I did a search for "kerry purple heart" and got nothing of significance.
http://www.google.com/search?domains=en.wikipedia.org&num=50&ie=iso…
-1&oe=iso-8859-1&q=kerry+purple+heart&btnG=Google+Search&sitesearch=en.w
ikipedia.org
Google quotes Wikipedia as saying:
:Hibbard and Elliot have alleged, respectively, that Kerry's first
Purple Heart and Silver Star were undeserved."
I don't see how this justifies creating a vote on "swift deletion" or
whatever they call their proposal to let 3 admins collaborate on
deleting a page.
1. There are too many admins. It would be very easy for a
politically-motivated clique to abuse an "admins only" vote and
eliminate political information merely because they don't want anyone to
read about it.
2. The best way to deal with political bias is to LABEL IT POV and WRITE
ABOUT IT. If Kerry opponents make an issue of his Purple Hearts, then
include some info about this in an article, or write an article about
the [[Kerry Purple Heart controversy]].
We have the ability to write neutrally on controversies. Deleting stuff
that one side doesn't want mentioned, is not the solution.
By the way, this is the 2nd "delete what makes Kerry bad or Bush good"
issue I've uncovered today. I see an unsettling trend.
We can write articles about Bush speeches or Swift Boat veterans'
claims, without censorship. Just as we can write articles about Bush
drunk driving or using privilege to evade combat or doctor's
appointments, or assigning huge contracts to his VP's former company --
without censorship.
Ed Poor
First Amendment Champion