text:
Talk:John Kerry 2004 presidential campaign

Health Care Plan
Kerry's Health Care plan is a big part of his election campaign, and there should be at least some information up under "issue stances", probably under a separate section.

VP post-selection
Given that Kerry's selected Edwards for his running mate, I've made a few edits to the VP section reflecting that. However, I'm unsure how to proceed with the section in general - how do we want to archive the VP selection process? --Goobergunch 13:24, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Most of the section is now irrelevant. It is automatically "archived" in the history. Reread the article from the point of view of what we now know. Almost all the speculation should go because it's only of passing interest. All the bullets should go. Who cares now who Clinton considered for VP before choosing Gore? We might want to mention the most prominent speculations. Side issues such as candidates who were considered but ineligible are almost silly now (after all, they were ineligible Duh!). We might keep a line like "Some even thought Kerry might pick Bill Clinton, despite the fact he was ineligible for the job." -- Cecropia | Talk 14:36, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia, by your argument, any alternative in all of history that was contemplated but wasn't picked would be irrelevant. Isn't that a bit extreme?Rich 00:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Death penalty
"Kerry opposes the death penalty, but has recently stated that he would support it in the case of convicted terrorists."

Surely that means he supports it? Markalexander100 09:27, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * If you're in favor of Kerry, it's called "nuance." If you're opposed it's called "covering your bases" if you're polite. This kind of thing will be an ongoing problem for Kerry. Today he complained that Bush was short-changing the troops in Iraq, but he voted against the $87 billion post-war appropriatiation to pay for them after voting in favor of the war. Yes, I know he has an excuse for each, but there is a limit to how long you can manage your press. Cecropia 18:50, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * That limit is called the campaign fund balance. - Anonymous foreigner. ;)

 * It's clear he's against 100% of current death penalty cases that exist in America today. I don't really think that's nuance. Ask yourself how much use of the death penalty Kerry would like to see compared to how much there is now, and you see that it would be less, and that's what he says he wants. What's unclear about this? Are you demanding that a stance be absolute zero-tolerance to qualify as being "against"? -- Fleacircus 00:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

He voted for a version of the $87 billion appropriations bill that required spending cuts in other areas in order to offset the huge cost, but that version never made it onto the floor of the full Senate. The Bushies are absolutely fanatical about driving the nation further and further into debt, to the point where they won't even consider rolling back their precious tax cuts or cutting some of the fat off bloated defense spending bills. SS451 23:30, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Well, he certainly was happy to deal out the death penalty to a fleeing Viet Cong, in the back, so I suppose he would have no problem with the American Death Penalty.

"Kerry has long stated his opposition to the death penalty, but has recently stated that he would support it in the case of convicted terrorists."
 * Surely this shouldn't say "recently" any more. What should it say?  What date is appropriate? -- Kevin Saff (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Page title
I moved this article from Presidential campaign of John Kerry to 2004 presidential campaign of John Kerry to be parallel to the W. page. (2004 presidential campaign of George W. Bush -- Seth Ilys 03:45, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Moved back. John Kerry has one and only one Presidential campaign to date. The 2004 Bush does not need to be compared to Kerry, but to the 2000 presidential campaign of George W. Bush. jengod 04:42, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * I respectfully disagree. Articles in a set (and presidential campaign articles qualify as a set, IMHO) should be consistently titled. Besides, if Kerry wins, there will presumably be a 2008 presidential campaign of John Kerry, so why not makes the article titles consistent now? -- Seth Ilys 04:46, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * It's sooo ugly. Ugly bad. Bad! :) But that aside, if Arnold Schwarzenegger wins the 2020 election, there will presumably be a 2024 presidential campaign of Arnold Schwarzenegger article, but that doesn't mean we should go around inventing naming conventions based on the possibility. And that said, if we're running around unifying the universe, per the existing U.S. presidential election, 1856 style, it should really be George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2004. But mostly I'm just against a.) Ugly b.) Unnecessary, redundant, repetitive (see?!) information.  jengod 04:52, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * Ugly is a subjective aesthetic judgement. I personally meet that 2004 presidential campaign of John Kerry looks better than Presidential campaign of John Kerry.

 * Besides, what happens when we go back and create articles on various presidential campaigns parallel to these. We'll have 1992 presidential campaign of George H. W. Bush and 1988 presidential campaign of George H. W. Bush but only one Presidential campaign of Walter Mondale which should be 1984 presidential campaign of Walter Mondale. The year is a vital and informative part of the title, no matter who or when the campaign was. Besides, I favor consistency over redundancy. Redunancy never made things difficult; inconsistency does.

 * Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. -- Seth Ilys 06:02, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Maybe I'm too tired, but I don't get the Schwarzenegger joke. Enlighten me? Cecropia 05:46, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * There's speculation that the U.S. consitution may be amended to allow foreign-born naturalized US citizens to run for president. This possible scenario was mentioned (with Schwarzenegger in particular becoming president) in the sci-fi movie Demolition Man. Even scarier is the fact that Ahhnold is fairly popular at the moment as Governor of California, and that he hasn't disclaimed interest in a possible presidential run, should the constitution be amended. -- Seth Ilys 13:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Okay, okay, I'm willing to date the campaigns, but I feel strongly the style should match U.S. presidential election, 2004-U.S. Democratic Party presidential nomination, 2004 style i.e. George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2004, George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2000, Al Gore presidential campagin, 1988, Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000, John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004. Whadja think? jengod 06:51, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * Prefer your way, Jengod. Subject should go first, then year. Cecropia 06:59, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * That's reasonable, too. -- Seth Ilys 13:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For the sake of grammarians everywhere, please change the title to 2004 presidential campaign of John Kerry. Or, at the very least, change it to John Kerry's presidential campaign of 2004 (which sounds worse, but at least is grammatically correct). The current title does not sound like the creation of a native English speaker. Moncrief 05:23, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * The name is the way it is because it follows the pattern set by U.S. presidential election, 2004 jengod 22:02, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Vote!
I seek your input at WikiProject POTUS Campaigns. Please come weigh in on what to name articles about presidential campaigns. jengod 23:09, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Could Bill Clinton be Kerry's Veep
Of course, this is an issue which would surely have to be decided by the Supreme Court if it became a reality, but here are a few observations, strictly FYI and for the entertainment value.

 * This has been argued back and forth, including a recent Op-Ed in the New York Times by a professor (with rebuttals by other worthies). The intent of the Constitutional amendment limiting the President's term was clearly intended to do just that, especially since it provides for a longer term for the special circumstances of a President finishing out another's term, in which the President can only be elected one time if he has finished out more than two years of a predecessor's term (so limiting that person to no more than 10 years total as President.) To argue that the amendment only covers elections invites one to facetiously suggest that it wouldn't be OK for Clinton to run for President again, but it would be OK if he regained the Presidency in a coup d'etat.

 * Governor George Wallace of Alabama effectively evaded term limits by having his wife Lurleen (sp?) succeed him and he acted fairly openly as shadow governor. In the case of the Presidency, you could imagine a popular president then running as Vice President to a dummy President, who would resign in his behalf. Clearly this is not what the Congress intended—the origin of the amendment was anger at Roosevelt for breaking the tradition intentionally set by George Washington that a President of a democracy should serve only two terms and then stand aside instead of attempting to rule as elected royalty.

 * On a legal basis, I would contend that when the 12th amendment says that someone ineligible to serve as president he cannot be vice president, that the fact that someone is barred from running for president assumes that the person is thus ineligible for president, rather than becoming president by a semantic reading of the Constitution.

 * On a practical basis, it certainly would not help Kerry to nominate a man for Veep whose presence on the ticket would certainly spark a Constitutional Crisis and another visit to the Supreme Court. And it would be too much grist for the Republican mill to have the man who defined "the meaning of is" reinterpreting the Constiution in such a way.

Why?

 * He is ineligible because of the 12th ammendment which overrides the original election of the president. The electors are prohibited from electing him.  But besides that, the party wouldn't have him.  He would be an immediate lame duck president.  He would be a lightning rod for criticism and he would always overshadow the main candidate.  But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Kerry-Forbes family drug-trafficking ties to Opium trade and views

 * Insert this paragraph in drug section or

Kerry's grandfather James Grant Forbes was born in Shanghai into the Forbes family of opium traders, but ironically, Sen. Kerry has not publicly repudiated his own family legacy in drug dealing in this campaign, although he has used his Forbes family inheritance to extend his campaign against Gov. Dean in 2003.

Essentially - the opium wealth that has financed Kerry will become a campaign issue just like the accused-ill-gotten bootleg wealth of Kennedys made it a campaign issue in the earlier JFK race. Kerry's 2002 trust inheritance and offshore estates (France; ties to trust that owns Cape Cod islands; etc) will become issues. Is Forbes Kerry tougher on drug dealers than on his own grandfather's fortune? What are his feelings toward Chinese (trade) and vice versa (will they like an Opium dealer scion to head U.S.? Why did he personally attack Bush for vague Noriega connections, and are his own ties to drug trafficking acceptable topic for reporters? All good questions.

 * A note here, just reading the article on the Forbes family it becomes obvious that the family was primarily fur traders who dabbled in Opium smuggling during the Opium Wars. I think it would be horribly POV to try to retro-actively project our modern disapproval of Opium to the actions of the family and company at the time. I think that, if pertinent, the source of the Forbes family wealth should be included in the main article text.  If included, it should perhaps include a blurb ABOUT the Opium Wars to put actions in an historical perspective, something I would expect from any reasonably well-written and balanced article.  --ABQCat 19:09, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We seen the same thing with Bush. His grandfather had Nazi connections, and just about every Democrat has used this to their own political advantage against Bush. But with Kerry, these same Democrats say nothing.

The main thing is that both Democrats and Republicans reek of enough hypocrisy it makes me sick. It reminds me of what Jesus Christ said about the Phairsees of old:
 * Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.  So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.  They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
 * "Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

So much of the above verses in the bible could be applied in so many ways to not only Bush, but to John Kerry as well.

 * JesseG 02:25, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

God, country and Kerry
(was: Kerry thinks I'm not married??)

This is in the "Gay Rights" entry:

 * He claims that "marriage" should only be between a man and a woman, and should only be performed in a religious setting. He disagrees with the use of the term "marriage" to refer to any civil ceremony, heterosexual or homosexual.

What? Is that true? Is there a citation for that? Legal marriage in the U.S. is a function of the States, not of relgious institutions. Only the State where you are married confers the right to marry--the State sets the requirements and issues the license. The relgious ceremony is optional, and the priest or minister can only marry by the power vested in him by the State.

My wife and I were married in a civil ceremony by our own choice. Wait until I tell my kids we've only been domestic partners for the last 20 years. -- Cecropia 21:54, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Isn't "God" invoked in civil ceremonies? Mdchachi|Talk 19:12, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Not by law. It is not illegal to mention "God" in a civil ceremony, but it is not necessary. If any state law required it, I'm sure secularist groups would get after it. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * If I recall correctly, God is mentioned in civil ceremonies in Snohomish County, Washington, the only place I've witnessed one. And if I may quibble, Cecropia, priests and ministers may only perform legal marriage ceremonies by the power vested in them by the state.  I think most ministers and priests would consider that, when performing the religious rite, the power vested in them is not one handed down from the secular authorities. :-)  Just a thought that's probably irrelevant, but which I thought I'd mention. Jwrosenzweig 19:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Not a quibble. Not irrelevant. You're right that (in the U.S. at least) only the state has the right to legally bind you to a marriage contract. This was emphasized when an ordained minister in a Greenwich Village church was asked about ceremonies in which he "married" gay couples. He said that he was performing a service for religious gays who felt that they wanted their union blessed in the eyes of God, but that when he performed the ceremony he would say "by the power vested in me by God" whereas when he performed a marriage where there was a marriage license (i.e., man-woman) he says "by the power vested in me by God and the State of New York."

 * As a broader issue, I do not intend to vote for Kerry as of now, but he may become President and I'm frankly concerned by some of his issue stands like this. Does he really believe that marriage is a church thing? Now he says that life begins at conception and he is personally opposed to abortion. As a purely scientific point, life does not "begin" at conception, nor at some point during pregnancy, nor at birth; life is a continuum. The sperm is alive, the ovum is alive, and the resulting zygote in alive. To say otherwise is to go back to pre-scientific concepts of spontaneous generation. The moral question is "when is a human life ensouled." That may sound like a religious question, but it isn't necessarily. As an ethical point, I would say it asks when a human life acquires the ability to have any kind of consciousness, even if that is just the ability to experience pain or comfort.

 * Now surely he doesn't really believe I'm not married. And if he honestly thinks "life begins at conception" than he should have real moral qualms that couldn't be cast off by simply saying he respects other people's religions, especially when it comes to late-term abortion.

 * The unpleasant conclusion is that he is trying to play both sides of the street. He wants to argue that he is against same-sex marriage (to please the centrist who thinks to goes to far) but he then turns around and says civil unions are OK (which seems moderate) but that the only difference between a civil union and marriage is that one happens in a church and the other doesn't. By that logic, a civil-union is a marriage if you want to it be. This is really amazing fence-straddling.

 * As to the abortion issue, you could interpret that as a principled stand, but once again he looks like he's saying what both sides want to hear. The concept that he stands for everything, but really stands for nothing, is a great trick, if he can put it across. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Today I made a change to some of the wording in this section, based on the notion that a "right" is inherent/inalienable and is thus not something which can be conferred, rather only acknowledged and protected, at least when talking about law, social contracts and a political candidate's position in regard to such matters. In particular, phrases like "Kerry wants to grant rights to homosexuals" (which I removed altogether) I find to be somewhat sub-NPOV. The position of the GLBT community is not unlike that of women and minorities in previous eras: that they have rights that are not being recognized or equally protected. I suppose a truly neutral phrasing would acknowledge that some people feel that such rights do not exist and thus do not deserve broad legal protections or social recognition. I opted to just remove the most contentious phrase, which was redundant anyway, and to add qualifiers to another phrase to reflect the Jeffersonian POV w.r.t. inalienable rights. - mjb 21:02, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The other day, Kerry was featured in an interview in the Dubuque, Iowa Telegraph Herald newspaper. On abortion, he said, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception." "I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist," he continued in the interview. "We have separation of church and state in the United States of America." It sounds to me like a bunch of rationalization, that he only said that to mollify the concerns from local Catholics. Wait until he's before a pro-choice group. Then he'll be making it sound like abortion was the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel.

I have said it before, and I will yet say it again. I don't like Bush. I don't like his policies. Bush has flushed this country down the toilet. The economy has been shot to hell. The enviornment is going to hell in a handbasket. We have every Islamic extremist and his brother and sister wishing for the death of every last American on the face of this Earth. That is why I will not vote for Bush in November. But I seriously doubt I could bring myself to vote Kerry either. I'll probably write in my uncle. My uncle has no political experience, and calls em as he sees em. But he would be one million times better for this country than either Bush or Kerry.

 * JesseG 03:16, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * And this opinion is relevant to this article because why exactly? Moncrief 06:52, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * Exactly because this article is about Kerry's campaign and this identifies Kerry's greatest weakness. I've met people who think the U.S. needs Bush to be reelected; I've met people who think the U.S. needs anybody BUT Bush to be elected; I've met people who aren't sure whether or not Bush should be reelected; and I've met people who will probably hide under their beds on Election Day. But so far I haven't personally met one person who says "I WANT Kerry to be my President!" With Kerry you get the feeling "there's no there there." -- Cecropia | Talk 07:46, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And that's a major problem here in the United States. As much as many people dislike Bush and want him out, what kind of choice would Kerry be? I remember during the last election, one of my friends could not bring herself to vote either for Bush or Gore, she seen them as two bad choices. And I think it'll be the same this year too.

 * JesseG 02:15, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reminds me of that joke. Q. George Bush and John Kerry are on a raft. The raft drowns. Who is saved? A. The country.

Other candidates?
Hmm... should there at least be a mention that Kerry is also facing competition from independent Ralph Nader and libertarian Aaron Russo? Rei 17:45, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * See U.S. presidential election, 2004

Kerry's status (True or false??)
True or false: there is a lot of evidence as of July 2004 that Bush will defeat Kerry. 66.245.120.243 13:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it's a toss-up at this point. However, Wikipedia is not a political analysis report, it's an encyclopedia and should not IMHO be making predictions as to who will win the Presidential election. --Goobergunch 15:13, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Quite right. Kerry seems to be ahead by a hair right now, but that could change at any moment. Even if one candidate was ahead by a landslide, to say that there is "evidence" that a particular outcome of the election will occur would be specious to me. --Timbo 20:10, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nader has a right to run and his name should be on every state ballet.

Stuff
so why when Clinton did not serve in any miltary the Dems said that was no big deal, but now that Kerry was in Vietnam it is a huge plus for their pov over Bush who was in the nat guards

 * This is relevant to the article how? Also, learn how to sign your name. Here's a hint: It's 5 letters, starts with "T", and ends with two "l"s. - mjb 05:03, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The Republicans sure as hell thought it was a big deal that Clinton didn't serve, so if Clinton wasn't fit for the Presidency on those terms Bush isn't. Yes, I know, he served in the National Guard (in some form) but that doesn't compare with Kerry's service in Vietnam - as Clinton remind the DNC Kerry came from a privileged background but still went to war while he, Bush and Cheney dodged the draft.Mark 23:34, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) just like Clinton dodge the draft. Kerry's 4 months in Vietnam as a war criminal (he has admitted to being a war criminal)

 * Obviously there is a ton of emphasis on Kerry's "heroic" military service, and many are questioning exactly how herioc it actually was (perhaps with good reason). However, Bush's National Guard service (or lack thereof) seems as vulnerable, if not more so, on attendance and service. --Timbo 20:15, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IIRC the Dems were pretty hot and bother back in 92 and 96 any time the Gop or anyone else tried to compare Clinton um "service" during Vietnam I believe he was defending Oxford in England to GHW Bush and B Dole's service in WW2. Now they have no problem pointing out Kerry served in Nam for 4 months to Bush's N G duty. Bush has ackowledge that Kerry served his country. I just wish the Dem party be a bit more consistent is  serving in the miltary important to becoming president they did not think so in 92 and 96 but now sure seem to belive it is

Heathcare
Can we get further information on the views of John Kerry and the plans of his campaign on healthcare? --Liberlogos 01:56, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gun Control
That section is a living contradiction. He's for guns, but he voted for bills that are against them?! — Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  06:02, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * No. It's not. Senators are supposed to represent their state, and the people's wishes within that state. Not their own personal views. A senator's vote is not his own - it is the vote of his people. Thus, it is conceivable that he could vote for gun control, but still be personally against it. StellarFury 15:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Then why the hell would you even vote for a senator? Get a guy with a clipboard from no party! —  Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  16:10, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Hey, chill out. That's the way the system is supposed to work - the United States is a Democratic-Republic, not just a Republic. However, the system has been abused for decades, leading to this sort of misconception. The "guy with a clipboard from no party" would be the ideal - I quote the "Politics of the United States" page -

 * "Many of America's Founding Fathers hated the thought of political parties, quarreling factions they were sure would be more interested in contending with each other than in working for the common good."

 * Anyway. I am not saying the John Kerry is the ideal of a senator, just that that is a possible interpretation. Note the word "conceivable."

 * In any case, the fact that he has voted for gun control, but been personally against it exists, whether you like it or not. This is an encyclopedia - a collection of facts, not opinions. Before you attempt to continue this argument, please refer to this page - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. StellarFury 17:07, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Campaign Spending
I deleted a purely partisan statement with a false link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CapAp (talk • contribs) 08:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Logo
Its defintely a side issue, but i've uploaded a logo that I think is more used (the photos that we have both feature this logo heavily). Its not a big deal to me really, feel free to disagree. - Aaron Hill 08:47, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Preliminary arbitration ruling

 * Effective 24 August 2004:
 * User:Rex071404 is banned from editing the below listed pages while his arbitration case is ongoing:
 * John Kerry
 * John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004 and
 * John Kerry VVAW controversy

See Requests for arbitration/Rex071404.

--mav 05:44, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The title of this article
isnt the ,2004 a tad unneeded, i don't think he's had many... -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   22:16, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
 * See also - at any rate, we'll need the year if Kerry wins and runs for re-election in 2008. --Goobergunch 22:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

POV
This bit sounds very POV in the Iraq section

''He changed his position on WMDS by saying they were not enough to go to war with Iraq. (Kerry's post-attack view on Iraq) This has harmed Kerry's campaign in the eyes of some because they believe it has made him seem like a "flip-flopper", changing his position to better suit what is popular.''

Some would argue that Kerry did not change his position at all, but merely that he shifted the focus of his critisism due to a changing situation with Iraq. Can anyone recommend a rewording? --Berger 14:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

 * It should be included with a reference to the bush campaign article, as this was something that was emphasized (hypocritically and in an extreme in my opinion). --gatoatigrado 19:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are there more words dedicated to "PenGate" than there are to the actual first debate? Does that "incident" really matter? I'm not sure if Kerry's pen or the protrusion from Bush's jacket really deserve much discussion. 68.55.18.42 18:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

links in headers
don't do it. --gatoatigrado 19:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion
Why on earth is this page flagged for deletion, with the reason given as "no longer relevant?" While needing cleanup, I don't see how an article related to something as historically important as the most recent presidential campaign can be no longer relevant. Jrwagner 06:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)jrwagner

Fair use rationale for Image:Unfitforcommand.jpg
Image:Unfitforcommand.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 15:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JohnKerrylogo.png
Image:JohnKerrylogo.png 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 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 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) 21:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kerry edwards new pic.png
Image:Kerry edwards new pic.png 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 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) 22:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kerryad.jpg
Image:Kerryad.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 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) 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Kerry policy on Iraq is a stubby article without great potential for expansion without creating undue coverage. The subject could be better covered in the Iraq section of this article, so I propose a merge here. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Proceeding after a week of silence. I notice another editor expressed support for this move four years ago at Talk:Kerry policy on Iraq. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110819113755/http://www.nativetimes.com/index.asp?action=displayarticle&article_id=5316 to http://www.nativetimes.com/index.asp?action=displayarticle&article_id=5316
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050306082519/http://www.reuters.com:80/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=5476374 to http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=5476374

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110126020556/http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040609/news_1n9catholic.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040609/news_1n9catholic.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209150357/http://www.factcheck.org/bush_ad_twists_kerrys_words_on_iraq.html to http://www.factcheck.org/bush_ad_twists_kerrys_words_on_iraq.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090626000142/http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040913_KerryBushHealthPlans.pdf to http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040913_KerryBushHealthPlans.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170104115626/http://www.johnkerry.com/ to http://www.johnkerry.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140809131546/http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html to http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050307222909/http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/iraq.html to http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/iraq.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513125829/http://www.lewin.com/SpotlightPages/Bush+and+Kerry+Health+Plan+Analysis.htm to http://www.lewin.com/SpotlightPages/Bush+and+Kerry+Health+Plan+Analysis.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


text:
Ketan Mehta

Ketan Mehta (born 21 July 1952) is an Indian film director who has also directed documentaries and television serials since 1975.

Early life and education
Born on 21 July 1952 in Navsari in Gujarat, Mehta did his schooling from Sardar Patel Vidyalaya, Delhi and later graduated in film direction from Film and Television Institute of India, Pune.

Career
During his career, Mehta has made ten feature films, seven documentaries and two television serials – Captain Vyom and Mr. Yogi. His repertoire of themes includes comedy, satire, romance, violence and rebellion.

After graduating from the Film and Television Institute of India, Mehta joined the Indian Space Research Organisation as a television producer. There, he was given almost total freedom in what to create. In an interview years later, Mehta remarked about how influential this was to his development: “It was an incredible experience. Traveling all over Gujarat, meeting people, making programs on whatever you felt like, whatever you came across. It was real, genuine experimentation with medium, with people. That experience has been vital to films that I’ve made.”

Mehta's first film, Bhavni Bhavai, a Gujarati film, won him acclaim. His films have been selected for various international film festivals such as Nantes (France) and the Moscow Film Festival, where they have won numerous awards over the years. Mirch Masala was one of Mehta's notable efforts, and won him the Best Film Award at Hawaii. It was released to 52 cinemas in the United States. Mehta has also had the honour of serving as a member of the jury in various national and international film festivals.

Mehta directed a biopic Sardar, on the life of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, in 1993. His latest two films Rang Rasiya, 2014 and Manjhi the Mountain Man, 2015 both opened to tepid box office and universally positive critical reviews. Manjhi the Mountain Man starred Nawazuddin Siddiqui.

Awards and recognition

 * National Film Award
 * 1981: Best Feature Film on National Integration: Bhavni Bhavai
 * 1994: Best Feature Film on National Integration: Sardar
 * 15th Moscow International Film Festival: Nominated Golden Prize: Mirch Masala
 * 2010: Ordre des Arts et des Lettres (French Government)
 * Filmfare Award
 * 1993: Best Documentary: All in the Family
 * 2010 Honoured with Life Membership of International Film And Television Club of Asian Academy of Film & Television by Sandeep Marwah
 * 2015: Honoured with Global Cinema Award by Sandeep Marwah at 8th Global Film Festival Noida.
 * 2015: Honoured with Standing Ovation Award by Siby Malayil at All Lights India International Film Festival

Personal life
He is married to actress Deepa Sahi who has acted in three of his films,  Maya Memsaab, Oh Darling! Yeh Hai India and Aar Ya Paar. Together they founded the Maya Academy of Advanced Cinematics and Maya Digital Studios. He is the nephew of Gandhian and freedom fighter, Usha Mehta. His younger brother, Dr. Yatin Mehta, is Chairman of Medanta Institute of Critical Care and Anesthesiology, Gurgaon, Haryana. His youngest brother is Dr. Nirad Mehta, Consultant Radiologist at Hinduja Hospital, Mumbai.

Director

 * Bhavni Bhavai (1980)
 * Holi (1984)
 * Mirch Masala (1985)
 * Mr. Yogi (TV series) (1988)
 * Hero Hiralal (1989)
 * Maya Memsaab (1993)
 * Sardar (1993)
 * Oh Darling! Yeh Hai India (1995)
 * Aar Ya Paar (1997)
 * Captain Vyom (TV series) (1998)
 * Mangal Pandey: The Rising (2005)
 * Time Bomb 9/11 (TV series) (2005)
 * Rang Rasiya (2014)
 * Manjhi: The Mountain Man (2015)
 * Toba Tek Singh (2018)
 * Freedom Radio (2022)

Producer

 * Holi (1984)
 * Maya Memsaab (1993)
 * Time Bomb 9/11 (TV Series) (2005)
 * Ramayana: The Epic (2010)
 * Tere Mere Phere (2011)
 * Rang Rasiya (2014)
 * Motu Patlu: King of Kings (2016)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Ketan Mehta


text:
Talk:Port-au-Prince

Official website
Is there none official site of Port-au-Prince? 60.250.158.7 (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

History
200 years seem to have been deleted from this entry. Where is Toussaint L'Ouverture? Where is the US occupation? Where are the Duvaliers? Where is Aristide? I suspect this is more than an oversight, but someone with good sources for Haiti's post-Colonial history needs to weigh in here.
 * Was it deleted? or simply not added yet? — LlywelynII 06:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Terminology: tap-tap
With the picture showing a "tap-tap" or shared taxi, the vehicle in the foreground is not a tap-tap. It's more appropriately called a bus. The vehicle in the far, lower right background (the white pick-up truck with a raised canopy) is a tap-tap.

38 square kilometers?
Where does the figure of 38 square kilometers come from in regards to the area of the municipality? --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Earthquake death toll
I prefer not to see wild estimates on the death toll. I deleted an entry where the number ranged from 100,000 to 500,000, with zero sources. Let the government do their job and post an accurate death toll when available, this wild speculation is not helping the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.235.95 (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Regional Government
I'm reading the "government" section of the page, but it is unclear. Is a place like Carrefour a municipally seperate entity that sends representatives to a higher level of government, or is it simply a dependent neighborhood of the municipality of Port-au-Prince? I'm trying to figure out is Port-au-Prince is governed as a regional municipality, or if its composed of independent municipalities/communes that make up the arrondissement? --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Eco-ranking
From World's most livable cities, "...Port-au-Prince in Haiti ranks at the bottom of this table..." referring to the Mercer's Eco-ranking of cities worldwide. This is meant to cover "water availability and drinkability, waste removal, quality of sewage systems, air pollution and traffic congestion."--Billymac00 (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Probably needs to go in someplace with footnote. Only slightly shorter than you have it above IMO. Student7 (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Intro Pic
Isn't there a more appropriate pic for the lead? Many cities have been devastated by quakes but neither Lisbon nor San Francisco sport a quake pic as the lead pic. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Name
The 1843 Constitution of Haiti continues to call the capital Port-Republicain, so the article is in error. Either Dessalines didn't rename the city or its name was reverted for some time after. — LlywelynII 06:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Back to Port-au-Prince by 1846 Constitution... - LlywelynII 06:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of Port-au-Prince
What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Port-au-Prince. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100115070416/http://www.startribune.com:80/world/81268677.html to http://www.startribune.com/world/81268677.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081116101922/http://www.state.gov/m/a/os/1550.htm to http://www.state.gov/m/a/os/1550.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100122100830/http://www.monafoundation.org:80/news-events.htm to http://www.monafoundation.org/news-events.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Port-au-Prince. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120327161612/http://www.rubenscardia.com.br/360graus/jornalismo/haiti/haiti.html to https://www.rubenscardia.com.br/360graus/jornalismo/haiti/haiti.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Port-au-Prince. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151106110552/http://www.ihsi.ht/pdf/projection/Estimat_PopTotal_18ans_Menag2015.pdf to http://www.ihsi.ht/pdf/projection/Estimat_PopTotal_18ans_Menag2015.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100110101827/http://www.amizman.com/radios/ to http://www.amizman.com/radios

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Port-au-Prince


text:
Louis Schweitzer

Louis Schweitzer is the name of:

 * Louis Schweitzer (businessman) (born 1942), chairman and former CEO of Renault
 * Louis Schweitzer (philanthropist) (1899–1971), paper industrialist and philanthropist, donated WBAI to Pacifica Radio

title: Louis Schweitzer


text:
Talk:Domain Name System blocklist

Untitled
Is it worth going into the several broad groups of DNSBL?:

Classification of DNSBLs
Why does this entry warn that anyone who deletes one of the external links will be banned from Wikipedia for life? I tried the first 2 links and neither worked. I jumped in to edit and remove them and saw that threat. Seems very un-Wikipedia-ish. If the comment was added inappropriately, why was it left in by the senior Wikipeia editors? So, I'm leaving those links there, even though they don't work. Makes me distrust Wikipedia, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.184.200 (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Those which attempt to list compromised machines, often based on tests they have undertaken.
This class of DNSBL usually has a very objective policy about what can be listed, and they usually also run automatically or with very little human input. Examples of these lists: CBL, NJABL proxy, SORBS proxy, OPM, DSBL.

Those which attempt to map dynamic IP addresses (for various interpretations of "dynamic").
In reality, most of these just try to list anything which is domestic, dynamic, and not supposed to host mail servers. A very high proportion of spam comes directly from domestic broadband and dialup accounts, often via insecure proxies and other malware running without the users' consent. Using this type of DNSBL to reject email that comes directly from such machines is popular and effective, but can be problematic since there are many people who do operate their own mail servers and send legitimate email in this fashion. Examples of these lists: NJABL DUL, SORBS DUL, PDL

Those which attempt to document all IP ranges belonging to a geographic area or particular ISP.
These lists can be useful for scoring, or for small-scale, specialist or personal use. For example, if you were running your own mail server and were not expecting to receive any email from China, you might find it worthwile to make use of china.blackholes.us, a DNSBL that attempts to document all IP ranges delegated to networks in China. The blackholes.us site contains many other examples of geographic and ISP lists.

Those which reflect the opinion of their human reporters on sources of spam.
The types of DNSBL mentioned above rely on a minimum of human input (or in some cases, no human input at all), but some of the most popular DNSBLs are based upon human-generated reports of spamming.

These are traditionally the most controversial types of DNSBL, because humans make mistakes. The fact that there is no widely-accepted definition of spam within the Internet and email marketing industries does not help -- spammers continue to redefine spamming as "that which we do not do", and many email recipients will mark as spam anything which they do not want, whether it is or not.

Some opinion-based DNSBLs attempt to list what they believe to be sources of spam, others attempt to document the activites and current hosts of spam gangs, still others list ISPs who they believe knowingly host spammers. Examples of this type include SpamCop, Spamhaus, SPEWS

Those which attempt to list networks that they believe operate contrary to accepted best current practice.
There are many recommended technical practices for operating an Internet presence, especially when the presence in question is a large organisation, ISP, or even an entire country's Internet infrastructure. Very few of these recommendations are solid prerequisites for connectivity, so it is possible to communicate with the rest of the Internet even while going against these accepted BCPs.

Examples of widely-accepted Internet BCPs:
 * Internet sites should have working abuse@ and postmaster@ addresses for all domain names that are visible externally.
 * Emails sent to a role account such as abuse@ or postmaster@ should be dealt with, not just swallowed by an automatic responder which tells the complainant to take other action.
 * Domain name registrars should provide a whois service that shows contact details for the actual owner of any domain name provided through them.

Although it is usually not possible to directly link non-adherance to BCPs with increased spam or other abuse, some people deem the matter important enough to create and use DNSBLs that list networks that do not conform. Because of the lack of an obvious link between abuse of the Internet and strict adherence to BCP, use of this category of DNSBL is often seen as more controversial and political. They can also be surprisingly far-reaching; one such popular DNSBL of this type lists the entire of the .uk TLD for not consistently displaying domain name contact addresses in its whois. Perhaps the best known set of DNSBLs of this type are supplied by RFC Ignorant - "rfc-ignorant.org is the clearinghouse for sites who think that the rules of the internet don't apply to them."

Those of a non-serious nature.
There are many DNSBLs which are created whimsically, and serve no useful administrative purpose. Some purport to exist in order to re-educate people who will configure any DNSBL they find, the idea being that after configuring use of such a DNSBL, a large portion of their email will be rejected based on some arbitrary process, and the user will learn to be more careful in future. GRIP is an example of one such DNSBL - it returns random results.

AndySmith 09:38, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Criticism section is weak
I feel that the Criticisms section of this article is a bit weak, and doesn't adequately address the potential harm to average e-mail users.

I've found that many ISPs have taken to using DNSBLs to discard incoming e-mails. I first ran into this when I found myself getting put into suspended status in various yahoo groups. On investigating the bounce message sent by yahoo when they again managed to get through to me I found that messages were getting rejected because random yahoo mail servers were on the spamcop.net list. Ironically, another problem this caused was an inability to sign up for various sourceforge mailing lists because their servers were also on the list. The confirmation e-mails, which are sent as an anti-spam measure!, were being blocked.

The spamcop list uses arbitrary reports of spam in a time-weighted scheme to place servers on the list. It takes very little to put a server on the list at least temporarily. In the case of mailing lists, users who don't know how to unsubscribe might resort to reporting legitimate mail from the list as spam in desperation.

Spamcop warns that they are very aggressive and recommend against using the list to block e-mails but rather to either quarrantine them or to use the existence of a server on the list as evidence in a spam filtering scheme such as Spamassassin rules

Despite these warnings, some ISPs are quite happy to block e-mail in the mistaken belief that they are ONLY blocking spam, the problem is that if users don't know that legitimate e-mail isn't reaching them they aren't going to complain unless they find out by other means. My ISP also told me that they saw a reduction on their server load when then instituted the policy, so they were loathe to listen to the complaint that they were blocking valid e-mails.

Another irony is that I use my own anti-spam measures on my local machine, including spamassassin filtering, and a large number of actual spam e-mail was getting by the ISPs measures.

As much as I hate spam, I hate the collateral damage of losing valid e-mails even more. As a result I've gone to establishing my own domain, and my own e-mail server which does a better job of spam filtering than my ISP, while avoiding the problems of using DNSBLs for blocking. --Rick 15:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I understand your frustration that some sites do not accept your email. When people come to depend on a service, anything that looks like deliberate refusal to provide that service is going to elicit suspicion. However, I'm not sure you're correct in claiming that ISPs use those DNSBLs "in the mistaken belief that they are ONLY blocking spam".

 * First off, as you note, the DNSBL services in question do make it abundantly clear that using their lists to block mail will cause the rejection of some non-spam mail. In some cases, this is an intentional feature -- e.g. MAPS RBL, which lists badly-run mailing lists and spam-support services as well as spam sources. Sites which choose to use a list like that are saying they want to block non-spam mail from irresponsibly-operated sites in order to make a statement.

 * Second, mail system administrators' responsibility is to their own users. Mail admins are in the position of having to balance between overblocking and underblocking. A complaint about erroneous blocking is a lot stronger when it comes from a user, than when it comes from some random fool who claims not to be a spammer. Meanwhile, for every complaint about erroneous blocking, a mail admin may be getting hundreds of complaints about spam that went unblocked. So in terms of maximizing user satisfaction, it may be that using tools that block a lot of spam at the expense of blocking a tiny bit of legitimate mail turns out to be a good balance.

 * Third, keep in mind that there's a huge advantage of blocking-based systems like DNSBLs over client-side filtering systems that file suspected spam in a "spam folder" or just delete it. If your mail is erroneously blocked by a mail server using a DNSBL, you get a bounce message. You're told specifically that your mail was blocked, and the reason for it. You have a chance to get that problem fixed and re-send your message; or contact the recipient by another medium (IM, phone, whatever). But if your mail is erroneously filed in your recipient's spam folder, or deleted, then you don't get a bounce message. Your mail simply disappears unread. The rules of SMTP say that mail systems are supposed to deliver messages or return them; making messages disappear is forbidden. Mail admins who care about reliability will prefer to avoid filtering techniques that, when they fail, destroy messages rather than just returning them.

 * Last, remember that you always have other options. Mail accounts are ridiculously easy to come by these days. If you find that a given site refuses mail from one account of yours, you can always get a different account. This is most specifically recommended if the reason that you're blocked is that the site you're sending from is a spam supporter. Some rogue ISPs make a hell of a lot of money from spammers, and use their non-spam customers as "human shields" -- "Don't block us for our spammers, because you'll be blocking all these legitimate users!" Many mail admins have precious little patience for that kind of crap these days. Sites that support spamming don't get any sympathy for getting blocked, since they're the cause of the problem in the first place. --FOo 22:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

1) Why is there absolutely no mention of the violation of freedom of speech by blacklists that indisciminately blacklist a whole IP range? If the IP range of an ISP gets blocked because one single user sends a lot of spam why is there no mention of that ALL other customers of that ISP become victims of wronfully getting blacklisted.

2) Why is there no mention of that the supporters of blacklists selfrighteously claim that they are working for the common good while completely ignoring the 'collateral damage' they cause on honest people who have their emails blocked?

3) Why is there no mention of that the biggest problem with a majority of blacklists is that the sender is NEVER informed that his/her mail has been nuked? Over the past 10 years I know of two job applications that never reached their destination because of the #$@^$#%# blacklists and, recently, as a small business owner I have had one case where I could not follow up on a potential client because the #$@^$#%# blaclists prevented me from communicating with him. I had to print my mail and send it by telefax, but I lost the client because the #$@^$#%# made me look unprofessional!

4) Why is there no mention of that #$@^$#%# blacklist supporters are arrogantly suggesting me and other victims that I can tell my ISP to implement X or Y software feature on their server or change ISP? What about mentioning that I, as a single ADSL subscriber, cannot force my ISP to do what the #$@^$#%# bliclist supporters suggest or what about my right to choose to subscribe to the ISP that has the best offer for me?

These objections are not neutral as my rights have been violated while I am powerless to do anything about it (as a principle matter I refuse to let a few #$@^$#%# bastards prescribe how I should live my life). It is not Wikipedia's fault that the #$@^$#%# blaclist bastards have the upper hand and can bully individuals with their arrogant stupidity, which is why I add my comments to the discussion here rather than editing the Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.214.189 (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV violation
The folowing paragraph does not represent a neutral point of view: "The proprietary term RBL is sometimes erroneously used in place of the generic DNSBL. RBL is a service mark of MAPS LLC. Some pieces of mail software have configuration parameters for the use of "RBLs" or "RBL domains", used to set the DNSBLs that the software should use. This may be trademark dilution." The author is apparently expressing his own non-NPOV opinion that "RBL" is a service mark with legal validity and that the use of the abbreviation "RBL" may cause trade mark dilution. An alternative non-NPOV opinion would be that RBL is just an abbreviation of a descriptive English phrase that nobody can legally monopolize. See cases holding that "Lite beer" and "IM" and "Instant Message" could not get trade mark protection.

(added) Furthermore, trade mark dilution applies only to FAMOUS names. These would be names like Wendy's, Coca Cola, and Xerox -- names familiar to almost anybody. It is mere hubris to suggest that RBL is in the same class.

Either both non-NPOsV should be included or (preferably) neither. Rahul

 * Please provide a verifiable source for the claim that RBL is "just an abbreviation of a descriptive English phrase". MAPS LLC and its successors have been consistently claiming it as a trademark for some years now, and various parties including the authors of Sendmail and Postfix mail clients have made a point of respecting that trademark by explicitly changing their software to use other terms rather than "RBL" for DNSBLs. --FOo 05:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 * This is a very late response (and maybe it's now moot), but please see the citation to the Sunworld article that I just added (entitled “What will stop spam?”). The descriptive names in 1997 were Realtime Blackhole List and Mail Abuse Prevention System, RBL and MAPS were just abbreviations, and neither MAPS LLC nor any trade mark claims were anywhere to be found. Rahul (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

 * That sunworld article is a blast from the past, thanks for adding it, I forgot just how much of a "please sue us, I dare you!" Paul Vixie was. Now, back to the RBl trademark stuff, I don't remember it being protected until later, the article was from less than a year after Paul started the RBL.  IIRC, first came the RBL router blackholing, then the DNS lookup, then Paul got sued, then they started working harder at getting money to help offset the legal fees.  It was in the later stages that MAPS started being more careful about protecting their trademark.  Now, MAPS has been bought by microtrends, and I am not sure that they much care about the "RBL" trademark, so it may be moot.   A noted spam expert, Bill Cole, has also claimed several times that RBL is a trademark and that MAPS objected, resulting in the DNSBL term.  See, for example, dnsblhelp. Wrs1864 (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Trade mark claims should either be stated as opinions, or omitted from an encyclopedia unless they rise to the level of fact.

 * I think it's OK to acknowledge that a company uses a term as a trade mark; e.g., that "MAPS LLC uses RBL as a trade mark." But stating that "RBL is a trade mark of MAPS LLC" implies something about the validity of RBL as a trade mark, and implies that MAPS (or successors) could, if it chose, successfully sue to prevent competitors from also using RBL to refer to their black lists. But nobody has shown that MAPS would succeed in such a lawsuit. Once a term like RBL has come into use as a descriptive abbreviation, it's very hard for a company to be able to enforce its use as a trade mark. (As I mentioned before, check the history of "IM" and "Instant Message" as claimed trade marks which were voided once they were challenged in court.)

 * Unless one has done sufficient legal research to establish that RBL as a trade mark is indeed valid and enforceable under the law, and one is also willing to specify the jurisdiction(s) and region(s) and fields of endeavour in which this validity has been shown to exist, one should refrain from expressing any opinion about this. So, just say that "yyy company uses xxx as a trade mark" (which simply tells us what yyy company does) and avoid saying that "xxx is a trade mark" (which actually makes a trade mark law-related claim about xxx).

 * And please note that my argument does not depend on whether or not a specific word is a valid trade mark. My point is that in general an encyclopedic entry, properly written in NPOV style, should express no opinion at all about the validity of any trade mark. The exception to this would be an article about trade mark law, which might give examples of valid and invalid trade marks, supported by citations to case law. Rahul (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 * The RBL trademark is readily found at the USPTO as registration number 2775425. How to link to USPTO pages is a tougher question. WKCole (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Since the descriptive non-trade mark use of RBL began (apparently) much before the trade mark registration, the registration might not prove very much. Also please note that in the "Lite" beer case, "Lite" had been registered as a trade mark three different ways (numbers 905236, 929276, and 929277), but was still ruled invalid because it was too descriptive. See Miller Brewing Co. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., 561 F.2d 75 (7th Cir. 1977). Rahul (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Another NPOV
The following paragraph does not represent a neutral point of view:

"The most common mistake, which has led to a bad reputation of DNSBLs in general, was to use them as a single decision-factor on the MX-servers. Mistake because the receiving MTA hands the decision "to accept or reject the client" to a single 3rd party."

It would only be a mistake if such a decision were taken without understanding the implications. Many mail server operators make the decision in full knowledge of the results and hence it is not a mistake. It is a course of action that can be argued against, but at the end of the day the server owner makes the decisions, and not all such decisions are mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.177.239 (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about why they use DNS
There is nothing in the article telling why DNS is used instead of, say, HTTP. I suppose it's because DNS responses are cached by all DNS servers on the way. --Apoc2400 05:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Some (not entirely uninformed) guesses:

 * DNS was available. Today, there are other options for a distributed, cacheable database (say, LDAP) but these didn't exist or weren't in wide use then.
 * At the time DNSBLs were invented, the advancement of Internet mail systems was being done on the Unix platform, by Unix programmers and sysadmins (such as Paul Vixie). Such folks were likely to be comfortable with DNS; Vixie, as the maintainer of BIND, especially. :)
 * DNS has some useful technical properties, such as caching, and the fact that it is very lightweight on the network. A simple DNS lookup consumes much less network bandwidth than the spam email that it avoids.
 * The idea of RPC-over-HTTP wasn't exactly widely heard-of in 1997; XML-RPC wasn't invented until 1998. In any event, it would have been much less welcome; such queries would be several times slower than DNS lookups (due to TCP setup and teardown -- DNS uses UDP for small queries) and rather more expensive in bandwidth.

 * --FOo 05:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I'll add a few more comments

 * I think the "light weight" part is critical. A UDP DNS transaction usually requires sending one packet and then receiving one packet.  A minimal TCP transaction requires a 3-way handshake to start, plus another 2-way handshake to end, plus a lot more information about the connection needs to be kept in the OS and firewalls.  Another UDP-based protocol could have been developed, but it would have looked almost identical to DNS.

 * The original MAPS RBL *wasn't* DNS based, it was actually a format used by routers to blackhole *all* communication with spam-related hosts. This was distributed via FTP and rsync, if I recall correctly.  This type of system proved to not be very popular and no one uses it any more.

 * Mail systems already make extensive use of DNS, so it was much easier to add.

 * Wrs1864 13:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Expansion of the abbreviation "DNSBL"
I recongize that for the last several years, there have been some people who have been pushing to redefine "DNSBL" to mean "DNS blocklist", or some other term that doesn't use "blacklist". I do not think that wikipedia is the appropriate place to try and push this point of view. Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored.

A quick check on google shows 48k hits for "DNS blacklist", 3k hits for "DNS blocklist", and 416 hits for "DNS blackhole list". The oldest reference to "DNS blacklist" on google groups dates from 1998, for "DNS blocklist" it is 2001, for "DNS blackhole list" there is a reference from 1999 but it appears to be referring more to MAPS's RBL and uses "DNS blacklist also".

I have yet to find an original definition or first use of DNSBL, but it is clear to me that wikipedia should primarily use "DNS blacklist". Wrs1864 05:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 * The term "blackhole list" dates back to the original MAPS RBL, and is based on the idea of "blackholing" a network block.

 * Your accusations of censorship are uncivil and unfounded. Please retract them if you expect to engage in a civil discussion here. --FOo 20:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Sure, "blackhole list" goes back to the RBL and that is mentioned in the terminology section. However, it is important to remember that the original RBL didn't use DNS, it was a set of commands to configure BGP routes to cause all packets to be dropped, not just SMTP connections.  In the area of routers/BGP, the term "blackhole" is still used.  There are also conflicting claims that abovenet (IIRC) announced these blackhole BGP routes to everyone with a low-cost advertising, effectively sucking packets for these IP addresses into the blackhole from all across the Internet.
 * Basically, when the technology switched from BGP-based to DNS-based, the "blackhole" term was no longer quite as appropriate and people switched to calling them blacklists. Yes, MAPS stuck with their trademarked name, RBL, but from what I remember, almost everyone else switched to "DNS blacklist".  The earliest reference I can find to "DNSBL" is sendmail's 8.10 release, where it uses the terms "DNS base blacklist", "DNS based rejection list" and left unchanged from earlier the 8.9.3 version, several references to "blackhole list".
 * It was only later, after various DNSBL operators were sued and such, that concerns were raised about the term "blacklist" being inappropriate and some people started to push to redefine the term to blocklist or boycott list or whatever.
 * As far as censorship goes, I have to disagree with you on this too. By trying to surpress or eliminate the word "blacklist", you are censoring.  Yes, there is more than a little irony in the idea of the word "blacklist" being censored. Wrs1864 21:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 * If you expect to elicit cooperation here, you will cease making uncivil accusations. I have nothing more to say to you here. --FOo 04:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

 * The phrase "DNS-Based List" as a generic reference to things-like-the-MAPS-RBL goes back at least to 1999-09-23 in message <7sebvb$2iou@enews3.newsguy.com> posted by Bill Maloy in a discussion in the Usenet newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.email that included Paul Vixie (who came up with the idea in the first place) and Paul had previously (< g390q0vg1d.fsf@wisdom.rc.vix.com> posted 1998-03-23) mentioned that he had applied for a trademark on 'RBL' but disclaimed any proprietary right to the mechanism. Unfortunately, the Wayback Machine has none of the circa-2000 MAPS (mail-abuse.org) site that did the standard finger-wag.

 * Also, in the interest of full disclosure: while I did work for MAPS for a little less than a year 2000-2001 (when it was a non-profit) I was not on the DNSBL side of the organization and have no interest in the current or past operations or reputation of any published DNSBL or DNSBL publisher. WKCole (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor style problems
In general, this article is poorly laid-out and has multiple style errors.

- Using phrases such as "Definition below" and "as mentioned below" are generally not required, as it is tacitly understood that further explanations will follow. Furthermore, by using such terms, the author is indicating that something is missing up to that point, which should have been clarified before the reader reached that phrase. Therefore, the explanation/description/acronym/whatever should have been given sooner, which would eliminate the need for such phrases. Also, since the reader should be reading from the top to the bottom, any phrases such as, "see above" are not necessary.

- The very first sentence is run-on, and should be modified, vis-a-vis punctuation and/or splitting the sentence. I would also argue that the phrase "by some people" is vague, if not sophomoric.

- Acronyms should be given near the top of the article as either "Acronym (definition)" or "Definition (acronym)" once, and not repeated throughout the article.

 * I disagree. That implies that the acronym is the term and the definition is an explanation. It should be "term (acronym)" and then the acronym could optionally be used in place of the term. If you are saying that both the term and then the acronym should not be shown multiple times then I agree. Sam Tomato (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

- The first line of "DNSBL operation" lists three items, but does not explain them or link them to any existing Wiki articles or other references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skaizun (talk • contribs) 13:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As for "Definition below" and "as mentioned below", that is probably the result of using Indian English. Note that Indian English seldom says "following" and it seems common for Indian English to often say "below" even when other versions of English do not. Indian English also uses "which" more often than other words and phrases, it uses "different" when other versions of English say "various" and it says "in order to" when simpler words (usually just "to") are more common in other versions. Sam Tomato (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Why "blackhole"?
The term "blacklist" is extremely common. The term "blackhole list" is rare. It does not sound right to me. It sounds like another term that someone came up with without really thinking about what they are saying. It is probably the result of someone's bad decision and the presence in Wikipedia is spreading that bad decision and that concerns me. Sam Tomato (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

 * The first DNSBL was a DNS-based version of the "Real-time Blackhole List" (RBL) service. RBL was given that name by its creator, Paul Vixie. RBL was originally distributed using BGP. In BGP-based routing, the term "black hole" or "blackholing" is a technical term referring to instructing a device to drop traffic instead of accepting it: by analogy with the traffic vanishing down a black hole. So etymologically, the term DNSBL descends from RBL, and RBL was named by its creator using the existing technical term. That's just where the term came from, and how it's used; it's not Wikipedia's decision to make. --FOo (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

J Kuola axel Faustin omolade (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Kuola axel Faustin omolade Kuola axel Faustin omolade (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Kuola axel Faustin omolade (talk) Kuola axel Faustin omolade (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on DNSBL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130321062303/http://spamlinks.net:80/filter-dnsbl-lists.htm to http://spamlinks.net/filter-dnsbl-lists.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on DNSBL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://spamlinks.net/filter-dnsbl-lists.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505190857/http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/ivmuri/ to http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/ivmuri/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Domain Name System blocklist