text:
Talk:Animal worship

Persistant problems
I managed to get rid of a lot of the POV problems, although many still exist. On problem is that the very title of this page (worship) is not accurate in all cases. Many of the examples are not true worship, but veneration (if even that much). I also fixed up the gross over-use of semicolons and modernized a lot of the names. As for accuracy, there's a lot of stuff I simply couldn't find info about. Mostly on the groups of people that are so obscure as to lack a Wikipedia article of their own. --Tydaj 00:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) Also, I was surprised that no mention of Animism was made in this article. There is much to be said about the relation of these two subjects. --Tydaj 00:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Hawk" god
According to the Firefly Encyclopedia of Birds, ISBN 1552977773, Singalang Burong is not a hawk but a Rhinoceros Hornbill. I haven't changed the article because I don't know whether that applies to the other gods mentioned under "hawk". —JerryFriedman 17:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I know at least that Horus was not a hawk, he was a falcon. 74.133.204.141 (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Watership Down cult?
Does anyone have any information on the Watership Down cult mentioned in this article? Such a thing is difficult to believe, though not impossible. (I have heard of people believing The X-Files or The Necromicon are real.) Any references would be greatly appreciated Hiergargo 02:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the term dharmic religions?
Where are the reliable sources that use the term dharmic religions in the context of this article? Dharmic religions is a now deleted obscure neologism and should not be used throughout Wikipedia. Andries 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose to use the alternative phrase Indian religions. The number of google scholar results for "Indian religions"+"Indian religion" is (45.600 + 84.200) while it is only (492+475) for "dharmic religions" +"dharmic religion". See Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8. Andries 19:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge with sacred animals
I propose that the article Sacred animals be merged into this one as the topic is the same.Neelmack (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Worship and holding sacred
One can hold an animal to be sacred without worshipping considering the animal itself to be a deity, or believing in a zoomorphic deity. Zoroastrians consider dogs to be sacred, but they do not worship dogs. I think the case with Hindus and cows is similar. That is why I started the article sacred animals (now merged to this one), because positive religious attitudes towards particular animals can be a lot broader than the term "animal worship" properly describes. So I would suggest, either a separate article for the broader phenomenon of sacred (but not worshipped) animals, or else renaming this article to something like sacred animals. --SJK (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Animals in Buddhism
The Buddhists of Japan hunt whales, fight dogs, use monkeys for entertainment and research... and vegetarianism is far less common than the post Christian West.. need I say more?andycjp (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly the predominant religion in Japan is Shinto rather than Buddhism, secondly, as you can read in the intro to Religion in Japan, the majority of people in Japan say they have no personal religion. Invertzoo (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed cock content
Nergal is mentioned in the Hebrew bible as the deity of the city of Cuth (Cuthah): "And the men of Babylon made Succoth-benoth, and the men of Cuth made Nergal" (2 Kings, 17:30). According to the rabbins, his emblem was a cock and nergal means a "dunghill cock". It is understood that the constellations of the Zodiac within the belief system of Astrology originated in the ancient land of Babylonia (modern day Iraq). In the lore of the True Shepherd of Anu(SIPA.ZI.AN.NA - Orion) and his accompanying animal symbol, the rooster and their divinely ordained role was to communicate the messages of the gods. "The Heavenly Shepherd" or "True Shepherd of Anu" - Anu being the chief god of the heavenly realms. On the star map the figure of the rooster was shown below and behind the figure of the True Shepherd, both representing the herald of the gods, in his bird and human forms respectively, with Nergal being an idol and worship of the Assyrians, Babylonians, Phoenicians, and Persians that is claimed to continue on today.

Worship and sacrifice of the cock within Agama Hindu Dharma may be understood by the altar and deity Ida Ratu Saung who may be seen with a fighting cock in his hand with the spilling of blood being necessary as purification to appease the evil spirits. That ritual of the religious and spiritual cockfight usually takes place outside the temple proper and follows an "ancient and complex ritual as set out in the sacred lontar manuscripts".

It is stated in the Encyclopædia Britannica (2007): "Humans first domesticated chickens of Indian origin for the purpose of cockfighting in Asia, Africa, and Europe. The understanding of many archaeologists is that "chickens were first domesticated not for eating but for cockfighting" and "it is believed to be a sophisticated offshoot of divination. . . The question was decided through a fight between sacred roosters", and thus a sacred cockfight.

I have removed this large section of text as part of badly overdue cleanup based on a November 2012 deletion decision. While some of this material appears to be referenced, material related to that AFD generally used unreliable sources and misrepresented the statements of sources to produce a novel synthesis. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

And another one
What is with all these weird, "worship" articles. This should probably be moved, as well. Oh deer... - Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 16:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposing massive cleanup and rename to Animals in mythology or similar. Either that or we cut every instance of cultures that simply use animal symbolism as it's incorrect to say they "worship" animals. - Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 16:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

 * OK, it's been over a month and this article is still a mess. I'm planning on moving it, though I'm not sure it's worth cleaning up. May need to just be cut way back. - Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 19:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Diana of Versailles.jpg

title: Talk:Animal worship


text:
User talk:Aliasptr

I'm an Electrical Engineering  student at  Clarkson University in  Potsdam, NY. I am interested in a number of things including, but not limited to: Computers, Audio,  Drumming, Snowboarding,  Hockey, Programming, Electronics and many many other things- which I suck at. I do also like to read and am interested in Literature and Philosophy, but I don't run in to it too much except during moral crisis. Have you had enough of my linking? You can find more stuff from me at my personal webpage located at tzilla.is-a-geek.com.

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Clarkson
You may be interested adding the following UserBox to your User Page:

If you do, you should remove it from this Talk Page. —MJBurrage • TALK  • 09:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Aliasptr


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Has Been Shed

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE   — Gwalla | Talk 3 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)

Blood Has Been Shed
This is stupid, self-promoting article. move along nothing to seeehere. Alea yacta est. Project2501a 00:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

keep it there an amazing band you dicks. unsigned vote by  keep this is a valid article, just needs expanding. Not liking the band, or the name of the band is not reason enough for this article to go unsigned vote by
 * Delete. By the way, you mean "promoting" and alea jacta est. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:27, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * it's 3:30 in the morning, standard greece time, i got a nasty php heizenbug and THERE'S NO DEBUGGER FOR PHP. Printf debugging is to fucking high-school!!! so yeah, i meant what you said. Project2501a 00:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete — vanity. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Talk about not being notable... AngryParsley 00:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * OK. Well, it's kind of depressing really. I mean, I always wanted to be somebody, you know? And I.. oh, wait... --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:32, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep — maybe - a quick google shows they are a real band but the page does need a heck of a good rewrite. Mariocki 00:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nobody cares about the existence of such a band. --webkid 18:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. Nobodies, not worthy of an entry. Herrhav0k 14:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.


text:
Microturbine

A microturbine (MT) is a small gas turbine with similar cycles and components to a heavy gas turbine. The MT power-to-weight ratio is better than a heavy gas turbine because the reduction of turbine diameters causes an increase in shaft rotational speed. Heavy gas turbine generators are too large and too expensive for distributed power applications, so MTs are developed for small-scale power like electrical power generation alone or as combined cooling, heating, and power (CCHP) systems. The MT are 25 to 500 kW gas turbines evolved from piston engine turbochargers, aircraft auxiliary power units (APU) or small jet engines, the size of a refrigerator. Early turbines of 30-70 kW grew to 200-250 kW.

Design

They comprise a compressor, combustor, impeller/turbine and electric generator on a single shaft or two. They can have a recuperator capturing waste heat to improve the compressor efficiency, an intercooler and reheat. They rotate at over 40,000 RPM and a common single shaft microturbine rotate usually at 90,000 to 120,000 RPM. They often have a single stage radial compressor and a single stage radial turbine. Recuperators are difficult to design and manufacture because they operate under high pressure and temperature differentials.

Advances in electronics allows unattended operation and electronic power switching technology eliminates the need for the generator to be synchronised with the power grid, allowing it to be integrated with the turbine shaft and to double as the starter motor.

Gas turbines accept most commercial fuels, such as petrol, natural gas, propane, diesel fuel, and kerosene as well as renewable fuels such as E85, biodiesel and biogas. Starting on kerosene or diesel can require a more volatile product such as propane gas. Microturbines can use micro-combustion.

Full-size gas turbines often use ball bearings. The 1000 C temperatures and high speeds of microturbines make oil lubrication and ball bearings impractical; they require air bearings or possibly magnetic bearings. They may be designed with foil bearings and air-cooling operating without lubricating oil, coolants or other hazardous materials.

To maximize part-load efficiency, multiple turbines can be started or stopped as needed in an integrated system. Reciprocating engines can react quickly to power requirement changes while microturbines lose more efficiency at low power levels. They can have a higher power-to-weight ratio than piston engines, low emissions and few, or just one, moving part. Reciprocating engines can be more efficient, be cheaper overall and typically use simple journal bearings lubricated by motor oil.

Microturbines can be used for cogeneration and distributed generation as turbo alternators or turbogenerators, or to power hybrid electric vehicles.

The majority of the waste heat is contained in the relatively high temperature exhaust making it simpler to capture, while reciprocating engines waste heat is split between its exhaust and cooling system. Exhaust heat can be used for water heating, space heating, drying processes or absorption chillers, which create cold for air conditioning from heat energy instead of electric energy.

Efficiency
Microturbines have around 15% efficiencies without a recuperator, 20 to 30% with one and they can reach 85% combined thermal-electrical efficiency in cogeneration. The recuperated Niigata Power Systems 300 kW RGT3R thermal efficiency reaches 32.5% while the 360 kW non recuperated RGT3C is at 16.3%. Capstone Turbine claims a 33% LHV Electrical Efficiency for its 200 kW C200S.

In 1988, the NEDO started the Ceramic Gas Turbine project within the Japanese New Sunshine Project: in 1999 the recuperated twin-shaft 311.6 kW Kawasaki Heavy Industries CGT302 achieved a 42.1% efficiency and a 1350 C turbine inlet temperature. In October 2010, Capstone was awarded by the US Department of Energy the design of a two-stage intercooled microturbine derived from its current 200 kW and 65 kW engines for a 370 kW turbine targeting a 42% electrical efficiency. Researchers from the Lappeenranta University of Technology designed a 500 kW intercooled and recuperated two-shaft microturbine aiming for a 45% efficiency.

Market
Forecast international predicts a 51.4% market share for Capstone Turbine by unit production from 2008 to 2032, followed by Bladon Jets with 19.4%, MTT with 13.6%, FlexEnergy with 10.9% and Ansaldo Energia with 4.5%.

Ultra micro
MIT started its millimeter size turbine engine project in the middle of the 1990s when Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics Alan H. Epstein considered the possibility of creating a personal turbine which will be able to meet all the demands of a modern person's electrical needs, just as a large turbine can meet the electricity demands of a small city. Problems have occurred with heat dissipation and high-speed bearings in these new microturbines. Moreover, their expected efficiency is a very low 5-6%. According to Professor Epstein, current commercial Li-ion rechargeable batteries deliver about 120-150 Wh/kg. MIT's millimeter size turbine will deliver 500-700 Wh/kg in the near term, rising to 1,200-1,500 Wh/kg in the longer term.

A similar microturbine built by the Belgian Katholieke Universiteit Leuven has a rotor diameter of 20 mm and is expected to produce about 1000 W.

Aircraft
Safran-backed French startup Turbotech is developing a 73 kW turboprop with a recuperator to improve efficiency from 10 to 30%, for a brake specific fuel consumption similar to a piston engine, but 30 kg lighter at 55 kg and without cooling drag. Direct operating costs, Turbotech says, should be reduced by 30% due to more diverse fuels and lower maintenance with a doubled time between overhaul at 4,000 h. Targeted for high-end ultralight two-seaters and unmanned aircraft, it will be slightly more expensive than a competing Rotax 912 but should be as competitive over its life cycle. For a VTOL two-seater, a 55 kW turbogenerator would weigh 85 kg with fuel for 2.5 h of endurance instead of 1 ton of batteries. A demonstrator ran in 2016-17 and ground-testing began in the second half of 2018 before flight testing in the second half of 2019 and first delivery in the first half of 2020. The final assembly line was created in Toussus-le-Noble Airport near Paris, for a 1,000-engine annual output by 2025. A 30% efficiency is equivalent to a g/kWh fuel consumption with a 42.7 MJ/kg fuel. The 64 kg TP-R90 turboprop or TG-R90 turbogenerator can output 90 kW and burns 18-25 L of jet fuel per hour in cruise.

Czech PBS Velká Bíteš offers its 180 kW TP100 turboprop weighing 61.6 kg for ultralights and UAVs, consuming 515 g/kWh. This is equivalent to % of efficiency with a 42.7 MJ/kg fuel.

Miami-based UAV Turbines developed its 40 hp Monarch RP (previously UTP50R) recuperated turboprop for around 1,320 lb-gross weight aircraft, to be tested on a TigerShark UAV. On 10 December 2019, the company unveiled its Monarch Hybrid Range Extender, a 33 shp hybrid-electric demonstrator based on its Monarch 5 turbine unveiled in September, weighting 27 kg for the engine and 54 kg for the whole system.

Hybrid vehicles
When used in extended range electric vehicles the static efficiency drawback is less important, since the gas turbine can be run at or near maximum power, driving an alternator to produce electricity either for the wheel motors, or for the batteries, as appropriate to speed and battery state. The batteries act as a "buffer" (energy storage) in delivering the required amount of power to the wheel motors, rendering throttle response of the gas turbine irrelevant.

There is, moreover, no need for a significant or variable-speed gearbox; turning an alternator at comparatively high speeds allows for a smaller and lighter alternator than would otherwise be the case. The superior power-to-weight ratio of the gas turbine and its fixed speed gearbox, allows for a much lighter prime mover than for the Toyota Prius (a 1.8 litre petrol engine) or the Chevrolet Volt (a 1.4 litre petrol engine). This in turn allows a heavier weight of batteries to be carried, which allows for a longer electric-only range. Alternatively, the vehicle can use heavier, cheaper lead acid batteries or safer lithium iron phosphate battery.

In extended-range electric vehicles, like those planned by Land-Rover/Range-Rover in conjunction with Bladon, or by Jaguar also in partnership with Bladon, the very poor throttling response (their high moment of rotational inertia) does not matter, because the gas turbine, which may be spinning at 100,000 rpm, is not directly, mechanically connected to the wheels. It was this poor throttling response that so bedeviled the 1950 Rover gas turbine-powered prototype motor car, which did not have the advantage of an intermediate electric drive train to provide sudden power spikes when demanded by the driver.

title: Microturbine


text:
File:J lo gigharbor.jpg

Jennifer Lopez walking up a driveway from her car on the set of 'Enough.' Picture taken in Gig Harbor, WA. on June 19th, 2001.

Source: Brandon Wholey, 2001.

title: File:J lo gigharbor.jpg


text:
Talk:Northampton & Lamport Railway

Redirect changed to correct name
I have reverted the redirect to reflect the name Northampton & Lamport Railway as opposed to Northampton and Lamport Railway. The former is the correct legal trading name of this organisation. In the style of many of the pre-grouping railway companies, the N&LR uses the ampersand in preference to the word and.

-=# Amos E Wolfe #=- 00:26, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect changed to correct name, again
Once again I have set the article Northampton and Lamport Railway to redirect to Northampton & Lamport Railway, and restored the article to here. Wikipedia is capable of using the ampersand (&) in titles, and as stated above, Northampton & Lamport Railway is the correct legal trading name for the organisation, of which I am a life member.

Two images from the official website are linked below:

NLR Website title NLR logo

The following page at the website of the Charity Commission gives the full title of the organisation as "Northampton & Lamport Railway Preservation Society":

-=# Amos E Wolfe #=- 13:44, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Tkh Northampton
I am a voulenteer at the line and I can tell you that the Tkh Northampton has left the line and is now in Belgium. User:Tom walker 28/03/06.

Further proof of correct name
I have moved the article back to "Northampton & Lamport Railway", citing further proof that this is the correct name of the organisation and therefore the article. Below is a transcript of an article published in Premier Line, the quarterly journal of the Northampton & Lamport Railway Preservation Society, issue no. 36, Spring 1994.

What's in a Name

When we changed our name to Northampton & Lamport Railway two years ago it was to create an image of a railway with it's roots firmly set in the pre-grouping era. As was the case with most of the early railway companies, the name indicates the intended destinations of that railway although neither of these places are yet served.

If you look at the southern end of what we today call the "West Coast Main Line" it was originally known as the London & Birmingham Railway. In virtually every instance where "and" was used it was represented by an ampersand ( & ). Consequently we chose to use "&" in the same way.

Northampton & Lamport Railway is a trade name, the "&" forms part of the trading style and should always be used in this form. We would therefore ask that if any member has need to refer to the name of the railway in writing, that they remember to use the "&" and not "and" as it is important to be consistent.

I suspect that we will still occasionally see the old name of Northampton Steam Railway in print for some time to come yet. In fact that name only applies to the operating company. Old habits die hard, but we must all try to lay them to rest.

 * A JPEG image of the article

 * -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 16:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Relevant Discussion
A discussion related to the use of "and" vs. "&" in railway-related articles can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Manual of style -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 11:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Northampton & Lamport Railway


text:
Musi

Musi may refer to:

Places

 * Musi River (Indonesia)
 * Musi River (India), Telangana state
 * Moosy River, Andhra Pradesh, India

People

 * Angelo Musi (1918–2009), American basketball player
 * Agostino de' Musi, commonly known as Agostino Veneziano (c. 1490–c. 1540), Italian engraver

Other

 * Musi language, a Malay language spoken in Indonesia
 * Mitsubishi UFJ Securities International (MUSI), a global investment bank based in London
 * a music streaming app

title: Musi


text: User talk:209.239.6.131

title: User talk:209.239.6.131


text:
Talk:Northampton and Lamport Railway

Redirect changed to correct name
I have reverted the redirect to reflect the name Northampton & Lamport Railway as opposed to Northampton and Lamport Railway. The former is the correct legal trading name of this organisation. In the style of many of the pre-grouping railway companies, the N&LR uses the ampersand in preference to the word and.

-=# Amos E Wolfe #=- 00:27, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect changed to correct name, again
Once again I have set the article Northampton and Lamport Railway to redirect to Northampton & Lamport Railway, and restored the article to here. Wikipedia is capable of using the ampersand (&) in titles, and as stated above, Northampton & Lamport Railway is the correct legal trading name for the organisation, of which I am a life member.

Two images from the official website are linked below:

NLR Website title NLR logo

The following page at the website of the Charity Commission gives the full title of the organisation as "Northampton & Lamport Railway Preservation Society":

-=# Amos E Wolfe #=- 13:42, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Further proof of correct name
I have moved the article back to "Northampton & Lamport Railway", citing further proof that this is the correct name of the organisation and therefore the article. Below is a transcript of an article published in Premier Line, the quarterly journal of the Northampton & Lamport Railway Preservation Society, issue no. 36, Spring 1994.

What's in a Name

When we changed our name to Northampton & Lamport Railway two years ago it was to create an image of a railway with it's roots firmly set in the pre-grouping era. As was the case with most of the early railway companies, the name indicates the intended destinations of that railway although neither of these places are yet served.

If you look at the southern end of what we today call the "West Coast Main Line" it was originally known as the London & Birmingham Railway. In virtually every instance where "and" was used it was represented by an ampersand ( & ). Consequently we chose to use "&" in the same way.

Northampton & Lamport Railway is a trade name, the "&" forms part of the trading style and should always be used in this form. We would therefore ask that if any member has need to refer to the name of the railway in writing, that they remember to use the "&" and not "and" as it is important to be consistent.

I suspect that we will still occasionally see the old name of Northampton Steam Railway in print for some time to come yet. In fact that name only applies to the operating company. Old habits die hard, but we must all try to lay them to rest.

 * A JPEG image of the article

 * -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 16:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

 * No, don't be silly. See Naming conventions. I hope you would not trust someone who doesn't know the difference between its and it's.  — Dunc|☺ 15:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

 * The actual article represented (and still represents) the views of the organisation, the spelling of "it's" was simply an editor's mistake which I left uncorrected so as to give a verbatim copy of the article. -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 16:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirect changed to correct name, again
i have changed the article to the correct name of Northampton & Lamport Railway. IT IS SPELT WITH "&" NOT WITH "AND"... please refrane from changing it again. it apears you don't know what you talking about. many thanks disco300 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disco300 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Northampton and Lamport Railway


text:
Klaas-Erik Zwering

Klaas-Erik Zwering (born 19 May 1981) is a former Dutch swimmer and an Olympic medalist. He is currently studying MBO entrepreneurship as he trained in Eindhoven with the PSV Eindhoven swim club. His personal coach was Jacco Verhaeren, who is also coach for Dutch swimming phenom Pieter van den Hoogenband.

Zwering originally specialized in the 200 meter backstroke, coming in seventh place in his first senior competition at the European Championships in Istanbul. In the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney, he came in tenth place in the same event. Recently, however, he has been focusing exclusively on freestyle swimming.

In 2001 at the FINA World Championships in Fukuoka, Japan, Klaas-Erik was a member of the silver medal winning 4×100 meter freestyle relay team. Later, along with teammates Pieter van den Hoogenband, Johan Kenkhuis and Mitja Zastrow, Zwering won his first Olympic silver medal in the 4×100 meter freestyle relay in the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens, Greece. Afterwards he retired.

title: Klaas-Erik Zwering


text: Template:Can-terr-colleges

title: Template:Can-terr-colleges


text:
Nancy's Mysterious Letter

Nancy's Mysterious Letter is the eighth volume in the Nancy Drew Mystery Stories series. It was first published in 1932 and was penned by Walter Karig, a replacement writer for Mildred Wirt Benson. Benson declined series work when the Depression forced a reduction in the contract fee provided to Stratemeyer Syndicate writers, so Karig, already an established Stratemeyer writer, took over the authorship. Due to Karig having died in 1956, the 1932 version passed into the public domain in Canada and other countries that have a life plus 50 policy, in 2007.

1932 edition plot summary
In the late autumn after returning from Red Gate Farm on a day trip, Nancy and her friends enjoy hot cocoa and a snack at teatime. Postman Ira Dixon, nearing retirement, is invited inside, and leaves his mailbag in the vestibule, where it is stolen.

Nancy is summoned by postal authorities, who accuse her of being involved in the theft, which threatens the postman's pension and career.

In the meantime, she is invited to spend a weekend as a guest of Ned Nickerson at Emerson College, where a big football game will take place, and she prepares for the trip. Nancy encounters low-brow Mrs. "Sailor" Joe Skeets, who accuses her of wrongdoing due to her own missing letter containing money, stolen with the mailbag. Strangely, the letters are re-posted later.

Nancy receives a letter from British solicitors informing her of a Nancy Smith Drew, sought as the heiress of an estate there. Nancy has no middle name or initial and she searches for her namesake. The primary suspect becomes Edgar Dixon, the half brother of her mail carrier, a flashy man in a yellow coat.

Mrs. Skeets provides a clue, as does George Fayne, and Nancy discovers her counterpart is visiting faculty at Emerson. Ned performs well in the big game, during which Nancy sees the suspect in the stadium. Nancy tries to make contact with Nancy S. Drew. While she investigates during an unexpected layover, she and Ned discover a lonely-hearts mail racket where money is solicited for introduction services.

Nancy saves the day for Miss Drew, and helps her avoid marriage to a crook, the dodgy Edgar Dixon, while exonerating Ira Dixon.

1968 edition plot summary
The revised edition is largely condensed, but employs the same plot. Sub-plots involving early snowfall adding days to the Emerson trip and Nancy's success at a hotel costume event are eliminated.

Ira Dixon becomes "Nixon," and the action is accelerated. Nancy still goes to Emerson, but her companion in the original version, Helen Corning, is changed to a new acquaintance. The action at Emerson now includes someone attempting to harm Nancy by releasing a heavy curtain after luring her to a deserted theater stage. Nancy is also waylaid at the airport while going there to find her namesake. The teen sleuth is lured into the wash room by a young woman who tells Nancy someone is sick. Once inside, the woman grabs Nancy and holds a chloroform-soaked cloth over Nancy's nose and mouth. Forced to breathe the anesthetic, Nancy faints into the woman's arms. The details involving the football game are modernized and abridged to reduce this story element.

Artwork
The original 1932 artwork is by the fashion illustrator Russell H. Tandy, illustrator for the Nancy Drew series from 1930 to 1949.

Nancy is depicted chasing Edgar at the football stadium, with a glossy frontispiece of Nancy at the postal inspector's office and three glossy internal illustrations included in the original imprint. The frontispiece alone was used beginning in 1937, but the third plate, of Nancy, Nancy S. Drew, and Edgar was retained. Tandy updated this illustration to pen and ink on plain paper with 1940s hairstyles in 1943.

In 1950, Bill Gillies introduced cover art featuring a close-up of Nancy outdoors, with snow on the ground, examining a letter with a rather shocked expression on her face. This art was retained on all covers, including direct printed picture cover stock, until the 1968 text was introduced.

The revised cover art by Rudy Nappi shows Nancy in a pink suit with the letter in her hand and an overlay image of the letter on a blue background. An uncredited illustrator provided a frontispiece and five plain paper internal drawings featuring rare glimpses of the interior of the Drew home. The 1968 artwork remains unchanged in current imprints.

A 1973 Collins edition shows Nancy and another man at night, about to be struck by an oncoming automobile.

title: Nancy's Mysterious Letter


text:
Green Party of Ontario candidates in the 2003 Ontario provincial election

The Green Party of Ontario fielded 102 candidates in the 2003 provincial election in Ontario, Canada, none of whom were elected. The only riding which the party did not contest was Oakville. Zakaria Belghali had been selected as the GPO candidate, but did not collect enough signatures to have his candidacy validated by Elections Ontario.

Ron Yurick (Algoma—Manitoulin)
From Chapleau, where he is a member of the Watershed Management Study Committee. He used to chair a Public Liaison Committee relating to the Adams Mine Landfall Proposal in Timiskaming. Testified before a Select Committee on Ontario in Confederation in 1991. Yurick supports the principle of bilingualism, opposes the British monarchy, and believes that Northern Ontario's concerns are often ignored by the Canadian government and business elite. A member at large on the Green Party of Ontario council. Opposes sending garbage from Toronto to Kirkland Lake. Led the party's constitutional rewriting process in 2004. Received 680 votes (2.4%), finishing last in a field of four candidates. The winner was Mike Brown of the Ontario Liberal Party.

Ernst Braendli (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale)
A member of the Brampton Environmental Community Advisory Panel. In 2005, accused the city of Brampton of "scrambling for infrastructure" to accommodate high growth. Has also suggested making public transportation free of charge to achieve reduced pollution levels. Received 1,176 votes (2.78%), finishing fourth in a field of six candidates. The winner was Kuldip Kular of the Ontario Liberal Party.

Brant: Mike Clancy
Mike Clancy was born in London, Ontario and raised in St. Thomas. He received a degree in religious studies and ethics from the University of Waterloo in the 1970s. Clancy was an employment counsellor with the federal employment and immigration department and its successor, Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), from 1980 until quitting in 1997. When he left his job, he said that he could not administer its program under terms that he considered "immoral and unethical." He strongly supported government funding for social programs and health care, and criticized both federal and provincial governments for cutting back these services.

He ran for the governing New Democratic Party of Ontario in the northern division of Kenora in the 1995 provincial election and expressed concern that the Progressive Conservatives would target the poor and unemployed if they won the election. The Progressive Conservatives did win the election and later introduced massive cuts to social assistance; Clancy said the severity of the cuts was unexpected and produced extreme hardship among poorer people in Kenora.

Clancy accused federal parliamentarians Jane Stewart and Robert Nault of using HRDC job-creation funds for dubious political goals during the period of Jean Chrétien's government. Stewart rejected Clancy's claims, describing them as "the simple-minded agenda of a failed provincial NDP candidate."

After leaving HDRC, Clancy moved to Brantford. He considered seeking the New Democratic Party's nomination for the 1999 provincial election, but ultimately did not do so. In 2000, he ran against local Member of Parliament (MP) Jane Stewart as a candidate of the fringe Canadian Action Party. During this period, Clancy was a private advocate for Canadians whose Employment Insurance benefits had been cut off by the federal government; he also accused the government of misusing the private information of many Canadians.

Clancy later became active with the Green Party and ran under its banner in the 2003 provincial election. He also sought election to the Brantford city council in 2003 and ran for a regional council position in Waterloo three years later. In the 2006 election, he supported the legalization of marijuana and prostitution. He also called for more police officers and a greater voice for the rural areas around Waterloo.

John R. Fisher (Elgin—Middlesex—London)
Retired. A graduate of the University of Western Ontario, and worked as a teacher for 25 years. His main field of expertise was Geography. Was reeve of Rodney, Ontario in the early 1990s, and served on the Elgin County Council. Previously served as a councillor in Rodney for fifteen years. Chaired the Ontario/Quebec chapter of Common Ground-USA in 2002. Has also written on the history of the Georgist movement in Canada. Is himself a Georgist, favouring site-value taxation, and helped make this an official policy of the Green Party. Supports higher taxation on community-owned land to prevent urban sprawl.

Matt Takach (Nepean—Carleton)
Takach (born September 24, 1979) was a criminology student at Carleton University during the 2000 federal election. He began working for the Green Party on a full-time basis after his graduation, and was the GPC's national organizer during the 2004 federal election (for which he was not a candidate). He is still the party's director of organization.

During the 2003 election, Takach described the Green Party's policies as fiscally responsible and socially aware" (Ottawa Citizen, September 27, 2003). He has rejected the view that the Green Party is solely focused on environmentalism.

John Cowling (Perth—Middlesex)
A Green Party supporter since 1988 and a resident of Stratford, he described himself as "conservative and someone dedicated to restoring and maintaining Ontario's ecological heritage." Received 1,201 votes.

Gregory Elliott Laxton (Trinity—Spadina)
Laxton joined the Green Party in 2000, and was a policy spokesman for the party in 2002 in the aftermath of a government report into the tainted-water tragedy in Walkerton, Ontario. He argued that water is a "public good", and "should not be a privately- [sic]run entity". "If you want to make sure the water is safe," he argued, "you should have it run by a not-for-profit entity like the government." (Hamilton Spectator, June 18, 2002).

He received 2,362 votes in 2003 (5.82%), finishing fourth against New Democratic Party incumbent Rosario Marchese.

Laxton was 36 years old, and served as the GPO's fundraising chair from 2000 to 2003. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in International Studies and History from Trent University, and a master's degree in political science at York University.

Allan Douglas Strong (Waterloo—Wellington)
Strong is a mental-health advocate, and is a social worker with the Canadian Mental Health Association (Kitchener-Waterloo Record, September 23, 2003) and serves as president of the Wellness Network in Ontario . In 1997, he testified before a committee of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as a representative of the Mood Disorders Association of Ontario. Strong himself has acknowledged suffering from bipolar disorder.

The 2003 municipal results are unofficial totals, taken from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, November 12, 2003, B8. The final results were not significantly different. Strong also campaigned for municipal office in 1997, but the results are not available online.

Cary M. Lucier (Windsor West)
Lucier was born and raised in the Windsor community. He graduated from Assumption High School in 1982, and later served with the Canadian Navy. He joined the Windsor Fire Department in 1986. Lucier later became a private businessman, serving as president of the Stak-Its Toy Company and writing children's storybooks.

Nick Boileau (Whitby—Ajax, March 30, 2006)
Boileau was a 22-year-old resident of Whitby at the time of the election, and was a third-year student in Criminology at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. He is bilingual in French and English, and is described as having a particular interest in human rights and social justice. According to unofficial results, he received 307 votes (0.89%) for a fourth-place finish against Progressive Conservative candidate Christine Elliott.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photoshop tutorials

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 00:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Photoshop tutorials
Consists of a little advice on how to make one; non-encyclopedic. Tempshill 00:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Doesn't belong here. Either delete or transwiki to Wikibooks; no strong preference which. —Korath (Talk) 01:21, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Photoshop tutorials are heavy on the internet, but a how-to on making a tutorial? Not on this Wiki... Nestea 02:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or transwiki, though I'd have to say I don't particularly find a how to-article on creating tutorials useful. Mgm|(talk) 08:06, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki this sucker to WikiBooks. Otherwise WP will end up hosting tutorials for every program out there. Your mom is a sexy beast. At this rate we'll end up with a tutorial for every version of SimCity. --Coolcaesar 19:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non-encyclopedic. Commander 17:57, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Just delete it, do not transwiki. Wikibooks doesn't need the random stuff that washes up on the beach of Wikipedia. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wikibooks. Megan1967 09:46, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Talk:John Kerry/Archive 15

John Kerry lost?
Is it really true that Bush has won the election? I know Kerry conceeded, but that doesn't mean that he's lost. I realize that the current results show that he lost (and I don't really doubt that he did) but wouldn't it be best to wait until Bush is inaugerated before we make this declaration? Have all the votes been counted? Is there any kind of legal appeal or recount still going on, or is this thing actually finished?
 * I think the fact that it's a foregone conclusion means we can say it here. --ABQCat 04:36, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * This thing is not actually finished. There are legal appeals, investigations, and a recount pending in Ohio.  The winner is not determined until all legal disputes/actions that may affect the outcome and officially began before Jan. 6th have been resolved/completed. Kevin Baas | talk 04:44, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

 * I'd say it's over, have you won the election if you've conceded and will not be taking office following the election? --Flockmeal 04:45, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

 * The outcome of those legal disputes will not change the outcome of the election. It's the way things work.  If (as some suggest) large-scale fraud was perpetrated, they won't get caught at this point.  No judge can rule based on the rule of law that election results ought to be invalidated (appeal all the way to SCOTUS if they did) and the republican judiciary (sorry, but they proved that in 2000) will rule for Bush.  The other possibility (more likely, in my mind) is that all the votes will be counted and as Kerry concluded, there is no way they will swing the results of Ohio back the other way.  --ABQCat 04:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * A concession is legally meaningless, and even if you don't want to take office, you will be forced to. Kevin Baas | talk 04:48, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

 * No person can be conscripted to service as president. If he didn't want to take office, he wouldn't.  It's that easy.  --ABQCat 04:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * It's the law. The law says that he will indeed be conscripted.  He may chose to resign, but when the sealed envelope is opened and the votes are counted, if he wins, whether he likes it or not, he becomes the president.  It's that simple. Kevin Baas | talk 04:54, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

 * Now we're delving into hypotheticals. (Nevermind that I doubt the results could be certified by the House if reversal occurred).  The issue at hand is that it's statistically VERY unlikely that the vote recount in Ohio and other legal precedings change the outcome of the election.  --ABQCat 04:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * On the contrary my friend, the statistics have been done, and it is in fact more likely that Kerry would win a recount than it is that Bush would. But that is not, as you say, the issue at hand.  The issue at hand is, probabilities aside, whether or not the winner has been officially determined.  Kevin Baas | talk 05:04, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

 * Well, if we really want to get technical, then no US Presidential Election is decided until January 20th, but I'd say at this point it is highly likely that George Bush will be the next US President and not John Kerry. --Flockmeal 05:07, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

 * I've been looking for the source, but basically, if the percentages go as they normally do, the "hanging chads" + the provisional ballots puts kerry over the top by over 10,000. Unlike Florida, Ohio has a state-wide objective rule for counting hanging chads, so they'll be no supreme court ruling to stop the recount. Kevin Baas | talk 05:41, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure about there being a possibility of Kerry winning (I'd like to see the statistics that point to a 10,000-vote victory in Ohio), but I think the fact is that he hasn't lost yet. Maybe we should wait until January 20th, until the result is legally decided, before we declare it.

Responding to anon above, didn't want to thread in that far. - The election is not determined by Wikipedia's declaration. Perhaps we could, instead of deciding for ourselves, state that Kerry has conceded meaning he has given up hope of winning, state that CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox News, CNN, BBC, etc have all "called" the race for Bush, and that though there is ongoing legal maneuvering, he is expected to be re-inaugurated in January 2005. --ABQCat 04:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Why think for ourselves? Hmmm... let me think about that... on the other hand, I probably shouldn't think about it.

 * We are not deciding ourselves. The election is not determined by Wikipedia's declaration, nor is it determined by CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox News, CNN, BBC, etc.'s declaration. (nor Kerry's or Bush's)  So what's the difference between saying that CBS "called" the race for Bush and saying that Wikipedia "called" the race for Bush?  Neither is more objective or informative, and both are secondhand pov.

 * Why don't we just be encyclopedic and state the facts? the unofficial vote count shows x. (not the electoral vote count - the electoral college has not voted yet) the legitimacy of the vote count is in question, and legal actions are being taken. One such action is a recount eminent in Ohio (awaiting the certification of the results on x), which may change the outcome of the election from what is currently expected by the vast majority of American citizens.  On x, the electoral college will meet and vote, and seal the votes in an envelope. on x, the envelope will be opened and counted by congress.  whoever has the most votes in this count becomes the xth president on x. Kevin Baas | talk 05:20, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

 * If you would just try to see my point instead of putting words in my mouth, perhaps you'd see that we agree on this point? Just state the facts.  That's what I'm saying.  The facts are that Kerry conceded, the news orgs and nearly all americans accept that GWB will be the next president.  the electoral votes will likely (~99% liklihood) be submitted in the way that has been reported by the news.  the House will meet to certify the votes - some discussion may take place, but guess what?  This is all info for the presidential campaign article.  Facts for this article:  Kerry conceded, he lost the popular vote nationwide, will LIKELY lose the election (after votes are certified).  If we're to nit-pick (which I'm fine with as long as ridiculously long discussions on simple facts don't get out of hand...) then I think we can state that he will have officially lost the election when the votes are counted by the next session of the House.  --ABQCat 07:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be noted here that the presidential election has not yet happened? People in each state have chosen electors (although some states might theoretically still be in doubt, although I'm dubious). The election for president (by the electors) does not occur until, what, December 17? john k 08:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, Kenney understands what I'm saying. ABQCat says he's saying the same thing I am, and then he says something completely different.  "Accept" and "expect", minus the spelling similarities, have little in common.  Accept means to acquise to what has already been established as irrevocable.  Expect means to predict an outcome which has not yet been established, regardless of whether one intends to accept it.

 * The likilihood is completely irrelevant, but FWIW, is more like 55% Kerry, 45% Bush. This is not an intuitive guess, this is the result of a statistical analysis based on prior probabilities, skewed to favor bush because it's reasonable to expect resistance and obstruction from Kenneth Blackwell and other interested gov. officials.  Go ahead and repeat you're "99%", maybe I didn't hear you throw out that number arbitrarily, with nothing to back it up.  Maybe if you just repeat it over and over and over and over again, I'll believe that Saddam Hussien has weapons of mass destruction.

 * Also, ABQCat and Flockmeal don't seem to realize that their opinions do not belong in an encyclopedia article. Comments like "I'd say it's over." are utterly irrelevant.

 * We cannot "state that he will have officially lost the election when the votes are counted by the next session of the House", because, although some of us have this opinion, none of us know this.

 * I agree with John Kenney. Kevin Baas | talk 15:29, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with Baas' viewpoint on this one. As an encyclopedia the Wiki article should contain the facts, and the fact is that he hasn't lost yet since the election is not yet over.

 * It IS encyclopedic to explain the current state of affairs. It is in no way opinion that the majority of the American public EXPECT (yes, that's the word I use) and ACCEPT (i'd say they do both) Bush will take office.  I don't want my opinion in the article, and I'm not advocating including it (I haven't advocated any particular side of the issue, just a representation of pertinent facts - read my contributions to this discussion).
 * Can we agree on including just the FACTS here? The fact is that all of this discussion is better suited for the presidential campaign page - it's not biographically pertinent.  I would advocate including this information for the BIOGRAPHICAL article: "Kerry conceded the election.  The breakdown of popular votes was XXX for Bush and YYY for Kerry as of $Date.  The breakdown of elctors was XXX for Bush and YYY for Kerry (just check CNN) as of $Date."  Nothing else is BIOGRAPHICALLY pertinent, but certainly this discussion and some content generated as a result of it could benefit the presidential campaign article.  On a separate note, can we please restore some civility to this discussion?  It's awfully heated for a simple biographical point.  --ABQCat 22:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Ofcourse I am for the facts. We seem to disagree on what is "fact" and what is imagination. (possibly social imagination (link?!))  I do not accept "Accept" - one cannot accept something that is not yet established.  FACT: The breakdown of popular votes is unofficial.  FACT: It is factually impossible for the breakdown of the electoral votes to be x for bush and y for kerry because the electoral college has not voted yet.  FACT: the Ohio votes will be recounted.  FACT: there are many more than 132,000 (136,000 - 4,000 resulting from a "computer glitch") provisional ballots+"spoiled votes", and thus it is possible that the final Ohio vote will be for Kerry.  Therefore, we cannot say "Bush will win" (notice we cannot say that anyone has won, as there has not yet been an election in the electoral college for someone to win.) with certainty; i.e., it is not a FACT.  Do you dispute any of the facts I presented in my above comment beginning "Why don't we just be encyclopedic and state the facts?"? Kevin Baas | talk 23:24, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

 * I think your facts are quite valid, well put together, and very accurate. I think on a biographical article, however, it is probably not apropriate to outline them all as you have. They would be hugely valuable for the presidential election article, however.  I think it IS valid to say Kerry has conceded and that as of a certain date (today, November 10, the newest estimate you can pin down) Kerry is ESTIMATED to have a certain percentage of the popular vote and EXPECTED to receive (based on popular vote breakdowns in each state) a certain number of electoral votes - according to $NEWS_OUTLET.  Expectations *as reported by cnn* (for example) are not fact, but it is fact to report that CNN has reported the expectation with a high degree of liklihood.  I think that's where we're getting tangled up here.  --ABQCat 23:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * So your desire is brevity for proportionality sake. Granted.  What I wrote is too long.  I think there should be some mention of fraud investigations, possibly dubious results in ohio, and the pending ohio recount. At minimum, the pending ohio recount. Kevin Baas | talk 00:31, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

spin-off military service
Wolfman, a few other editors and I have talked about spinning off the military service of John Kerry. It is highly detailed and IMHO deserves a separate article. No material needs to be changed/edited, the article already exists (Military service of John Kerry)... the only thing that needs to be done is craft a paragraph or two summarizing what the average reader would want to read, putting the rest in the separate article and linking it with a "Main Article:" tag like many other articles. If someone has a significant problem with this it's not a vital change, the military service just reads a bit dry if it weren't for the SBVT charges. Also, SBVT charges are in the process of being merged into John Kerry military service controversy... this will make the pages a lot cleaner, but let me know what you think. --kizzle 19:07, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't care whether there's a separate article, but this one needs to retain a fair amount of information about Kerry's Vietnam experience. It's been described by several people who know him as having a major influence on his life.  If you want to shorten this article, I could more readily see leaving the military service section alone and reducing the entire section on JFK to a single sentence.  Does that seem good to anyone else? JamesMLane 01:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * If he becomes President, we're clearly going to need to make some space. And a fair bit of the detail could be removed from the main article without much loss, still leaving maybe 4 paragraphs about the experience.  On the other hand, if he loses, there probably won't be a whole lot of reason to save space by spinning off an article, since failed candidates tend to disappear politically.  My feeling is we should just leave it be for a month.  Then, the best course will be clear.  This has the side-benefit of avoiding a major re-write of a contentious section (because of SBVT) at an extremely tense political point. Wolfman 04:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * If he becomes President, we can create a Kerry Administration article. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:12, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * So, what's your feeling on a spinoff now? I'd be more comfortable making the switch right now (within a month of the election) if somebody proposed language for the condensed main-page version of military service.  This month is a bad time to invite edit conflicts on the main page; vetting the new language first on Talk would help a lot with that. Wolfman 14:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Changing Kerry redirect
I hope nobody minds me changing the Kerry page to a disambig. Not only is having it redirect to John Kerry dubious in terms of need, but changing it removes the need for the Kerry redirects here... notice at the top of the page. J OHN C OLLISON | (Ludraman) 20:52, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Interests
Surely the piece under home life and interests isn't worth including? I don't think anyone cares whats his favourite movie or cookie and whatsmore I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. J OHN C OLLISON | (Ludraman) 22:50, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I do! I think it's interesting. Besides Wiki is not paper. :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:01, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Silver Star controversy
An anon made several edits to add that the enemy soldier killed by Kerry was fleeing at the time. These were reverted, but then Kizzle added the circumstance that the man was still armed, and so let "fleeing" stay in. This still doesn't really explain the situation -- for example, that Fred Short said, "The guy was getting ready to stand up with a rocket on his shoulder, coming up. ...  [T]here's no way he could miss us."

What we did before was to put the pros and cons of the controversy in the other article, now at John Kerry military service controversy. We could go back to that approach, and return the Silver Star language to what it was a few days ago, or we could amplify more here. It just seems misleading to say only that he was fleeing without adding that he was still close enough to the Swift boat that he could have taken it out if he weren't being pursued. JamesMLane 18:43, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Just trying to compromise between two sides, I hate edit wars... I have a problem with simply "fleeing", I'm not sure if you're going to get concensus on a quote from Short (can you post a link to that btw?)... I think that in order to avoid edit wars in the future seeing as this is the single-most edited line in JK, just quote verbatim from the medal citation, so:

 * Kerry "leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hootch and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber."

 * Leaves less room for future arguments. Just my opinion, I'm fine either way, I just didn't want "fleeing" by itself, its slightly misleading seeing as he was carrying a loaded rocket launcher. --kizzle 20:42, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * I think quoting from the official citation is a good solution. The quotation from Short is included in John Kerry military service controversy, along with other quotations from crew members who agreed that the enemy soldier was a real threat.  The quotations are sourced there to this link, which no longer works.  We'll have to see if the story is elsewhere on the redesigned ABC News page. JamesMLane 21:21, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I couldn't find it on the ABC News site, which has been redesigned. I've emailed ABC asking if they can provide a valid link.  If they can't, the Nightline story was picked up and quoted extensively here on the website of a liberal columnist, but I'd rather link to (and credit) ABC as the original source.  If ABC doesn't get back to me, I'll substitute the other link. JamesMLane 00:17, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VVAW and assassinations
So is this stuff about VVAW debating (and voting against) the idea of assassinating pro-war senators actually true? Is there any evidence? Is there a reputable source? Evercat 23:04, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that it's mentioned on our page on VVAW. Interesting. Evercat 23:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV
The edits by Jgardner are a pastiche of every right-wing attack on John Kerry. Among the most notable violations of the NPOV policy: characterizing Kerry's views on Vietnam as calling for a "surrender"; the claim that he "negotiated" with a foreign power, as if a President has the right to forbid every meeting between a U.S. citizen and a representative of a foreign government (wouldn't that be handy for concealing outright lies such as those engaged in by Bush); adopting as true the allegation that some WSI participants weren't vets (go to Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation and join in addressing the specifics there); a completely biased presentation of the Iraq issue. I believe it would be justifiable to revert the whole mess, but in the interest of trying to accommodate Jgardner, I'll try to substitute a neutral description of the portion of Kerry's Senate testimony, and of the issue of Iraq. JamesMLane 00:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I had been chipping away at the bit about the VVAW assassination "discussion" trying to make it NPOV; it seems possible, maybe likely, that he was either mistaken or lying when he said he wasn't there. This is the best mainstream source I've found... Evercat 12:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The trouble we encountered over the summer was that the back-and-forth about each person's memories of a 1971 meeting were overwhelming much more substantive points. That's why we ended up creating John Kerry VVAW controversy and linking to it a couple relevant points.  If there's some new information on the subject it should be added there. JamesMLane 22:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry said he was not in a protest rally. I tried to delete the pitcure of would-be John Kerry arrested in a protest rally, he's already a good man for president. User 14 Oct 2004

 * When did he say he wasn't in a protest rally? I doubt he'd now be denying that he was, but even if he denies it, I think the photo should stay unless there's an issue of its authenticity. JamesMLane 22:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry was not involved in a rally, it could be Bush was involved in anti-war activities, the photo could prove that's Bush arrested in a 1972 anti-war protest rally. Kerry needs to win.

 * Eh? Wikipedia is not the place to stump for John Kerry. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 02:58, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Seriously, and sign your edits whoever you are, if its true then its true regardless of whether it makes the subject look bad or not. --kizzle 06:18, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, the Constitution designates the President as having the sole authority to conduct foreign relations. Constitutionally, Presidents do have the right to forbid others from "negotiating" with foreign powers.  Meetings with representatives of foreign governments are regulated under federal law under numerous statutes to codify this constitutional power.

stuff to do
This article's 63 KB long - it should be shortened. Among other things, perhaps we should remove the "personal" stuff at the bottom (not the family info) - few other biographies include a "hobbies" and "what his canary's name is" section... ugen64 19:07, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry was a rock musician as well, also had few classical lessons, before attending Yale University or going to Vietnam, after he returned home from the country in 1970, he became a long-time Senator, Kerry has denied he was the leader of VVAW, now. National Public Radio said nothing about John Kerry's past as being leader of "Vietnam Veterans Against the War". I think someone or Bush was involved in the protest rally of VVAW.

"He was spanked by incumbent president George W. Bush in a close race (see John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004)." That doesn't sound very neutral.

Military Service
Right now there exists a current daughter article at Military service of John Kerry... yet all that information is duped in the main John Kerry section... we either need to merge the two or replace the duplicated information in this article with a summary paragraph or two with a "Main Article" link... I'm not sure what we agreed to before when the article was spun off in the first place. what should be done? --kizzle 18:52, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * I, for one, was very dubious about the spinoff, because I thought that the information about Kerry's military career was important both as part of his biography and because of its role in the campaign. I'd suggest that anyone who favors a drastic chopping of this article should post the proposed summary here first.  I also think there's a lot of merit to Wolfman's suggestion that we just wait until after the election.

 * Meanwhile, in keeping with the idea of not making drastic cuts without discussion, I haven't taken a hatchet to the section about Kerry's meetings with John F. Kennedy, but if someone else voices support for that idea, it would be one way to trim this article. JamesMLane 19:51, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * with the election coming up, I guess duping is a better alternative to partisan edit wars. --kizzle 06:42, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Joining the Vietnam Veterans Against the War

 * I added and documented the information (now confirmed by WeeklyStandard, WashPost and NYTimes) that John Kerry had met on two different occassions with Communist leaders - in 1970 and again in 1971 - in Paris. This seems highly relevant to any discussion about his possible motivation in joining the VVAW since (a) he joined this organization almost immediately upon his return the first time in 1970, (b) the positions he advocated closely paralleled what the Communist leaders were asking for and (c) the FBI documented that he had plans to return a third time before a falling out with the VVAW leadership. Why would someone then delete the first and last sentences below which then results in portraying his actions in isolation? Would someone please restore. Thanks

 * I will just add back myself - after all, it's true

 * John F. Kerry met with a Vietnamese communist delegation in Paris in or around May 1970. Once back in the United States, Kerry joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Numbering about 20,000, VVAW was considered to be an effective component of the antiwar movement. VVAW's members, including Kerry, could speak with personal knowledge about what they had seen in Vietnam. Beyond such specifics, however, they were seen as having "paid their dues" in Vietnam, and therefore being entitled to at least a respectful hearing. Americans who opposed the war were grateful for VVAW's work. Many Vietnam veterans saw the organization as giving voice to the views of the common soldier in exposing official deceit. Many other veterans, however, such as those who in 2004 formed Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, deeply resented the VVAW's activities, feeling that their own military service was being attacked or cheapened. Kerry had a second meeting in early 1971 with leaders of the two Communist delegations-North Vietnam and the Viet Cong's Provisional Revolutionary Government-that were negotiating with U.S. representatives at the Paris peace talks.

 * This is one of many criticisms made of Kerry concerning his work with VVAW. Whether it's true or not -- and I haven't reviewed your wording in detail -- the problem is that all the true things people want to say about Kerry, pro and con, were overwhelming this article.  That's why we have several daughter articles: on the election, on his campaign, on the military service controversy, on SBVT, and maybe others I'm forgetting.  This stuff belongs in John Kerry VVAW controversy if anywhere. JamesMLane 19:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * How can a fact be a criticism? It was an integral part of his anti-war effort. Many in the movement saw it as commendable. It is also a fact that the Communists wanted soldiers to join the antiwar movement and VVAW to push their agenda. Whether one views that as controversial or not is their interpretation of a fact, not the fact itself. These facts would also seem more legitimate for inclusion than editorial comments such as "Americans who opposed the war were grateful for VVAW's work" when in fact a large number of soldiers who were against the war felt betrayed by VVAW for their methods. I think it is Wikipedia's loss as a credible record were it removed. I know it undermines any incentive to contribute. Thank you.

 * There are lots and lots of statements about John Kerry that could be defended as facts. He won the Iowa primary.  He saved the life of Republican Senator Chic Hecht.  And so it goes.  If we were to put all the facts in this article, it would become unreadably long.  That's why we summarize here.  The additional details, such as the pros and cons about whether Kerry's Vietnam medals were justified, have to be developed in "daughter" articles, which are linked to from here.  Your questioning of Wikipedia's credibilty rests on an incomplete quotation.  The full passage reads: "Americans who opposed the war were grateful for VVAW's work. Many Vietnam veterans saw the organization as giving voice to the views of the common soldier in exposing official deceit. Many other veterans, however, such as those who in 2004 formed Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, deeply resented the VVAW's activities, feeling that their own military service was being attacked or cheapened."  This is how we apply the NPOV policy -- we report significant opinions.  We've done that here, reporting the very point you mention, that many soldiers didn't share the positive view of VVAW.  I haven't removed that sentence.  (In fact, I think I wrote it, though by now I'm not completely sure.)  JamesMLane 19:58, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * May I suggest the following then - say "Some Americans who opposed the war," not "Americans who opposed..." Also "Many other veterans who also opposed the war or the way it was being fought - as well as many who didn't oppose the war - were hurt and offended by VVAW's activities and intentions." But all of this opinion or subjective fact would seem to belong under a daughter article as you suggest, "How the VVAW was viewed by other soldiers," whether controversial or not, instead of the summary if it is to remain that short.

 * The fact that a person "met with the enemy leadership while still an officer in the Navy" just prior to joining an organization - which is what the subsection is about (joining the VVAW) - that advocated much of the enemy's position seems to come prior to a discussion of how the antiwar activities were viewed by others. Leave those sentences about the two meetings in Paris (the more diplomatic ones I have originally) and reference a daughter section on "Overlapping VVAW Advocacy and the Goals of the Vietnamese Communists." We now have physical documents showing this relationship: "The significance of the documents lies in the way they dovetail with activities of the young Mr. Kerry as he led the VVAW anti-war movement in the spring of 1971." Here is a captured enemy document which supports this relationship: I agree with that being in a daughter section if need be. But it seems the summary has to be large enough not to mislead people who read through it that an important issue is involved. It is not as though one is talking about joining the YMCA. Thank you for your patience and time.

 * With your first paragraph above, you've confused me. We don't say or imply that all Americans opposed the war.  The phrase "Americans who opposed the war...." is obviously referring to the antiwar segment of the populace.  Your second proposed change merely spells out that there were also differences of opinion about the war among veterans.  This passage is mostly to give a one-paragraph picture of VVAW, though, so it's more important to note, as we do, that veterans differed in their attitude toward VVAW.  My guess is that your suggested topic of "How the VVAW was viewed by other soldiers" doesn't deserve a separate article, but if you think there's enough material, you can take a stab at creating it.  (Don't be surprised if someone lists it on VfD, though.)

 * The current article does mention in passing that Kerry had met with both delegations in Paris. As with other subjects (like saving Hecht's life), it's a question of whether the event was notable enough in Kerry's life to merit a detailed discussion, a mention, or neither.  I'm not sure what's supposed to be accomplished by "Overlapping VVAW Advocacy and the Goals of the Vietnamese Communists."  The article reports VVAW's view that the U.S. should withdraw from Vietnam.  How much space do we need to devote to the startling revelation that some of the people we were shooting at didn't want us to keep shooting at them?  I don't see how it would be worthwile linking to a genuine captured enemy document solely to make that point.  (In this instance I also find it more than a little surprising that the "captured enemy document" presented by an anti-VVAW group was written in English.  Presumably that's explained elsewhere on their website, which I haven't bothered to check, given the irrelevance of the document even if it were authentic.) JamesMLane 21:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Allow me one last point as an example (I know I'm trying your patience, and there are many other subject areas). Because you haven't read the material, of course you are at a disadvantage. You say, "The current article does mention in passing that Kerry had met with both delegations in Paris." The critical points here are (a) Kerry was talking about his meeting in early 1971. He did not divulge his first meeting in 1970 with the Viet Cong just prior to joining the VVAW (nor is it mentioned in the current article), regarding which some may say his joining was not coincidental. (b) a misleading impression was left in saying he met "with both delegations." Most people and articles, not just here, assume this meant the North Vietnamese and American delegations - an evenhandedness - when in fact it means he also met with the Viet Cong's Provisional Revolutionary Government, not just the North Vietnamese. (c) This is important not because there was some abstract generalized common ground with the North Vietnamese about needing to end the war. If that was the case, you're right, it would have no significance. After all someone could have a Christian point of view, for example, with the intent of trying to bring the two sides together (a Jesse Jackson type of action) from sheer altruism (an important hypothesis in this case). The important information here is the number and specificity of the North Vietnamese strategic and tactical objectives and what was done subsequently by the VVAW.

 * It is not up to me to act as judge and jury as to whether or at what point this "fraternizing with the enemy" if it be such may have crossed the line. But there are many people who feel it did cross the line, and that it encouraged the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong to hold on when they knew they could not win militarily. To leave out this factual information the merits of which can then be debated means that a large segment of the population will find the information non-credible or misleading in its omissions. The dots may not connect, but again they may. After all, Kerry himself resigned from the VVAW later in 1971 possibly due to finding it too radical. JK may well have found himself used, so I don't go as far as those in charging complicity; instead I'm assuming the odds are he was negligently naive (just as I would hypothesize Jimmy Carter - a very admirable, honorable and decent man - was religiously naive about the possibility of Russia invading Afghanistan). My opinion, of course doesn't matter, but the presentation of the facts does.

 * Here is an example short article that provides an argument along with the supporting documents for making the case[ http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41142 ]. Again, I am not in a position to rule on their merits, but to exclude the issue leaves the reader in the dark. I am more than happy, in fact I would be glad for everyone involved, to see the information refuted if that is the truth, especially while the people involved are still alive and can comment before it passes as a permanent question into history. I would therefore make a motion to reference the Paris meetings and the issue of Hanoi influence as a key issue (again as worthwhile as how some people against the war "felt" about the VVAW) that merits summary page standing, and then a daughter article. I will defer to your judgment (and other historians) given your praiseworthy personal investment of time in this article. Thank you.

 * Thanks for your kind words. The main point that I think you're missing is that this article isn't "Here's everything you need to know to decide whether to vote for John Kerry."  It's Kerry's biography.  We have a separate article on the Vietnam War, which includes a section on the antiwar movement.  It notes, for example, that HUAC investigated the movement on the suspicion of aiding the NLF.  (Perhaps we should have a separate article on the antiwar movement in the U.S., 1965-75; right now, Antiwar movement redirects to Peace movement, which is international in scope but which also includes a lengthy discussion of opposition in the U.S. to the Vietnam War.  A single article on that subject could merge the information that's now in two different places.)

 * The text we now have makes clear that Kerry was a prominent antiwar spokesperson. Some people will presumably base their assessment of Kerry on what they read about the pros and cons of American involvement in Vietnam.  For them it would be a convenience to include that sort of information here.  It's not an efficient way of organizing Wikipedia, though.  They'll just have to follow the link to Vietnam War.  JamesMLane 03:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * While looking at the antiwar movement at your sugguestion, regarding both sections Vietnam Veterans Against the War and Winter Soldier Investigation it mentions a "Mark Lane." As JamesMLane, there is no relationship is there? (Sorry to have to ask, which by-the-way doesn't mean one cannot be objective even if there is).
 * Well, you didn't have to ask. 3 people at my branch bank share my name.  5 people in my (not large) profession share my name.  And I'm not named John Smith, or anything else obviously common.  So, JML shares a last name and one initial with some guy from 30 years ago mentioned in passing on a related page.  I have as much reason to ask if you, anonip, were involved in these historical events. Wolfman 14:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Regarding my involvement, my draft number was not called, but several people in college with me at the time entered the service. I think everyone was impacted one way or the other that we are still coming to terms with. It was a very sad and confusing time for the country. After we prevented South Korea from being overrun, many people were perplexed why the same in South Vietnam had not been possible. The media war of which the anti-war movement was an important part has been used by some to try and square the circle. My hope is that reconciliation might be possible after understanding what happened so as a country we can solve the problems ahead of us.

 * I thought the gentleman I was speaking with originally, JamesMLane, might have an interest in the subject as possibly the son or nephew of Mark Lane knowing the odds were against it; there was no offense intended, hopefully none taken - if there were, I apologize, but still wonder how it could have been raised politely. It is not as spurious as you suggest: here is someone effectively editing a topic, VVAW, which also had as one of its important players a person sharing the same last name and first-name initial as the editor's last-name and middle initial. The subject of conflict of interest is a standard one in journalism, and I'm not aware of how it is dealt with in Wikipedia. The limits of the system seem to create this problem. The interjected phrase "to decide whether to vote for John Kerry" threw me, since it wasn't anything I mentioned, and so unconscious bias became a possible consideration - and who isn't susceptible to this where I also include myself? I was trying to follow the strict format of "these meetings took place at these locations at these times raising these issues" without saying there is only one correct interpretation. Regarding anonip, the two sentences I originally submitted above along with the other factual information were documented, and I did not pretend to have any knowledge or the ability to rule on their merits other than what was contained there. It was that which I had hoped would be the focus. The record, from what I can tell, still doesn't reflect this factual information. If I have erred or been over-the-top in anything I've said, please let me know because I would like to see Wikipedia be a success.

 * If only I could claim to be related to the James Lane who was an antislavery leader in Kansas! The Mark Lane you mention is best known as one of the proponents of half-baked conspiracy theories about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, a view I definitely do not share.  I have no reason to believe I'm related to James Lane or to Mark Lane -- or to the Mark Lane tube station, for that matter.  JamesMLane 18:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Correction, this is not "the Mark Lane you mentioned." Please see my comments while you were posting yours. With little effort from my previous documentation you would have seen from Vietnam Veterans Against the War: "At this time, VVAW is said to have received significant financial support from Jane Fonda and other celebrity peace activists. Fonda and Mark Lane had press appearances in July and August 1970 announcing the Washington, D.C., VVAW office."

 * Also, from Winter Soldier Investigation: "The groundwork for what would become the Winter Soldier Investigation was laid by Jeremy Rifkin, Tod Ensign, Michael Uhl and Bob Johnson of the CCI, with support from VVAW co-founder Jan Crumb. During the summer of 1970, the CCI were approached by Al Hubbard who had become a full-time organizer with VVAW. Al proposed that CCI join forces with Jane Fonda, Mark Lane, Rev. Dick Fernandez of Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam (CALCAV) and Donald Duncan (the Green Beret who had testified at the Russell Tribunal in Denmark)."

 * Correction to your correction: As far as I know, the Mark Lane who wrote a book about the Kennedy assassination and the Mark Lane you mentioned (the one who had some involvement with the Winter Soldier Investigation) were, indeed, the same person. See this article in the San Francisco Chronicle.  If it turns out they were two different people, fine, they were two different people.  I've never made an edit that assumed it to be the same person.  I have no reason to believe I'm related to him (or to either of them, if you're right).  And with that I bid the subject adieu.   JamesMLane 20:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Wow! You're right, it was the conspiracy theorist: "The first of these was the "Winter Soldier Investigation" (Jan. 31-Feb. 2, 1971) organized by such antiwar celebrities as Jane Fonda and conspiracy theorist Mark Lane. At this event, individuals purporting to be Vietnam veterans told horrible stories of atrocities: burning villages, using prisoners for target practice, and gang-raping women as a matter of course." ..."I read Mark Lane's 1970 book, Conversations with Americans, and the transcripts of the Winter Soldiers Investigation, I was struck by how implausible most of the atrocity claims were. I was apparently not alone. Lane's book was panned by James Reston Jr. and Neil Sheehan, not exactly known as war supporters; Sheehan demonstrated that many of Lane's "eyewitnesses" either had never served in Vietnam or had not done so in the capacities they claimed....In a recent letter to the Wall Street Journal, author Gerald Nicosia alleged that no impostor veterans were ever found to have taken part in the Winter Soldiers Investigation — but that's not what government investigators discovered. When Sen. Mark Hatfield inserted the transcript of the Winter Soldier testimonies into the Congressional Record, he asked the commandant of the Marine Corps to investigate the war crimes allegedly committed by Marines. When the Naval Investigative Service (NIS) attempted to interview those who allegedly had witnessed atrocities, most refused to cooperate, even after assurances that they would not be questioned about atrocities they committed personally. Those who did cooperate never provided details of actual crimes to investigators. The NIS also discovered that some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans. Guenter Lewy tells the entire story in his book America in Vietnam." [|National Review Online "But Was It True?"] You have made a connection I would have never appreciated. Could this be one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated of all times by "a half-baked" conspiracy theorist!? And he was brought in by Al Hubbard who we now know was a fraud: (Kerry and Al Hubbard - then executive director of VVAW - appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" on April 18, 1971 to argue for an end to the war. Shortly thereafter, Hubbard, who had been introduced on the NBC program as a decorated Air Force captain, was exposed for having exaggerated his military credentials. A separate news investigation revealed that there were no military records showing that Hubbard had either served in Vietnam or was injured there. Adieu

Purple Hearts

 * Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry insisted on being awarded his first Purple Heart in Vietnam even though his injury amounted to no more than a "fingernail scrape," his commanding officer at the time now says. Retired Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard tells the Boston Globe that he can still recall Kerry's wound, and that "it resembled a scrape from a fingernail," the paper said. "I've had thorns from a rose that were worse," Hibbard insists.

Is the above quote suitable for inclusion in any Wikipedia article about John Kerry and his Purple Hearts? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd say no. The "insisted" part sounds like POV to me. AFAIK, the procedure for handing out Purple Hearts was mostly automatic at that time. Also, it promotes the statement of Hibbard to absolute truth. More neutral would be something like "According to a statement made in 2004 to the Boston Globe by Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, Kerry's commanding officer at the time, the wound for which Kerry received his first Purple Heart was very minor. "I've had thorns from a rose that were worse," Hibbard insists..

 * I agree that "insisted" is POV. The substance of the view taken by Hibbard and other Kerry critics is presented in this passage from John Kerry military service controversy, which is linked to from the John Kerry article:
 * Grant Hibbard, Kerry's former commander, and other SBVT members have questioned Kerry's first Purple Heart, received for a wound sustained on December 2 1968. They assert that the injury was much too minor to merit a citation since the only treatment Kerry received, after the removal of a piece of shrapnel from his arm, was bacitracin (an antibiotic) and a bandage, and that he returned to service immediately.

 * Thus, Hibbard's opinion is presented. Do we need to give him more of a soapbox?  Quoting his exact language adds color but not much else.

 * I see no reason to wikilink Hibbard where he's now mentioned in the other article. There's no reason he'd ever have an article.  He wouldn't be mentioned in Wikipedia at all if he hadn't taken a potshot at Kerry.  A Yahoo! search on "Grant Hibbard" -Kerry comes up with 11 hits, many of which seem to be other people.

 * By the way, that right-wing site you linked to is pretty sleazy in invoking Max Cleland as they do. They say that he lost three limbs and didn't get a Purple Heart.  I guess the purpose is to emphasize their attempt to paint Kerry as a whiner.  It would be less misleading if they added that Cleland's injury didn't occur in combat and therefore didn't qualify under the regulations.  It's especially despicable for them to try to exploit Cleland, given the way the Republican smear machine went after him in 2002. JamesMLane 21:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bush, Kerry: Short term page protection?
The recent edit histories of George W. Bush and John Kerry have been a slew of petty vandalisms and their reverts. Barring some major unexpected developments that will necessitate serious additions to their respective articles, I suspect that more of the same is about all we can expect over the next few days. I think temporary vprotected status for both pages to election day might be warrented. Objections, comments? (this same text added at Talk:George W. Bush, Talk:John Kerry, and Wikipedia talk:Protected page). -- Infrogmation 19:34, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I have protected both pages. Please direct discussion to Protected page where it can be reviewed by people following either page as well as those Wikipedians concerned with page protection in general.  Please note, I have deliberately placed the  at the bottom of the page for cosmetic reasons.  Officially it is supposed to go at the top but that is merely a holdover from the days before a warning appeared when sysops edited a protected page, to be sure that any sysop would be aware of the protection before editing.  No longer justified now that we have the warning.  uc 20:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Might this be a good time for short-term protection again? Very few if any substantive changes, very, very much vandalism? (Apologies if insertion above below comment is not allowed- it seemed irrelevant to, and vice-versa...) Schissel 21:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note to the poster above who complained about the "right-wing" site and Max Cleland's lack of purple hearts: Max Cleland was not eligible for a purple heart even though he lost three of his four limbs simply because Cleland's injuries were inflicted during training with a grenade and not under enemy fire. The rules for awarding purple hearts are very clearly spelled out, and Cleland did not meet the criteria. This is no right-wing smear or Republican spin machine, Cleland actually doesn't qualify for the medal.

 * Err, yes, anonymous poster. That was exactly the point James was making.  The right-wing site that mentions his example without explaining why he didn't qualify is trying to make it sound like Kerry's getting special treatment, while Cleland, the "more deserving" case doesn't qualify. PaulHammond 04:10, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Slovenian interwiki
Please add: John F. Kerry --andrejj 05:32, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Resignation from Vietnam Veterans Against the War

 * Would not John Kerry's resignation from the VVAW six months after his very public testimony in front of the Sentate Foreign Relations Committee and the reasons why not deserve some space (given what seems like disproportionate space to individual medals on the summary page) since Joining the VVAW is there? According to different sources, the reasons for his resignation range from the VVAW having become too radical (violence against public officials raised by some members) to discovering people were not who they represented themselves as being (Kerry and Al Hubbard - then executive director of VVAW - appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" on April 18, 1971 to argue for an end to the war. Shortly thereafter, Hubbard, who had been introduced on the NBC program as a decorated Air Force captain, was exposed for having exaggerated his military credentials. A separate news investigation revealed that there were no military records showing that Hubbard had either served in Vietnam or was injured there) to wanting to run for public office, etc. Those who were fellow VVAW at the time may have some insight as to how they understood the resignation as well as if Kerry himself could clarify the reasons. Some opponents of VVAW feel his resignation validated points they were making all along. I am agnostic as to the merits of any particular detail. Thanks

 * We have a summary in this article with a link to a more detailed article. The discusson in the John Kerry article is:
 * Despite his important role in Operation POW and other VVAW events, as time went on Kerry found that VVAW was becoming more radical. Kerry was trying to moderate the group, to push it in the direction of nonviolence and working within the system. Other members, however, were more militant. Kerry eventually quit the organization over this difference in approach. Some have raised questions about exactly when Kerry left VVAW; see John Kerry VVAW controversy for a full discussion.
 * This summary omits the speculation about Hubbard. From what I remember reading about Kerry and VVAW, I don't think that issue was prominent enough to be worth mentioing here. JamesMLane 02:37, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Shortly" disambiguation
From the article (emphasis mine):
 * Kerry says his first memory is from three... The memorable visit came shortly after the United States had liberated Saint-Briac... on August 14, 1944.

Kerry was 8 months old in August, 1944. Obviously, the author of this sentence meant several years when he or she wrote shortly. For clarity's sake, can we change this to several years? Yes, I'm being pedantic, but this sentence gave me pause when I first read it — all of our articles should flow seamlessly. And there's no good reason to be imprecise. • Benc • 06:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Infobox
Since the page is protected i won't do it myself butImage:John_kerry.jpg needs to be cropped to get rid of the black borders and the infobox in this article needs to decrease in width, to bring it in tune with the George W. Bush article. -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   10:06, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

Well, if you ever doubted JFK was put in to fall on his sword pointy chin for his blood-oath pal Shrubabdubdud, his concession before all the votes are even counted ought to settle it. The replay of 1930s Germany continues... Kwantus 19:26, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

title: Talk:John Kerry/Archive 15