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.

The accuracy of "minor shrapnel wound" compels its inclusion in John Kerry

The superceding issue here is that the Letson quote is an affirmative fact set which HAS NOT been rebutted.

If JamesMLane, et al (the "No!" crowd) are concerned about accuracy, let them supply an affirmative fact set which speaks specifically to the treatment of the 1st wound and which differs enough from Letson's account that we can reasonably conclude it rebuts Letson.

If and only if they do that, will they have met their burden of providing facts.

As it stands now, the "No!" position is supported only by conjecture and argumentation against Letson's believability. And fair enough, claims against Letson are fair game -and as such can go into a detailed subsidiary article.

However, so far, to my knowledge the only accounting of actual wound treatment has come from Letson.

And, there has been NO evidentiary basis shown that would compel us to reject Letson's account as being utterly false, utterly fraudulent.

The "No!" group simply has not met its burden of providing us as editors enough proof to conclude that Letson's account should be wholly rejected in its entirity.

As editors, relying on the evidence -in the form of facts- we are able to reasonably conclude that we are not commiting fraud on the readers by including the word "minor", but are in fact better informing them by including it.

On the other hand, if we subsitute our editorial feelings in place of facts and reject the word "minor" solely based on non-deteriminative criticisms of Letson, we are inherently biasing the article in a manner which tends to favor Kerry and is therefor POV.

It tends to favor Kerry thusly: By shunting the word "minor" to the subsidiary article, we are making the editorial declaration that the word minor cannot be included in the main article, because the available facts do not support its inclusion there.

This however, is not a properly founded editorial premise, as the available facts do tend towards supporting the inclusion of the word "minor".

What a reader will take from this method of presenting the information, is "oh, this is just a he-said, she-said".

I contend that this is the exact conclusion which the "No!" crowd wants the readers to make, as this conclusion favors Kerry by reducing reader interest in the actual underlying fact set, which if read -even in neutral light- may not be flattering to Kerry.

Let me repeat what I have made clear already: The underlying facts about Kerry's 1st injury and treatment, DO NOT change, regardless of whether they subsequently (since the original date they occured) have become a part of a larger dispute regarding Kerry's personal history.

The time line is thus: Over 30 years ago, Kerry was injured and treated. Approximately 2 years ago, the severity of the injury became a political football. This current controversy DID NOT exist at the time of the injury treatment. The only thing which existed then WAS THE FACT SET REGARDING THE INJURY ITSELF AND THE TREATMENT PROVIDED.

My edit of "minor shrapnel wound" draws upon a citable source [1] -that HAS NOT been utterly (or even largely) discredited- and as such, has substantial validity. Further, this "minor shrapnel wound" speaks ONLY to the original fact set of 30+ years ago. It does not address or speak to the CURRENT controversy regarding this. As such, it can not be deemed partisan or POV. And, it is supported by a source (two sources if we count the "wound treatment guide" [2], three if we count wound) but it does NOT comment on or address the current controversy.

The edit of "minor shrapnel wound" is a neutral, fact supported edit which refers to a specific occurance in Kerry's life. Stating the fact that John Kerry incurred a "minor shrapnel wound" is not POV. Rather, it is justified on the same basis that "His right arm was also injured so badly that it was unrecognizable" is included at Bob Dole or the "lost the lower part of one leg in the Vietnam War" at Bob Kerrey".

Indeed, these two comparative citations make clear that the proper editorial stance is to INCLUDE those datums which inform the reader about the nature of a wound incurred. My edit of "minor shrapnel wound" does this with no bias and no cheating.

In my assesment, the rationals offered against "minor" have nothing but argument backing them up - no facts. And certainly, the paragraph closing seque of "This medal award was one of those criticized by Kerry's detractors in the 2004 election; for more detail, see John Kerry military service controversy.", is more than enough to be double certain that the word "minor" does not take sides.

While arguments have been made that Letson is "biased", etc, no proof has been offered that the word "minor" in and of itself, biases the article, is POV, is an unsupported fact assertion or is otherwise false. For these reasons, and especially because the word "minor" is supported by the citations which I offered: [3], [4] and wound, the ongoing objections to its inclusion are groundless and are obstructionist.

There is no valid justification for continuing to try to "freeze" this section of the article. Those who insist on this, are NOT meeting thier burderns under Wikipedia:Negotiation, Wikipedia:Consensus and Consensus decision-making.

Here again, is the text I offer for the section titled "====First Purple Heart===="

During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating in and around a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began to run. When the men refused to obey an order to stop running, Kerry and his crew of two enlisted men opened fire, destroyed the sampans, and took off. During this encounter, Kerry suffered a minor shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow. The shrapnel was removed and the injury was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged. Kerry returned to duty the next day on a regular Swift boat patrol. Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this injury. This medal award was one of those criticized by Kerry's detractors in the 2004 election; for more detail, see John Kerry military service controversy.

Those opposed to this version, if they want to be other than obstructionists about this, need to give us more than just arguments. They need to support their "No!" with facts. So far, they have not done that.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 09:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Letson's account shouldn't be excluded in its entirety, however, I do not believe that we should adopt his assessment of Kerry's wound into the official tone of the article itself, as Letson has no documentary evidence (he doesn't appear on the medical record of the wound itself) or no corroborating witnesses that he, in fact, treated Kerry, or would have remembered such a minor incident 30 years ago. Thus, we quote Letson's claim according to Wikipedia norms, note that he isn't actually on the medical records of the treatment, and continue to use the neutral "wound". There should also be an editorial judgment whether or not this info should be included on this page rather than the military service controversy page. --kizzle 17:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, you miss the point entirely. Any argumentation for or against Letson's credibility or details of his account, go on John Kerry military service controversy. What goes on John Kerry is only the phrase "minor shrapnel wound".

I have provided enough evidence that the wound was minor. Unless and until evidence is provided that the wound was more severe than a minor wound, then "minor" is the correct term.

In this instance, "minor" is NOT a subjective term. Rather, it is a medically related technical term which is used in the medical profession to classify injuries which require the treatment that Kerry's injury did. There is NO DISPUTE that Kerry's received only "bacitracin antibiotic and bandage".

Such treatment is the treatment that minor wounds receive. The wound care guide makes that clear [5]. This established fact, in and of itself, is enough to make clear that accuracy compels us to call the wound "minor". Letson's information backs this up, but is not essential to make my case.

Please do not get sidetracked here; though there may be arguments about Letson's motivations or veracity, this does not force a conclusion that the actual level of wound severity is unknowable. Remember, from medical terminology standpoint, there are only three possible scenarios: a) the wound was minor, b) the wound was more severe than a minor wound or c) we lack sufficent information to know the wound severity level.

Like I said, the wound care guide alone rules out "c)" as it makes clear that Kerry's treatment is the proscribed treament for a minor wound.

That leaves "b)" and "a)". So far, in more than a year of opposition to "minor", no editor here has presented any evidence that the wound was more severe than a minor wound, so we can safely take it at this point that no such evidence exists. Surely no one is suggesting that we call it a "severe wound" are they? There is no evidence to support that.

This leaves "a)", which is "minor". Here again are the reasons why we call it minor:

1) The wound care guide [6] makes clear that wounds which receive the Kerry treatment are minor wounds.
2) Letson make clear that there was very little to Kerry's injury.

These two facts sets, taken together or taken alone, each fully and completely support the use of the adjective minor as being correct.

The various editors complaints about Letson, serve only to sidetrack what is a straight forward fact assesment.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 17:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If talking about Letson is "missing the point", you shouldn't have mentioned his name so many times in the post I was responding to. To take a look at the link you provided, there are two types of wounds: those that "require professional medical care", and those that only require "minor" care, of which the latter I'm assuming you associate with "minor" wounds and the former with "non-minor" wounds. Now, under the list of wounds that "require professional medical care", or the "non-minor" wounds, there is this passage:

"A wound that has visible foreign material such as gravel, dirt, glass or metal."

John Kerry had visible foreign material, such as gravel, dirt, glass or metal (as in the piece of shrapnel sticking out of his arm). Thus, his wound was the type that required more than just "minor care", but actual "professional medical treatment".

In addition, the very first passage states:

"This Wound Care Guide is to help you learn self-care and first aid for your minor wounds"

The type of wound Kerry received ("visible foreign material") is under the list of wounds that require more than simple self-care, and thus does not fit under "minor wounds" that the later passages help in administering.

Now that you're distancing using Letson to justify your position on this page, and your own link describes treatment of the "visible foreign material" (metal/shrapnel) as opposed to simply "minor care", what are you going to use next to justify? --kizzle 18:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:Rex071404):

My reasoning is simple:

Is there good factual basis for the claim? I haven't done your level of research, but from what I have read, the answer is Yes.
Does the fact add to the article? Wounds vary greatly in severtiy. If the word "wound" is used by itself, the reader could eaisily make an incorrect assumption about how bad the injury was. In this case, one word adds a lot of value, so the answer is Yes.
Is it NPOV to include the fact? I think a reasonable arguement can be made that it is POV not to include this adjective. Since the reader could easily picture a more severe wound than actually occured, leaving out the qualifier could be seen as elevating Kerry on a pedastal due to his combat wounds. Now, of course it would be POV for the article to say something like "Kerry's camp claims he received war wounds, but in actual fact he just got a bo-bo and wanted a medal". I don't think you are trying to say that. You seem to be trying to stick to the facts. If the facts are presented in a careful, balanced way, then they aren't POV, even if some people don't like them. Therefore, I think the answer to this is also Yes.

If there is ever a staw poll on this topic, please let me know and I'll go over and register my opinion again. Johntex\^talk 17:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

That's all fine, but you still haven't justified your #1, as in why you think there is good factual basis for the claim. --kizzle 18:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Kizzle, this Discussion page is getting confusing (at least to me). I put my reply to you one section above (please seach on "Hi Kizzle" to find them). The section that starts "My reasoninng is simple" I did not put here. I think Rex pasted them here from his talk page. I don't think he realized I had already made similar comments higher up this page. Johntex\^talk 18:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Oops, sorry :) --kizzle 18:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem! I replied again (above). Johntex\^talk 18:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The uncontested facts support "minor shrapnel wound"

According to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your facts, an over-arching, guiding principle of all editing on the wiki is:

'Write stuff that is true: check your facts. Do not write stuff that is false. This might require that you check your alleged facts."

Here again are the uncontested facts:

Kerry was wounded
Kerry received treatment for that wound
Severe wounds require more treatment than "bacitracin and bandaging"
Kerry received only "bacitracin and bandaging"
The term "minor wound" is a medically specific technical term
Kerry did not self-treat his wound
Whether or not a wound is self-treated, does not change it's level of severity
Wounds that receive only "bacitracin and bandaging" from a medical professional are not referred to by medical profesisonals as anything other than "minor wounds".

I have tried, as best as I can, with the limited sources available on the 'net, to provide enough facts that the editors here who are opposed to "minor" can see that their opposition is unsupportable.

If Kizzle, et al (the "No!" crowd) insists on thinking that the sources I provided do not support using the adjective "minor" or the medical term "minor wound", I want him to please choose, based on the facts we have now, was the wound level

A) MINOR
B) SEVERE
C) IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW

As evidenced by this: [7] in medical terminology, there are only two classifications of wounds, minor and severe.

According to this: [8], a "A minor wound is a small wound or a wound on just the surface of the skin".

According to this: [9], for a minor wound: "Apply antibiotic ointment to minor wound and cover with a sterile gauze dressing or bandage that is slightly larger than the actual wound."

I am NOT "distancing using Letson". Rather, I am providing additional information for those (such as Kizzle) who have difficulting grasping that the wound was indeed minor. Perhaps Kizzle thinks the wound was severe? Perhaps the treatment which the wound received is insufficient from Kizzle's perespective to indicate that the wound was minor?

Suffice it to say, I call on Kizzle to take a position: Kizzle, based on the facts and medical terminology citations we have so far, was the wound "Minor", "Severe" or "Impossible to know"?

I contend that it is true that the wound was minor. Leaving out this true fact will leave the false possibility open that it was something other than that.

We are told to write what is true. And yet, without accuracy, there can be no editorial truth here. We need the accuracy enhancing use of the adjective "minor" and the medically precise term "minor wound", both of which come together in a workable non-POV manner in "minor shrapnel wound".

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to take an opinion, but unfortunately I do not meet the criteria of an opinion that can be sourced in this article. The fact that Kerry according to your source has a non-minor wound due to metal lodged within the wound is plenty for me. This is the fact that is conspiciously missing from your list of uncontested facts that gives doubt to your subjective conclusion. --kizzle 19:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes or no Kizzle, are you saying that in medical terminology, there are more types of wounds other than A) Minor and B) Severe? If that's what you are saying, please list the others here. If not, please see this link [10] and concede that there are only two. Please take a position: Based on the ALL the facts about Kerry's wound/treatment and wound guides we have now, was the wound A) MINOR, B) SEVERE or C) IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW?

Kizzle, please take clarify your position, are you contending that in medical terminology the wound WAS SEVERE ("non-minor wound")?

Kizzle your refusal to choose proves that you are NOT interested in resolving our disagreement here. And this is NOT an attempt to get your opinion so as to source from it. Rather this is an attempt to get us to the point where, as per above, we know ourselves that we are writing the TRUTH, which is our duty as wiki editors. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It's funny how you don't disagree that your own source indicates the wound was not minor. And tell me where any of these links provided characterize shrapnel wounds where the metal is lodged in the arm as "minor". But so far, we have one source saying that a wound with "visible foreign material" such as the shrapnel lodged in the wound requires more than minor care. That's all I know, and I don't see how badgering to answer is going to help any, as my characterization of it being minor or not is not sourceable and thus not relevant. --kizzle 19:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI: here is another proof [11]:

"Kerry's former commanding officer, Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, told the Boston Globe last week that Kerry's first Purple Heart came from minor wound, resembling a fingernail scrape."

(Hibbard saw the wound with his own eyes, because Kerry showed it to him. The count is now two eye-witnesses for "minor", none for "severe", none for "don't know").

And Kizzle, the context for the "requires more than minor care" is as you point out, only as it relates to students trying to self-treat themselves. There is not doubt that the level of care Kerry received was appopriate to the nature of his injury. And there is no doubt that the level of care Kerry received was consistant with that of a minor wound.

The fact that Kizzle now tauntingly tries to suggest the wound was "severe", but will not come out and say it, tells me he is just mocking this discourse.

Kizzle, if you will not take a position on what is the known truth regarding the severity of the wound, then you are abrogating your wiki editor duties to "write stuff that is true".

From this point on, unless and until you say "Minor". "Severe" or " Impossible to know", I will not again reply to you, as you are in violation of your most basic duties and are therefore a rogue editor.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 19:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so attribute it to him, but don't include it in the main text. And if you disagree with "requires more than minor care" than maybe you should provide a better source rather than letting me dismantle it. Of course I don't think the wound was severe, but I don't think that it was minor either, and regardless either way, adding such information only draws conclusions for the reader and strengthens one point of view rather than simply saying he has an injury, providing the details, and letting them come to the conclusion whether the injury was minor (of which subsequently whether he deserved the medal at all, which is of course your highly transparent motive to include this passage). If asking to attribute a POV rather than injecting my own POV is a "violation" of my "most basic duties and are therefore a rogue editor", than that's ok with me. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. --kizzle 22:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Failure to respond to an allegation does not give allegation credence

Reading this page (BTW it is 246 kb!!! Pages are supposed to be archived at 32!!!), I have say that both Rex and John don't seem to understand the principles of objective research. A claim it itself is not proof. Nor is the fact that it has not been challenged. Very often people against whom negative claims have been made deliberately do not comment in response because commenting in taken as evidence in the media and in academia that the claim is sufficiently credible to need to be rebutted. For example, it was recently claimed that Albino Luciani (aka Pope John Paul I for 33 days) was homosexual and engaged in S&M and B&D, and liked playing "slave games". No-one who knew the man has bothered to deny the issue, believing the claim not worth commenting on. Following Rex's and John's logic, Wikipedia should feature an unevidenced claim on the basis that no one denied it.

A claim in itself isn't evidence. Documentary evidence is. A rebuttal at least opens up the possibly of saying 'x said such and such. y denied it.' But a claim, without reply, without documentary evidence, cannot be covered under objectivity rules, neutrality rules, standard academic and journalistic rules. The only way it could feature at all is in the form of saying 'x claimed such and such, but offered no evidence to prove the claim. Y chose to ignore the allegation.' and leave it at that. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You are completely off base here. We have TWO eyewitnesses (Hibbard and Letson) who make clear the wound was minor. The treatment of the wound was consistant with that of a minor wound. These ARE NOT claims! They are PRIMARY SOURCES which are being referred to. If nothing is offered in rebuttal, it is entirely reasonable to take them at face value, period. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 20:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Eye witness claims are only adequate if they are (i) recorded contemporaneously; (ii) supplied by objectively independent sources.

Of possible there should also be documentary records to confirm their claims.

The claims don't fit any of the criteria. The claims are retrospective. One of those making it was already politically aligned and so potentially politically motivated, and there is no clear documentary evidence to back up the claims. Frankly if you believe that "If nothing is offered in rebuttal, it is entirely reasonable to take them at face value, period" you obviously know nothing about how stories are covered in either the media or in academia, and you have an astonishing poor grasp of encyclopædic standards. Stop waging a POV war and practice elementary NPOV standards. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If the standard is "objectively independent sources", then NONE of the quotes from the vets who campaigned with Kerry should be allowed into any Kerry articles, including John Kerry military service controversy. I'm ok with expunging all their comments. Are you? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 20:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jtdirl, it would be great if every claim in Wikipedia was substantiated by a second or third or fourth source. But that is an unreasonable standard. I never said a claim constitutes proof. For one thing, the source of the claim has to be taken into account. There are some black marks to the detriment of Letson's claim, such as the fact that he made the claim 30 years after the fact, and the fact that his name is not on the records. However, the former is easy to explain because it was at the time of Kerry's greatest fame that he would be most likely to come forward to talk about. The second I can only speculate about. Regardless, there is other evidence besides Letson's claim. For example, the fact that Kerry was not hospitalized, did not miss duty etc, does not seem to have any impairment of the limb, plus the lack of any denial, plus the fact that the care he received was consistent with the suggested care for a "minor wound" add up to a preponderance of evidence. It is POV to ignore preponderance of evidence and look for some certainty to drop out of the sky concerning a 30 year old event. We need to report what is most likely to be true. We can add a footnote to show that there is controversy about it. Johntex\^talk 20:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The media can exercise such judgments as to the veracity or otherwise of claims where there is a grey area. (Some tabloids may go with claims alone. Most broadsheets will only go with a claim if there is a response, which is why the Kerry camp declined to comment. Newspapers may also be influenced by their own political agenda; ie, if they are anti-Bush, they will accept anti-Bush stories wore willingly than anti-Kerry stories. Or vice versa, anti-Kerry stories more willingly than anti-Bush ones. But even within the media such coverage is highly controversial. Irish newspapers were badly stung two weeks ago when a police source in Moscow claimed that an Irish politician killed in a car crash in Moscow had a prostitute in the car with him. Yes he had a woman with him, but it wasn't a 16 year old prostitute but a 32 year old translator accompanying him to meetings. They ran the story based purely on a claim that the politician's family had declined to comment on. The circumstantial evidence suggested that the story might be true: it was in a red light district, he had a woman with him and it was 2am. But in reality the circumstantial evidence was misleading. He was en route to the airport for an early morning flight and the woman was an respected employee known to his family. The newspapers had to apologise (grovellingly) and promise to demand higher standards of evidence than just an unevidenced claim from a questionable source possibly motivated by malice, and a context that sounded plausible but again couldn't be proven — and in that case proved completely misleading.)

Encyclopædias, and particularly Wikipedia, follow a no original research rule which means we cannot editorialise like that, as that would involving reaching a conclusion rather than report a fact. The latter is NPOV, the former POV. Even if we believe strongly that the claims are likely to be correct (and the example of Liam Lawlor's Moscow car crash shows the danger of making such presumptions), to report them the way Rex wants to breaches just about every Wikipedia rule. The most that can be done is to report the facts as known (a wound - without qualification - and an award, and then in a footnote point out that two people so many years later disputed the generally believed version of events. The footnote would have to use key qualifiers such as claimed (if actual documentary evidence in the form of medical records confirming the story unambiguously existed, then one would use the stronger word "said") and sites as evidence the length/nature of the treatment Kerry received, while also stating whether the people making the claim were supporters or opponents of the Kerry campaign, and mentioning that the Kerry campaign declined to comment on the allegations. Doing it that way would avoid editorialising. The only other option would be to make a link page going though the evidence and linking to a one or two line mention in the main article. But there too the language would have to be very neutral and not presume that claims, without unambiguously proven as opposed to likely to be correct documentary evidence, are accurate. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Jtdirl's basic premise is that IF and ONLY IF a source which NO ONE disputes, used the EXACT WORD "minor" and put that EXACT WORD on the original injury treatment report, then NO AMOUNT of other evidence allows us, the editors to write the history of this wound using the term "minor wound". Such logic is absurd - across this wiki, there are many, many, many articles which could not possibly meet a such strict standard and would have to be deleted. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 21:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Jtdirl recites an interesting parable. I agree it is good to be caustious. However, caution must go in both directions. In the example about a contemporary car crash, it is possible to leave out disputed facts altogether and be safe in the knowledge that a little time might clar things up. This is a very different case here. We have gone through 30 years and one presidential election. More facts are not likely to come to light. In this case, Kerry himself and people on the scene at the time have been given a full opportunity to comment. In the car crash case, they interviewed his grief stricken parents who weren't even at the scene of their sons death. What possible comment can they have to make about the facts of the crash? The analogy simply does not hold up.

There is another distinction between this case and the car crash - we don't put out static editions, therefore, we can change anything later if our good faith effort at reporting the best possible knowledge turns out to be wrong.

There is also a logical fallacy implied that "since someone else made a mistake one time in using what seemed to be common sense, no one else should ever use common sense again".

We need to use the facts that we have and properly note anything controversial aobut them. To side with the 10% or 20% chance that the wound was not minor is simply not POV. If adding an adjective in is somehow editorializing (as implied below) then should we go through Wikipedia and take out every adjective? Of course not. Johntex\^talk 22:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia reaching a judgment on an issue by deciding that the official version is wrong is POV and editorialising. The official version may well be incorrect, but it is not an encyclopædia's job to set itself up as a judge on the issue. And giving strong attention and implicit credibility through how they are written up, to unproven allegations made not in a neutral forum by neutral observers but decades later in the heat of an election campaign, when one of the persons key to making the allegations is a political opponent of a candidate, is blatently breaking NPOV. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understnad your reference to the "official version". Can you please clarify? If you are referring to the military record that he received a wound - I am not saying I think the military record is wrong, I am saying that through a combination of sources, we can give a more complete description of the wound than relying merely on one source. I thought above you wanted multiple sources, now you seem to just want to stick with whatever a single specific source said. I find this perplexing. Johntex\^talk 23:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Survey of editors: regarding evidence supplied so far about 1st wound severity

I have asked several other editors this, but do not get any answers, so I am going to ask in the form of a survey. Please note that I have offered only three choices, "minor", "severe" and "impossible to know". Please do not tamper with my supplied list of choices. The "It is not for Wikipedia's job to editorialise..." choice did not come from me. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94}

Regarding the total evidence supplied on this talk page (see above) specific to the severity of Kerry's 1st wound, with the aim in mind of "write stuff that is true", to the best of my understanding and belief, I accept the evidence relating to proof of wound severity as showing that this medically specific technical term is true:

The 1st wound was a "minor wound"

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 21:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there is strong enough evidence to support using this word in this article. I would not at all be opposed to a footnote to indicate there is some controversy. Johntex\^talk 21:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The 1st wound was a "severe wound:"

I've never raised this point before, because I always thought it would be fruitless, but my research indicates that Kerry did not in fact suffer a minor wound. Instead, his arm was severed above the elbow. He was ordered to rest in the hospital while the doctors prepared for the surgery to re-attach it. He couldn't stand being out of action, though, so he sneaked out of his room, stole a potholder from the hospital kitchen to stop the stump from bleeding, and went out on a Swift boat patrol, killing scores of Viet Cong single-handed (literally). He then went back to the hospital and submitted to the surgery, but not before dutifully returning the potholder to the kitchen, where it remained as a treasured memento of the cooking staff. </parody> The preceding comment by me is absurd, but it's not significantly more absurd than some of the other comments on this page. JamesMLane 01:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It is impossible to know, based on the evidence so far:

It is not for Wikipedia's job to editorialise on the severity or otherwise of the wound. Our only task is to use the contemporary description as applied and mention in NPOV terms that decades later two people (one an opponent of Kerry's) disagreed with the contemporary description:

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
1. There was no "contemporary description". The above attempt to circumvent my resonable attempt at survey by suggesting that there was is misleading. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 21:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  1. Sorry, you don't get to control the debate. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I couldn't have said it better myself. Anything else would be POV, and not in the usage of "bias" which is commonly thrown around, but it would literally be choosing between two points of view. --kizzle 22:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
yes, this whole thing is ridiculous. how many years of effort have to go into this? he received a wound. period. it's quite obvious from the following text that it wasn't all that serious. why should we toss in a gratuitious adjective rather than let the known facts speak for themselves? Derex @ 02:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

1st "wound" - an alternative suggestion

According to this: [12], there has been NO PROOF supplied by Kerry or anyone that the word "wound" even appears in his treatment record:

The campaign could not locate a similar report for Kerry's original Purple Heart. As evidence that Kerry was wounded, campaign spokesman Michael Meehan showed The Associated Press a "Sick Call Treatment Record" from Kerry's personal files that included a brief written note dated Dec. 3, 1968, and stamped from the naval support facility at Cam Ranh Bay.

"Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl (sic) bacitracin dressing. Ret to Duty," it said. The note is followed by a signature that appears to say "JCCarreon" and some illegible letters that Meehan said probably designate the medical official's rank.

If we are going to be literalists, then I intend to re-write the section in dispute with a direct quote from Kerry's "Sick Call Treatment Record" as follows

====First Purple Heart====

During the night of December 2, 1968 and early morning of December 3, Kerry was in charge of a small boat operating in and around a peninsula north of Cam Ranh Bay together with a Swift boat (PCF-60). Kerry's boat surprised a group of men unloading sampans at a river crossing, who began to run. When the men refused to obey an order to stop running, Kerry and his crew of two enlisted men opened fire, destroyed the sampans, and took off. During this encounter, Kerry received shrapnel in left arm above elbow. The shrapnel was removed and he was treated with bacitracin antibiotic and bandaged. Kerry returned to duty the next day on a regular Swift boat patrol. Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this medical treatment. This medal award was one of those criticized by Kerry's detractors in the 2004 election; for more detail, see John Kerry military service controversy.

Please note that the bold text is mine and is to show that this an EXACT quote of the only evidence to come from Kerry about this, the contemporaneously written "Sick Call Treatment Record". The bold will be standard text in the article edit.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it is a very good compromise. I would support this version (with the bolding removed). Johntex\^talk 22:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

On 2nd thought, this sentence "Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this medical treatment.", should probably read as "Kerry was later awarded his first Purple Heart for this". The "medical treatment" is conclusionary and should be stricken. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

According to the official document, what was he rewarded with the purple heart for then? --kizzle 22:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

We are not allowed to make conclusions. Let the reader decide. This is what the others here have been telling me, so this is the rule they are now bound by. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, this sentence "Kerry returned to duty the next day on a regular Swift boat patrol." should instead read as "Kerry returned to duty the next day.", unless there is proof that Kerry was actually on a Swift Boat patrol, instead of at base, the next day. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It sounds a bit better except it's not proper English. --kizzle 22:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex's conduct

Rex's conduct on this page has been anything but acceptable under Wikipedia rules.

He is consistently abusive to other users.

He insists on shouting his comments at people.

He refuses to abide by the elementary requirement of NPOV.

He then tries to claim ownership of a survey, framing questions which breach NPOV rules by proposing that Wikipedia editorialise on a controversial point of some dispute, and when an NPOV option is added in he posts (with his traditional shouting)

DO NOT modify my offered choices AGAIN - make your own survey if you want, but this is my survey. The answers below are NOT responsive to the questions I posed and will be designated as such

Funny, since you keep deleting my text (see history this page), I am unable to locate that which you are complaining about. Also, what about using the literal quote (as I suggest above) from Kerry's treatment record? will you support that? And don't complain that I interspersed my comment here, you did the same thing when you creatd a 4th choice to my survey - worse even, you have given others the impression that the 4th choice came from me. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me spell it out for you then:

You don't own this encyclopædia;
You don't own the page;
You don't know the survey;
Setting up a 'survey' containing fraudulent POV options is dishonest;
Posting messages stating 'how dare you' rants in the middle of a survey is both a breach of Wikipedia ettique and disrespectful to everyone on Wikipedia.

But then your handling of this survey is perfectly in keeping with your treatment of all attempts by other users to contribute to this page. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

He insists on bolding text in a paragraph to push his personal viewpoint about Kerry.

Uh, did you even bother to read this: "The bold will be standard text in the article edit" ? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Frankly given his behaviour, an RfC should be raised against him. His conduct on this page is nothing short of outrageous. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Have at it mate. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure a RfC against Rex is appropriate, possibly an RfC on this dispute is warranted, although I call not-it on drawing it up. One thing he does have you on, Rex, is that you don't get to control the debate by providing only your options, as clearly there was another option that many other people supported that you didn't give, thus your initial survey was a fallacy of choice between false alternatives.--kizzle 22:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, what I took issue with was his modification of the choices with a ("this choice added by" tag). I did not give that 4th choice and I do not want it to appear in my offering, undesignated. And frankly, I am inlcined to stop dialoggin with you Kizzle and I think it simply terrible that you refuse to take a position about the what the current batch of evidence supports regarding the three possibilities. And there are only three, no one is contending otheriwse. Also, based on all the objections and arguments made here, I am thinking that the literal quote of "received shrapnel in left arm above elbow" version (see above) is the best way to go. This will satisfy the complaints of the literalists, while at the same time avoiding a hagiograhic effect for that section. As for the 4th option issue, don't you understand what I am asking? I am asking the people here to comment on their position of what the provided evidence establishes to our satisfaction to be true regarding the wound. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 23:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Right, but like JP said, you don't get to control the debate. I am all for literal quotations, but it just doesn't read right to say he received shrapnel "in left arm above elbow", that's shorthand and not gramatically correct. I don't think the option is to excise the word "injury" or "wound" altogether, as this is not under debate whether or not he suffered a wound. The level of severity is under debate, thus we should not classify as either severe or minor, but simply say it was a wound, provide the details, and let the reader conclude. This course of action is completely irrelevant to what you or I or anyone thinks about whether or not the wound was severe, as the 4th option says above, it is not our job to editorialize and take sides between two contesting POVs. The mere fact that we do not specify in the offical text the severity of the wound does not render this portion hagiographic as you contest, it just avoids using conclusionary language about his injury. "Minor" is an inference/opinion/characterization, so quote it, attribute it, provide the facts, and move on, but it abandons the very notion of NPOV to adopt this Point Of View into the official tone of the article itself. You can choose to dialog with me or not, but this should make it clear that I am objecting to your viewpoint based upon reasoned conclusions and not just simply saying "No!" as you previously accused me and those who agree with me. --kizzle 23:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)--kizzle 23:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Note to Kizzle, but is for all, re: 1st "injury" issue

Kizzle, I am amazed at what a difficult forum for communication these talk pages are. Let me explain: My line of business puts me on constant verbal communication all day, face to face and on the phone. It is very rare that I don't reach agreement with people under those circumstances. For this reason, it amazes me that virtually nothing I say here seems to sink in. That said, you have to be aware that with my most recent edit I am indeed contesting whether or not the word "wound" is allowable or even proven true.

I've never raised this point before, because I always thought it would be fruitless, but my research indicates that Kerry did not in fact actually get wounded, but rather sought (and later received after his second try) his 1st purple heart on the basis of a shipboard mishap, such as scraping his arm - not during battle and not under fire.

To date, Kerry has not supplied any material which actually substantiates that the metal which was referred to as shrapnel on his treatment record actually came from ordinance.

Kerry incurred what amounts to a small metal splinter. If it were up to me, that's what I would call it, "a small metal splinter". However, it's not up to me, so I have been willing to compromise.

FYI: In my estimation, the most likely source for getting a small metal splinter while shipboard or dockside, would be by mishandling or brushing into an improperly stowed/secured wire rope [13].

Personally, I think with the addition of the Hibbard information of "Kerry's former commanding officer, Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, told the Boston Globe last week that Kerry's first Purple Heart came from minor wound, resembling a fingernail scrape" combined with the predicate condition of "The military regulations for awarding the purple heart specify that it is awarded when a service member is wounded or killed as a result of action involving a hostile enemy." makes clear that with the varying contentions as to the truth of when and how Kerry got this metal splinter, it's POV to call it a wound or anything but a small wound.

I've offered:

"minor shrapnel wound"
"superficial injury from a small piece of shrapnel"
"superficial wound from a small piece of shrapnel"
"a shrapnel wound of uncategorized severity"
"received shrapnel in left arm above elbow"

(and associated variants) - all of which get attacked and rejected by a core group of editors, not one of whom will answer a simple question, which is:

If the facts we have do not support the use of the word "minor", do the facts we have support the use of the word "serious"?

Repeat, I am not saying that Kerrry could not have qualified for the PH under some interpretations of the PH rules of that day. Rather, what I am saying is that this section of the article has never shone the crystal glare of scrupulous accuracy on the 1st injury/wound/metal splinter.

As evidenced by the ferocious opposition to adding even a single word such as "minor", I think that more is a foot here than zealous desire to make wikiprogress.

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 01:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

sigh* You still don't get it! Firstly you wrote above "my research indicates that Kerry did not in fact actually get wounded . . . " Have you ever read Wikipedia rules? It says unambiguously Wikipedia:No original research. It says explicitly If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy.

Unless you have published your research and had it independently verified it is irrelevant what conclusions you personally have drawn. If you have your own personal information, write it in a book, put it in a newspaper article but don't put your personal research here. Its usage breaks the explicit mandatory No Original Research rule.

Secondly, you wrote that "Kerry has not supplied any material which actually substantiates that the metal which was referred to as shrapnel on his treatment record actually came from ordinance . . ." Once the award was made for the reasons it was made he does not have to substantiate anything. It is on the record. Where a ruling of fact has been made (whether rightly or wrongly) , and one was to justify giving him the purple heart, the onus to disprove the reasoning for the award stands on those claims a miscarriage was made. (Just as if someone claiming that the Bush family were in the pay of the Bin Laden family the onus would be on them to prove the allegation, not the Bush family to prove it was untrue.) That is an elementary principle applied in public life, in law, everywhere. Its like if someone somewhere claimed that he beat his wife, and you then demanding that he prove he never beat her. The onus is on those making the allegations to prove they are right, not for him to prove that they are wrong.

You seem so blinded by your hatred of the guy that you demand Wikipedia abandon its own rules, standard rules of evidence and mandatory encylopædic standards to allow you to put your personal opinion on the evidence in as fact. And you then take offence when other users, following Wikipedia's own rules, standard rules of evidence and mandatory encylopædic standards, refuse to allow your anti-Kerry spin to be written as if proven.

Stop applying irrelevant non-encyclopædic standards and irrelevant unverified personal research to this article. It is a non-starter in Wikipedia articles and anything not following the mandatory standards of NPOV and objectively proven verifiability will simply be deleted. The onus rests with those making the allegations to prove unambiguously elsewhere that the purple heart was wrongly awarded. Then and only then can we make such an assumption here. To date a lot of opinions have been expressed but nothing has been proven to warrant Wikipedia saying that Kerry's PH citation was wrong. All we can say is that he received it for 'x'. A political opponent of his with military experience has claimed it is wrong, and leave it at that. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404 replies to Jtdirl - also to others here

Jtdirl, to quote youself "You seem so blinded by your..." love for Kerry, that you don't seem to even comprehend those who disagree with you.

Actually all I am blinded by is proper academic standards and objectivity. I personally think Bush is one of the biggest assholes on the planet, but I consistently reverted POV attacks on him from various pages. FearÉIREANN