This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Ok. This is getting ridiculous. Lets decide this once and for all.
FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 21:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
You people are all well off the point. Rex at least is making his point as far as it logically supports him but your refutes are avoiding the real issue. First, is it possible to have a purple heart that states on your record (dd214 or otherwise) that you received a "minor purple heart" or attained a purple heart by a "minor wound"? Then you need to look at WHAT HIS WOUNDS ARE! If none of this is clear or public record (despite what sources you support Rex)then it should be stated on the record that some evidence/biographies or otherwise suggests that that there was something "minor" about his wounds. Make this statement as nonbiased as possible and continue to repeat the facts every time Rex objects. Your argument that this is about subjectivity or objectivity is unfounded if you yourself cannot be objective. I don't care about votes. History shows us that people are generally mislead by propaganda and disllusionment constantly. John Kerry has plenty of clear lies he supports that prove that if you simply look at all the objective facts. (Example, he along with many other democratic party members still continues to state that the war in Iraq was based souly on WMD's when this is clearly untrue. If you disagree with me on that then state so and bring that argument to the Wikipedia War on Iraq page. We've had a national obligation to take out Saddam ever since we put him in power, thinking it was for the better. WMD's are the least of our reasons to stop a mass murderer yet the lies keep on going. Therefore, people voting over truth is as substantial as logrolling the constitution). So quit being a bunch of idiots who think that by saying "It's clear that your wrong" you have made an objective point. Propaganda and it's effect on you is repulsive enough as it is. ( Youngidealist 03:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC))
The issue is clearly closed. Rex can complain all he likes. I think the rest of us should at this stage move on and pay no heed to Rex's endless complaining. If he continues, the issue should be brought to the arbcom and a request made that Rex be prohibited from editing this article, since he had shown a clear determination to POV this article at all costs. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 23:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Who are you talking to, just me? What about "Rex can complain all he likes"? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 23:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
"Wound" has not been cited to an authoritative source. That is a fact. If I am wrong, what is the source? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 23:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Issue closed. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 23:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Repeat: "Wound" has not been cited to an authoritative source. That is a fact. If I am wrong, what is the source? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 23:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Accept what? That "wound" is not sourced, but you guys want to use it anyway? Why should I do that? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 23:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
This issue is now closed. Please do not discuss this issue with Rex071404. It simply gives him an angle to come back and repeat himself ad nausaum. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 00:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Stop archiving this talk page every ten minutes, this isn't your own personal talk page Rex, you're taking this too far, it's almost like you're testing the system to see how far you can push before they block you or bring you up on sanctions, stop being a martyr already. If the admins weren't 100% sure that you'd come back as an even more trollish sockpuppet, they would have blocked you by now, learn to take a hint-- IKnowWho (Gee, I'm a sockpuppet, how unexpected) 23:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Kumbayaaaaa m'lord, Kumbayaaaaa. Kumbayaaaaa m'lord, Kumbayaaaa. Ohhh, Kumbayaaa.
or
All we are saaaaying, is give peace a chance.
or
Few times I've been around this track but its not just going to happen like that cause I ain't no holla back giiiirl, I ain't no holla back giiiirl.
-- kizzle 00:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
This issue is now closed. Please do not discuss this issue with Rex071404. It simply gives him an angle to come back and repeat himself ad nausaum. He has talked the issue to death and is in a minority of one. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 00:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
This issue is now closed. A vote has already taken place. The decision was unanimous. Please do not discuss this issue with Rex071404. It simply gives him an angle to come back and repeat himself ad nausaum. He has talked the issue to death and is in a minority of one. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 01:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Reading the dialogue on this page, I've reverted to the version agreed by everyone but Rex and unprotected the page. EVERYONE: Please do not start this discussion again. Tito xd( ?!?) 00:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The admin who unprotected, referred to this as "consensus" ( Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 00:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)):
(see below)
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. These men failed to stop when ordered, and Kerry and his crew of two enlisted men then opened fire with machine guns destroying the sampans and quickly left the area. During this encounter, Kerry received a shrapnel wound in his left arm above the elbow. [2] Subsequently at Sick Call, the shrapnel was removed and Kerry was treated with bacitracin and bandaged. Kerry returned to duty the next day on a regular Swift boat patrol. Kerry was later awarded a Purple Heart for this wound. During the 2004 presidential campaign, various critics such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth suggested reasons that this injury did not merit a Purple Heart. [3] Also in 2004, after a limited review prompted by Judicial Watch the Naval Inspector General "determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved". [4] For more information, see John Kerry military service controversy.
Is this, as is, consensus, yes or no?
No
Yes
This issue is now closed. Please do not discuss this issue with Rex071404. It simply gives him an angle to come back and repeat himself ad nausaum. He has talked the issue to death and is in a minority of one. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 00:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Note: A vote already took place. As with his determination to force his version of events on the page, Rex now wants to force his version of the vote. Ignore it. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 01:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Not so. I am interested to see if the others accept this as is, for the consensus version. If they don't ratify it, up or down, then there is no consensus. When the conversation ended, we were only discussing "wound", not other parts of the section. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 01:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Although I completely agree that Rex is being difficult with his agressive pursuit of this question, I don't think it is very sporting to declare "case closed" after a day or so of voting. I see little harm in allowing other editors time to express their opinion. Johntex\ talk 01:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
It is actually after 200K of debate (him against everyone else), rewrites (him against everyone else), weeks of discussion (him against everyone else). So yes, the views of the community were 100% clear. The issue is closed. Rex can complain and complain and complain all he wants, but a consensus was agreed a long time ago and people are fed up with his one man crusade to POV the article and ignore everyone else. So yes, the case is unambiguously closed. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 01:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
He's been hammering at this exact same issue for over a year. Gamaliel 02:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't rhyme. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 12:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
So Rex is in denial of a wound.
He can't tolerate sight nor a sound
of a wounded John Kerry
He finds the idea too scary
Even though plenty of evidence has been found.
Boom boom. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 13:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
JK's got a house in Nantucket
[5]
And shrapnel it seems, he can't duck it
Though injured that day
It is fair to say
As a limerick, my poem may suck it.
Rex071404
(all logic is premise based) 15:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Kerry had a rough campaign time,
being hits by allegations and slime,
but unlike George B he fought,
no waver was sought,
and no advisor stands accused of a crime.
Even if he's not Irish at all,
he still won his re-elections in the fall,
as a senate big hitter,
and a safe senate seat sitter,
without need to canvass every mall.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint) 16:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Employing a heritage ruse
Kerry got Boston voters to choose
Him over his foes
So that's how it goes
Small wonder "not Irish" is news
A president (and poobah) named Kerry
Would make many Democrats merry
But alas, you will see
That it never will be
Cause he's no more special than
Jerry
Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 20:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Instead we have Bush the retard
who appointed a horse judge as FEMA
His ratings are falling
McClellan is stalling
Yet Rex is still on Kerry's record
(little eminem license on syllables) --
kizzle 00:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Uh, do you mean?:
Instead we have Bush the dweeber
who appointed a horse judge to FEMA
His ratings are falling
McClellan is stalling
Yet Rex edits Kerry the goober
Rex071404
(all logic is premise based) 00:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Within one hour of the so-called new "consensus" version being announced, Derex is already modifying it back to his preferences:
Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 01:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Innuendo? I disagree. Please state your objections here and we can discuss it. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 13:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I added the following phrasing for treatment of the wound:
Description of treatment is right out of the official sick call report, see exact phrasing in the reference now provided. Finessed the Letson/Carreon issue while removing passive voice by saying "medical staff" removed it, rather than either a 'medic' or a 'doctor'. Derex @ 15:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
James, let's not get confused here. The section as Derex left it here works just fine but if you tamper with it, you are going to open another can of worms. I've accpeted it and Derex has accepted it. Please don't start again with trying to frame this section as a pissing contest between LetsonSBVT/ Kerry. There is no mention of any Letson/SBVT allegations at this point and that's for the best. Also, if you have evidence that some Sick Calls were not "daily lineups" then the place for that is at Sick Call not here. Now regarding any suggested "bandage", the best method here is to rely on a "best evidence rule". The best evidence is that we have a direct quotation from a Sick Call Treatment Record which by virtue of the Govt. name for the record, indicates treatment was rendered at a Sick Call and for that reason, we so state he was treated at a "sick call". There is nothing stopping you from fleshing out the Sick Call page, if needs be. Also, you must be kidding to try to cite Letson for any reason as you have utterly opposed "superficial" and "small" in the past, both of which came from Letson. Additionally, you can't stick Brinkley in our face and contend that he can somehow adds to the facts of the Sick Call Treatment Record. That book by Brinkly was recently written and any information he has about "bandage" (if any) comes comes from Kerry. If we accept that information at face value, with no discount for any self-serving bias in Kerry's re-telling to Brinkley, then we are back to putting our thumb on the scale in favor of Kerry. That's because Letson also could offer equally 1st hand information as that recited by Kerry to Brinkley. To allow Kerry's version, simply because he re-told it to Brinkley, but not allow Letson's who re-told it via an affidavit, is silly. Only if Brinkley in his book has sourced (not from Kerry himself) to contemporaneous corroboration -specifically about a "bandage" being applied to Kerry's arm- from the time period of the Sick Call, are we to give the Brinkley accounting of the Kerry story any more weight than Letson. Also, if you read my comments to Derex about this on his talk page, I've already pointed out that one could reasonably infer a "bandage" from the Sick Call Treatment Record; however an equally reasonable inference there would also support "minor", which I know you are dead set against. Suffice it to say, the only contemporaneous record of the treatment is the Sick Call Treatment Record and there is no mention in it of any "bandage". If you want to insist that Brinkley drew on data other than Kerry telling him so, you'll have to show it or else your suggestion that Brinkley is a superior source than the disallowed Letson, is just conjecture and supposition. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 19:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Well isn't this just dandy. The only actual record of Kerry getting any treatment is a government document which says right on it "Sick Call Treatment Record" but you guys now have a problem saying Kerry was treated at a "sick call". You are ok with "wound" which appears nowhere, but you have a problem with "sick call" which is printed right on the form and refers to the actual military designation for the treatment session. Also, if "bandage" goes in, then "minor" is going in. Neither appear on the SCTR, but both could reasonably be inferred from it. You simply can't go around inferring for one, but not the other. That's so POV it's ridiculuous. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 00:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Well the solution to that, as I am always being told, is to fix the other article, not delete the wikilink from here. What about that? And you do see that I have sourced the key definition of " Sick Call" yes? If you have a problem with the Sick Call article, tell me here that you will dialog about that there, and I will watch there for your comments. Also, I have a source for "a daily lineup of military personnel requiring medical attention". Where is your source for your contention "All the term means is that he went to the medic with an acute problem, and thus without prior appointment" ? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 00:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Derex, you are misinformed here. "Sick call" can be process "lining up for sick call" and/or an activity "go to sick call" and/or a treatment session "I was treated at sick call". This is not generally known to the readers and a wikilink to an informative Sick Call page is a good idea. Oh well, too bad people would not leave well enough alone. The version from earlier today was fine. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 02:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
(copied from Rex talk)
This is not fully true, all wound coverings are dressings but not all dressings are bandages. Bacitracin alone is indeed a "dressing". I explained this already in detail, with full proof on talk. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 02:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
(from above)
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". <<< Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 02:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Please see Dressing the wound, here.
"The wound should then be covered with a clean dressing and bandaged to hold the dressing in place."
Note that "dressing" and "bandaged" are separate steps.
Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 02:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
It's affirmed there, not rebutted. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 03:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe that the public facts support mentioning this. However, if it needs a re-write, please discuss here. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 13:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
inserting the sign Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 00:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
This issue is now closed. Please do not discuss this issue with Rex071404. It simply gives him an angle to come back and repeat himself ad nausaum. He has talked the issue to death and is in a minority of one. 205.188.117.68 18:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Not a type of bandage, if you don't know that, then you probably need to go back to whatever type of primary school you eeked your way through-- 152.163.101.10 02:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
See this Govt link from Australia. "A first aid kit should be well stocked with dressings and bandages, disinfectants, fasteners, safety pins and other equipment such as resuscitation masks, scissors and splinter forceps." Dressings and bandages are clearly not the same thing. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 02:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
" Ointment: A medication preparation that is applied topically (onto the skin). An ointment has an oil base whereas a cream is water-soluble. (The word ointment comes from the Latin ungere meaning anoint with oil)"
Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 03:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Over-the-counter or not has no bearing on its status as an oitnment. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 03:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Derex, are you contending that in Medical Terminology, the words Dressing and Bandaging are interchangable? If that's your contention, you are wrong. And further, such a contention would buttress my "wound" "injury" contention, which you are opposed to. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 04:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Anon, I don't follow you. Please explain. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 04:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
With regard to writing the article, no one contends that we shouldn't mention the bacitracin. The issue is whether we should mention the bandage. Kerry's biographer says the wound was bandaged. Letson, one of Kerry's harshest critics, says the wound was bandaged. No witness says the wound wasn't bandaged. No Wikipedia policy restricts us to the use of official records or constrains us from reporting facts that are cited to other sources. The statement that Kerry's wound was bandaged is properly sourced and isn't disputed by any source, so there's no reason for us to conceal this information from the reader. Information about the history of bacitracin (its original use, its downgrading through overuse, its conversion from prescription drug to OTC) could usefully ba added to the Bacitracin article. JamesMLane 04:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Kerry's biographer got his information from either Kerry, or the Sick Call Treatment Record - there has been no showing otherwise. From our perspective, Kerry as a source, has no more validity than Letson as a source. James has many times refused me to use Letson for any reason. If he now bases his support for "bandage" even in part on Letson, that opens the door for Letson's 1st hand account of the shrapnel being "small" and "superfically" clinging to the surface of the skin. Both of which reinforce my contention that the wound was "minor". Since James opposes letting Letson lead us to "minor" how does he justify using Letson to introduce "bandage"? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 04:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Is "wound" the only issue or are there others that need to be hashed out? I know one problem with an article like this is that John is still very much in the news, so we'll never be "finished" really. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 04:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
James, the sources which Snopes cites (and from which you draw your material) were writers (as is Snopes) that made conclusions. Are you saying that somehow Brinkley's conclusions are more independant or otherwise superior to Snopes's? If so, explain. And, according to the USA Today link "Vice Adm. R.A. Route, the Navy inspector general, conducted the review of Kerry's Vietnam-ear military service awards at the request of Judicial Watch, a public interest group". JW's role certainly is germane, because without it, there would be no review. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 05:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
It's absolutely of no relevance that a Brinkley quote says "Brinkley notes that Kerry went on a regular Swift boat patrol the next day with a bandage on his arm". That's because:
Brinkley saying "Kerry went on a regular Swift boat patrol the next day with a bandage on his arm", is no different than Kerry saying it. This is unsubstantiated assertion and as such, is unacceptable.
Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 07:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
According to: Wikipedia:Reliable sources, some questions we should ask, are:
Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 08:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Are you threatening me? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 08:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
"Tour of Duty is clearly a presidential campaign biography" [14] Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 08:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
We have had 75 (yes 75) edits in the 36 hours since this page was unprotected and it's the same old issues...wound...purple heart, non serious, etc. This is just insane. I think the admin who unprotected it misinterpreted us. We have a consensus. That's clear. But the edit warring is not ceasing. We need reprotection. Period. It's gotten to the point where I for one can't follow all of the edits. One article should not have to take up all of someone's time on here. It's counterproductive as hell. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 15:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Woohoo, you are mistaken as to what's going on here. When this was unprotected, the First Purple Heart section was immediately jumped on by Derex within one hour, with edits that I took issue with. Others came along behind him and kept making changes that were bringing us back, not forward. The consensus we had (which I objected to as invalid) covered only the inclusion of the word "wound". If I am not mistaken, of the edits I have done here since that objectionable consensus was reached, I have abided by that and each of my offerings have included "wound". I have offered a number of variants of that section which I would accept (along with another two with Johntex and Katefan0). However, there is a core group, led by JamesMLane, who keep trying to use variants with a "Snopes" link. That Snopes link [15] is being used by James to try to justify the word "bandage" which is not sourceable (without inference) to Kerry's Sick Call Treatment Record (the only official treatment record) and for which, there is ongoing debate. James's suggestion via ES [16] that there is no dispute, is false. Also, when the Snopes link is present, I have tried to cite it to support the undisputed fact that Kerry's wound "was not serious...". This is evidenced by a) James has argued in favor of the validity of Brinkley as a source and b) the very snopes link which James keeps using has on it a verbatim quote by Brinkley which says Brinkley noted that, as in the previous case, "Kerry's wound was not serious enough to require time off from duty.". The fact is, James want to use Snopes to push his unsupported POV about "bandage", but when I cite Snopes for an undisputed fact, James and others simply delete my edit or otherwise modify it, removing the "not serious". This is plain and simply bad editing and POV. And since I am not going to sit here and just revert all day, each time the section is twisted around, I am left with trying to make a new silk purse out of a sows ear. Suffice it to say, this is why I have been editing here. Other than try to blame me, I'd like to hear James's and the others accounts of their recent edits - especially as it relates to trying to cite a single Snopes page, while disallowing that same page for another edit citation. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 15:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
James, since you claim to have addressed these specific points, but don't want to retype the words, then I'd be happy to read any talk page diff's you post here which directly address this. And James, if your comment of "I just hope someone else will revert this page ASAP" is not a call for tag-team reverting, I don't know what is. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 15:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
OK. It strikes me that right now we're stuck over whether to call the "bacitracin dressing" a bandage or not. Or whether "bacitracin dressing" could simply mean smearing some bacitracin over a wound and that's that. I did some poking around to see whether or not "bacitracin dressing" is a medical term carrying a specific meaning, and there do seem to be some indications that that is the case. Bacitracin dressing I've found is also called "Neosporin Adaptic dressing." [17] - here are some specifics about how it's used. [18] In other words, it's an "adaptic dressing" with some neosporin/bacitracin/antibiotic ointment applied to the dressing and then placed on the wound (or applied to the wound and then the adaptic dressing is applied on top of it). In general an adaptic dressing means a mesh gauze pad that doesn't stick to a wound. [19] So. Is a bacitracin dressing a bandage itself? Maybe. I guess it depends on how you define bandage. Regardless, it seems that a "bacitracin dressing" is a gauze pad of varying sizes. But, the standard technique for its application [20] -- and some amount of common sense -- does seem to indicate that some sort of bandage (or maybe medical tape) would be required to keep the dressing from falling off (Merriam-Webster: bandage: a strip of fabric used especially to dress and bind up wounds). Given this definition, it could be argued that the bacitracin dressing could itself qualify as a bandage. Good lord, I can't believe I spent an hour on this today. FWIW. I've also asked a doctor who is a Wikipedia editor whether "bacitracin dressing" is a commonly-understood medical term, also FWIW. · Katefan0 (scribble) 16:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I've already agreed (in fact, I was the 1st to offer this, see my talk with Derex on his and my talk pages - and also above) that "bacitracin dressing" could (not must, but could) be interpreted to mean "bacitracin + gauze" and that some might refer to that combination has a "bandage". However, I have also provided links (see above) which make clear that "Dressing" and "Bandaging" are two discrete steps. [21], [22] Now, with with Dressing and Bandage, having been established as discrete steps, what information do we have to see which steps were taken with Kerry's injury? The only official record of treatment is Kerry's Sick Call Treatment Record (SCTR), which states "Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl (sic) bacitracin dressing. Ret to Duty." We find that source here. Suffice it to say, beyond that, James has offered only Snopes, which is problematic for reasons I cite immediately prior to here (above) or Letson, who James dismisses as unreliable when I want to cite him. Therefore, we are left only with the verbatim text of SCTR which does not state that a 2nd discrete step of "bandaging" took place after "dressing". Also, if indeed, the wound was a "little scratch" as stated by 1st hand witness, Ret. Lt. Gen. Hibbard [23], then it's highly likely that only bacitracin was used. But regardless of who said what, we have only three possible infererences we can draw from the SCTR:
Please note that the 1st two of these would definately support my prefered use of the word "minor" in regards to wound severity. And the 3rd, combined with no evidence or report of sutures and no lost time from work, again supports minor.
I have been holding my ground here for a very simple reason: James. et al, want to use inferences and sources to back up "bandages", but they do not allow me equally valid inferences and sources to back up "minor".
not only that, but it's actually at the point where James says I can't use the Snopes link [24] for a direct qoute of "not serious" as an alternative to minor, but he claims he can use Snopes to back up, "bandage" and "returned to duty the next day".
I fail to see how such an uneven applicaiton of editing standards will led to anything but more contested edits, or a problematic text, consensus supported or not.
Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 17:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Kate, are you denying that "bandaging" is also a discrete step, separate and distinct from "dressing"? If so, what about the sources I provide that show that it is a separate and distinct step? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 17:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Kate, with all due respect, you need to rethink what you are saying. The SCTR, clearly says "appl Bacitracin dressing". When one applies a "dressing" to a wound, they are "dressing" a wound. Do you deny this? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 17:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
So far, that's three for "minor wound": Wwoods, Johntex and Rex071404. At the same time, if "gauze bandage" or better yet "gauze dressing" were used instead of "bandage", I'd be ok with that. You guys think I push Kerry down with "minor", but I think you push him up with "bandage". Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 19:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd be ok with "gauze bandage" (less supportable) or "gauze dressing" (more supportable). I have a problem with plain old "bandage" as I feel it tends towards gratuitous hagiography and here's why: There is no information to suggest that Kerry was nursing a wound here, so why are we implying that by saying "bandage" to them? There is not much argument that this was by and large not serious to any degree, so then other than the fact that he got a Purple Heart from it, why is the supposed bandage notable enough to mention? Clearly, James is opposed to describing the wound itself ("minor"), so why does he want to describe the treatment ("bandage"). Non-severe wounds, that in and of themselves have no lasting physical effects are simply not notable so far as the after details go. By describing the type of wrapping as "bandage" rather than omitting that or using "gauze" (which may be inferred), we are plain and simply skewing the narrative in a gratuitously hagiographic manner. If the degree of injury is not notable enough to mention, neither is the type of wrapping (if any) it was given. It's enough to say "bacitracin dressing" and leave it at that. I will however, as a good faith gesture, offer that "gauze bandage" or "gauze dressing" as ok with me. What about you others? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 01:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
From Dorlands Medical Dicitonary [25]
dressing (dress·ing) (dres´ing) 1. any of various materials for covering and protecting a wound. See also bandage. 2. the putting on of clothing.
adhesive absorbent d. a sterile individual dressing consisting of a plain absorbent compress affixed to a film or fabric coated with a pressure-sensitive adhesive substance.
antiseptic d. a dressing of gauze impregnated with an antiseptic material.
bolus d. tie-over d.
cocoon d. a dressing of gauze affixed to the surrounding skin by collodion or other liquid adhesive in such a way that its elevated appearance resembles a cocoon.
cross d. cross-dressing.
dry d. dry gauze or absorbent cotton applied to a wound.
fixed d. a dressing impregnated with a stiffening agent such as plaster of Paris or starch, used to secure fixation of the part when the material dries.
occlusive d. one which seals a wound from contact with air or bacteria.
pressure d. one by which pressure is exerted on the area covered to prevent collection of fluids in underlying tissues; most commonly used after skin grafting and in treatment of burns.
protective d. a light dressing to prevent exposure to injury or infection.
stent d. a dressing in which is incorporated a mold or stent, to maintain position of a graft.
tie-over d. a dressing placed over a skin graft or other sutured wound and tied on by the sutures, which have been made of sufficient length for that purpose; called also bolus d.
Just as I said, said to Derex, if I were going to guess, I'd say "bacitracin dressing" could mean with gauze see "antiseptic" def above. However, I have also said it could mean bacitracin as just a covering. That is also true, see "occlusive" above.
In either case, "bandage" has a separate def [26] and based what we know was applied "bacitracin dressing" and what it could mean ("bacitracin with gauze"), then if James wants to call it "gauze bandaging", I would agree. Please note that I said virtually the same thing some time ago to Derex here "Personally, I might guess that Kerry got Bacitracin, with gauze and surgical tape. If you want to use that language, I'd agree. If others had actually read my reference to this, they would know that already. To reiterate, at most, Kerry got "bacitracin impregnated into gauze", which can be referred to as dressing, but is not referred to as "bandaging", but could be called "gauze bandaging" or "gauze dressing" and those would not be a lie and either would settle my concerns. What about James? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 17:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
It matters because JamesMLane keeps inserting the unsupported "bandage". Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 18:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Cloth is not required and not all cloth is a bandage. For the record, I will again restate: [27] A dressing can be "occlusive d. one which seals a wound from contact with air or bacteria."
What do you think Bacitracin ointment does, when applied to the skin surface over a small scratch? It "seals a wound from contact with air or bacteria".
And you do know that an "occlusive" dressing is not the same as "antiseptic d. a dressing of gauze impregnated with an antiseptic material"? for if it were, they would not have two different sub-definitions to clarify the differences.
In fact, this definition of an "occlusive" dressing would even support petroleum jelly or nuskin [28] as a "dressing", which is what I've already told you several times.
In short, as I have made perfectly clear via both personal reasoning (which you reject) and citation (which hopefully you will stop overlooking and igoring), according to the medical dictionary, among other variants, a "dressing" can be antiseptic, which does have gauze which is what Kate is talking about (though she's wrongly trying to say it must be that type) or it can be (still among other types) "occlusive", which has no gauze.
The problem is that you and she and a few others here are trying to say a) a dressing must have gauze (which is not true basd on the medical dictionary) and b) because of that, since gauze (you contend) is "bandage", shzaam, we reach bandage.
However, as clearly shown above, your position is not sound and is not proved true.
At the same time, what I have said about the evidence supplied by Jams is correct, the word "dressing" does not establish "bandage". Try as you may to get around that, I have provided more than enough proof in the form of experts sources.
So Derex, please stop glossing over my postings. I have have met my duty. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 19:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Again, I will point out that the underlying issue between James and me is that he wants to be allowed to cite a particular source for his purposes, but does not want to allow me to cite the same source. If Letson is invoked for "bandage" that makes him valid for "superficially" and "small" in regards to the shrapnel wound. This makes the wound "minor" which is something James opposes. In the James scheme of things, Letson is "ok" if he backs up James, but "not ok" if he backs up Rex. Also, this issue of Brinkley was addressed above where I cited about 6 reasons from Wikipedia:Reliable sources which make clear that Brinkley's assertion must be verified with additional sources, something James has not dealt with -and can't because the only source is the treatment record (SCTR) and Kerry's assertions as repeated to Brinkley. Lastly, James failed to mention the additional iteration of his double standards of sourcing which is "Snopes" and which I have fully gone over in detail, above. Suffice it to say, Mekong Delta or no, it does not take much effort to write "wrap arm in bandage" if that's in fact what occurred. James has just got sour grapes because he's finally been caught with his hand in his editor's double- standard-cookie-jar. The bulk of the available information about "Bacitracin dressing" leans towards gauze perhaps being used, but no bandages. There is no information about "bandaging" in the SCTR which is the authoritative source. Simply because the best evidence available does not help advance James's desired POV, does not mean he can try to argue now why the SCTR doesn't say "bandage". James's Mekong gambit is just silly. By his logic, sutures are not written there either, but lets impute that into the record also. Why stop there? Perhaps Kerry got plasma, or a transfusion? Gee, uh the record says nothing about any tenus shot either. Aren't those routine for deep punctures? Oh yeah, Kerry got five of them, along with snake bite treatment, but the medic was too busy to write that fact down. James, when I used to pulled harebrained supposition out my butt, you objected and sought sanctions. But now you get to make suppositions?. The bottom line is that "Bandaging" and "Dressing" are simply not the same thing and the medical dictionary which I cited above, makes that 100% clear. And that's why gauze is called "gauze" and bandages are called "bandages"; they are not the same! James has not proved bandage and he's just mad that gauze is the best he gets (and he didn't prove that either -it's inferred). Several times, I've offered to support something like "the next day, Kerry returned to Swift boat duty with a gauze bandage on his arm" but James has yet to say if he'll accept that. So who's the POV hold-out here? Not me. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 23:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Rather than protecting the page again, why not just block Rex for persistant trolling?-- 205.188.117.68 20:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Didn't you see that ad on TV, where the Chinese guy cloned himself to get more done each day?... That, or I am typing via thought projection while on the road... Or perhaps I have time distortion device which gives me 48 hours per day... In any case, I am not trolling and I'd rather you not say that. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 20:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I thought Rex was 100% determined that we could not say that Kerry had a wound. Then why is he quoting a medical dictionary whose definitions for dressing are
Oh dear. Is Rex's terminogical game-playing coming unstuck, or is he admitting that when someone is wounded they have a . . . wound.
So Rex likes his wordplay to push
An agenda that helps him to rush
the reader into accepting
his version of correcting
to lead them against Kerry to gush.
FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 01:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Consensus for "wound" doth been reach
Injury no longer we teach
For certains been said
"That issue is dead"
By raising, decorum you breach
Rex071404
(all logic is premise based) 01:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
For clarity sake we do say
accuracy must rule the day
a skin break is a wound
where no confusion is found
so disagreement we just had to lay.
A dressing is understood clear
to cover a wound less the fear
of disease that would bite
creating a necessity to fight
for common meaning we need to get near.
Medical dictionaries are all very well.
But 'tis the danger they could easily swell
confusion and doubt
and accuracy rout
where language should be clear as a bell.
FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 01:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I won't get into the limerick craze, but this is getting quite annoying. I'm going to be handing out 24-hour blocks for disruption to whoever engages in this silliness again. Tito xd( ?!?) 01:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Users, sir, are entitled to use any form of English they choose to in the exploration and examination of the contextual debate they are partaking of, once the linguistic construction used does not involve abuse. When one is or is not a fan of debate by limerick is immaterial to the substantive issue in the process of debatement. Any imposition of blocks would be an abuse of position and the powers possessed by an admin and would require the immediate reportage of such acts and the removal for one so foolish as to behave in like manner of the said power to impose restrictions on linguistic participation in and educative communicative exercise. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 02:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Rex in his wisdom did speak
about the power of the language to seek
truth and dispel
confusion and sell
clarity to convince e're the meek.
Tis a pity to lose communication
with such as Tito's next connotation
where such language can kill
pure bitterness and thrill
through understanding and warm felication.
But for Tito's deep trauma we shall
confine limericks for a bit of a spell
and reign in our prose
simply because
it troubles poor Tito so well.
So alas we must lose the four lines
to communicate through means of some rhymes
and fight re the wound
through less fanfarious sound
and stick to the less melodious signs.
Fín.
lol FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 03:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Dull as the echoing sounds of reverts as they sweep before us. Wound. Non-wound. Dressing. Non-cloth dressing. Among the echoes of revertitis the melodic sound of rhythmic communication added a new frisson. But now, no more, sweet Wikipedians. We retreat into the dullness of a Wikipedia row, biting and barking at interpretations fair and foul. But at least, let it be said, the limericised communication spree raised a few smiles and calmed a few tempers. So 'twas useful after all. :-) FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 04:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the Snopes link and "bandage" for these reasons:
James, if you insists that "Snopes" link must be used, please explain why here. Also, if you insist that the disputed "bandage" must mentioned, please explain here how it's absence as seen here (same link as "h") fatally flaws the article. On the other hand, if no fatal flaw is caused by removing "banadage", please explain why it must otherwise be kept (if that is what you are saying). Also, if you insist we keep it, knowing as you do that Rex071404 disputes that particular word, please explain why you JamesMLane, refuse to agree to drop that word. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 07:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I use it here, because I fully expect James to refuse and I want this to read clearly when I post a link to it later for the benefit of others; 3rd person allowed the parties involved to stay in focus. That said Woohoo, what do you think of the merit of this tandem exclusion of "bandage" and "not serious" coupled with the deletion of the "Snopes" link? Are you in agreement or opposition, and why? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 07:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, in essesence, we have James's answer which is "as noted by Mr. Tibbs in his ES, he restored some valid citations that Rex had deleted, which I had overlooked". There simply is no reasoning with James. He is goinig to insist that his version and only his version (aka, one which he prefers) of the 1st PH section be allowed, nothing else. Does he address my concerns with Snopes? No. Did he explain the points I asked him about here? No. Instead he brushes them aside with an unexplained suggestion that "not serious", is somehow unencyclopedic even those two words come directly in the middle of a verbatim quote attributed to Brinkley and found on the very Snopes page which James uses for his justification of "bandage". Frankly, I am at a loss. If James is allowed to use the Snopes for "bandage" but I am not allowed to use the same Snopes for "not serious..." then we have applied a double-standard and we can never reach agreement because we are not starting from the same logic predicate. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 09:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
So then Wk, drawing up a list of essential salient facts as per my suggestion to you, would perhaps help? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 10:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Unless we are going to say that Snopes is incapable of using the Brinkely book as a reference and also incapable of quoting that book verbatim, then we are going to have to admit there does exist on Snopes, a verbatim quote (attributed to Brinkley, from his book) as follows: "Kerry's wound was not serious enough to require time off from duty." This quote is indeed on the Snopes page which James is citing [29]
Furthermore, the context of this quote indicates that Snopes asserts that Brinkley has said in his book that not only was the 1st purple heart for a "not serious" injury, but the 2nd is as well. Here, in it's entirety, is the Snopes sentence, verbatim, quoting Brinkley, as it sits on the page found at the snopes link: Brinkley noted that, as in the previous case, "Kerry's wound was not serious enough to require time off from duty.".
Suffice it to say , unless we are now arguing that Snopes is inventing quotes, then we have to accept as fact that James's highly vaunted source Brinkley has said the words, "not serious". The only point one could possibly argue here would be that Snopes has rendered an opinion about Brinkley's 1st PH comments when Snopes says "as in the previous case". Personally, I do not agree they are doing that. Rather, I feel this is a reminder in brief, not an opinion. But if Snopes is offering opinion, then I would say that opinion and fact are so poorly segregated on the Snopes page, as to render it valueless.
I find it interesting that James himself points to the headline on "Snopes" as being something we would never say here on the wiki. Indeed, with that he has opened the door to another point I have long argued about Snopes, which is Snopes is so chock full of flaws as a source and so pollutes our readers who are directed to it, that we should not use it at all. I reject the notion that somehow this particular Snopes page under discussion has such value that "We can cite them for facts but not for conclusions". Har! Far from it. By linking to that in this context, we plain and simply pollute the narrative of our own article.
Under the standard of 'half crappy links are ok , even FreeRepublic could be used for a source. Using James's desired standard of "cite for facts, not for conclusions", we find this interesting information on FreeRepublic [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1203448/posts], in the form of a combination of facts and conclusions. Please note that the facts are quoted and footnoted there: Later, after Schachte, Letson, and Hibbard's accounts of Kerry's wound were publicized, readers of Brinkley's biography discovered a passage quoting an entry from Kerry's war diary written after December 11 where Kerry recorded that "we hadn't been shot at yet". After this was pointed out, Kerry's campaign acknowledged that Kerry's wound may have been self-inflicted.
James would go absolutely berserk if I tried to write: According to Kerry, at this point, though "we hadn't been shot at yet", he nonetheless sought a Purple Heart for this wound.
James, this concession from Kerry establishes as a fact that a) Kerry was not involved in "enemy action" Dec 2 / Dec 3, so no matter how you slice it, there was no qualifying predicate enemy action which is the requirement to qualify for a PH. And with no enemy action, there can be no "heat of battle", so even if self-inflicted, it's not a "qualifying" wound. And yet, James stands by and watches while Kizzle continues to again and again try to insert the false statement that Kerry "qualified" [30] for this PH. Does James revert that or object to that? Why not?
Suffice it to say, James's standard of "use for facts only" is preposterous. The FreeRepublic example is only one, but there are many others. This idea of letting James cherry pick desired details from a snakepit of crap like that Snopes page is just plain not good. Nothing good can come from allowing sources like that to be used. However, if James demands Snopes, then at minimum, I am going to describe the 2nd PH injury as "not serious enough to require time off from duty"' because this is a verbatim quote from Brinkley and it is found on the James beloved "Snopes" page.
Now then, on this issue of sources let's see what else we find:
Here we have two highly credible 1st hand witnesses, who under James rule of "nobody says otherwise", because no one has challenged that these persons at one point visually saw Kerry wound with their own eyes, we must accept at fact value what they say "not very serious" and "not serious" and "minor". Now then, James' 2nd rational for Snopes - to prove Kerry went back to duty the next day, also fails as a justification. Uh, we already have factual corroboration that Kerry went directly back to duty, and this is from a Primary Source, the Sick Call Treatment Record "Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl (sic) bacitracin dressing. Ret to Duty," [35] James is only citing Snopes for that fact instead of CBS so as to give another excuse to use Snopes. CBS is a better source for this verification than Snopes because CBS quotes the Primary Source SCTR, but Snopes quotes the Secondary Source of Brinkley's book. Kerry returned to duty after treatment. whether it was the same day or the next day, is not a notable fact and we do not have need a citation for that as there is no dispute that he returned to duty. Also, when we are trying to determine if "Dressing", "Gauze" or "Bandage" is correct, we are told by James "It's a mistake to try to pick apart the report as if it were a description of the results of a scientific experiment in a peer-reviewed journal." Here is another one off James's double-standards. He wants precision as to when Kerry returned to duty, same day vs. next day, but he does not want precision when it comes to calling dressing "dressing" or gauze "gauze". And James' smarmy jibe about this [36] edit fails to persuade because he himself says "there's no serious dispute about the point" and I yielded on that point right away as soon as I recognized that. There is no dispute, either here or in the public about Kerry's return to duty and in either case, the Primary Source SCTR, beats the Secondary Source Brinkley quote (via the, in this instance, Tertiary Source Snopes). James claims that he does not favor page protection, but is that is real worry? I think not, his real worry is that if we end up protected again, that his preferred edits might be the odd man out. See his recent statement here on talk :"Protecting the page now would protect the wrong version". Here's the bottom line:
Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 18:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
James says "Snopes is a far more reliable source". Says who? James?. Also, James still has not addressed the verbatim quote of Brinkley which is found on the Snopes page. I presume that James is waiving any objections to me using that. And remind me again James, why is Kerry's arm wrapping (aka "bandage") notable enough to mention? And what about SCTR being a better source than Snopes for "back to duty"? Where is your answer to that, James? And if Kerry returning to duty is notable enough to mention, isn't where he was at while away from duty (that being Sick Call) also notable enough to mention? Why do you keep deleting that? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 19:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Ok. This is getting ridiculous. Lets decide this once and for all.
FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 21:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
You people are all well off the point. Rex at least is making his point as far as it logically supports him but your refutes are avoiding the real issue. First, is it possible to have a purple heart that states on your record (dd214 or otherwise) that you received a "minor purple heart" or attained a purple heart by a "minor wound"? Then you need to look at WHAT HIS WOUNDS ARE! If none of this is clear or public record (despite what sources you support Rex)then it should be stated on the record that some evidence/biographies or otherwise suggests that that there was something "minor" about his wounds. Make this statement as nonbiased as possible and continue to repeat the facts every time Rex objects. Your argument that this is about subjectivity or objectivity is unfounded if you yourself cannot be objective. I don't care about votes. History shows us that people are generally mislead by propaganda and disllusionment constantly. John Kerry has plenty of clear lies he supports that prove that if you simply look at all the objective facts. (Example, he along with many other democratic party members still continues to state that the war in Iraq was based souly on WMD's when this is clearly untrue. If you disagree with me on that then state so and bring that argument to the Wikipedia War on Iraq page. We've had a national obligation to take out Saddam ever since we put him in power, thinking it was for the better. WMD's are the least of our reasons to stop a mass murderer yet the lies keep on going. Therefore, people voting over truth is as substantial as logrolling the constitution). So quit being a bunch of idiots who think that by saying "It's clear that your wrong" you have made an objective point. Propaganda and it's effect on you is repulsive enough as it is. ( Youngidealist 03:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC))
The issue is clearly closed. Rex can complain all he likes. I think the rest of us should at this stage move on and pay no heed to Rex's endless complaining. If he continues, the issue should be brought to the arbcom and a request made that Rex be prohibited from editing this article, since he had shown a clear determination to POV this article at all costs. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 23:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Who are you talking to, just me? What about "Rex can complain all he likes"? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 23:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
"Wound" has not been cited to an authoritative source. That is a fact. If I am wrong, what is the source? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 23:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Issue closed. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 23:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Repeat: "Wound" has not been cited to an authoritative source. That is a fact. If I am wrong, what is the source? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 23:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Accept what? That "wound" is not sourced, but you guys want to use it anyway? Why should I do that? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 23:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
This issue is now closed. Please do not discuss this issue with Rex071404. It simply gives him an angle to come back and repeat himself ad nausaum. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 00:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Stop archiving this talk page every ten minutes, this isn't your own personal talk page Rex, you're taking this too far, it's almost like you're testing the system to see how far you can push before they block you or bring you up on sanctions, stop being a martyr already. If the admins weren't 100% sure that you'd come back as an even more trollish sockpuppet, they would have blocked you by now, learn to take a hint-- IKnowWho (Gee, I'm a sockpuppet, how unexpected) 23:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Kumbayaaaaa m'lord, Kumbayaaaaa. Kumbayaaaaa m'lord, Kumbayaaaa. Ohhh, Kumbayaaa.
or
All we are saaaaying, is give peace a chance.
or
Few times I've been around this track but its not just going to happen like that cause I ain't no holla back giiiirl, I ain't no holla back giiiirl.
-- kizzle 00:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
This issue is now closed. Please do not discuss this issue with Rex071404. It simply gives him an angle to come back and repeat himself ad nausaum. He has talked the issue to death and is in a minority of one. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 00:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
This issue is now closed. A vote has already taken place. The decision was unanimous. Please do not discuss this issue with Rex071404. It simply gives him an angle to come back and repeat himself ad nausaum. He has talked the issue to death and is in a minority of one. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 01:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Reading the dialogue on this page, I've reverted to the version agreed by everyone but Rex and unprotected the page. EVERYONE: Please do not start this discussion again. Tito xd( ?!?) 00:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The admin who unprotected, referred to this as "consensus" ( Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 00:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)):
(see below)
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. These men failed to stop when ordered, and Kerry and his crew of two enlisted men then opened fire with machine guns destroying the sampans and quickly left the area. During this encounter, Kerry received a shrapnel wound in his left arm above the elbow. [2] Subsequently at Sick Call, the shrapnel was removed and Kerry was treated with bacitracin and bandaged. Kerry returned to duty the next day on a regular Swift boat patrol. Kerry was later awarded a Purple Heart for this wound. During the 2004 presidential campaign, various critics such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth suggested reasons that this injury did not merit a Purple Heart. [3] Also in 2004, after a limited review prompted by Judicial Watch the Naval Inspector General "determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved". [4] For more information, see John Kerry military service controversy.
Is this, as is, consensus, yes or no?
No
Yes
This issue is now closed. Please do not discuss this issue with Rex071404. It simply gives him an angle to come back and repeat himself ad nausaum. He has talked the issue to death and is in a minority of one. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 00:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Note: A vote already took place. As with his determination to force his version of events on the page, Rex now wants to force his version of the vote. Ignore it. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 01:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Not so. I am interested to see if the others accept this as is, for the consensus version. If they don't ratify it, up or down, then there is no consensus. When the conversation ended, we were only discussing "wound", not other parts of the section. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 01:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Although I completely agree that Rex is being difficult with his agressive pursuit of this question, I don't think it is very sporting to declare "case closed" after a day or so of voting. I see little harm in allowing other editors time to express their opinion. Johntex\ talk 01:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
It is actually after 200K of debate (him against everyone else), rewrites (him against everyone else), weeks of discussion (him against everyone else). So yes, the views of the community were 100% clear. The issue is closed. Rex can complain and complain and complain all he wants, but a consensus was agreed a long time ago and people are fed up with his one man crusade to POV the article and ignore everyone else. So yes, the case is unambiguously closed. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 01:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
He's been hammering at this exact same issue for over a year. Gamaliel 02:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't rhyme. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 12:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
So Rex is in denial of a wound.
He can't tolerate sight nor a sound
of a wounded John Kerry
He finds the idea too scary
Even though plenty of evidence has been found.
Boom boom. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 13:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
JK's got a house in Nantucket
[5]
And shrapnel it seems, he can't duck it
Though injured that day
It is fair to say
As a limerick, my poem may suck it.
Rex071404
(all logic is premise based) 15:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Kerry had a rough campaign time,
being hits by allegations and slime,
but unlike George B he fought,
no waver was sought,
and no advisor stands accused of a crime.
Even if he's not Irish at all,
he still won his re-elections in the fall,
as a senate big hitter,
and a safe senate seat sitter,
without need to canvass every mall.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint) 16:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Employing a heritage ruse
Kerry got Boston voters to choose
Him over his foes
So that's how it goes
Small wonder "not Irish" is news
A president (and poobah) named Kerry
Would make many Democrats merry
But alas, you will see
That it never will be
Cause he's no more special than
Jerry
Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 20:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Instead we have Bush the retard
who appointed a horse judge as FEMA
His ratings are falling
McClellan is stalling
Yet Rex is still on Kerry's record
(little eminem license on syllables) --
kizzle 00:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Uh, do you mean?:
Instead we have Bush the dweeber
who appointed a horse judge to FEMA
His ratings are falling
McClellan is stalling
Yet Rex edits Kerry the goober
Rex071404
(all logic is premise based) 00:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Within one hour of the so-called new "consensus" version being announced, Derex is already modifying it back to his preferences:
Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 01:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Innuendo? I disagree. Please state your objections here and we can discuss it. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 13:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I added the following phrasing for treatment of the wound:
Description of treatment is right out of the official sick call report, see exact phrasing in the reference now provided. Finessed the Letson/Carreon issue while removing passive voice by saying "medical staff" removed it, rather than either a 'medic' or a 'doctor'. Derex @ 15:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
James, let's not get confused here. The section as Derex left it here works just fine but if you tamper with it, you are going to open another can of worms. I've accpeted it and Derex has accepted it. Please don't start again with trying to frame this section as a pissing contest between LetsonSBVT/ Kerry. There is no mention of any Letson/SBVT allegations at this point and that's for the best. Also, if you have evidence that some Sick Calls were not "daily lineups" then the place for that is at Sick Call not here. Now regarding any suggested "bandage", the best method here is to rely on a "best evidence rule". The best evidence is that we have a direct quotation from a Sick Call Treatment Record which by virtue of the Govt. name for the record, indicates treatment was rendered at a Sick Call and for that reason, we so state he was treated at a "sick call". There is nothing stopping you from fleshing out the Sick Call page, if needs be. Also, you must be kidding to try to cite Letson for any reason as you have utterly opposed "superficial" and "small" in the past, both of which came from Letson. Additionally, you can't stick Brinkley in our face and contend that he can somehow adds to the facts of the Sick Call Treatment Record. That book by Brinkly was recently written and any information he has about "bandage" (if any) comes comes from Kerry. If we accept that information at face value, with no discount for any self-serving bias in Kerry's re-telling to Brinkley, then we are back to putting our thumb on the scale in favor of Kerry. That's because Letson also could offer equally 1st hand information as that recited by Kerry to Brinkley. To allow Kerry's version, simply because he re-told it to Brinkley, but not allow Letson's who re-told it via an affidavit, is silly. Only if Brinkley in his book has sourced (not from Kerry himself) to contemporaneous corroboration -specifically about a "bandage" being applied to Kerry's arm- from the time period of the Sick Call, are we to give the Brinkley accounting of the Kerry story any more weight than Letson. Also, if you read my comments to Derex about this on his talk page, I've already pointed out that one could reasonably infer a "bandage" from the Sick Call Treatment Record; however an equally reasonable inference there would also support "minor", which I know you are dead set against. Suffice it to say, the only contemporaneous record of the treatment is the Sick Call Treatment Record and there is no mention in it of any "bandage". If you want to insist that Brinkley drew on data other than Kerry telling him so, you'll have to show it or else your suggestion that Brinkley is a superior source than the disallowed Letson, is just conjecture and supposition. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 19:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Well isn't this just dandy. The only actual record of Kerry getting any treatment is a government document which says right on it "Sick Call Treatment Record" but you guys now have a problem saying Kerry was treated at a "sick call". You are ok with "wound" which appears nowhere, but you have a problem with "sick call" which is printed right on the form and refers to the actual military designation for the treatment session. Also, if "bandage" goes in, then "minor" is going in. Neither appear on the SCTR, but both could reasonably be inferred from it. You simply can't go around inferring for one, but not the other. That's so POV it's ridiculuous. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 00:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Well the solution to that, as I am always being told, is to fix the other article, not delete the wikilink from here. What about that? And you do see that I have sourced the key definition of " Sick Call" yes? If you have a problem with the Sick Call article, tell me here that you will dialog about that there, and I will watch there for your comments. Also, I have a source for "a daily lineup of military personnel requiring medical attention". Where is your source for your contention "All the term means is that he went to the medic with an acute problem, and thus without prior appointment" ? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 00:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Derex, you are misinformed here. "Sick call" can be process "lining up for sick call" and/or an activity "go to sick call" and/or a treatment session "I was treated at sick call". This is not generally known to the readers and a wikilink to an informative Sick Call page is a good idea. Oh well, too bad people would not leave well enough alone. The version from earlier today was fine. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 02:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
(copied from Rex talk)
This is not fully true, all wound coverings are dressings but not all dressings are bandages. Bacitracin alone is indeed a "dressing". I explained this already in detail, with full proof on talk. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 02:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
(from above)
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". <<< Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 02:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Please see Dressing the wound, here.
"The wound should then be covered with a clean dressing and bandaged to hold the dressing in place."
Note that "dressing" and "bandaged" are separate steps.
Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 02:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
It's affirmed there, not rebutted. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 03:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe that the public facts support mentioning this. However, if it needs a re-write, please discuss here. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 13:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
inserting the sign Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 00:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
This issue is now closed. Please do not discuss this issue with Rex071404. It simply gives him an angle to come back and repeat himself ad nausaum. He has talked the issue to death and is in a minority of one. 205.188.117.68 18:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Not a type of bandage, if you don't know that, then you probably need to go back to whatever type of primary school you eeked your way through-- 152.163.101.10 02:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
See this Govt link from Australia. "A first aid kit should be well stocked with dressings and bandages, disinfectants, fasteners, safety pins and other equipment such as resuscitation masks, scissors and splinter forceps." Dressings and bandages are clearly not the same thing. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 02:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
" Ointment: A medication preparation that is applied topically (onto the skin). An ointment has an oil base whereas a cream is water-soluble. (The word ointment comes from the Latin ungere meaning anoint with oil)"
Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 03:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Over-the-counter or not has no bearing on its status as an oitnment. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 03:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Derex, are you contending that in Medical Terminology, the words Dressing and Bandaging are interchangable? If that's your contention, you are wrong. And further, such a contention would buttress my "wound" "injury" contention, which you are opposed to. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 04:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Anon, I don't follow you. Please explain. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 04:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
With regard to writing the article, no one contends that we shouldn't mention the bacitracin. The issue is whether we should mention the bandage. Kerry's biographer says the wound was bandaged. Letson, one of Kerry's harshest critics, says the wound was bandaged. No witness says the wound wasn't bandaged. No Wikipedia policy restricts us to the use of official records or constrains us from reporting facts that are cited to other sources. The statement that Kerry's wound was bandaged is properly sourced and isn't disputed by any source, so there's no reason for us to conceal this information from the reader. Information about the history of bacitracin (its original use, its downgrading through overuse, its conversion from prescription drug to OTC) could usefully ba added to the Bacitracin article. JamesMLane 04:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Kerry's biographer got his information from either Kerry, or the Sick Call Treatment Record - there has been no showing otherwise. From our perspective, Kerry as a source, has no more validity than Letson as a source. James has many times refused me to use Letson for any reason. If he now bases his support for "bandage" even in part on Letson, that opens the door for Letson's 1st hand account of the shrapnel being "small" and "superfically" clinging to the surface of the skin. Both of which reinforce my contention that the wound was "minor". Since James opposes letting Letson lead us to "minor" how does he justify using Letson to introduce "bandage"? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 04:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Is "wound" the only issue or are there others that need to be hashed out? I know one problem with an article like this is that John is still very much in the news, so we'll never be "finished" really. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 04:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
James, the sources which Snopes cites (and from which you draw your material) were writers (as is Snopes) that made conclusions. Are you saying that somehow Brinkley's conclusions are more independant or otherwise superior to Snopes's? If so, explain. And, according to the USA Today link "Vice Adm. R.A. Route, the Navy inspector general, conducted the review of Kerry's Vietnam-ear military service awards at the request of Judicial Watch, a public interest group". JW's role certainly is germane, because without it, there would be no review. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 05:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
It's absolutely of no relevance that a Brinkley quote says "Brinkley notes that Kerry went on a regular Swift boat patrol the next day with a bandage on his arm". That's because:
Brinkley saying "Kerry went on a regular Swift boat patrol the next day with a bandage on his arm", is no different than Kerry saying it. This is unsubstantiated assertion and as such, is unacceptable.
Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 07:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
According to: Wikipedia:Reliable sources, some questions we should ask, are:
Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 08:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Are you threatening me? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 08:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
"Tour of Duty is clearly a presidential campaign biography" [14] Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 08:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
We have had 75 (yes 75) edits in the 36 hours since this page was unprotected and it's the same old issues...wound...purple heart, non serious, etc. This is just insane. I think the admin who unprotected it misinterpreted us. We have a consensus. That's clear. But the edit warring is not ceasing. We need reprotection. Period. It's gotten to the point where I for one can't follow all of the edits. One article should not have to take up all of someone's time on here. It's counterproductive as hell. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 15:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Woohoo, you are mistaken as to what's going on here. When this was unprotected, the First Purple Heart section was immediately jumped on by Derex within one hour, with edits that I took issue with. Others came along behind him and kept making changes that were bringing us back, not forward. The consensus we had (which I objected to as invalid) covered only the inclusion of the word "wound". If I am not mistaken, of the edits I have done here since that objectionable consensus was reached, I have abided by that and each of my offerings have included "wound". I have offered a number of variants of that section which I would accept (along with another two with Johntex and Katefan0). However, there is a core group, led by JamesMLane, who keep trying to use variants with a "Snopes" link. That Snopes link [15] is being used by James to try to justify the word "bandage" which is not sourceable (without inference) to Kerry's Sick Call Treatment Record (the only official treatment record) and for which, there is ongoing debate. James's suggestion via ES [16] that there is no dispute, is false. Also, when the Snopes link is present, I have tried to cite it to support the undisputed fact that Kerry's wound "was not serious...". This is evidenced by a) James has argued in favor of the validity of Brinkley as a source and b) the very snopes link which James keeps using has on it a verbatim quote by Brinkley which says Brinkley noted that, as in the previous case, "Kerry's wound was not serious enough to require time off from duty.". The fact is, James want to use Snopes to push his unsupported POV about "bandage", but when I cite Snopes for an undisputed fact, James and others simply delete my edit or otherwise modify it, removing the "not serious". This is plain and simply bad editing and POV. And since I am not going to sit here and just revert all day, each time the section is twisted around, I am left with trying to make a new silk purse out of a sows ear. Suffice it to say, this is why I have been editing here. Other than try to blame me, I'd like to hear James's and the others accounts of their recent edits - especially as it relates to trying to cite a single Snopes page, while disallowing that same page for another edit citation. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 15:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
James, since you claim to have addressed these specific points, but don't want to retype the words, then I'd be happy to read any talk page diff's you post here which directly address this. And James, if your comment of "I just hope someone else will revert this page ASAP" is not a call for tag-team reverting, I don't know what is. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 15:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
OK. It strikes me that right now we're stuck over whether to call the "bacitracin dressing" a bandage or not. Or whether "bacitracin dressing" could simply mean smearing some bacitracin over a wound and that's that. I did some poking around to see whether or not "bacitracin dressing" is a medical term carrying a specific meaning, and there do seem to be some indications that that is the case. Bacitracin dressing I've found is also called "Neosporin Adaptic dressing." [17] - here are some specifics about how it's used. [18] In other words, it's an "adaptic dressing" with some neosporin/bacitracin/antibiotic ointment applied to the dressing and then placed on the wound (or applied to the wound and then the adaptic dressing is applied on top of it). In general an adaptic dressing means a mesh gauze pad that doesn't stick to a wound. [19] So. Is a bacitracin dressing a bandage itself? Maybe. I guess it depends on how you define bandage. Regardless, it seems that a "bacitracin dressing" is a gauze pad of varying sizes. But, the standard technique for its application [20] -- and some amount of common sense -- does seem to indicate that some sort of bandage (or maybe medical tape) would be required to keep the dressing from falling off (Merriam-Webster: bandage: a strip of fabric used especially to dress and bind up wounds). Given this definition, it could be argued that the bacitracin dressing could itself qualify as a bandage. Good lord, I can't believe I spent an hour on this today. FWIW. I've also asked a doctor who is a Wikipedia editor whether "bacitracin dressing" is a commonly-understood medical term, also FWIW. · Katefan0 (scribble) 16:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I've already agreed (in fact, I was the 1st to offer this, see my talk with Derex on his and my talk pages - and also above) that "bacitracin dressing" could (not must, but could) be interpreted to mean "bacitracin + gauze" and that some might refer to that combination has a "bandage". However, I have also provided links (see above) which make clear that "Dressing" and "Bandaging" are two discrete steps. [21], [22] Now, with with Dressing and Bandage, having been established as discrete steps, what information do we have to see which steps were taken with Kerry's injury? The only official record of treatment is Kerry's Sick Call Treatment Record (SCTR), which states "Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl (sic) bacitracin dressing. Ret to Duty." We find that source here. Suffice it to say, beyond that, James has offered only Snopes, which is problematic for reasons I cite immediately prior to here (above) or Letson, who James dismisses as unreliable when I want to cite him. Therefore, we are left only with the verbatim text of SCTR which does not state that a 2nd discrete step of "bandaging" took place after "dressing". Also, if indeed, the wound was a "little scratch" as stated by 1st hand witness, Ret. Lt. Gen. Hibbard [23], then it's highly likely that only bacitracin was used. But regardless of who said what, we have only three possible infererences we can draw from the SCTR:
Please note that the 1st two of these would definately support my prefered use of the word "minor" in regards to wound severity. And the 3rd, combined with no evidence or report of sutures and no lost time from work, again supports minor.
I have been holding my ground here for a very simple reason: James. et al, want to use inferences and sources to back up "bandages", but they do not allow me equally valid inferences and sources to back up "minor".
not only that, but it's actually at the point where James says I can't use the Snopes link [24] for a direct qoute of "not serious" as an alternative to minor, but he claims he can use Snopes to back up, "bandage" and "returned to duty the next day".
I fail to see how such an uneven applicaiton of editing standards will led to anything but more contested edits, or a problematic text, consensus supported or not.
Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 17:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Kate, are you denying that "bandaging" is also a discrete step, separate and distinct from "dressing"? If so, what about the sources I provide that show that it is a separate and distinct step? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 17:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Kate, with all due respect, you need to rethink what you are saying. The SCTR, clearly says "appl Bacitracin dressing". When one applies a "dressing" to a wound, they are "dressing" a wound. Do you deny this? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 17:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
So far, that's three for "minor wound": Wwoods, Johntex and Rex071404. At the same time, if "gauze bandage" or better yet "gauze dressing" were used instead of "bandage", I'd be ok with that. You guys think I push Kerry down with "minor", but I think you push him up with "bandage". Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 19:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd be ok with "gauze bandage" (less supportable) or "gauze dressing" (more supportable). I have a problem with plain old "bandage" as I feel it tends towards gratuitous hagiography and here's why: There is no information to suggest that Kerry was nursing a wound here, so why are we implying that by saying "bandage" to them? There is not much argument that this was by and large not serious to any degree, so then other than the fact that he got a Purple Heart from it, why is the supposed bandage notable enough to mention? Clearly, James is opposed to describing the wound itself ("minor"), so why does he want to describe the treatment ("bandage"). Non-severe wounds, that in and of themselves have no lasting physical effects are simply not notable so far as the after details go. By describing the type of wrapping as "bandage" rather than omitting that or using "gauze" (which may be inferred), we are plain and simply skewing the narrative in a gratuitously hagiographic manner. If the degree of injury is not notable enough to mention, neither is the type of wrapping (if any) it was given. It's enough to say "bacitracin dressing" and leave it at that. I will however, as a good faith gesture, offer that "gauze bandage" or "gauze dressing" as ok with me. What about you others? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 01:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
From Dorlands Medical Dicitonary [25]
dressing (dress·ing) (dres´ing) 1. any of various materials for covering and protecting a wound. See also bandage. 2. the putting on of clothing.
adhesive absorbent d. a sterile individual dressing consisting of a plain absorbent compress affixed to a film or fabric coated with a pressure-sensitive adhesive substance.
antiseptic d. a dressing of gauze impregnated with an antiseptic material.
bolus d. tie-over d.
cocoon d. a dressing of gauze affixed to the surrounding skin by collodion or other liquid adhesive in such a way that its elevated appearance resembles a cocoon.
cross d. cross-dressing.
dry d. dry gauze or absorbent cotton applied to a wound.
fixed d. a dressing impregnated with a stiffening agent such as plaster of Paris or starch, used to secure fixation of the part when the material dries.
occlusive d. one which seals a wound from contact with air or bacteria.
pressure d. one by which pressure is exerted on the area covered to prevent collection of fluids in underlying tissues; most commonly used after skin grafting and in treatment of burns.
protective d. a light dressing to prevent exposure to injury or infection.
stent d. a dressing in which is incorporated a mold or stent, to maintain position of a graft.
tie-over d. a dressing placed over a skin graft or other sutured wound and tied on by the sutures, which have been made of sufficient length for that purpose; called also bolus d.
Just as I said, said to Derex, if I were going to guess, I'd say "bacitracin dressing" could mean with gauze see "antiseptic" def above. However, I have also said it could mean bacitracin as just a covering. That is also true, see "occlusive" above.
In either case, "bandage" has a separate def [26] and based what we know was applied "bacitracin dressing" and what it could mean ("bacitracin with gauze"), then if James wants to call it "gauze bandaging", I would agree. Please note that I said virtually the same thing some time ago to Derex here "Personally, I might guess that Kerry got Bacitracin, with gauze and surgical tape. If you want to use that language, I'd agree. If others had actually read my reference to this, they would know that already. To reiterate, at most, Kerry got "bacitracin impregnated into gauze", which can be referred to as dressing, but is not referred to as "bandaging", but could be called "gauze bandaging" or "gauze dressing" and those would not be a lie and either would settle my concerns. What about James? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 17:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
It matters because JamesMLane keeps inserting the unsupported "bandage". Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 18:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Cloth is not required and not all cloth is a bandage. For the record, I will again restate: [27] A dressing can be "occlusive d. one which seals a wound from contact with air or bacteria."
What do you think Bacitracin ointment does, when applied to the skin surface over a small scratch? It "seals a wound from contact with air or bacteria".
And you do know that an "occlusive" dressing is not the same as "antiseptic d. a dressing of gauze impregnated with an antiseptic material"? for if it were, they would not have two different sub-definitions to clarify the differences.
In fact, this definition of an "occlusive" dressing would even support petroleum jelly or nuskin [28] as a "dressing", which is what I've already told you several times.
In short, as I have made perfectly clear via both personal reasoning (which you reject) and citation (which hopefully you will stop overlooking and igoring), according to the medical dictionary, among other variants, a "dressing" can be antiseptic, which does have gauze which is what Kate is talking about (though she's wrongly trying to say it must be that type) or it can be (still among other types) "occlusive", which has no gauze.
The problem is that you and she and a few others here are trying to say a) a dressing must have gauze (which is not true basd on the medical dictionary) and b) because of that, since gauze (you contend) is "bandage", shzaam, we reach bandage.
However, as clearly shown above, your position is not sound and is not proved true.
At the same time, what I have said about the evidence supplied by Jams is correct, the word "dressing" does not establish "bandage". Try as you may to get around that, I have provided more than enough proof in the form of experts sources.
So Derex, please stop glossing over my postings. I have have met my duty. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 19:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Again, I will point out that the underlying issue between James and me is that he wants to be allowed to cite a particular source for his purposes, but does not want to allow me to cite the same source. If Letson is invoked for "bandage" that makes him valid for "superficially" and "small" in regards to the shrapnel wound. This makes the wound "minor" which is something James opposes. In the James scheme of things, Letson is "ok" if he backs up James, but "not ok" if he backs up Rex. Also, this issue of Brinkley was addressed above where I cited about 6 reasons from Wikipedia:Reliable sources which make clear that Brinkley's assertion must be verified with additional sources, something James has not dealt with -and can't because the only source is the treatment record (SCTR) and Kerry's assertions as repeated to Brinkley. Lastly, James failed to mention the additional iteration of his double standards of sourcing which is "Snopes" and which I have fully gone over in detail, above. Suffice it to say, Mekong Delta or no, it does not take much effort to write "wrap arm in bandage" if that's in fact what occurred. James has just got sour grapes because he's finally been caught with his hand in his editor's double- standard-cookie-jar. The bulk of the available information about "Bacitracin dressing" leans towards gauze perhaps being used, but no bandages. There is no information about "bandaging" in the SCTR which is the authoritative source. Simply because the best evidence available does not help advance James's desired POV, does not mean he can try to argue now why the SCTR doesn't say "bandage". James's Mekong gambit is just silly. By his logic, sutures are not written there either, but lets impute that into the record also. Why stop there? Perhaps Kerry got plasma, or a transfusion? Gee, uh the record says nothing about any tenus shot either. Aren't those routine for deep punctures? Oh yeah, Kerry got five of them, along with snake bite treatment, but the medic was too busy to write that fact down. James, when I used to pulled harebrained supposition out my butt, you objected and sought sanctions. But now you get to make suppositions?. The bottom line is that "Bandaging" and "Dressing" are simply not the same thing and the medical dictionary which I cited above, makes that 100% clear. And that's why gauze is called "gauze" and bandages are called "bandages"; they are not the same! James has not proved bandage and he's just mad that gauze is the best he gets (and he didn't prove that either -it's inferred). Several times, I've offered to support something like "the next day, Kerry returned to Swift boat duty with a gauze bandage on his arm" but James has yet to say if he'll accept that. So who's the POV hold-out here? Not me. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 23:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Rather than protecting the page again, why not just block Rex for persistant trolling?-- 205.188.117.68 20:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Didn't you see that ad on TV, where the Chinese guy cloned himself to get more done each day?... That, or I am typing via thought projection while on the road... Or perhaps I have time distortion device which gives me 48 hours per day... In any case, I am not trolling and I'd rather you not say that. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 20:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I thought Rex was 100% determined that we could not say that Kerry had a wound. Then why is he quoting a medical dictionary whose definitions for dressing are
Oh dear. Is Rex's terminogical game-playing coming unstuck, or is he admitting that when someone is wounded they have a . . . wound.
So Rex likes his wordplay to push
An agenda that helps him to rush
the reader into accepting
his version of correcting
to lead them against Kerry to gush.
FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 01:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Consensus for "wound" doth been reach
Injury no longer we teach
For certains been said
"That issue is dead"
By raising, decorum you breach
Rex071404
(all logic is premise based) 01:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
For clarity sake we do say
accuracy must rule the day
a skin break is a wound
where no confusion is found
so disagreement we just had to lay.
A dressing is understood clear
to cover a wound less the fear
of disease that would bite
creating a necessity to fight
for common meaning we need to get near.
Medical dictionaries are all very well.
But 'tis the danger they could easily swell
confusion and doubt
and accuracy rout
where language should be clear as a bell.
FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 01:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I won't get into the limerick craze, but this is getting quite annoying. I'm going to be handing out 24-hour blocks for disruption to whoever engages in this silliness again. Tito xd( ?!?) 01:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Users, sir, are entitled to use any form of English they choose to in the exploration and examination of the contextual debate they are partaking of, once the linguistic construction used does not involve abuse. When one is or is not a fan of debate by limerick is immaterial to the substantive issue in the process of debatement. Any imposition of blocks would be an abuse of position and the powers possessed by an admin and would require the immediate reportage of such acts and the removal for one so foolish as to behave in like manner of the said power to impose restrictions on linguistic participation in and educative communicative exercise. FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 02:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Rex in his wisdom did speak
about the power of the language to seek
truth and dispel
confusion and sell
clarity to convince e're the meek.
Tis a pity to lose communication
with such as Tito's next connotation
where such language can kill
pure bitterness and thrill
through understanding and warm felication.
But for Tito's deep trauma we shall
confine limericks for a bit of a spell
and reign in our prose
simply because
it troubles poor Tito so well.
So alas we must lose the four lines
to communicate through means of some rhymes
and fight re the wound
through less fanfarious sound
and stick to the less melodious signs.
Fín.
lol FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 03:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Dull as the echoing sounds of reverts as they sweep before us. Wound. Non-wound. Dressing. Non-cloth dressing. Among the echoes of revertitis the melodic sound of rhythmic communication added a new frisson. But now, no more, sweet Wikipedians. We retreat into the dullness of a Wikipedia row, biting and barking at interpretations fair and foul. But at least, let it be said, the limericised communication spree raised a few smiles and calmed a few tempers. So 'twas useful after all. :-) FearÉIREANN \ (caint) 04:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the Snopes link and "bandage" for these reasons:
James, if you insists that "Snopes" link must be used, please explain why here. Also, if you insist that the disputed "bandage" must mentioned, please explain here how it's absence as seen here (same link as "h") fatally flaws the article. On the other hand, if no fatal flaw is caused by removing "banadage", please explain why it must otherwise be kept (if that is what you are saying). Also, if you insist we keep it, knowing as you do that Rex071404 disputes that particular word, please explain why you JamesMLane, refuse to agree to drop that word. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 07:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I use it here, because I fully expect James to refuse and I want this to read clearly when I post a link to it later for the benefit of others; 3rd person allowed the parties involved to stay in focus. That said Woohoo, what do you think of the merit of this tandem exclusion of "bandage" and "not serious" coupled with the deletion of the "Snopes" link? Are you in agreement or opposition, and why? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 07:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, in essesence, we have James's answer which is "as noted by Mr. Tibbs in his ES, he restored some valid citations that Rex had deleted, which I had overlooked". There simply is no reasoning with James. He is goinig to insist that his version and only his version (aka, one which he prefers) of the 1st PH section be allowed, nothing else. Does he address my concerns with Snopes? No. Did he explain the points I asked him about here? No. Instead he brushes them aside with an unexplained suggestion that "not serious", is somehow unencyclopedic even those two words come directly in the middle of a verbatim quote attributed to Brinkley and found on the very Snopes page which James uses for his justification of "bandage". Frankly, I am at a loss. If James is allowed to use the Snopes for "bandage" but I am not allowed to use the same Snopes for "not serious..." then we have applied a double-standard and we can never reach agreement because we are not starting from the same logic predicate. Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 09:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
So then Wk, drawing up a list of essential salient facts as per my suggestion to you, would perhaps help? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 10:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Unless we are going to say that Snopes is incapable of using the Brinkely book as a reference and also incapable of quoting that book verbatim, then we are going to have to admit there does exist on Snopes, a verbatim quote (attributed to Brinkley, from his book) as follows: "Kerry's wound was not serious enough to require time off from duty." This quote is indeed on the Snopes page which James is citing [29]
Furthermore, the context of this quote indicates that Snopes asserts that Brinkley has said in his book that not only was the 1st purple heart for a "not serious" injury, but the 2nd is as well. Here, in it's entirety, is the Snopes sentence, verbatim, quoting Brinkley, as it sits on the page found at the snopes link: Brinkley noted that, as in the previous case, "Kerry's wound was not serious enough to require time off from duty.".
Suffice it to say , unless we are now arguing that Snopes is inventing quotes, then we have to accept as fact that James's highly vaunted source Brinkley has said the words, "not serious". The only point one could possibly argue here would be that Snopes has rendered an opinion about Brinkley's 1st PH comments when Snopes says "as in the previous case". Personally, I do not agree they are doing that. Rather, I feel this is a reminder in brief, not an opinion. But if Snopes is offering opinion, then I would say that opinion and fact are so poorly segregated on the Snopes page, as to render it valueless.
I find it interesting that James himself points to the headline on "Snopes" as being something we would never say here on the wiki. Indeed, with that he has opened the door to another point I have long argued about Snopes, which is Snopes is so chock full of flaws as a source and so pollutes our readers who are directed to it, that we should not use it at all. I reject the notion that somehow this particular Snopes page under discussion has such value that "We can cite them for facts but not for conclusions". Har! Far from it. By linking to that in this context, we plain and simply pollute the narrative of our own article.
Under the standard of 'half crappy links are ok , even FreeRepublic could be used for a source. Using James's desired standard of "cite for facts, not for conclusions", we find this interesting information on FreeRepublic [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1203448/posts], in the form of a combination of facts and conclusions. Please note that the facts are quoted and footnoted there: Later, after Schachte, Letson, and Hibbard's accounts of Kerry's wound were publicized, readers of Brinkley's biography discovered a passage quoting an entry from Kerry's war diary written after December 11 where Kerry recorded that "we hadn't been shot at yet". After this was pointed out, Kerry's campaign acknowledged that Kerry's wound may have been self-inflicted.
James would go absolutely berserk if I tried to write: According to Kerry, at this point, though "we hadn't been shot at yet", he nonetheless sought a Purple Heart for this wound.
James, this concession from Kerry establishes as a fact that a) Kerry was not involved in "enemy action" Dec 2 / Dec 3, so no matter how you slice it, there was no qualifying predicate enemy action which is the requirement to qualify for a PH. And with no enemy action, there can be no "heat of battle", so even if self-inflicted, it's not a "qualifying" wound. And yet, James stands by and watches while Kizzle continues to again and again try to insert the false statement that Kerry "qualified" [30] for this PH. Does James revert that or object to that? Why not?
Suffice it to say, James's standard of "use for facts only" is preposterous. The FreeRepublic example is only one, but there are many others. This idea of letting James cherry pick desired details from a snakepit of crap like that Snopes page is just plain not good. Nothing good can come from allowing sources like that to be used. However, if James demands Snopes, then at minimum, I am going to describe the 2nd PH injury as "not serious enough to require time off from duty"' because this is a verbatim quote from Brinkley and it is found on the James beloved "Snopes" page.
Now then, on this issue of sources let's see what else we find:
Here we have two highly credible 1st hand witnesses, who under James rule of "nobody says otherwise", because no one has challenged that these persons at one point visually saw Kerry wound with their own eyes, we must accept at fact value what they say "not very serious" and "not serious" and "minor". Now then, James' 2nd rational for Snopes - to prove Kerry went back to duty the next day, also fails as a justification. Uh, we already have factual corroboration that Kerry went directly back to duty, and this is from a Primary Source, the Sick Call Treatment Record "Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl (sic) bacitracin dressing. Ret to Duty," [35] James is only citing Snopes for that fact instead of CBS so as to give another excuse to use Snopes. CBS is a better source for this verification than Snopes because CBS quotes the Primary Source SCTR, but Snopes quotes the Secondary Source of Brinkley's book. Kerry returned to duty after treatment. whether it was the same day or the next day, is not a notable fact and we do not have need a citation for that as there is no dispute that he returned to duty. Also, when we are trying to determine if "Dressing", "Gauze" or "Bandage" is correct, we are told by James "It's a mistake to try to pick apart the report as if it were a description of the results of a scientific experiment in a peer-reviewed journal." Here is another one off James's double-standards. He wants precision as to when Kerry returned to duty, same day vs. next day, but he does not want precision when it comes to calling dressing "dressing" or gauze "gauze". And James' smarmy jibe about this [36] edit fails to persuade because he himself says "there's no serious dispute about the point" and I yielded on that point right away as soon as I recognized that. There is no dispute, either here or in the public about Kerry's return to duty and in either case, the Primary Source SCTR, beats the Secondary Source Brinkley quote (via the, in this instance, Tertiary Source Snopes). James claims that he does not favor page protection, but is that is real worry? I think not, his real worry is that if we end up protected again, that his preferred edits might be the odd man out. See his recent statement here on talk :"Protecting the page now would protect the wrong version". Here's the bottom line:
Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 18:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
James says "Snopes is a far more reliable source". Says who? James?. Also, James still has not addressed the verbatim quote of Brinkley which is found on the Snopes page. I presume that James is waiving any objections to me using that. And remind me again James, why is Kerry's arm wrapping (aka "bandage") notable enough to mention? And what about SCTR being a better source than Snopes for "back to duty"? Where is your answer to that, James? And if Kerry returning to duty is notable enough to mention, isn't where he was at while away from duty (that being Sick Call) also notable enough to mention? Why do you keep deleting that? Rex071404 (all logic is premise based) 19:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)