferences and evidence point to minor. And, to leave minor out is to imply that the critics are basically imagining the start point for their criticisms.

If you'd let me, I'd write this:

On this patrol, Kerry received a minor shrapnel wound in the arm for which he later received medical attention and for which, he subsequently received a Purple Heart. During the 2004 election, there was considerable controversy regarding Kerry's medals, this one in particular. Nonetheless, a 2004 Navy review of the available supporting documentation determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved. For more information and details see John Kerry military service controversy

This type of framing establishes that there was controversy, but does not take sides. It think the editorial concessions I am making do not break fidelity the truth. Likewise, the editorial concession of allowing "minor" in does not break fidelity to the truth either. Ultimately, we either print truth, lies or confusion. Omitting "minor" is confusion. Calling it severe is a lie. Calling it minor is the most, reasonable, sound and accurate conveyance of the truth. Either we assemble the facts into a logical read or we leave the facts scattered willy-nilly. I choose assemble. Minor is the most reasonably inferred fact (after wound) and is sufficiently valid that certainly it ought to be used. And it certainly ought to be used before "Bandaged". Rex071404 04:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This is just as pointless as the comments above, and I can see you've either not read or ignored my plea. Your arguments are useless. Consensus has already been achieved for a position that does not agree with yours. Your choices now are either to respect consensus, or not. · Katefan0 04:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

So you are going to put in the inference that there was a "bandage" as a fact and say "bandaged"? On what basis? Also then, please quote verbatim below, the version of the 1st PH section which you contend has consensus. Also Kate, your "plea" said: "Rex, I am going to politely ask that you drop your crusade about "wound.". I am not opposing that word here, so your "useless" jibe makes no sense. Rex071404 04:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not inferring anything, and I'm not going to argue with you. There are no versions of anything. The argument here is simply over whether to call Kerry's wound a wound. Either you respect the consensus over calling the wound a wound, or you don't and your changes will continue to be reverted. What'll it be? · Katefan0 04:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Kate, are you even listening? I just spent an hour writing about "minor" and "bandaging", not "wound". Your question is moot because wound is not under discussion. Now I will ask you a question, yes or no, will you support this:

On this patrol, Kerry received a minor shrapnel wound in the arm for which he later received medical attention and for which, he subsequently received a Purple Heart. During the 2004 election, there was considerable controversy regarding Kerry's medals, this one in particular. Nonetheless, a 2004 Navy review of the available supporting documentation determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved. For more information and details see John Kerry military service controversy

Rex071404 04:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The word "wound" is under discussion because you removed it and/or used language designed to water down or obfuscate its meaning several times. I assume that your response means you won't respect consensus on this point, though I'm willing to be proven wrong if you choose to give me a direct answer. Thanks. · Katefan0 04:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm just getting involved in this. I don't understand this long, drawn out discussion over basically one word. Rex, accept the consensus and move on. All you are doing is hurting your credibility on other issues. I wouldn't recommending spending all of your "capital" on one issue. --Woohookitty 15:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

If you agree to accept my offering, we have a two way consensus which includes the word "wound". Yes or no, will you accept (and support) this:

On this patrol, Kerry received a minor shrapnel wound in the arm for which he later received medical attention and for which, he subsequently received a Purple Heart. During the 2004 election, there was considerable controversy regarding Kerry's medals, this one in particular. Nonetheless, a 2004 Navy review of the available supporting documentation determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved. For more information and details see John Kerry military service controversy

Rex071404 04:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex, a week ago you raised the preposterous charge that there was no support for the statement that Kerry went on a Swift boat patrol the next day. I pointed out that the support was in the Snopes piece, linked to in the article. You must have read the Snopes piece because you quoted some non-encyclopedic material from it, which we'll have to remove. Now you raise the preposterous charge that there's no support for the statement that the wound was bandaged. Guess what? It's in the same Snopes piece. AFAIK no source, not even the Smear Boat Veterans, has claimed otherwise. JamesMLane 07:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

A concensus has been reached, Rex, that "minor" is not going in and "wound" is staying. Please respect concensus. --kizzle 07:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Am I reading you wrong James, or did you just say "which we'll have to remove" in regards to material in the "Snopes" article? James, if you have just admitted to being an editor at Snopes, then that is your original work and you must recuse yourself from this dialog and from editing any related pages, because you are not an expert in the field and your ongoing edits there are proof that you are self-publishing. Please state for the recorrd, yes or no have you edited that Snopes article at any time? Is any of the material there as a result of you submitting it or anyone else submitting it on your behalf?

Also, the authoritative source for "bandage" if any (in fact, the only source) is Kerry's Sick Call Treatment Record. You want to cite that for what you say it shows shrapnel treatment = proof of wound, but the same exact document which specifically states bacitracin dressing as the entirity of the treatment (no "bandages" involved), you want to disregard it.

And I noticed that James still won't answer my question regarding his intentions with the 1st PH section. In any case, you've only cleared up your views on "wound" and "minor", now please answer yes or no, excepting the word "minor", will you JamesMLane and will you Kizzle, agree to and support this?:

On this patrol, Kerry received a minor shrapnel wound in the arm for which he later received medical attention and for which, he subsequently received a Purple Heart. During the 2004 election, there was considerable controversy regarding Kerry's medals, this one in particular. Nonetheless, a 2004 Navy review of the available supporting documentation determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved. For more information and details see John Kerry military service controversy

Rex071404 07:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

First paragraph: even if James writes for snopes (which I doubt), it doesn't matter, he still can contribute as long as he refers to his info in the third person (read WP:NOR). Your suggestion would require no experts in any field to contribute to Misplaced Pages, which is ludicrous.

Second papragraph: umm, the treatment is not disregarded, it's included in the description of the wound. What I disregard is your subjective uncitable characterization of "minor". As for your proposed paragraph, I'm not sure I like removing info when possible, jury's still out though. --kizzle 07:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Not, so - he's not allowed to self-publish there to create primary sources for here. Also it's the treatment record which you disrregard if you use the word "bandage" as it does not appear there. Rex071404 08:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, you did not answer; I am asking you a simple yes or no question, please answer yes or no, excepting the word "minor", will you Kizzle, agree to and support this?:

On this patrol, Kerry received a minor shrapnel wound in the arm for which he later received medical attention and for which, he subsequently received a Purple Heart. During the 2004 election, there was considerable controversy regarding Kerry's medals, this one in particular. Nonetheless, a 2004 Navy review of the available supporting documentation determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved. For more information and details see John Kerry military service controversy

Rex071404 08:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Responses to Rex:

1. I said we'd have to remove the material because it's unencyclopedic. Does that mean "we" Snopes editors or "we" Misplaced Pages editors? Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and Snopes isn't, so it means the latter.
2. Just in case it comes up in another context, though, I agree with kizzle about any Snopes editors who also contribute here. I'd be interested in seeing a citation to a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline to the contrary.
3. The source for "bandage", as given by my link, is Snopes. Reading the Snopes piece leads me to believe that Snopes's source is Brinkley, although I think that Letson has said the same thing. (If Brinkley and someone working with SBVT agree on a point, it seems fairly reliable.) Someone who has access to Brinkley's work could add in a specific citation, but I'd still want to keep the Snopes link, because it's a supporting source that's available online for free.
4. I don't agree with the proposed text above, with or without "minor". JamesMLane 09:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• 1) James, just state yes or no: Have you edited that Snopes article, or has anyone uploaded edits for you?
• 2) It's axiomatic that one cannot create and/or tailor sources for themselves at Snopes to support their positions here. If you can't understand that, oh well.
• 3) Your speculative intereptation fails to suffice. If you go with that, you are waiving objection to "not serious" which is directly from the same Snopes page and directly refers to the 1st injury.
• 4) Please state specific reasons why you don't agree with my immediately above suggested text.
• 5) Again I ask, do you intend to try to return 1st 1 PH section to prior version as asked above, yes or no?

Rex071404 13:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, Rex, read WP:NOR again. You're flat out wrong. --kizzle 09:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex, I've learned from experience that you can supply a never-ending stream of inane questions. My personal favorite is this one, from Talk:Stolen Honor: "JML; are you contending that the end result (if you get your way here) is that the article will then be at the apogee of perfection, never being able to get any better than it is?" So, Rex, I choose to focus on editing, and discussing the article, and answering reasonable questions about article content. I'm not going to waste my time following your every flight of fancy. If you want to cite that to the ArbCom for some purpose or other, that is of course your privilege. JamesMLane 15:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, according to NOR "he only way to verify that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article, and to stick closely to what the sources say" and "In most cases, Misplaced Pages articles include material on the basis of verifiability...". If someone is writing material at Snopes and then using that material to verify the points they are writing here, it's not an actual verification. An outside source is needed for bona fide verfication. You can't "self-verify". If it turns out James is doing that (self-publish primary sources via Snopes), I will seek ArbComm guidance and/or sanctions. Also Kizzle, you did not answer; So I will ask you again: Yes or no, excepting the word "minor", will you Kizzle, agree to and support this?:

On this patrol, Kerry received a minor shrapnel wound in the arm for which he later received medical attention and for which, he subsequently received a Purple Heart. During the 2004 election, there was considerable controversy regarding Kerry's medals, this one in particular. Nonetheless, a 2004 Navy review of the available supporting documentation determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved. For more information and details see John Kerry military service controversy

Rex071404 13:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I just don't understand the constant haggling over something that was already agreed to by consensus. Do you know what consensus means, Rex? It means that your opinion was taken into consideration by everyone, but not accepted. Consensus is NOT 100% support. So please, MOVE ON. You aren't helping anyone here, especially yourself. --Woohookitty 15:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Woohoo, show me what you think is the "consensus" version of that section, when that consensus was decided and by whom and how long that consensus is mandated by wiki rules that is shoul dfreeze that section from futher changes. When you do that, you'll have a point to make, not until Rex071404 16:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "two-way consensus." I am also not talking now about how the entire paragraph should be structured. I am talking only about the use of the word wound. Consensus is that it shall be used; period; the end. The only remaining issue is whether you will respect the consensus to describe Kerry's wound as a wound or not. That's it. If you will respect consensus, then we can mark this one closed. If you won't, then just know that changing "was wounded by shrapnel" to "received shrapnel" or "Kerry had shrapnel in his arm" or any other such thing will be reverted. That's it. I'm glad to talk about the paragraph in a holistic fashion in another discussion thread. Thanks Rex. · Katefan0 16:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The word "wound" is clearly included in the offering I presented to you. Words exist in context, not in a vacuum. My edit provides proper context for "wound" in a fair NPOV manner. Either you accept my suggested edit or you don't. Yes or no, do you accept it? Rex071404 16:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of what comprises the paragraph as a whole, the final version must include the word wound to describe his wound. · Katefan0 16:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

See . As of today, accord to that, "injury" seems to be an interchangebale word - which has been a contention of mine all along. Even so, the fighting agaisnt minor is the problme right now. Rex071404 16:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem here is that the consensus is for one thing and you are trying to unsurp consensus by getting one editor out of many to agree to your change. It's a waste of time. You lost on this one. MOVE ON. I agree with Kate. I just don't see a way around "wound" and I don't see what the big deal is, even after reading the arguments. Does the NPOV-ness on this article hinge on one word? I just don't see that. --Woohookitty 16:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No, not "move on". James and others are trying to block any changes here and that's not ok with me, so I will not "move on". This entire dialog started because I inserted the word "minor" which is supported by inferenece from Kerry's Sick Call Treatment Record. And, as I pointed out, "wound" appears nowhere verbatim either, but is also arrived at by inference. James, et al want license to block my edits based on inference, but include their own that are baseed on inference. That, in a ntushell is the problem here. Rex071404 16:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter. Your arguments have been submitted and heard, and a consensus of editors have disagreed with them. You must now accept the fact that your side has not prevailed, and then move on to something else. · Katefan0 16:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes Rex, but the consensus is that word minor should not be used. All you are doing is hurting your credibility. At some point, people will tune out on you. And then you'll have no influence on things at all here. --Woohookitty 16:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

2004 Navy does not rebut SBVT

" half-assed action that hardly qualfied as combat" - John Kerry (Snopes), describes his so-called combat, from the night of his 1st PH. Of course, if it doesn't qualify as combat as per various critics, the then again, as per critics there was no sound basis for the 1st PH. So again, our narrative presumes Kerry's version of events to be correct.

Remember, the 2004 Navy did not take a de novo look at the facts underlying the award. The Navy has stated only that the "awards approval process was properly followed", they did not make any determination as to whether or not the information fed into the awards approval process when Kerry went around Hibbard for his 2nd bite at the apple was accurate or true. In fact the Navy said "Conducting any additional review regarding events that took place over 30 years ago would not be productive," he wrote. "The passage of time would make reconstruction of the facts and circumstances unreliable, and would not allow the information gathered to be considered in the context of the time in which the events took place.". And yet, while there are editors here who want to give high credence Kerry's recently recited accounts (to Brinkley), these same editors want to discount Hibbard's recently recited accounts.

Here is the full Kerry version of that night, as recently told to Brinkley, via Snopes:

"It was a half-assed action that hardly qualfied as combat, but it was my first, and that made it very exciting," . "Three of us, two enlisted men and myself, had stayed up all night in a Boston Whaler patrolling the shore off a Viet Cong-infested peninsula north of Cam Ranh . . . Most of the night had been spent being scared shitless by fisherman whom we would suddenly creep up on in the darkness. Once, one of the sailors was so startled by two men who surprised us as we came around a corner ten yards from the shore that he actually pulled the trigger on his machine gun. Fortunately for the two men, he had forgotten to switch off the safety . . ."

As it turned out, the two men really were just a pair of innocent fisherman who didn't know where one zone began and the other ended. Their papers were perfectly in order, if their night's fishing over. The fear was that they were VC. Allowing them to continue might have compromised the mission. For the next four hours Kerry's Boston Whaler, using paddles, brought boatloads of fisherman they found in sampans, all operating in a curfew zone, back to the Swift. It was tiring work. "We deposited them with the Swift boat that remained out in the deep water to give us cover," Kerry continued. "Then, very early in the morning, around 2:00 or 3:00, while it was still dark, we proceeded up the tiny inlet between the island and the peninsula to the point designated as our objective. The jungle closed in on us on both sides. It was scary as hell. You could hear yourself breathing. We were almost touching the shore. Suddenly, through the magnified moonlight of the infrared 'starlight scope,' I watched, mesmerized, as a group of sampans glided in toward the shore. We had been briefed that this was a favorite crossing area for VC trafficking contraband."

With its motor turned off, Kerry paddled the Boston Whaler out of the inlet into the beginning of the bay. Simultaneously the Vietnamese pulled their sampans up onto the beach and began to unload something; he couldn't tell what, so he decided to illuminate the proceedings with a flare. The entire sky seemed to explode into daylight. The men from the sampans bolted erect, stiff with shock for only an instant before they sprang for cover like a herd of panicked gazelles Kerry had once seen on TV's Wild Kingdom. "We opened fire," he went on. "The light from the flares started to fade, the air was full of explosions. My M-16 jammed, and as I bent down in the boat to grab another gun, a stinging piece of heat socked into my arm and just seemed to burn like hell. By this time one of the sailors had started the engine and we ran by the beach, strafing it. Then it was quiet.

"We stayed quiet and low because we did not want to illuminate ourselves at that point," Kerry explained. "In the dead of night, without any knowledge of what kind of force was there, we were not all about to go crawling on the beach to get our asses shot off. We were unprotected; we didn't have ammunition, we didn't have cover, we just weren't prepared for that . . . So we first shot the sampans so that they were destroyed and whatever was in them was destroyed." Then their cover boat warned of a possible VC ambush in the small channel they had to exit through, and Kerry and company departed the area.

Please note: Kerry spent that evening dealing with men who were "innocent fisherman". At no point does Kerry himself even allege he was fired on that night or that the men who ran from the sampans were anything other than more "innocent fishermen". Kerry does not say "the air was full of explosions from enemey fire" rather he says "the air was full of explosions" (which the firing of weapons from Kerry's Boston Whaler boat, would certainly cause). . Kerry himself does not even make the case that the 1st PH was earned. And in case you don't get it yet, the SBVT allegations and statements are de novo allegations. But the Navy did not take a de novo look at the facts. For that reason, the Navy's report cannot be held to rebut SBVT, for it simply does not. Again and again, various editors here put their thumbs on the scale in favor of Kerry and against those public sources which criticize him, such as SBVT and Hibbard.

Kerry himself admits to Brinkley that his insinuations he was in enemy contact that night are just that, insinuations "without any knowledge of what kind of force was there". Even by Kerry's most favorable account, to his personal biographer, while trying to put his best spin on it for his 2004 campaign, Kerry admits he had no knowledge as to what the status of those men who ran was. What we have here is totem pole presumption. Kerry insinuates it (with no proof) others draw inferences from Kerry's non-proved, admittedly deficient insinuation and we defend those inferences from all counter allegations, because as I have said all along, we are biasing the narrative of what we write in favor of Kerry. There is no proof of combat that night. Kerry has never said he thought he was in combat that night. And yet, the SBVT allegations have been consistently underweighed and dismissed as "partisan" on the erroneous assertion that 2004 Navy verifies Kerry's account. But clearly, the Navy has taken the position that there was no verification of the underlying facts by them as part of their review. This was is and remains a "he said/she said" between Kerry and SBVT. We have wrongly overwieghted in favor of Kerry on 1st PH and we continue to do so.

Rex071404 14:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex has now thoroughly rebutted the view that our article would be balanced with the wording I objected to.

I thought that, if we were going into detail about the severity of the wound, the presentation should be, roughly, here's what Hibbard says, here's the evidence from the opposing POV from Elliott, and here's the Navy's conclusion. As I edited the passage, it read:

Kerry returned to duty the next day on a regular Swift boat patrol. Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this incident. Some have suggested that Kerry's wound was too small to be deserving of the award, including one of his former commanding officers, retired Lt. Gen. Grant Hibbard. Another of his former commanders, George Elliott, has said that the award to Kerry was in keeping with the Navy's practice at the time. , In 2004, a Navy review found Kerry's award to have been correctly given under Naval regulations.

Katefan0 and others thought that the Elliott comment and the Navy's 2004 conclusion were redundant, in that both rebutted Hibbard in the same way. Rex's comment above makes clear his argument that the Navy didn't review the facts. If our article includes the anti-Kerry comment by one of his commanders but not the supporting comment by another, then many readers will conclude that there is no evidence in support of the validity of the medal, and the Navy was just trying to cover up a mistake. The version with only Hibbard plus the Navy 2004 information is inadequate. We need all of it -- Hibbard plus Elliott plus the 2004 review -- or none of it. I still prefer the latter.

Incidentally, Rex, your lengthy quotation is probably a copyright violation. In strictest adherence to Misplaced Pages policy, we should consider posting it on Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems for consideration, so that if it exceeds fair use an uninvolved admin can remove it from the page history. Perhaps someone with more energy than I will pursue that course. JamesMLane 15:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

After reading this diatribe, I can more clearly see James' point. I'm afraid, Rex, that you've argued away someone (read: me) who might otherwise have supported a change you sought. But I can see now that you had no plans to stop there. Given that, I have to support the rebutting information from Kerry's other commander that James had sought to insert. · Katefan0 15:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Kate, don't blame me for your lack of stamina here. If you go wobbly, it's not my fault. Also, your logic that my information above compels you to accept a James version is flat out silly. And your "had no plans to stop there" is a rude and offensive inference, which I resent. I have already offered several versions which I have pledged to stand by. My additional details posted above are prophylactic preparations for my expectations that James will never agree to any of my suggestions, one of which, he has already just turned down. This same one being one which you have not answered me on. So therefore, I will ask you again, yes or no, will you accept and support this version:

On this patrol, Kerry received a minor shrapnel wound in the arm for which he later received medical attention and for which, he subsequently received a Purple Heart. During the 2004 election, there was considerable controversy regarding Kerry's medals, this one in particular. Nonetheless, a 2004 Navy review of the available supporting documentation determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved. For more information and details see John Kerry military service controversy

Rex071404 16:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It's neither rude nor an inference; you clearly had no plans to leave the information be, else why would you be posting voluminous information suggesting that the Navy review was incorrect? Do you mean to suggest that you simply threw that out there to inform the unwashed masses, without actually seeking corresponding changes to the article text? I'm sorry if you took offense as none was meant, genuinely, but I find that hard to believe. And no, I will not support that text. Why would you think I would? I've never accepted using minor as a definitive descriptor for his wound. Your text above is a step backwards. · Katefan0 16:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Kate, you have to stop overlooking the obvious answers I have already given you. You said: "you clearly had no plans to leave the information be, else why would you be posting voluminous information...", but I have already answered that with: "My additional details posted above are prophylactic preparations for my expectations that James will never agree to any of my suggestions... (see above). Rex071404 16:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Assume good faith. · Katefan0 16:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you inferring that I do not? Rex071404 16:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You said My additional details posted above are prophylactic preparations for my expectations that James will never agree to any of my suggestions... -- what else am I to take from that? I'm more than willing to be proven wrong. · Katefan0 16:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, it's good to see that you finally admit that "wound" is not the bone of contention, but "minor" is. Kate, if those editors will not accept the valid inference of minor and will also not accept either of the versions you and I agreed on that other day that do not include minor, then in my view, there is no satisfying thm and I withdraw my support for any words not explicitly found in Kerry's Sick Call Treatment Record. If they want to quote that verbatim, fine. Anything else will have to be from an uncontested source. So far, I have validly contested every source they tried to sneak in. I simply will not stand by if one-sided, biased or unsupported inferences are put in this article. James and his cohorts must hold themselves to the same standards they hold me to. So then, why are you not pressing James to go accept the no "minor" version me you and Johntex arrived at a few days ago? Rex071404 16:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"Wound" is no longer a bone of contention because a consensus has been reached that it should be used. · Katefan0 16:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Not so; it is still under discussion as in regards to what standard of editing allows us to rationally choose "wound" for consensus. Our consensus must be rational, or it is not valid. Our consensus is not rational if we inconsistantly apply an editorial standard of inferences. We are applying a standard of inferences to arrive at "wound". If we do not extend that standard to arrive at "minor" which is an equally supportable inference, then there is no underlying predicate to support the contention that "wound" was arrrived at logically. Without the predicate condition of a logical foundation, the choice of the word "wound" is pure editors' opinion and as such is POV. Rex071404 17:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Enemy action in the first Purple Heart incident

Rex's long comment above has gone beyond the "issue" of the severity of the wound, and picked up another SBVT talking point: the charge that Kerry's wound resulted from a round that he himself had fired. (The SBVT was partial to calling the wound "self-inflicted", probably hoping to insinuate that Kerry had deliberately injured himself.)

The daughter article, John Kerry military service controversy, addresses this aspect of the Purple Heart. The facts make clear that SBVT's position is meritless. (The daughter article doesn't say that; it's my inference from the facts.) Under military regulations, the Purple Heart is awarded for "friendly fire" wounds in the "heat of battle", so long as the fire is targeted "under full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment." The Americans on that boat thought there were enemies present. The SBVT witness on this point is Schachte, and in his version, he was the one who made the initial decision to fire, because he thought there were Viet Cong on the shore. Thus, even if there actually were no Viet Cong, the fire was targeted with the full (albeit mistaken) intent of attacking enemy soldiers.

Any edit that got into this aspect of the Purple Heart would have to note what Schachte says, and would have to include the two other witnesses who disagree with Schachte, and would have to refer to the regulations to make it clear that a "self-inflicted" wound could still quite properly qualify for a Purple Heart. This would be in addition to the presentation of evidence about the severity of the wound.

That level of detail belongs in the daughter article, not here. JamesMLane 17:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

If the fork already addresses it, I don't see any reason to re-invent the wheel in this article, particularly in that much detail. · Katefan0 17:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The predicate condition of "heat of battle" is not met by the unilateral firing of machine guns into unarmed civilian sampans and there is no information that anything other than that occured. Whether or not Schacht "thought" there was Viet Cong present prior to firing, is irrelevant. The standard of "heat of battle" must include an actual battle. There was not any actual battle. There was only -as admitted by Kerry himself- the unilateral firing of machine guns/m16's at unoccupied sampans after the fishermen had fled. Kerry's statement that he was "without any knowledge of what kind of force was there" (if any) likewise does not establish the predicate condition that a "battle" occcured, but in fact actually re-inforces that none did. And indeed, this is quite germane because James has been arguing all along that the 1st PH section must include the suggestion that facts of the injury occurance underlying Kerry's medal were ratified by Navy 2004, when in fact they are not. This point must be cleared up here, so as to be certain we do not misframe the 1st PH section as I contend we have been doing. The concomitant details of the disputes between Kerry and SBVT, et al, will of course themselves go in to John Kerry military service controversy, but the several sentences which comprise 1st PH section must not be aligned with erroneous or biased presumptions which takes sides. Inferences or contentions that Navy 2004 ratifies Kerry's account of the underlying 1st injury facts or that Kerry's account supports what we have previously been writing are not valid and must be eliminated. Rex071404 17:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

JML's proposal for the paragraph about the first Purple Heart

This version is based on what was in place in mid-October (October 17 version). The changes I've made from that version are: (1) change "in and around a peninsula" to "near a peninsula"; and (2) insert citation to Snopes for the statement Rex earlier deleted as unsupported, namely that Kerry went out on patrol again the next day.

Below, I give the paragraph about the first Purple Heart. The daughter article covers several medals, so the link to it is given in the section headed "Criticism of military service and awards".

Proposed text:

During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating near a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began to run. When the men refused to obey an order to stop running, Kerry and his crew of two enlisted men opened fire, destroyed the sampans, and took off. During this encounter, Kerry suffered a shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow. The shrapnel was removed and the wound was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged. Kerry returned to duty the next day on a regular Swift boat patrol. Kerry was awarded his first Purple Heart for this injury.

The point is to confine all this back-and-forth about disputed points to the daughter article. JamesMLane 17:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• It's possible I missed the answer -- where's the "bandage" come from? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

That's also in the Snopes piece. I figured that one citation at the end of the factual account would suffice, instead of peppering the paragraph with repeated references. JamesMLane 18:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah. I'd consider removing the "bandage" completely, or at least rephrasing. There's no indication that he was "bandaged" as part of his treatment -- just that he was wearing a bandage the next day. He might have been bandaged; he might have bandaged himself; why bother including anything we're not certain about one way or the other, that makes no difference one way or another? This whole thing should be kept to the minimum; the medical record shows he was wounded, treated with bacitricin, and released; nothing else is really needed. The whole damn thing isn't really needed, other than "he was wounded and received a Purple Heart; see John Kerry's military career for details." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The Sick Call Treatment Record does not "show" that Kerry was "wounded". It shows that he was treated for shrapnel with bacitracin dressing. Whether we choose to describe the underlying status of Kerry's arm as "wounded" or "injured" is an editorial choice, but there is no showing by any record, medical or otherwise that a "wound" rather than an "injury" is what was treated. There are no offcial records anywhere which show "wounded" in regards to Kerry's 1st injury. Rex071404 21:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I can see now the wisdom of this position. · Katefan0 19:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Which position? That there is no more proof of "bandage" than there is of "minor" and that James has been trying to have it both ways - exclude my inferences, but include his? Is that what you now see? Rex071404 20:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex counter-offers with a modified version of James's suggested text

In regards to James now inserting what is basically the 1 month ago version, I contend that this act of his vindicates my prior assertion that he did intend to go with that. I think he owes me an apology for calling me a liar. That said, if the group will agree to my modifications to James's posting, then we can reach consensus now. I would be willing to accept this version which I am posting here:

During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating near a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began running and failed to obey an order to stop. As the men fled, Kerry and his crew of two sailors opened fire on the sampans destroying them, then rapidly left. During this encounter, Kerry suffered a shrapnel injury in the left arm above the elbow. The shrapnel was later removed and the wound was treated with bacitracin dressing. The next day, Kerry returned to Swift boat patrol duty. Kerry was subsequently awarded his first Purple Heart for this injury. During the 2004 election, this incident was the focus of considerable contention. For more detail John Kerry military service controversy

And please note: I am not just being a pecker about the usage of "injury" along with "wound" here. As of today, even our Purple Heart article uses them interchangably: A "wound" is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent. A physical lesion is not required; however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record.

Rex071404 18:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

If they're fully interchangeable, then you should have no problem going along with the consensus and using the word wound. · Katefan0 18:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Unless of course, by omitting the other variant altogether, we make an invalid implication towards the PH being valid, not just having been awarded, which is what this is all about. One instance of each word will suffice (see beelow). Unless of course you are claiming that the words are not interchangeable and are thereby arguing for POV. Rex071404 19:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The only thing I'm arguing for is consensus. · Katefan0 19:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

So if the consensus were that Kerry is Thor, you'd argue for that too? Rex071404 20:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• What's your point? A wound is defined as an injury. So the term wound is absolutely correct, unambiguous (in reference to the award of a Purple Heart), and NPOV. Any further elaboration is interpretation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I like James' version better. Yours ends by implying significant doubt without any rebuttal and uses "injury" instead of the concensus-approved "wound". By the way, I thought according to you, "'wound' is not the bone of contention." --kizzle 18:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, do you deny that there was "considerable contention" about this? The actual state of facts regarding the extantcy of a controvery is not prone to rebuttal, only the two sides are. My edit does not take sides or mention any sides or their views. Rex071404 18:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You've both just adopted the view that the PH award ratifies the underlying facts that were submitted to get the award as being accurate. PH award standards require an injury to be sustanined in the "heat of battle". There is insufficent information for us to accept as fact that Kerry was in the "heat of battle" that night. For this reason, we stay clear of the SBVT/Kerry dispute as to whether or not that "injury" was sustanined is a manner that under PH regulations is to be deemed a "wound". The fact that Kerry got the PH only proves that he got it, not that he earned it, which is the crux of the issue. The 2004 Navy did not take a de novo look at the underlying facts and did not rule that the PH was "earned". Navy 2004 only asserts that "the awards approval process was properly followed" . It does not take a position on whther or not the underlying information, ie; Kerry's statements about what happened were truthful or not. SBVT says that they are not, Kerry says that they are. If we call it a "wound" "wound" "wound" we are taking Kerry's side in that debate. However, if we use the words "injury" "wound" "injury" we are not taking sides and are in fact carefully as possibly, balancing both views. The only other suggestion I could make would be to strike the last instance of "injury" so that each word is used once. Then both views are exactly even, such as this:

During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating near a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began running and failed to obey an order to stop. As the men fled, Kerry and his crew of two sailors opened fire on the sampans destroying them, then rapidly left. During this encounter, Kerry suffered a shrapnel injury in the left arm above the elbow. The shrapnel was later removed and the wound was treated with bacitracin dressing. The next day, Kerry returned to Swift boat patrol duty. Kerry was subsequently awarded his first Purple Heart for this. During the 2004 election, this incident was the focus of considerable contention. For more detail John Kerry military service controversy

Rex071404 18:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No apology; I stand by every word I wrote. As to the substance, you've lost me. Suppose Kerry panicked and fired a grenade launcher at a chipmunk, with no VC within a mile. Furthermore, Kerry foolishly fired while too close to shore, so that a bit of shrapnel from his own shot hit him and lodged in his arm. It seems to me that would be both an injury and a wound. Are you saying it would be one but not the other? JamesMLane 19:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

James, this is precisely what I am saying. For an "injury" (self-inflicted or otherwise) to be deemed a "wound" under Purple Heart regulations, the transaction which resulted in the injury must occur within the "heat of battle". This phrase "heat of battle" is the exact phrase which you yourself provided above and it is the official standard. Now as any plain reading of the 1st hand accounts make clear from that night, there was no "battle" and there was no "heat of battle". Rather, the was only three American men in a Boston Whaler, firing weapons at now abandoned sampans. There is no information which supports the contention that a battle occurred. Therefore, it simply is not possible for us to presume that the injury Kerry received was incurred in the "heat of battle". Without that predicate condition being met, the medal was can not be said by us to have been earned, which is what the word "wounded" in the context of a PH scenario implies. We should report that he received it, but using wound exclusively implies that he earned it, which based on the 1st hand accounts that make clear there was no ""heat of battle", he did not. Having said that, since we can not be absolutely certain that no Viet Cong were in the area and/or fired a weapon at them (even though no witnesses say this happened) we err on the side of caution and we use "wound" once and "injury" once. This way, we tell the facts without taking sides. Rex071404 19:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

All this is immaterial. A consensus of editors have decided that wound is the proper descriptor. The question has been decided. · Katefan0 19:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

An irrationally reached consensus is invalid (see my explanation above). Rex071404 19:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess the definition of a rationally reached concensus then is if and only if Rex agrees? I am very hesitant to take your description at face value, as "1st hand accounts" refers to SBVT testimony? --kizzle 19:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you even bother to read the previous comments before posting? Kerry's 1st hand statements, as quoted on the Snopes page (from Brinkley book) do not prove wound either. Rex071404 20:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Kiz, don't be snide. I am taking issue with this group of editors making unsupported inferences. It is indisputable that the inferences being made to support wound are disregarding the conflicting information which undercuts their basis. To bias an inference in that manner is logically unsound and hence irrational. Rex071404 19:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

As is a consensus being formed and one person trying to unsurp it. I don't think you have moral ground to stand on here. --Woohookitty 19:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The consensus is valid, irrespective of whether you agree with the position taken or not. Feel free to avail yourself of the solutions outlined in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution (although the primary one has already been done -- entering an RFC). Otherwise there's not much more to talk about on this subject. · Katefan0 19:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You are free to deem it valid, but that does not lessen it's irrationality nor my contention that it's invalid. Rex071404 20:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course... you can contend so all you like, that's your right and I'd never expect anything else. But it changes nothing. This argument is done. · Katefan0 20:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Only because you were unable to prove your point and quit the discussion. Rex071404 20:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Next. · Katefan0 20:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Next? Next what? If you saying that the "consensus" you refer to is "next" to being valid, you are right - it's close (next), but still no cigar. Rex071404 20:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The consensus is perfectly valid whether Rex likes it or not. Nowhere on Misplaced Pages is Rex proclaimed infallible nor does he have a right of veto. Clearly there is a consensus so endless going around in circles to humour Rex's demands is pointless. FearÉIREANN\ 20:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

If the "consensus" was that John Kerry is and has always been Irish, it would be equally invalid as a consensus which deems "wound" as the only valid descriptor. Saying otherwise does not change that fact. Rex071404 20:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)