| Revision as of 23:30, 31 October 2006 edit68.42.141.76 (talk) →As a Conservative I think we need to LIONIZE Senator Kerry← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 20:23, 17 December 2024 edit undoTessaract2 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,412 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2024: did it! |
| (695 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}} |
|
{{WPBiography |
|
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|living=yes |
|
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
|class=B |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
|
|action1=PR |
|
{{long|82}} |
|
|
|
|action1date=15:26, 25 Sep 2004 |
|
{{WPMILHIST |
|
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/John Kerry/archive1 |
|
|class=B |
|
|
|
|action1result=reviewed |
|
|US-task-force=yes |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=6920448 |
|
|Maritime-task-force=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{facfailed}} |
|
|
|
|action2=FAC |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
|
|action2date=22:08, 16 May 2006 |
|
{{Project Massachusetts}} |
|
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/John Kerry/archive1 |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
|
|action2result=failed |
|
{{verylong}} |
|
|
|
|action2oldid=53583183 |
|
{{TrollWarning}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{oldpeerreview}} |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FFAC |
|
{{onlinesource2004 |
|
|
|
|topic=Social sciences and society |
|
| section=September |
|
|
|
|itndate=22 February 2004 |
|
|
|itnlink=Special:Permalink/2494456 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{afd-merged-from|List of legislation sponsored by John Kerry|List of legislation sponsored by John Kerry|12 January 2019}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=y|collapsed=yes|class=B|listas=Kerry, John|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|military-work-group=y|military-priority=Low|politician-work-group=y|politician-priority=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|Biography=y|Maritime=y|US=y|Cold-War=y}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Vietnam|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=High|subject=person}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|USPresidents=yes|USPresidents-importance=Mid|importance=Low|USMIL=y|CO=y|MA=y|MA-importance=low|USPE=y|USPE-importance=Low|USGov=y|USGov-importance=}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|American=yes|American-importance=Mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press|year=2004 |
|
|
| section=Op Eds |
|
| title=News reports, public record contradict 'Willie Horton' ad by right-wing 'move on' group. |
|
| title=News reports, public record contradict 'Willie Horton' ad by right-wing 'move on' group. |
|
| org=OpEdNews |
|
| org=OpEdNews |
| Line 22: |
Line 38: |
|
| url=http://www.opednews.com/thoreau_090604_willie_horton.htm |
|
| url=http://www.opednews.com/thoreau_090604_willie_horton.htm |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{onlinesource2004 |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
| section=August 2004 (14 articles) |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
| title=More Kerry Facts The Media Will Not Disclose. |
|
|
|
|counter = 28 |
|
| org=BushCountry.org |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
| date=August 3, 2004 |
|
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 3 |
|
| url=http://www.bushcountry.org/news/aug_news_pages/n_080204_kerry_facts.htm |
|
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:John Kerry/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
<center>"A fair and well-documented biography of John F. Kerry" <small></small> — BushCountry.org (], ]).</center> |
|
|
|
{{Archives|auto=short|collapsible=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90|search=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
{{motto|'''<center>]</center>'''}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Factual error?== |
|
|
It appears that the article has a factual error that I can cite a reference to. It statees that John Kerry was promoted to Full Lieutenant after Vietnam. This is incorrect. He was givena temporary promottion to Full Lieutenant as the Admiral's aide. He reverted back to LT JG after he left active duty. I cite as the source the relevant documentation posted on John Kerry's own website, which has the temporary promotion document on it. |
|
|
|
|
|
On a more controversial subject, John Kerry appears to have lied about his Naval Service. He stated that he was in the service until 1978, at the rank of LTJG. This would ahve violated Navy policy, as those years included the "up or out" policy in promotion. After getting passed over for Full Lieutenant 3 years in a row (1972-1974), he would have been discharged, which should have occurred by 1975. Thus, he could not have been in the reserves until 1978, as his own website attests. Again the cite is in reading his own records, on his website, and also knowing Naval regulations.{{unsigned|Mycroft 514|09:21, August 23, 2006}} |
|
|
|
|
|
===Specific cites (urls)?=== |
|
|
|
|
|
I looked at both www.johnkerry.com and kerry.senate.gov and do not see the claims you mention. Could you please provide a link to these items? While you are about it, can you provide a reference that documents what you say about the promotion policies in effect at the time? --] 01:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
He used to have a bunch of selected military documents on his web site. I just went back and they have all been pulled down. Probably because people like me can read between the lines from the documents. One of them was the temporary promotion to LT as an aide to the Admiral. I remember my father talking about the policy of "up or out" in the 1970's. Obviously it was documented somewhere, and this is just one piece of the strange discharge paper he had dated 1978. Well, that and the Navy performance reviews he had up during his campaign. Proper reading of them indicated an officer classified mediocre, at best.{{Mycroft 514|August 25, 2006}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== Clarification of "Reserve" status and "up or out poicy" === |
|
|
|
|
|
Documents in the Internet Archive from johnkerry.com show an official document indicating he was transferred to "Standby Reserve - Inactive" in 1972. That is still "in the reserves" but would not be subject to the up-or-out policy. I would have to see the "in the service until 1978" claim to assess whether it was stated problematically - need that link. Meanwhile, Kerry's sites clearly indicate what he was doing between 1972 and 1978 (going to law school then practicing as a prosecutor), so it seems unlikely any misdirection was intended, or occurred.--] 02:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
ALL Naval officers are subject to that policy. The claim of 1978 used to be up on his website, during the campaign - US Navy - 1966-1978. Further, his discharge paper was up there too, which is not like a normal discharge from the Navy, being signed at a much different level. It appears to give credence to him being discharged earlier and having the status changed in 1978. This is similar in occurance to my having 2 discharge statuses. The first was an honorable for medical, then a modification by the VA changing the status to service connected disability. |
|
|
|
|
|
Then Kerry covered it with the revised date. As for misdirected intended. If no misdirection was intended, he would release his entire military record, even now, and dispel this set of occurances. He won't, I would put money on it. {{Mycroft 514|August 25, 2006}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Kerry certainly did release his military records, whereas many public figures have not, who probably have claims about their military service in Misplaced Pages. (There is no adequate chain-of-custody process for release of a living person's complete service record with certification of authenticity. So there is no possibility of satisfying a smear merchant who claims to want someone else's record released to him. Release to an independent third party is the best that can be done, and it was done in Kerry's case - to the Boston Globe and LA Times, who vouched that there was nothing substantive new except for the Yale grades.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft 514, you have not substantiated a single claim with any links to references, and the claims you make have been debunked (and discussed ad nauseum) in plenty of more appropriate places on the internet. I also noticed that the Talk Page rules posted above state, "Please do '''not''' use {the talk page} as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." I have tried to keep my responses brief, but I feel that unsubstantiated allegations should not be allowed to stand. (Any veteran wikipedians want to weigh in on how to handle this?) --] 23:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Since the www.johnkerry.com website has seen fit to remove all this stuff, I had to go learn how to use the wayback machine, and suffer thru its glacial slow response time. So here you are: |
|
|
|
|
|
Links: |
|
|
|
|
|
Naval documents in the wayback machine for June 30, 2004 for website www.JOHNKERRY.com |
|
|
|
|
|
http://web.archive.org/web/20040707083924/www.johnkerry.com/about/military_records.html |
|
|
|
|
|
PDF with page 4 appointing John Kerry to TEMPORARY rank of full LT. Note the word TEMPORARY in the orders. |
|
|
|
|
|
http://web.archive.org/web/20040426002850/www.johnkerry.com/about/Temporary_Orders_and_Ranks.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
DD214 transfering LTJG John Kerry from active duty to reserves in 1972. (page 2). (Thus having the temporary rank STRIPPED from him) |
|
|
|
|
|
http://web.archive.org/web/20040614025903/www.johnkerry.com/about/DD214.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
At this point the wayback machine went down for maintenance. I will try for the second set after it comes back up. Mycroft_514 And logging in because I forgot to. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I changed the reference to his promotion to LT to reflect that it was a temporary promotion and cited the given source. Good call. --] 16:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
On the discharge, I finally found what was going on. The particular record needed is conviently hidden behind a "robots.txt" entry on the wayback machine. Galling, because it was there, but effectively removing the proof of what I was saying. Of course, why would Kerry hide it if it wasn't damaging to his case? Specifially just the final discharge papers, not all the rest of the "selected" records he had posted. Oh well, I can't prove what I have said until someday when Kerry releases ALL his records. |
|
|
|
|
|
So, as of now, this subsection of the discussion can be removed by the moderators / administrators. Of course, MoxRox might apologize for her comments, since her comment that Kerry released all his records is wrong, and I certainly proven my assertation of the factual error. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Curious Redirect == |
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed "Sore Loser" redirects to this article. I'll leave that statement hanging in the air for those who are better aquainted with the degree of style to be applied in the Misplaced Pages to act upon as they see fit. --] 09:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Is fixed. ] ] 18:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Swift Vets giving their first person accounts == |
|
|
Why is that an unreliable source? It is a primary source for actions they were a part of. As long as they talk about facts and not draw conclusions I see no reason why they can't be used as a primary source. Blog entries by the authors can be used as primary sources. --] 23:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Your checkuser was officially declined on the grounds that you play nice, that doesn't mean you can just ignore a previous arbcom ruling, or it might be ''un''ignored should it be determined that your interactions on this page are disruptive--] 00:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**I didn't make any requests for a checkuser. What are you talking about?--] 01:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"Swiftvets are an unreliable and partisan source." -- Gamaliel in edit summary |
|
|
*Wasn't John Kerry a Swiftvet?--] 06:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
** You know that I was referring to SBVFT. Cut the crap. ] 16:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*** Lighten up, Francis. It was funny.--] 16:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
''Human Events'' is a reliable source with credible journalists and journalism standards. You might not like it's editorial board but it has journalism standards. This was an interview of persons who were there. They disagree with John Kerry's account and how it was described on his citation. It is a point of view that requires telling. --] 15:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The arbitration committee directed in 2004 that the "telling" take place primarily in the ] article (and ]), which was created ''per'' the arbitrators' ruling on the matter. A mention of the SBVFT view here is appropriate. A rehashing is not. ] 05:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:First, the question I asked below is an attempt to ascertain whether or not these "alternate viewpoints" or whatever they are labeled are actually connected with SBVFT or some other folks. I think it would make a difference (primarily in their motivation) if these folks were unconnected with SBVFT. I think it unlikely that there is not a connection but one has to ask, right? |
|
|
:Second, how were we supposed to know there has previously been an ArbCom ruling related to this article? Can't they throw a template or something at the top of articles to alert editors of previous rulings? We can't seriously be expected to search through the ArbCom archives before editing every article, right? --] 06:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Makes sense. I was unware of the arbcom ruling as well. Where is the ArbCom ruling? I think a summary of the alternate accounts (SBVFT and others) is appropriate. It should be mentioned in the article (along with the link) in the sections that give the official version or the Kerry version whichever is the most appropriate. I don't think it is okay to have a separate isolated section that simply mentions the controversy with a single link. It should flow with the narrative of the article. --] 06:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::'Alternate viewpoints' is SBVFT. There is no template, because the arbitration was over editor behavior. However, that was centered on this article, so they addressed it. I'm not sure that was within their proper mandate (as a content matter), but it was excellent advice anyway and has served us well. |
|
|
::It was the first Rex case, ]. Note that the case was perfunctorily closed when Rex "left", though the remedy had been voted on and passed. I don't recall what the subtle distinction was on remedy 1 between the for and against votes, but all except Raul indicated that they wanted the controversy details gone from the main article and placed in a linked article. At any rate, based on that finding and personal discussions with the arbitrators, we created the ] article, created the ], & greatly expanded the ]. The arbitrators & everyone else (except Rex) found this satisfactory during the election, and for the past two years. Shortly afterwards, we handled the ] using the exact same approach, again resolving some serious conflicts. I believe Clinton has been dealt with similarly, again to great improvement in both the article and civility. |
|
|
::It is a very bad idea to try to rehash these sort of controversies in main articles. A summary of the dispute should of course be presented. But there was a pretty good & stable consensus summary in place for a couple years now. I'm not sure when it got changed, and thus re-emerged as an issue of contention. I'll just say this. We had something that worked as a consensus _during_ the final part of the election. That speaks well for it, and I'd recommend not re-opening that stale can of worms. Go back a ways and dig up the good neutral summary, and leave it at that. ] 07:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Makes sense. It seems the arbcom perception is that the article should be broad overview and not "blow by blow". I only saw that sourced material was being removed as a WP:RS claim which seemed absurd since the SBVT version of events was a major part of the election. I don't mind if it goes in a sub article that is referenced in the relevant section. --] 09:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Most of Kerry's crewmates are either dead, or they have denounced him, due to his poor leadership and skill. Even worse is that fact that three of his Purple Hearts were self-inflicted wounds. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::This claim is meaningless without being reliably sourced.] 10:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== To Gamaliel == |
|
|
Unlike you, the swift boat '''veterans''' were actually there, what makes you think that you make a better source than they do?--—]<sup></sup> 12:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Are the people whom we are discussing the same group of people whose claims to have been present have been debunked (primarily those who came out of the woodwork during the 2004 presidential campaign) or a different group whose claims are more reliable? --] 16:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::How have their claims been debunked? As far as I know, they are simply eyewitness accounts that they have been telling since Kerry's Vietnam War Protester days. There are Dick Cavett debates between the two principles from the 1970's. There are multiple versions of the events but I haven't seen where one version is more accurate than another. This is valid POV and it should be covered. So should Kerry's. NPOV requires that it be covered expecially since it was such a big part of the election. Kerry's version is the official citation version and it should be given appropriate weight. The other eyewitnesses should also have their version told. --] 16:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I don't know if these particular person's claims have been debunked. That's why I was asking who they are which is really a very roundabout way of asking if these are the same folks from SBVFT. --] 17:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Why? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: ] |
|
|
:::: '''1.1 The neutral point of view'''<p> |
|
|
:::: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::It's significant as it arguably changed the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. It's published in both news and book formats. |
|
|
::::--] 16:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Assuming we know of no good reason to dismiss their accounts, I agree with Tbeatty that NPOV demands they be represented in a manner consistent with their due weight. --] 17:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Their accounts can be rebutted but not dismissed. They have their version of events. If they are wrong it should be straight forward to rebut them with reliable sources. Certainly the official citation on Kerry's award is very strong rebuttal. --] 17:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Their accounts ''could'' be dismissed but I agree that it's highly unlikely to occur. There would have to be some really strong grounds for doing so. But I'm just being pendantic at this point - I think we're in agreement on the major points. --] 17:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I am also not particularly attached to this version of "Military Honours". It can be rewritten as long as the major different major versions of events are maintained. I think the primary version should be the official version on Kerry's citation with the swift vets version as an alternate version. My only contribution was sourcing the claims with reliable sources. --] 18:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Vandalism == |
|
|
|
|
|
First sentence in the article. Change it.{{unsigned|69.120.110.23|19:23, September 26, 2006}} |
|
|
:Thank you for your suggestion{{{{#if:notsubsted||subst:}}#if:{{{1|}}}| regarding ]}}! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Misplaced Pages is a ], so ''anyone'' can edit almost any article by simply following the '''{{MediaWiki:edit}}''' link at the top. You don't even need to ] (although there are ]). The Misplaced Pages community encourages you to ]. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out ], or use the ] to try out your editing skills. ]. --] 01:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Fulbright hearing == |
|
|
Kerry was not under oath when he "testified" about USA atrocities? If that's true, this is very interesting to hear. See this link: http://www.vvlf.org/default.php?page_id=77 |
|
|
|
|
|
] 07:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Where does it say that he wasn't under oath? --] 07:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Uh, just read the article - it's right there: |
|
|
<blockquote>Our chance came earlier this year when Kenneth Campbell was deposed. Among the first thing he disclosed was that this was the first time he had actually been put under oath in over 35 years of "testifying" about Vietnam "war crimes." Neither he nor any of his fellow "war criminals" – Kerry included – had ever been sworn in at any hearings, not before the Senate, the House of Representatives, or anywhere.</blockquote> |
|
|
] 05:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Israel Bassey Asuquo == |
|
==Way too long== |
|
|
I agree with the 'Too long' tag on this article (of a defeated US presidential candidate). Hubert Humphrey & Walter Mondale (former US Vice Presidents) articles aren't this long. ] 18:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--] (]) 19:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Do u guys thing i will be the next best soccer defender in the world--] (]) 19:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
:Depends on what you mean by that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Editing Error within this article == |
|
:If you mean the amount of total information in Misplaced Pages about those men: then those articles should be this long, and they would be if those men served today. There are fewer editors knowledgeable or interested in politicians who served when they were children or not even born, and certainly fewer on-line resources to provide sourcing for an article. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the first paragraph, George W Bush is no longer incumbent president ] (]) 05:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
:If you mean this article by itself, I'd agree partially. Some parts of this could be spun into daughter articles, with briefer summaries here. However, that's just an organizational issue. ] 20:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:It is unlikely anyone thinks he is still the incumbent president, but he was in 2004 so this is not an error. ] (]) 08:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's not an error. It's not saying Pres. Bush is the current president. It's saying he was the incumbent at the time of the presidential race that the sentence is talking about. ] (]) 00:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== wrong birthplace given for current wife == |
|
==Spin off== |
|
|
In response to the complaints about length, I'd like to nominate the "speculation about 2008" section. To me, that's a good candidate to put in a sub article, because it's speculation (though sourced). It's only going to get longer as we approach 2008, too. ] 23:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the marriages and family section, it says "Kerry and his second wife—Portuguese-born businesswoman and philanthropist Teresa Heinz..." She was NOT born in Portugal. She was born in Mozambique. This needs to be corrected, but apparently, we can't edit anything on this article currently. Someone who CAN edit it needs to. I don't know how this slipped by, because it's been very well-known for many years that she is from Africa. ] (]) 00:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
:Sounds good.--] 23:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Main Photo == |
|
==As a Conservative I think we need to LIONIZE Senator Kerry== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that we should change the main photo of this article to his ]. This is because the 2013 photo is more aesthetically pleasing than the one currently used, and since articles about politicians on Misplaced Pages tend to use official portraits. ] (]) 00:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
I think we need to add a section APPLAUDING his DENIGRATING AND INSULTING directed at |
|
|
our brave soldiers in Iraq |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:This seems like a reasonable idea, however it may also be worth considering the ], his nomination for President was arguably the highlight of his career and what he will be remembered for so I'd be more inclined to use that image as the lead, however I would be fine if the Secretary of State photo is used as well since it is a major office and was taken only 8 years after his candidacy. ] (]) 08:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
In 2004 the dems and their LIBERAL enablers at MSNBCCBSNBCNPRPBSABCREUTERS/AP wanted the election to be about Viet Nam, figuring it gave Kerry an edge. So they made it about VNam and thanks to our BRAVE HONEST HEROIC Swift Boat Vets for Truth, it was! LOL! (With additional props to Dan Rather.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2024 == |
|
PPS In 2006, the dems and their liberal enablers at MSNBCCBSNBCNPRPBSABCREUTERS/AP wanted the election to be about Iraq figuring it gave Dems an edge. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|John Kerry|answered=yes}} |
|
And thanks to Senator John Kerry, the Dan Rather of 2006, it is about Iraq. |
|
|
|
Please add the following to the Out of Government section: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
In June 2024, Kerry became an exclusive speaker with the Washington Speakers Bureau. <ref>https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/washington-speakers-bureau-presents-distinguished-statesman-john-kerry-a-vital-voice-for-corporate-audiences-302183459.html</ref> ] (]) 22:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Except not quite the way they intended. LOL!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> I don't think this necessarily rises to the level of notability, particularly on the strength of a single press release. ] (]) 17:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Sorry Kerry apologists and liberal editors at Misplaced Pages (which is AT LEAST 90% of you) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
Senator Kerry helped conservative maintain control of both the House AND Sentate with his DESPICABLE comments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2024 == |
|
And no, saying it was 'joke' just won't cut it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|John Kerry|answered=yes}} |
|
It totally fits the pattern of Dems hating and denigrating our troops. |
|
|
|
Please add the following succession box to the article: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{S-start}} |
|
And saying, 'Hey! I wasn't trying to insult our troops, just our Commander in Chief!' |
|
|
|
{{s-ppo}} |
|
only makes it worse. |
|
|
|
{{s-bef|before=]}} |
|
|
{{s-ttl|title=] nominee for ] |
|
|
|years=]}} |
|
|
{{s-aft|after=]}} |
|
|
{{s-end}} ] (]) 14:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
: {{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ]<sup>]</sup> 20:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
John Kerry - You can't blame the Swift Boat Vets this time! lol! |
|
In the marriages and family section, it says "Kerry and his second wife—Portuguese-born businesswoman and philanthropist Teresa Heinz..." She was NOT born in Portugal. She was born in Mozambique. This needs to be corrected, but apparently, we can't edit anything on this article currently. Someone who CAN edit it needs to. I don't know how this slipped by, because it's been very well-known for many years that she is from Africa. 76.202.192.102 (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion met.jpg)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg)
Not done: I don't think this necessarily rises to the level of notability, particularly on the strength of a single press release. PianoDan (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Done 
