Talk:Ted Kennedy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Good articles Ted Kennedy has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Peer review Ted Kennedy has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Flag of Massachusetts Ted Kennedy is part of WikiProject Massachusetts, an effort to create, expand, and improve Massachusetts-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Ted Kennedy is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. You can help by editing this article.
This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles.
This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ted Kennedy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Archive

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Contents

[edit] Kennedy allegedly collaborated with Soviets against US foreign policy

Recently published news articles have told how Sen. Edward Kennedy sent Sen. Tunney to the USSR to collaborate with the KGB against the foreign policy of both the Carter and Reagan Administrations. These news reports are recent and are described by Charles Dunn, dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University that Kennedy's activities were in "clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and at the expense of presidential authority." It is also possible Kennedy violated the Logan Act of 1799 which "prohibits American citizens from engaging in private diplomacy with a foreign government with the intention of influencing public policy." [1][2]RonCram 14:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your source is unreliable and your accusation libelous. Please see WP:VERIFY and WP:BIO for appropriate guidelines. /Blaxthos 20:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
CNS News is a reliable conservative news outlet. If you had bothered to do any reading you would have known that these facts have been reported in other media outlets as well. Some of the stories date back to 2003. The reason the CNS News story was particularly interesting is because this is the first reporting that Kennedy and Tunney were collaborating with the Soviets under Carter as well as Reagan. [3] [4] My source is both reliable and verified. This report is certainly relevant to an encyclopedia. The information came out prior to the election but I did not seek to include it here until the election was over. Your attack against is both personal and completely unwarranted. RonCram 12:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, your first response and already claiming to be persecuted and victimized by personal attacks. Please, reference the personal attack. With regards to the Conservative News Service -- IMHO, any "news service" that blatantly claims to push a particular point of view is, by definition, not a reliable news service (think about WP:NPOV).
“ There is no doubt they [CNS] have a conservative bias, just as there is no doubt the NY Times has a liberal bias. ”
 
— RonCram
Regarding your comparison of CNS to NYTimes, there are multiple distinct differences: NYT has paid reporters who have at least an education in and obligation to journalistic ethics and the truth, CNS has commentators; NYT has a vast circulation and a long history, CNS is relatively new and has no traditional circulation; NYT makes no claim of bias (although you seem to think everyone agrees with you re: no doubt of liberal bias), CNS is an online resource catering to a particular POV. I have no idea how you've turned this into me saying anything about NYT (other than pointing out the flaws in your comparison), but despite the flawed logic, you're essentially saying because they do it, we can do it too. Let's not forget WP:BLP and the implications of incorporating accusations of treason by a sitting U.S. Senator into an encyclopedia -- I strongly oppose incorporating any such innuendo or direct statement based on your sources. /Blaxthos 13:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Blaxthos, you wrote to me: "Your source is unreliable and your accusation libelous." It is pretty difficult not to take your comment personally, since you are accusing me of an indictable criminal offense. You cannot accuse a person of a crime and then claim you did not make a personal attack. I am willing to let this go, but you have to learn that you cannot behave in this manner. Regarding your opinion that "any 'news service' that blatantly claims to push a particular point of view is, by definition, not a reliable news service" is not an opinion that will garner much support. Bias in the media has been studied (see the UCLA study since it is the most recent) and the NY Times is clearly seen as one of the most liberal media outlets. Indeed, many people would argue that it is not possible for a media outlet not to reflect the political leanings and worldview of its reporters and editors. Media reports are published by people who have views. Deciding what information is pertinent and what information is not is the most basic way biased viewpoints are expressed in the media. You are under the mistaken impression CNS News employs commentators and not reporters. You are wrong. CNS News has a large stable of professional reporters, many of them stationed overseas. Let me repeat: What is important about a media outlet is their accuracy and credibility, not their political leanings. CNS News has a strong and well deserved reputation. They have never been sued for faking truck accidents (ABC News) or publishing stories based on documents known to be forged (CBS News) or publishing stories made up from nothing (NY Times and Jayson Blair). People are watching CNS News closely. If they ever get a story wrong, it will be all over the pages of the NY Times and Washington Post. The information about Sen. Kennedy is quite accurate and was recently published in book form as well. This is not an issue that will go away. Wikipedia readers deserve to have information about the Senators actions. RonCram 06:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Blaxthos, to save you the trouble of looking up the UCLA study on media bias I have decided to provide you with two links here. [5] [6] RonCram 06:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
RonCram:
  1. Criminal offenses are indictable, which is done by the government in response to crimes against the state ("the people").
  2. Civil torts (lawsuits) are brought by individuals for remediation from a personal wrong.
  3. Slander and libel are damaging ("defamatory statements") to an individual. As such, relief from libel would come in the form of a civil action initiated against you by the defamed party. In no way has anyone accused you of an indictable criminal defense -- your claim seems like bluster with little understanding of what you're talking about.
  4. Personal attacks are ones in which a post deals with the editor instead of the content. The source refers to Conservative News Service (the source you quoted), and is unreliable. Your accusations refers to you insisting that the Senator committed treason (the only criminal offense outlined in the Constitution; punishable by death). Libelous means a written defamatory statement. Where exactly are you discussed in my post at all? False claims of personal attacks revoke the good faith we assume, and destroys any credibility you might have had.
  5. Regarding you statement I am willing to let this go... -- there is nothing to let go of (see point above). Please read WP:LAWYER.
  6. The bias of the New York Times has no relevance here. We're discussing the reliability of your source, CNS News. Additionally, I made the distinction between news sources that at least try to be balanced, and media outles that blatantly cater to a particular POV.
  7. WP:BLP is very clear about the additional rigor to which negative information about living persons must be subjected.
Now, you're trying to insert an accusation of treason against a sitting U.S. Senator using a source that admittedly has a bias against the Senator. Doesn't that seem a little egregious to you? Hope this helps. /Blaxthos 07:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Follow up -- I've requested a third opinion on this matter as a matter of good faith. /Blaxthos 07:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Hello! I'm here to respond to a request filed for a third opinion.

After looking through the sources cited, I do not believe that the level of reliability rises to fact. Source two, three, and five are written by evidently-partisan sources. As the reliable source guidelines caution, we should always be careful of sources published with a declared and announced bias. Caution should also always be exercised when adding negative information to the biography of a living person. Given the convergence of the two here, Blaxthos was correct to err on the side of caution.

Regarding source four, it is an editorial and therefore inherently unreliable.

As it seems the existence of the book and controversy on this topic is well-established, I believe that some information regarding it can be added without being libelous. However, the information should be added in terms of "controversy over", "claims that", and the like, rather than statements as fact, at least until and unless verifiable and more neutral sources have been shown to agree with this information. Caution should also be exercised not to give this viewpoint undue weight, given that it currently is new and controversial. Seraphimblade 08:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I still believe that the inclusion of such an accusation using these sources is not appropriate. A quick google turns up this article that challenges the basic assumptions CNS News uses to assert fact. I'll do some more digging, but I'd daresay when you compound all the points I referenced above, this is an absolute no-go in the current form. /Blaxthos 08:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Did some more myself. While I'd tend to agree CNS (and any partisan publication for that matter) should be taken with a large dose of salt, it seems the actual source here is a book written by a professor, based on a statement/letter from a former KGB agent. The controversy, then, exists-however, it should be reported as controversy, not fact, as there's no report of how thoroughly the former agent's claims have been verified. It's unfortunate that any neutral sources in anything like this get buried in partisan rhetoric, generally from both sides. However, the fact that the book's been written is verifiable, and the fact that it's caused some degree of controversy certainly is as well. I'd say that those facts are really all that's suitable for inclusion (and whether or not they belong here or elsewhere is up to consensus on this particular article, that's a separate issue from verifiability).
Of course, if the claims are investigated and found to be true (or false), that should be included at that point, but not before. Seraphimblade 08:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Please note that this was covered at length above -- that discussions needs to be considered when evaluating all this. I would argue that mere existance of a few articles that all circularly reference a book does not overcome the provisions found in WP:BLP -- in fact, I believe this so strongly that I request a full RfC if there becomes a minority consensus of editors who demand its inclusion (as opposed to a single user pushing it). As someone else mentioned above, it appears to be self-created buzz to sensationalize a story and sell some books... opinions aside, thanks for taking the time to comment, Seraphimblade! /Blaxthos 08:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Certainly welcome. With something this potentially contentious, I don't think a full RfC would be a bad idea at all if it continues to be controversial. Seraphimblade 08:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nail in the coffin

“ Jimmy Wales considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity ”
 
— WP:BLP
“ Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia. ”
 
— Jimbo Wales

/Blaxthos 09:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No controversy on Kennedy-KGB link

It was nice to see Seraphimblade agree that the source for the CNS News and Washington Times op-ed piece is solid. (As an aside Seraphimblade, your conclusion that the Washington Times piece "is an editorial and therefore inherently unreliable" is not exactly accurate. Any reader is free to disagree with the conclusions of an op-ed piece, however, the facts presented in the piece have to reach the same level of accuracy and verifiability as any reporting. When reading op-eds, you have to be able to separate the reporting from the opinion. It is common practice for op-ed pieces to be linked on wikipedia.) It is wrong to say a controversy exists on the issue because neither Senator Kennedy nor John Tunney have denied the story. The story is based on far more than the recently released book by Paul Kengor. Kengor's research has certainly moved the story along by providing fresh details, but the story is based on several recovered KGB documents. Former KGB agent Vasiliy Mitrokhin published a paper in February 2002 based on document(s) he found. You can read that paper on pdf here. [7] An op-ed piece by Herbert Romerstein gives some additional facts. One of the KGB documents "was found by the knowledgeable Russian journalist Yevgenia Albats and published in Moscow's Izvestia in June 1992." The first document was "discovered in the Soviet archives by London Times reporter Tim Sebastian and a report on it was published in that newspaper in February 1992." [8] According to the London Times, businessman John Tunney (he was already a former senator by this time) admitted going to the Soviet Union on 15 occasions during the late 1970s and early 1980s to represent Kennedy and other senators. There is certainly more to the story and more of it will come out. However, we cannot say the story is "too new" for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The story has been verified repeatedly and has never been denied by Senator Kennedy or John Tunney. You may also wish to listen to Professor Paul Kengor discuss the issue at this link. [9] RonCram 10:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


I would appreciate if my opinion was not misrepresented, so I'll try to place a clarification here. I believe really here the only potentially reliable sources are the book and the KGB letter, and even then they're not too many sources on this. I don't consider editorials reliable sources-the term "editorial" specifically means that the piece is a reporting of opinion, not fact. (By this reasoning, we could put "The Iraq war was wrong" and "The Iraq war was right" as facts, as editorials have stated both. This would be clearly absurd. The correct way is to report that there is significant controversy over it-an easily verifiable conclusion.) The others initially cited were all from the the CNS site (which is an admittedly partisan site and should be treated with skepticism, per the reliable source guidelines). Also, please note that "lack of denial" should not be considered proof-else I could accuse someone of being a space alien, and since they'll likely blow it off without comment, state I've "proven" my case. Until this should be reported as verified by more mainstream media or sources, we should hold off on reporting it as fact as well. The facts here are that some analysts have stated these conclusions-that might belong in the article. However, as a serious accusation, without a criminal conviction or an overwhelming expert consensus, this should not be treated as fact. I'm not even sure the book is solid, I've not read it. Its publication is fact, its contents are not necessarily-and especially given the biography of living person policies, we should wait for that to settle out before any type of inclusion of its contents as fact. At most, it should be reported as controversy or an accusation (and even that should be placed for wider consensus here, or as Blaxthos has suggested, run through an RfC). We should always err on the side of caution in a living person's biography. Seraphimblade 11:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Now I believe a controversy does exist

Seraphimblade, I certainly did not misrepresent you. As you say, the KGB document and book have been published. These are the sources for the CNS News article and the Washington Times op-ed piece. I am not certain if my explanation of journalistic standards for op-ed pieces was unclear or simply unpersuasive. (By the way, there is a difference between an editorial and an op-ed piece. An editorial is written anonymously by someone on the newspaper's editorial board. An op-ed piece has a named author.) Columns and op-ed pieces can be relied on for basic facts. The opinion portion comes in the form of judgments or conclusions by the author. For example, in the piece by Herbert Romerstein [10], he provides some classic reporting regarding the KGB documents. He talks about what journalists found them and when. He reports what the documents say. In all of this, he is reporting the facts. However, he allows his judgments and conclusions regarding Kennedy to come out saying:
Kennedy was not a KGB agent. He also was not "a useful idiot" who was used by the KGB without understanding what he was doing. Kennedy was a collaborationist. He aided the KGB for his own political purposes.
This was Romerstein's conclusion, his opinion. It may not be your opinion or my opinion, but if Romerstein did a good job of writing - then at least we know the facts and logic behind Romerstein's opinion. It is also possible for someone else to look at the same situation, consider the same facts plus a few others and reach an entirely different conclusion. Op-ed pieces are commonly linked on wikipedia because of the facts in them, not because of their conclusions.
It is contrary to journalistic ethics for a newspaper to allow an op-ed piece to be published with knowingly false information. Romerstein's piece was published in Human Events, a well respected conservative weekly that was first published in 1944. Human Events is not a blog which may publish scandelous accusations without proof. It has very high standards and carries the columns of nationally known writers. This is what Human Events has to say about itself:
In reporting the news, HUMAN EVENTS is objective; it aims for accurate presentation of all the facts. But it is not impartial. It looks at events through eyes that favor limited constitutional government, local self-government, private enterprise and individual freedom. These are the principles that inspired our Founding Fathers. We think that today the same principles will preserve freedom in America.
By the way, you might find it interesting to know the editor of HumanEvents.com was formerly a journalist with Cybercast News Service (CNS News) and the LA Times. In fact, while at CNS News he was the first professional journalist to write about Dan Rather using knowingly forged documents in the story about President Bush. The story eventually got Rather "retired."
Regarding Senator Kennedy's lack of denial, the radio interview with Paul Kengor informs us that Kennedy's office has responded to one question on this story. About 16:40 into the radio interview, Kengor details the response by Kennedy's office. They did not deny Tunney's trips to Moscow or any of the essential elements of the story. However, they did try to spin it to say that the charge is "off the mark" and Kennedy only opposed Reagan's "Star Wars" plan (aka Strategic Defense Initiative). Professor Kengor disagrees with this statement. Historically, Kennedy was a very outspoken opponent of Reagan's foreign policy during this time period. The fact Kennedy's office made any statement at all was news to me. Having been asked the question, Kennedy's office could have addressed specifics of the story but did not. The fact they made any statement at all means that a "controversy" exists. Again, the radio interview can be found here. [11] RonCram 12:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
As I stated earlier, it does seem that some controversy certainly does exist here! Reporting on that may well be appropriate for the article (though, once again, I would object to reporting accusations as fact in any case including this one). My opinion (or yours) does not a consensus make though-for an accusation this controversial against a person this high-profile, a request for wider consensus such as an RfC would be more appropriate. Seraphimblade 12:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
There's quite a bit of commentary in a section above, most of it highly skeptical of inclusion. Derex 13:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
“ Jimmy Wales considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity ”
 
— WP:BLP
“ Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia. ”
 
— Jimbo Wales

Now, how exactly is this not tabloid journalism? I'm not going to sit and argue this point over and over again. I've now seen RonCram claim to be personally attacked when none existed (RonCram: see WP:NPA to understand what a personal attack is); I've seen him make false claims about the criminality of libel (RonCram: this is not Zimbabwe or Singapore, criminal indictments are not handed down for written defamatory statements); I've seen him misrepresent and mischaracterize other editors' words to suit his needs, and I've observed what can only be described as pushing a particular agenda. Even after a third opinion, RonCram still insists on pushing this into the article by trying to twist the words of the person issuing the third opinion (and got called on it). Everything else aside, the quotes listed right above this little paragraph should effectively end this debate -- wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to voice POV-laiden theories that accuse Senators of treason. Save that for the far-right "sources" you quote. /Blaxthos 16:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment - KGB-Kennedy Link

I have issued a request for comment regarding incorporating accusations of treason against Senator Kennedy. One editor (User:RonCram (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)) has insisted that we incorporate accusations that Senator Kennedy worked with the Russian Government to trump U.S. Policy based on articles published by the Conservative News Service (renamed to Cybercast News Service) and a "sensational" book. Several editors have raised concerns about the objectivity and reliability of a source that openly caters a particular agenda to the fringe-elements of a particular political party, as well concerns regarding the implications of accusing a sitting U.S. Senator of treason based on a Washington Times Op-Ed piece and CNS pieces that all quote one novel-style book. I believe that any one of the issues would be enough to make inclusion of this accusation unlikely, but when you compound the rigor required by WP:BLP along with the openly-agenda-pushing source (Conservative News Service -- which has been accused of using faulty logic to insinuate fact and draw incorrect conclusions -- see above) there is no way that Wikipedia should be a tabloid through which those with a history of agenda-pushing may factualize accusations that serve their POV. Comments? /Blaxthos 17:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree. (Less succinctly: no reliable sources; all we have is sensationalism.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No reliable sources in that list. Agreed. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. This is sensationalist slander not backed up by WP:RS. It degrades Wikipedia to publish such things (and, let's face it, we don't have to resuscitate bizarre KGB conspiracy theories in order to find negative things to say about the gentleman from Massachussetts!) csloat 00:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, as I indicated in discussions above. Derex 09:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Extraordinary claims (like treason) should require excellent (if not extraordinarly good) sources; such is not the case here. There is no reason for wikipedia to give any credence to such a poorly-supported claim. John Broughton | Talk 21:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC Conclusion

RFC concluded. Result was unanimous reject of negative claims by single editor USER:RonCram. /Blaxthos 22:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A few clarifications

  • "Now, how exactly is this not tabloid journalism?" It is not tabloid journalism because the accusations were not published in any tabloid. They were published in the London Times, Washington Times, Human Events, CNS News and a book written by Prof Kengor and published by Regan Books. [12]
  • "I've now seen RonCram claim to be personally attacked when none existed (RonCram: see WP:NPA to understand what a personal attack is); I've seen him make false claims about the criminality of libel (RonCram: this is not Zimbabwe or Singapore, criminal indictments are not handed down for written defamatory statements)." Too bad you did not provide any links for your statements. As you know, I provided one. [13] Libel is a crime on the books. It is not often prosecuted but it certainly can be prosecuted in the U.S. As to your personal attack on me, you claimed I was guilty of libel.

I have had enough of the conflict for a while. Life is too busy to waste time arguing with people who vote politics rather than facts. Even Seraphimblade admitted that a controversy exists that the article could rightly mention. RonCram 01:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electoral History

It would be nice if the electoral history of Ted Kennedy was shown. Other politicians who are less famous have such history. Kerry Healey is an example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.60.144.131 (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Citations

I'm in the process of trying to clean citations here. Per WP:BLP, I removed one remark about a Kennedy bodyguard, because the citation provided did not even relate to the matter (my guess is linkrot, but since the citation was just a blind URL there was nothing I could do about it). I commented out a citation for the party he attended the evening of the Chappaquiddick incident because it was just a mirror of our own article on Mary Jo Kopechne. And another link cites NNDB, which is a very weak citation: NNDB is exactly as open as Wikipedia itself, and lacks even a citation apparatus. It's no more authoritative than writing something here without citation. - Jmabel | Talk 00:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shares Washington's birthday

Is this at all worth mentioning? He was born 200 years after George Washington (different date, but exact time difference) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.212.141.175 (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

No. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.25.174.135 (talk • contribs).

Sorry to disagree with you, but I think that, yes, it is worth mentioning. This information conforms to Wikipedia standards because it not only arouses the reader's interest, but is also factual and easily verifiable. I'm putting it back. If you still disagree with me then why don't we have a different editor mediate on our impasse?

I should point out that we're using the Gregorian (not the Julian) calendar to designate Washington's birthday, which is February 22 under the new calendar, and this is the date which is officially recognized as his birthday by the U.S. government, in any event. --Sean 2015 03:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No. I disagree that it is likely to arouse much interest. It's just trivia, and WP:NOT a random collection of facts. Derex 04:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, about one out of every 365 people shares Washington's birthday. Two out of 365 if we use both his birthday by the old Julian calendar and the new Gregorian one. - Jmabel | Talk 21:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

What's up with the back and forth over the nomenclature used in the info box? If you want to be technical about it, Kennedy is the Senior United States Senator from Mass. I wouldn't leave out the U.S. part, because it could be confused with State Senators. Either way, let's come to a consensus and stop the edit warring. Thanks. /Blaxthos 21:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Has he lost weight?

He looks thinner lately. Anything is press? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.16 (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Chappaquiddick incident

It's becoming tiresome to try and keep both the sub article and the main article in sync. As someone mentioned previously, we should just have the main article point to the proper place. Done. Should the sub-article be a subpage instead of a seperate article (i.e. Ted Kennedy/Chappaquiddick incident instead of Ted Kennedy Chappaquiddick incident)? /Blaxthos 21:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There should at least be a summary of the sub section. Your example of the IBM article gives a brief summary of each linked sub article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with TDC. We can trim the section down, but there must be some discussion or summary of Chappadquiddick here. Gamaliel 22:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Point taken -- I'm in no way opposed to such, but the existing version was littered with POV and was out of sync with the parent article (probably due to too much detail). I'll find time to write a decent summary over the next few days, unless someone else wants to jump on it. /Blaxthos 22:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Three or four sentences, two describing the undeniable, undisputed facts, and one or two on the scandal. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you (some summary). Extremely sexy 00:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the current wording (I should... I believe it's the intro I did for the actual incident article ;-) ), however I've noticed someone tried to slip inebriated into the summary. It should be noted that notice was taken that there was never any evidence that the Senator was intoxicated; including such would be libelous. /Blaxthos 23:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gun control

You cannot state in this artcle that kennedy favors gun control when his bodyguard was caught with a gun in the capital building and kennedy tried to get the charges dropped. kennedy doesnt favor anything that affects him personally. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keltik31 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Please, see our original research policy and our neutral point of view policy. Reverted. /Blaxthos 22:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit stays as it is true. Keltik31 22:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is true, then you will have no problem finding a reliable source for the information. Until then editors will keep removing this material as per Wikipedia rules. Gamaliel 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I am removing this again. The cited article does not mention the National Rifle Association. It has a different title, mentions a different number of guns, and does not specify the ammount of ammo. I suspect the info and citation were both taken from Schweizer's unreliable book. But this is easily corrected now that we have a copy of the actual article, which I will email to anyone who requests it. The major problem is its inclusion in the "gun control" section. Placing it there is pushing the POV that his support of particular gun control measures is contradicted by his getting a bodyguard. I do not object to replacing this incident provided the context is also added (he hired Stein to protect his sisters on a South American trip) and it is not placed in the gun control section. Gamaliel 23:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy hiring a bodyguard, an armed one at that, is like a pro-life republican taking his mistress for an abortion. Ted Kennedy and his clan advocate gun control for everyone but themselves. It is relevant. It is documented. And it is going back in. Keltik31 00:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

and how is the book unreliable. the arrest is part of public record. Keltik31 00:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The book is unreliable because it is a tabloid hit piece. The book's inacurracies regarding Nancy Pelosi have already been debunked by ABC news and the author replied that it was "not my responsibility" to research his claims. Some reliable source there.
You haven't addressed the concerns I outlined above regarding the neutrality and accuracy of the material, and you have inserted the material without any source. I have no choice but to remove it again. Please, see Wikipedia:Three revert rule before you persist in reinserting the material. Gamaliel 00:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Became disorientated?

Gee, you people are easy on this guy. He was drunk when he went off that bridge and killed that girl. He is the only person to date that has driven off that bridge. Keltik31 13:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Judging by your past history, as well as your willingness to violate WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:3RR, I'm going to forego the WP:AGF, and let you know that POV-pushing original research/commentary isn't going to make it into the article. /Blaxthos 17:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
POV-pushing? Facts are facts: he did have an armed guard, he was arrested, and he was drunk when he drove off that bridge. POV doesn't void the truth. Keltik31 18:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Blah blah WP:RS, blah blah WP:V, blah blah WP:NPOV. But you've heard this before. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alcoholism

No mention at all in this article. I'm fairly sure that he admitted to being an alcoholic, and sought treatment. Can someone back this up? I vaguely remember it making a great deal of news (the treatment and admission). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.235.25 (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

I believe you're thinking of his son, who got in an auto accident a while back and went into some sort of rehab. /Blaxthos 09:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
If you have proof that he was drunk, present it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.80.20.181 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative energy

I've noticed the insertion and deletion of lengthy text in the alternative energy section. I've come to question its appropriateness -- I think that mentioning a single incident in a section dedicated to political views (especially the way it's worded) borders on violating WP:NPOV and definitely elevates the perceived importance of that one incident (undue weight). I am seeking other opinions before removing it entirely. Thanks. /Blaxthos 19:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep it - it was an issue in the last Mass Gov race, and Kennedy received quite a bit of press for it. As it is written, it's very balanced, even quite respectful towards him. 148.63.236.141 03:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, I raise WP:NPOV/WP:Recentism objection, especially regarding undue weight. /Blaxthos 05:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/d/Talk%7ETed_Kennedy_2e81.html"