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. |
I have added this section to thee article today and placed it 1st in the article. I have modeled it on George W. Bush. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 07:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
According to those who know him, Kerry is a religious man. A practicing Roman Catholic he is said to carry a rosary, a prayer book, and a St. Christopher medal (the patron saint of travelers) when he campaigns. [1] "I thought of being a priest," Kerry recalled. "I was very religious while at school in Switzerland. I was an altar boy and prayed all the time. I was very centered around the Mass and the church."
According to Christianity Today:
I’ve made edits to two sections. Military service: restore language re wound as per talk; details re SBVT (such as plugging their book) are for that article, not Kerry’s. Lt. Gov.: There’s no evidence that Kerry had any particular involvement with the furlough program, so no reason to mention it; NPOV the nuclear planning issue by giving Kerry’s explanation of his position. JamesMLane 17:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
"As Michael Dukakis' Lieutenant Governor, Kerry supported the furlough program that turned Willie Horton loose on two more victims." This is the sort of appalingly NPOV sentence that I'd expect from a new user, not from someone who has been here for over a year. Obviously you're ignoring Ed's advice to "write for the enemy". Either you don't understand NPOV at all or you are deliberately skewing your contributions rightward to attempt to drag the whole article in general rightward, which also means you don't understand NPOV at all. Either way, you haven't demonstrated what this has to do with Kerry at all and haven't shown anything besides him being just an office holder whose boss did something controversial. Gamaliel 18:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
So you are saying that you object to JML's failure to make the offending text a quote extract and fix the POV that way, rather than what he did, which was delete it altogether? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 22:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Uh, but I thought you just told me your feelings about referring to JML's statements, which is "I couldn't care less what JML's rationale was". Rex071404 216.153.214.94 22:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
James, excellent suggestion, we can follow that with The minor 1st wound of John Kerry.
Rex071404 216.153.214.94 23:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Regarding this longstanding bone of contention, in addition to the wiki link to wound at which one finds the medical technical term of "minor wound" ( minor wound), I have provided two links [3] [4], which taken together, make it perfectly clear that we as editors have an accuracy obligation to use the word "minor". Absent that, we must use "superficial" and "small". Quoting Dr. Letson [5]:
Quoting the "Wound Care Guide" [6]:
Suffice it to say, I have offered facts and proof that the wound was minor and ought to be described as such.
In rebuttal, I have been told that Letson is "biased", etc. Such rebuttals are not themselves facts which pertain to the wound, but instead are arguments of other facts which pertain to Letson's credibility, not the severity of the wound itself.
As such, the others argue a distinct set of facts -that Letson is not to be believed for various reasons they cite, but they do not offer any alternative proof or facts regarding what those opposed to "minor shrapnel wound" contend the wound actually was.
Regarding Kerry's wound, there are only three possible variables: The wound was a) minor, b) something else, or c) impossible to know based on available facts.
I have offered facts as proof that "a)" is correct. JamesMLane (and others) have argued that the source of one of my facts, Dr. Letson is not sufficiently valid as a source to use, but they have offered no facts themsleves to support "b)" or "c)".
Also regarding the wound care guide which I offered as additional proof - so far, no one has opposed the validity, accuracy or germaness of that guide as it pertains to clarifying the medical technical term known as "minor wound".
Indeed, from a medical technical standpoint, the term "minor wound" is not the same as the generic term "wound".
The editors which oppose me here have provided ZERO proof as to why the generic term ought to be used, rather than the specific, technical medical term which I am using and supporting with proof. My most recent Edit Summary makes my point here very clear: ("rv - in this instance, "wound" is a technical term as it has medical specificity which varies due to severity "Technical terms should be linked unless they are fully defined in the article.") [7]
Unless and until James, et al can provide facts to support "b)" or "c)" - which they have not done so far, the preponderance of the facts support my edit and it ought to remain unmolested by further reverts. Merely because James, et al want to argue against it is not a sufficient basis for reverting ths edit without factual proof.
Argument is all well and good, but facts are required too and JamesMLane, et al, do not offer any.
Rex071404 216.153.214.94 09:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Again, I will reiterate, I have provided proof that the wound is minor, James has provided no proof that it's anything else. Also, the fact that James says that the phrase "minor shrapnel wound" is equal to "details of the SBVT controversy", is funny considering that the link in the paragraph regarding the 1st puple heart goes to John Kerry military service controversy, not SBVT, per se. This Fruedian Slip by James, makes clear that he has the issue regarding Kerry's wound framed thusly: Any injury related facts which shine less than flattering light on Kerry are automatically deemed "SBVT" related and hence, must be shunted away.
Suffice it to say, James is unable to accept that Kerry's minor wound is a true fact and also a medically related technical term, which exists independantly of the John Kerry military service controversy. And Kerry received that minor shrapnel wound" prior to there being any "controversy".
The simple truth here is that I have presented facts which support "minor wound", but James has presented no facts which rebut this. Further, James is doing nothing but trying to enforce an unsupportable "freeze" on any edits to this section of text. I object most strenuously to the removal of "minor shrapnel wound]" from the text.
Also, please note that the "Class II Senator" diversion is a straw dog. It does not relate to wound severity and does not speak to the issue I am raising which is: The generic term "wound" in and of itself, as used in the James varriant of this text, simply does not fully inform the readers of an extremely germane fact, that being "what was the severity of the injury?".
By forcing the reader to click to John Kerry military service controversy to find the word "minor", James is able to see to it that the undisputed true fact that the wound was minor gets morphed to "[t]hey assert that the injury was too minor to merit a citation". This is interesting, because as I left it, there is NOTHING the section under dispute...
... which says ANYTHING about the wound NOT MERITING a citation.
Rather, what the edit I made does, is state the known facts about the severity of the wound and points out that the medal arising from it "was one of those criticized by Kerry's detractors in the 2004 election", which is also true.
There is no argument at John Kerry regarding "merit" of award.
Plain and simply, James is basically trying to make us acccept that telling the true facts regarding wound severity, is equivalent to criticizing Kerry as in, "too minor to merit a citation".
My edit does not do what James is inferring it does. James is, I feel, blocking progress here and I ask him to yield.
The wound is proven to be "minor". "Minor wound" is a medically related technical term and deserves to be linked . "Minor shrapnel wound" is a highly accurate and proper NPOV edit.
Rex071404
216.153.214.94 18:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
According to the logic arguments arrayed against me here, "His right arm was also injured so badly that it was unrecognizable" should be excised from Bob Dole? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 18:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The readers ARE NOT "presented with all the facts". It is a proven "fact" that the injury was minor. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 18:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Rhetorical questions regarding "dozens of references to Purple Heart recipients" are irrelevant to the discussion at hand and prove nothing about the crux of the matter, which is:
The editors who keep out-voting me here have more votes, but not more facts - only arguments. Arguments are not evidence, they are not determinative and do not go into wiki articles. Only facts go in. I have offered a fact set. The others are trying to keep my fact set out, but offer no wound-related fact set themselves. Plain and simply, this is bad-faith on their part and is not Wikipedia:Negotiation. Also, I have never conceded to the supposed consensus from a year ago and contend it was not reached via Consensus decision-making
Rex071404 216.153.214.94 19:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Suggested reading: User page:What should I avoid?. Especially this line: Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia. I added this page to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever CuinnDubh 13:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I just read this on Yahoo: "In August, Germany's Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper quoted Wales as saying that "controls" could be tightened to protect potentially sensitive pages of Wikipedia. Reuters picked up the report and, in translating sections of it, said some pages could be "frozen" in perpetuity.
"The idea that we are going to tighten our editorial 'rules' is completely not correct (and) the articles would not be frozen in perpetuity," Wales said. He said he had been misinterpreted and mistranslated.
"Wales said new software would be deployed from the end of the year that would allow changes to very active pages which might be prone to vandalism to appear on the site with a time delay, so members of the community could review them. (emphasis added)
"Enthusiasts had also been discussing whether to create "stable" versions of certain pages that would stand as the most recent reliable entry on a given topic. These would be available behind the latest contributed version and would also be updated as necessary, Wales said. " And it can't happen soon enough! CuinnDubh 19:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The operative phrase is "available behind". Rex071404 216.153.214.94 19:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Too bad you won't admit that about other edits I've made here. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 10:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
John Kerry has become too unwieldy. I have started a spin-off article ( John Kerry's military service) and moved the associated content there and linking to it. Please help me fix the loose ends. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 07:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
There is consensus that John Kerry is too long. Stop being so unilateral please. The spin-off to John Kerry's military service is valid. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 09:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
James, you have already stated yourself that the article is too long. Also, you are the one complaining about putting too much detail in. The solution to that is to spin off John Kerry's military service as I have done. James, you've always stated that readers are free to follow links for more information. They have that option here. Neither the readers or the article suffers. Rather, the John Kerry article becomes more encyclopedic and less like the hagiogrphic litany of extreme boorish detail that it has previously been. James, you really make me laugh - all of a sudden we can't dare spin anything off. Off course, if the spun off stuff has the effect of moving out material you want moved - that's ok. And what about the fact there was no "Religious beliefs and practices" section for Kerry? Kerry himself says "I'm a Catholic and I practice", but you, in your editors zeal, seem to think omitting that was ok. After all, you never put anything in about that, did you? The spin-of is valid and your complaints on this do not hold water.
Uh, if anyone cares to see it, at this diff [8], James elsewhere makes clear that article size is a bona fide editorial concern and that excess size is a problem to be addressed head on. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 09:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
In previous discussions relating to article size and management, JamesMLane has said:
Rex071404 216.153.214.94 10:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
No, (but now that you ask, I feel that he thinks he does). Also am saying that JML is inconsistant regarding spin-offs. I may add more diffs to show this point. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 11:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, so you agree that JML is inconsistant regarding spin-offs? What about you, are you? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 11:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Au contraire - prior determinations made about spin offs as they relate to John Kerry have a precedent setting effect against those who made the determinations. You two have lobbied for spin offs here before and that undercuts your premise for opposing this one. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 11:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
No James, you are wrong. And, what will make our dealings here go smoother is not yours and Gamaliel's often erudite repartees (yours more than his, in the erudite). Rather, things will go smoother here (if I understand you right about smooth), when the two of you (and perhaps Kizzle, if he reappears here) concede the truth that John Kerry is too hagiographic.
There are only three ways to change that: 1) add text (and photos, etc.) 2) remove text (and photos, etc.) and 3) modify text (and photos, etc.). I have endeavored from time to time at trying all three - focused on my aim of making this article less hagiographic and hence, more proper as it ought to read.
Kerry is not so hot as you guys make him out to be. He's a mediocre Senator with influential friends, a rich wife and excellent speaking skills. He's not Audie Murphy, he's not Rambo, he's not Harry Truman (Truman was once a very dogged investigator in an offical role) and he is not a crusading avatar ferreting out the Bush Sr/GWB threads of scandal/Iraq misdeads. When this article stops presenting him as such, we'll probably go own own ways. But before then, who knows? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 11:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, it would seem that Gamaliel simply will not acknowledge my over-arching topic, which is, the article is too hagiographic. For that reason, I will add a new section title to this page, so he can't miss it. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 19:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I have been contending for some time that "the article is [too] hagiographic". Beginning later today, I will start listing specifics in a bullet list format in this section. This will require my copying here some previous talk comments, please be patient while I assemble and prepare. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 19:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Looking at Al Gore and George W. Bush as benchmarks, John Kerry has too much early life personal details. It is too hagiographic to have all these sections -
- rather than a simple "Early and personal life" (Gore) "Education, military service, and early personal life" (Bush). Kerry has too much detail. Unless the narrative is intended to get us to admire [13] Kerry, then there is no rational reason to have so much personal history detail in these sections. These sections should be trimmed and consolidated. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 22:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
That about covers it for now. Gamaliel 02:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Well then, regarding Kerry, let's add his shoe size, his dork length in mm, cm and inches, how many moles warts & pimples he has, his favorite fruits, nuts & vegetables (we already have his favorite cookie), what he ate for lunch each day for the last year, where he eats lunch most often, which of his seven mansions and large homes he slept in the last 6 months, the last time he was constipated, the last time he vomited and why, how many times he masterbated as a teenager, if he's ever looked at a woman "with lust in his heart", if he's ever looked at a man "with lust in his heart", his position on papal infallibility, if he prays to the Virgin Mary, if he believes in heaven, if he believes in evolution, if he thinks we evolved from chimps, apes or something like that, how much change he has in his pocket on any given weekday, what brand toilet paper he prefers, who his next door neighbors (both sides & front/back) are at his Beacon Hill residence, whether he did indeed use his clout to get a fire hydrant moved there so as to gain a much coveted personal parking space, his position on whether or not would he sleep with Janet Jackson, Madonna, Cher, Al Gore and/or Phyllis Diller if given the chance, does he please his wife in bed, if so, how often, what positions, where else have they done it in the last 6 months, has he ever shoplifted anything, told a lie, hit someone in anger, visited Auschwitz/Birkenau, the Great Wall of China or Trinity (1st nuke test site), does he think that Carrie-Anne Moss (played Trinity in Matrix series) is "hot", would he kill a chipmunk to have dinner with her, would he eat a live chipmunk to be President of the USA, 10, 100, 1000 chipmunks, what three answers would he add to Jeopardy! if he had the chance, does he think that Jesus ever told any lies, does he think that Gandhi was a space alien or that Mother Teresa really was no help to people at all and finally, if my skin is somewhat dark, if and when we give "reparations" how much should people with my skin tone get? Indeed all these things and more, as they relate John Kerry are of the utmost importance and must all be included. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 07:05, 31 October 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. |
I have added this section to thee article today and placed it 1st in the article. I have modeled it on George W. Bush. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 07:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
According to those who know him, Kerry is a religious man. A practicing Roman Catholic he is said to carry a rosary, a prayer book, and a St. Christopher medal (the patron saint of travelers) when he campaigns. [1] "I thought of being a priest," Kerry recalled. "I was very religious while at school in Switzerland. I was an altar boy and prayed all the time. I was very centered around the Mass and the church."
According to Christianity Today:
I’ve made edits to two sections. Military service: restore language re wound as per talk; details re SBVT (such as plugging their book) are for that article, not Kerry’s. Lt. Gov.: There’s no evidence that Kerry had any particular involvement with the furlough program, so no reason to mention it; NPOV the nuclear planning issue by giving Kerry’s explanation of his position. JamesMLane 17:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
"As Michael Dukakis' Lieutenant Governor, Kerry supported the furlough program that turned Willie Horton loose on two more victims." This is the sort of appalingly NPOV sentence that I'd expect from a new user, not from someone who has been here for over a year. Obviously you're ignoring Ed's advice to "write for the enemy". Either you don't understand NPOV at all or you are deliberately skewing your contributions rightward to attempt to drag the whole article in general rightward, which also means you don't understand NPOV at all. Either way, you haven't demonstrated what this has to do with Kerry at all and haven't shown anything besides him being just an office holder whose boss did something controversial. Gamaliel 18:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
So you are saying that you object to JML's failure to make the offending text a quote extract and fix the POV that way, rather than what he did, which was delete it altogether? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 22:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Uh, but I thought you just told me your feelings about referring to JML's statements, which is "I couldn't care less what JML's rationale was". Rex071404 216.153.214.94 22:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
James, excellent suggestion, we can follow that with The minor 1st wound of John Kerry.
Rex071404 216.153.214.94 23:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Regarding this longstanding bone of contention, in addition to the wiki link to wound at which one finds the medical technical term of "minor wound" ( minor wound), I have provided two links [3] [4], which taken together, make it perfectly clear that we as editors have an accuracy obligation to use the word "minor". Absent that, we must use "superficial" and "small". Quoting Dr. Letson [5]:
Quoting the "Wound Care Guide" [6]:
Suffice it to say, I have offered facts and proof that the wound was minor and ought to be described as such.
In rebuttal, I have been told that Letson is "biased", etc. Such rebuttals are not themselves facts which pertain to the wound, but instead are arguments of other facts which pertain to Letson's credibility, not the severity of the wound itself.
As such, the others argue a distinct set of facts -that Letson is not to be believed for various reasons they cite, but they do not offer any alternative proof or facts regarding what those opposed to "minor shrapnel wound" contend the wound actually was.
Regarding Kerry's wound, there are only three possible variables: The wound was a) minor, b) something else, or c) impossible to know based on available facts.
I have offered facts as proof that "a)" is correct. JamesMLane (and others) have argued that the source of one of my facts, Dr. Letson is not sufficiently valid as a source to use, but they have offered no facts themsleves to support "b)" or "c)".
Also regarding the wound care guide which I offered as additional proof - so far, no one has opposed the validity, accuracy or germaness of that guide as it pertains to clarifying the medical technical term known as "minor wound".
Indeed, from a medical technical standpoint, the term "minor wound" is not the same as the generic term "wound".
The editors which oppose me here have provided ZERO proof as to why the generic term ought to be used, rather than the specific, technical medical term which I am using and supporting with proof. My most recent Edit Summary makes my point here very clear: ("rv - in this instance, "wound" is a technical term as it has medical specificity which varies due to severity "Technical terms should be linked unless they are fully defined in the article.") [7]
Unless and until James, et al can provide facts to support "b)" or "c)" - which they have not done so far, the preponderance of the facts support my edit and it ought to remain unmolested by further reverts. Merely because James, et al want to argue against it is not a sufficient basis for reverting ths edit without factual proof.
Argument is all well and good, but facts are required too and JamesMLane, et al, do not offer any.
Rex071404 216.153.214.94 09:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Again, I will reiterate, I have provided proof that the wound is minor, James has provided no proof that it's anything else. Also, the fact that James says that the phrase "minor shrapnel wound" is equal to "details of the SBVT controversy", is funny considering that the link in the paragraph regarding the 1st puple heart goes to John Kerry military service controversy, not SBVT, per se. This Fruedian Slip by James, makes clear that he has the issue regarding Kerry's wound framed thusly: Any injury related facts which shine less than flattering light on Kerry are automatically deemed "SBVT" related and hence, must be shunted away.
Suffice it to say, James is unable to accept that Kerry's minor wound is a true fact and also a medically related technical term, which exists independantly of the John Kerry military service controversy. And Kerry received that minor shrapnel wound" prior to there being any "controversy".
The simple truth here is that I have presented facts which support "minor wound", but James has presented no facts which rebut this. Further, James is doing nothing but trying to enforce an unsupportable "freeze" on any edits to this section of text. I object most strenuously to the removal of "minor shrapnel wound]" from the text.
Also, please note that the "Class II Senator" diversion is a straw dog. It does not relate to wound severity and does not speak to the issue I am raising which is: The generic term "wound" in and of itself, as used in the James varriant of this text, simply does not fully inform the readers of an extremely germane fact, that being "what was the severity of the injury?".
By forcing the reader to click to John Kerry military service controversy to find the word "minor", James is able to see to it that the undisputed true fact that the wound was minor gets morphed to "[t]hey assert that the injury was too minor to merit a citation". This is interesting, because as I left it, there is NOTHING the section under dispute...
... which says ANYTHING about the wound NOT MERITING a citation.
Rather, what the edit I made does, is state the known facts about the severity of the wound and points out that the medal arising from it "was one of those criticized by Kerry's detractors in the 2004 election", which is also true.
There is no argument at John Kerry regarding "merit" of award.
Plain and simply, James is basically trying to make us acccept that telling the true facts regarding wound severity, is equivalent to criticizing Kerry as in, "too minor to merit a citation".
My edit does not do what James is inferring it does. James is, I feel, blocking progress here and I ask him to yield.
The wound is proven to be "minor". "Minor wound" is a medically related technical term and deserves to be linked . "Minor shrapnel wound" is a highly accurate and proper NPOV edit.
Rex071404
216.153.214.94 18:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
According to the logic arguments arrayed against me here, "His right arm was also injured so badly that it was unrecognizable" should be excised from Bob Dole? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 18:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The readers ARE NOT "presented with all the facts". It is a proven "fact" that the injury was minor. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 18:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Rhetorical questions regarding "dozens of references to Purple Heart recipients" are irrelevant to the discussion at hand and prove nothing about the crux of the matter, which is:
The editors who keep out-voting me here have more votes, but not more facts - only arguments. Arguments are not evidence, they are not determinative and do not go into wiki articles. Only facts go in. I have offered a fact set. The others are trying to keep my fact set out, but offer no wound-related fact set themselves. Plain and simply, this is bad-faith on their part and is not Wikipedia:Negotiation. Also, I have never conceded to the supposed consensus from a year ago and contend it was not reached via Consensus decision-making
Rex071404 216.153.214.94 19:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Suggested reading: User page:What should I avoid?. Especially this line: Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia. I added this page to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever CuinnDubh 13:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I just read this on Yahoo: "In August, Germany's Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper quoted Wales as saying that "controls" could be tightened to protect potentially sensitive pages of Wikipedia. Reuters picked up the report and, in translating sections of it, said some pages could be "frozen" in perpetuity.
"The idea that we are going to tighten our editorial 'rules' is completely not correct (and) the articles would not be frozen in perpetuity," Wales said. He said he had been misinterpreted and mistranslated.
"Wales said new software would be deployed from the end of the year that would allow changes to very active pages which might be prone to vandalism to appear on the site with a time delay, so members of the community could review them. (emphasis added)
"Enthusiasts had also been discussing whether to create "stable" versions of certain pages that would stand as the most recent reliable entry on a given topic. These would be available behind the latest contributed version and would also be updated as necessary, Wales said. " And it can't happen soon enough! CuinnDubh 19:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The operative phrase is "available behind". Rex071404 216.153.214.94 19:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Too bad you won't admit that about other edits I've made here. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 10:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
John Kerry has become too unwieldy. I have started a spin-off article ( John Kerry's military service) and moved the associated content there and linking to it. Please help me fix the loose ends. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 07:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
There is consensus that John Kerry is too long. Stop being so unilateral please. The spin-off to John Kerry's military service is valid. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 09:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
James, you have already stated yourself that the article is too long. Also, you are the one complaining about putting too much detail in. The solution to that is to spin off John Kerry's military service as I have done. James, you've always stated that readers are free to follow links for more information. They have that option here. Neither the readers or the article suffers. Rather, the John Kerry article becomes more encyclopedic and less like the hagiogrphic litany of extreme boorish detail that it has previously been. James, you really make me laugh - all of a sudden we can't dare spin anything off. Off course, if the spun off stuff has the effect of moving out material you want moved - that's ok. And what about the fact there was no "Religious beliefs and practices" section for Kerry? Kerry himself says "I'm a Catholic and I practice", but you, in your editors zeal, seem to think omitting that was ok. After all, you never put anything in about that, did you? The spin-of is valid and your complaints on this do not hold water.
Uh, if anyone cares to see it, at this diff [8], James elsewhere makes clear that article size is a bona fide editorial concern and that excess size is a problem to be addressed head on. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 09:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
In previous discussions relating to article size and management, JamesMLane has said:
Rex071404 216.153.214.94 10:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
No, (but now that you ask, I feel that he thinks he does). Also am saying that JML is inconsistant regarding spin-offs. I may add more diffs to show this point. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 11:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, so you agree that JML is inconsistant regarding spin-offs? What about you, are you? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 11:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Au contraire - prior determinations made about spin offs as they relate to John Kerry have a precedent setting effect against those who made the determinations. You two have lobbied for spin offs here before and that undercuts your premise for opposing this one. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 11:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
No James, you are wrong. And, what will make our dealings here go smoother is not yours and Gamaliel's often erudite repartees (yours more than his, in the erudite). Rather, things will go smoother here (if I understand you right about smooth), when the two of you (and perhaps Kizzle, if he reappears here) concede the truth that John Kerry is too hagiographic.
There are only three ways to change that: 1) add text (and photos, etc.) 2) remove text (and photos, etc.) and 3) modify text (and photos, etc.). I have endeavored from time to time at trying all three - focused on my aim of making this article less hagiographic and hence, more proper as it ought to read.
Kerry is not so hot as you guys make him out to be. He's a mediocre Senator with influential friends, a rich wife and excellent speaking skills. He's not Audie Murphy, he's not Rambo, he's not Harry Truman (Truman was once a very dogged investigator in an offical role) and he is not a crusading avatar ferreting out the Bush Sr/GWB threads of scandal/Iraq misdeads. When this article stops presenting him as such, we'll probably go own own ways. But before then, who knows? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 11:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, it would seem that Gamaliel simply will not acknowledge my over-arching topic, which is, the article is too hagiographic. For that reason, I will add a new section title to this page, so he can't miss it. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 19:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I have been contending for some time that "the article is [too] hagiographic". Beginning later today, I will start listing specifics in a bullet list format in this section. This will require my copying here some previous talk comments, please be patient while I assemble and prepare. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 19:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Looking at Al Gore and George W. Bush as benchmarks, John Kerry has too much early life personal details. It is too hagiographic to have all these sections -
- rather than a simple "Early and personal life" (Gore) "Education, military service, and early personal life" (Bush). Kerry has too much detail. Unless the narrative is intended to get us to admire [13] Kerry, then there is no rational reason to have so much personal history detail in these sections. These sections should be trimmed and consolidated. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 22:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
That about covers it for now. Gamaliel 02:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Well then, regarding Kerry, let's add his shoe size, his dork length in mm, cm and inches, how many moles warts & pimples he has, his favorite fruits, nuts & vegetables (we already have his favorite cookie), what he ate for lunch each day for the last year, where he eats lunch most often, which of his seven mansions and large homes he slept in the last 6 months, the last time he was constipated, the last time he vomited and why, how many times he masterbated as a teenager, if he's ever looked at a woman "with lust in his heart", if he's ever looked at a man "with lust in his heart", his position on papal infallibility, if he prays to the Virgin Mary, if he believes in heaven, if he believes in evolution, if he thinks we evolved from chimps, apes or something like that, how much change he has in his pocket on any given weekday, what brand toilet paper he prefers, who his next door neighbors (both sides & front/back) are at his Beacon Hill residence, whether he did indeed use his clout to get a fire hydrant moved there so as to gain a much coveted personal parking space, his position on whether or not would he sleep with Janet Jackson, Madonna, Cher, Al Gore and/or Phyllis Diller if given the chance, does he please his wife in bed, if so, how often, what positions, where else have they done it in the last 6 months, has he ever shoplifted anything, told a lie, hit someone in anger, visited Auschwitz/Birkenau, the Great Wall of China or Trinity (1st nuke test site), does he think that Carrie-Anne Moss (played Trinity in Matrix series) is "hot", would he kill a chipmunk to have dinner with her, would he eat a live chipmunk to be President of the USA, 10, 100, 1000 chipmunks, what three answers would he add to Jeopardy! if he had the chance, does he think that Jesus ever told any lies, does he think that Gandhi was a space alien or that Mother Teresa really was no help to people at all and finally, if my skin is somewhat dark, if and when we give "reparations" how much should people with my skin tone get? Indeed all these things and more, as they relate John Kerry are of the utmost importance and must all be included. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 07:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)