Talk:John Kerry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Kerry article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26
John Kerry is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

Contents

[edit] John Kerry won't run in 2008

Has anyone else heard that? 64.74.153.189 07:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes: it was featured in my newspaper. Extremely sexy 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a movement to draft him as a presidential candidate in 2008. See: http://www.draftjohnkerry08.com Draftjohnkerry08 19:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Economic Forum section

This section looks to me like it is in need of a lot of help. The last sentence is totally disconnected from the first: Kerry spoke about global warming and AIDS, and then Iran took his remarks as supporting them on nuclear power? Only one Iranian website's view is now mentioned. Is that what Kerry actually said? The linked article really quotes Kerry very little and devotes most of its body to Iranians, not Kerry. Surely it is not correct to only report on the Iranian spin on what Kerry said. Imagine how different George Bush's article would look if that were the standard. I'm hoping someone knowledgeable can clean this up. Mullibok 15:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repetitive information in Trivia section

Since I am explaining the reason for my edits to the Trivia section, and they are still rather unceremoniously being reverted, I am going to explain myself here and hope that I can get feedback:

I deleted two trivia pieces in the John Kerry article, because they can already be found in the Personal Life section. My impression from other pages is that it is Wikipedia policy to cut down on Trivia sections as much as possible and to work it into the actual article. Since these pieces ARE in the actual article, they should be gone from trivia. I think it looks very bad and disjointed for an article to repeat itself this way, and I cannot imagine a print encyclopedia doing the same. Pick one place such information belongs, and remove repetition.

I also see no reason why the Trivia section would repeat that he is an ice hockey fan, but not repeat that he is an avid windsurfing fan, or an avid cyclist.

If someone really thinks this information needs to be repeated as trivia, I would appreciate their explanation here. Otherwise, I think it should go out. Mullibok 21:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I did explain this on my talk page. Extremely sexy 23:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Reading what is on your talk page, I am not clear what your position is. Do you agree that his height IS mentioned in the Personal Life section? If so, why does it need to be mentioned again in trivia? And what makes his like of ice hockey so notable it needs to be mentioned twice? Why repeat it in trivia specifically, and not repeat windsurfing, hunting, etc.? The way the article is now makes it look like one section doesn't know what the other section is saying, which I believe is poor form. I'm hoping someone else will be able to weigh in on this. Mullibok 14:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
As I wrote, I agree with you if his height has already been mentioned somewhere else, but I can't find it anywhere att all, hence. Extremely sexy 19:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semiprotection

This page needs to be semiprotected. I did so earlier but it seems the protection has been removed (the page was consequently immediately vandalised again). I've reverted or amended at least 4 vandalisms to this page from anonymous IP addresses (and newly registered names) in the last 2 hours! matt.smart talk/contribs 15:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that the page is actually semiprotected, someone just added the template saying it is.--Mbc362 16:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the template as its going to deter legitimate edits from anon users. If you want the page protected, you need to ask an admin do it.--Mbc362 17:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I will request that this page be semiprotected, as now several IP's are vandalizing this page like every day or so. --Andrewlp1991 00:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up: Grr! My request was denied! --Andrewlp1991 05:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kyoto accord and global warming

"Whereas the Senate in 1997 during the Clinton administration voted down the treaty 95-0, including Senator Kerry" => this is part of his public record. It should be included as he is commenting on it. See: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00205 135.245.8.35 19:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Reading the link implies the motion passed and was not voted down.--Lucy-marie 09:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exact date for Bryant Park rally

Does anyone know the date for that rally? Based on the coats they are wearing I feel like summer is too broad a term and probably also wrong. (unsigned comment)

Good catch. I did some research and have come up with a likely date of May 12, 1972; possibly April 1972. Neither is actually part of "summer." I edited the image page with links to sources and discussion of the date question on the talk page, but am out of time at the moment to edit the linking pages. I'll come back and do it later if no one else has. --MoxRox 13:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
okay I changed it just to say "in 1972." I really don't think the exact date is needed, and shouldn't be given if there is some question of the accuracy of the date. Since the two most credible sources I came up with both stated 1972, I believe that is correct. --MoxRox 13:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Davos 2007

Is what he said really that controversial, given what else he has said in life? Curious what folks thought about that, more or less. 132.162.250.118 07:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controlled fashion?

just stumbled on this one, have you seen it, do you find it relevant, interesting? Lovelight 17:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. No. No. --EECEE 06:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New TIME article

Good article by Bob Shrum about Kerry's choice of Edwards in 2004. Apparently it is an excerpt from Shrum's upcoming book. Not extremely kind to Edwards.

- Crockspot 23:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kerryedwards.JPG

Image:Kerryedwards.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy over comments on Iraq and education - possible bias

Some may argue that this section is biased, because the entire controversy is described for the point of view of John Kerry. This is especially evident from the layout of the section, where Kerry's eventual explanations for his statement are presented before the criticism for that statement has even been mentioned. The Kerry side of the controversy has also been given undue weight as compared to those criticizing his statement, since it would certainly be more informative to the reader to learn more about the criticism, it being considered a controversy after all, rather than one-sided excuses from Kerry.

A more neutral point of view in this section would thus benefit the credibility of the article. Sarnalios 19:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this section is biased in his favour. Right from the start, we already know his remarks were inadvertent, caused by mispeaking, so any "controversy" arising from those misstatements are purely the efforts of his detractors and to give list them out in detail would itself violate NPOV. Kerry's detractors want it to be a controversy (given how close it was then to election day), despite the fact that it was a simple mistatement. For Wikipedia to treat it as a genuine controversy would be to bias this section against Kerry. Furthermore, this article is about John Kerry, not about his detractors, so I don't see why we couldn't given more weight to his statements relative to the others. Ethereal 01:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The very structure of the section (inadvertently?) gives the reader a Kerry biased version of the events. If a NPOV is adopted, the events should be presented chronologically rather than read as something produced by a Kerry spokesperson. The motivation of different parties in any controversy may be of some interest, but the Kerry "stuck in Iraq" comments were undeniably controversial. To claim otherwise is simply to ignore the media storm that was caused by his orgininal statement and also from the way he tried to handle the event. Sarnalios 21:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you feel that the section is not NPOV because it is not biased enough against Kerry to your liking?--Folksong 20:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I took out the statement in parentheses about Cheney and Bush not serving in Vietnam, because that did really seem like an editorial aside that was a swipe at those two and didn't contribute much to the section. Other than that, it seems fine to me. Mullibok 20:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone still have objections to the neutrality of this piece? If so, I would appreciate specific suggestions on what to change. If not, I think it's time the neutrality tag was dropped from the section. Mullibok 17:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I know this debate took place a little while ago, but I definetly have an objection: there is a quote by Kerry pretty much just slamming Republicans and justifying his actions. What follows it? Nothing to show the other side and no quotes by those arguing against what he said. Talk about bias! Happyme22 00:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I have now removed that quote, article flows just fine without it. Since that seems to be the end of the bias charges against the section, I'm dropping the tag of neutrality being disputed. If anyone else has further objections, please bring them up. -- Mullibok (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Reducing this section to minimalist gold may be ideal in this dispute. Just say what Kerry's staff allegedly wrote for him initially, and then say (or even say it before, who cares?), and then say the majority political party in Congress at the time saw it, and then look into examples of how the minority politcal party handled it. Do not say how the 2006 Elections actually fared at this time becuase that is stupid and people know and there is no tangible proof (that I know of at least) of any effect of this event on the larger scheme of electoral things. Tacobellis 08:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multimillionaire

How is the fact that Kerry's a multimillionaire relevant enough to be included in the introductory paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.143.236 (talk • contribs)

Very good question indeed in my humble opinion. Extremely sexy 20:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't belong. Removal is good. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed it. In addition to the fact that detailed info is included later in this article, I haven't seen where any of the other wealthy Senators have such info in the intro to their articles. --EECEE 07:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add quote of John Kerry's Vietnamese Reeducation Camp comments

It would be of greater value to readers and researchers to be able to see quoted statements made with citations.

John Kerry on Washington Journal, C-SPAN. 18 July 07. In response to a callers comments about her concern that leaving Iraq now would yield a similar situation that happened in Vietnam after the American pullout in S.E. Asia.
"Let me just say to the first part of your question with respect to boat people and killing, everybody predicted a massive bloodbath in Vietnam. There was not a massive bloodbath in Vietnam. There were reeducation camps, and they weren't pretty and, you know, nobody, you know, likes that kind of outcome. But on the other hand, I've met lot of people today who were in those education camps, who are thriving in the Vietnam of today."

The relevance of this quote is critical to the subjects mindset at this time in history and should be preserved for those wishing to research on the subject. It is not intended to be partisan in any way but is a critical part of this subjects historical dynamic. Delta359 13:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


I removed the entire entry at the article. Aside from the obvious POV in the way it is presented, there is no indication that this response to a call-in question has resulted in any sort of "controversy" outside of various negative comments in the blogosphere. I agree that anyone wishing to research the statement should read the actual, full statement. But it's not worthy of a Wikipedia entry, in my opinion.
I removed the Davos entry for pretty much the same reason. --EECEE 05:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quayle quote incorrectly attributed

... Kerry made a joke about then President-elect George H.W. Bush and his running mate, saying "if Bush is shot, the Secret Service has orders to shoot Dan Quayle" ... UseNet posts in early 90s suggest that Senator Bob Kerrey is the author of this quote, not John Kerry. Pádraig Coogan 22:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I remember that. I'm pretty sure it was Bob. I looked it up, there are sources, it was John Kerry.[1] - Crockspot 23:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 11, 2007 ban lift date

Anybody else see that date as a little odd? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.52.77 (talk • contribs)

Only if you're seeing a pattern without checking the protect date. The protection was added on August 11, so obviously the admin just added 1 month protect time. Dstumme 01:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 17, 2007 John Kerry involved in present at involved in police taser incident

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=5692 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.230.82 (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

absolutely needs to be included into the article. Connör (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The full article is at University of Florida Taser incident. There should be a link there from this article. Johntex\talk 23:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
ok, I included it, its just a start though. just a really short section that says "Main Article: University of Florida Taser incident" at the top of it. Connör (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this is relevant to Kerry's biography. The header of this section is deceptive too. Kerry was not "involved" at all. I adjusted that. I object to this going into the article unless a case is made for its relevance to Kerry's notability. - Crockspot 23:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • And I STRONGLY object to it having its own section. Violate's WP:UNDUE. Wikilink the main article into the sentence, and work the sentence in somewhere appropriate. - Crockspot 23:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Done. - Crockspot 23:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it was better before, perhaps it should have been a subsection, but still, it deserves a section. Connör (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
How, in the totality of Kerry's life, could this incident possibly deserve a section? Can you point me to other politician articles where a random deranged moonbat that was dragged away from a speech is covered in its own section? If Kerry had run over and jammed his heel into the guy's throat, or started pulling cops off the guy, then it might deserve that kind of coverage, but he was just there. - Crockspot 00:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
yeah, thats why I said it should be a subsection, just so it would be easy to find in the table of contents. Connör (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Full agreement with crockspot on this one. This deserves a sentence, maybe, but not a section or subsection. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 00:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a pretty significant event (many of the videos of the event you can find on youtube have well over 250,000 views. It needs a subsection, maybe even just a sub-subsection. Just so it could it be found from the table of contents. Connör (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not significant at all, it's a minor news story that will soon be forgotten. This is an encyclopedia, not a news blotter. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 00:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, first it should say "involved in" not "present". He was definately involved. He was the one who was asked the question, he was the one who unsuccessfully tried to tell the police to stop. Connör (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • the event happened because of him. Connör (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • and I changed it back to involved in. Connör (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that Kerry was involved in the incident. The whole thing occurred because Kerry was speaking. The student's questions were about Kerry and adressed to Kerry. Kerry spoke to the officers to tell them he planned to answer the question. Kerry make a joke about the student after the student was taken away. Kerry issued a statement after the incident. Clearly Kerry was "involved", not merely "present". Johntex\talk 02:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Therefore, the incident diserves a section. Also, the section that the incident is mentioned in now has nothing to do with the incident. I'm giving it a subsection. Connör (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I have mixed feelings about it having its own section. A one sentence section is a little awkward, but on the flip side it does make the information easier to find. It is reasonable to believe that in the next couple of weeks, a lot of people will be coming to the John Kerry article for precisely this information. Over that time, maybe Kerry will have even more to say about this. Therefore, I support the incident having its own section for now. We can re-examine that in a few weeks. Wikipedia is not going anywhere. Johntex\talk 18:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Florida Taser incident. Badagnani 05:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refusal to endorse John Edwards in 2008

Kerry and Edwards apparently had a falling out sometime after their campaign and Kerry steadfastly refuses to even mention Edwards. This is relevant to both Kerry's past and current political activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.221.30 (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 12:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Except that any addition should include objective, factual support. In this case, the absence of an endorsement is not the same as a "refusal" to endorse. It does not necessarily indicate anything more than a lack of an endorsement, unless there are statements indicating a reason for the absence of an endorsement. --EECEE 18:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. There seems to be a tendency to make leaps here on wikipedia that are not supported by verifiable info. The lack of a denial does not equal a confirmation, the lack of a libel lawsuit does not verify the truth of an allegation, and the lack of Edward's name passing over Kerry's lips is not a refusal to mention him. Without reliable secondary sources mentioning some sort of falling out, or some sort of refusal to endorse, including this information would qualify as original research. - Crockspot 18:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
You are a good watchman, Crock. --EECEE 01:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kerryedwards.JPG

Image:Kerryedwards.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

User:Zombie621 entered info which is clearly vandalism, but I can't revert as a mere anon. 199.71.183.2 16:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BC Law

Boston College Law School was still located in Boston at the time of Kerry's maltriculation: http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/alumni/ebrief/history.html Hudsons (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claims of Being a Closet Atheist

He seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic Church. His claims that the question of abortion is purely "religious" is totally fake. Some believe he´s a closet atheist, and only pretends to be a Catholic because american politicians can´t be atheists or agnostics.17:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)~

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kerrydoonesbury.gif

Image:Kerrydoonesbury.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New GI Bill

I think it should be noted on Kerry's page that he is not only working with representative King on the new GI Bill, but also working with Bill O'Reilly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan314 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misc. links

I removed the Rotten.com link in the "Information" section. It's not so much information as a POV piece, not even commentary. Sorry that my history note was entered before I could include the reasons for removal. --EECEE (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What the F?

Yeah, John Kerry, kinda, ISN'T IN THE COMING FRICKIN' ELECTION. JESUS H. CHRIST! OH GREAT! NOW I HAVE TO TAKE IT OFF MYSELF! WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW! OH MY GOD I HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING! JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ!

Have a great day! Kodster (Talk) 02:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't have a heart attack, man! I took it off! Jeez! Kodster (Talk) 02:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC) (Totally different from top)

[edit] replaced defeated to bring it in line with other articles

The intro was a bit wordy and stated that he was defeated. Another candidate, Ralph Nader, does not have similar wording. To make both articles similar, "defeated" has been replaced by "unsuccessful" Spevw (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edit changed the sentence to say "he unsuccessful in winning the 2004 presidential election to the Republican incumbent President George W. Bush." That is poor English and really convoluted, so I'm changing it back. Mullibok (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the election notification! He is not currently running for president anymore, but yet the notice is still there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.251.29 (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signature image

Please see the signature image used in the infobox - Image:JohnKerrySignature.JPG. It has an obviously false source. Does anyone know where the signature can be found online at a gov't site? --B (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

How is the source obviously false? Can we have User:Jeick chime in? Kingturtle (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Umm ... unless Jeick is John Kerry, I'd say it's guaranteed to be false or a forgery. --B (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)