Talk:Chappaquiddick incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chappaquiddick incident article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Unreferenced POV Claim

Did Kennedy ever notify police or did then Chief Arena send for Kennedy? Kennedy never reported the accident to authorities until he was summoned by Arena, nor did Gargan, Markham, or any of the boiler room girls. From the official transcript of the inquest of Monday, January 5, 1970 before Judge James A Boyle, Kennedy is questioned on page #62. THE COURT. I think the answer had been no. Q. [by Mr. Dinis] And now may I ask you, Mr. Kennedy, was there any reason why no additional assistance was asked for? A. Was there any reason? Q. Yes, was there any particular reason why you did not call the police or fire department? A. Well I intended to report it to the police.

Kennedy never initiated contact with police or fire immediately after the accident or the next morning. Kennedy was found by the Edgartown Police Chief Arena the next morning and questioned.

From Leo Damore's "Senatorial Privilege" paperback July 1989 printing, page 11, "I'm afraid I have some bad news," Arena said, "There's been another tragedy. Your car was in an accident over here. And the young lady is dead". "I know," Kennedy said.

Page 85, "Markham said later, "We hoped Ted was going to report the accident, but we didn't know for sure what he was going to do"

Kennedy never reported the accident before being contacted by the police. It was Chief Arena who sought him out—Preceding unsigned comment added by 18:01, 28 October 2006 (talk • contribs) 24.34.49.160

This isn't going to fly here anymore than it does on the Ted Kennedy article. Sock puppetry, unreliable sources, overly negative claims by an anonymous editor with an axe to grind. Furhter vandalism will result in protection, just as it did on the Ted Kennedy page. /Blaxthos 22:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


Unreliable sources? In court Kennedy said that he "intended" to contact the police. Hence he didn't contact them. Instead, he must have first been questioned by the police.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.58.255 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 19 January 2007

That would be original research, which is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. /Blaxthos 23:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Are the court transcripts confidential? The orignal poster said the "official transcript of the inquest of Monday, January 5, 1970 before Judge James A Boyle, Kennedy is questioned on page #62. " If that's true, how does that qualify as original research. A little confused. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.22.220.96 (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
The transcripts don't say what the editor alleges; he's drawing conclusions from what he's alleging the source says (transcript says X, so it must mean Z), which is the epitome of original research. /Blaxthos 18:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, Blaxthos, you are not familiar enough with Wikipedia's Original Research policy which refers "to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material." I assume you are attempting to draw on the second part here, since it IS published. However, drawing from a question posed: "was there any particular reason why you did not call the police or fire department?" and converting this into a non-question is not actually analysis.Kylesandell 04:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
But this is all pointless anyway, since we can use another source, TIME magazine's article (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,878649-3,00.html) published in 1970. Wikipedia's policy is to "rely on reliable published secondary sources" which this article most certainly is. Kylesandell 04:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Check

This article feels like it has a negative slant, and there seems to be a fair amount of liberty taken with the facts as well. I'm asking for a POV check instead of slapping totallydisputed tag. /Blaxthos 20:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's quite obvious that there's somethin' fishy going on with Ted and the whole "accident" thing. There really is only one way to show this article, and that's through the points of view of the people who accurately investigated this. → JARED (t)  02:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. One, your reply necessarily implies a point of view (by quoting "accident" and stating that it is obviously fishy). Two, those investigating the accident are not the only points of view involved -- obviously Kennedy, his lawyer, and ultimately the Court did not agree either. In any situation, there is not only one point of view (and hence the tag exists!). /Blaxthos 02:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I acknowledge that, but you also have to take into the account the credibility of Ted. He was drunk, probably lied (...who wouldn't) and a criminal's POV is usually not taken. Yes the court gave him a minimal sentence (which was suspended!) but that's only because he's a senator. I'm sure if it was just some regular old guy, he'd have been in jail for life, but that's just my opinion. → JARED (t)  02:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one, if you have a particular point of view on certain subjects, you should avoid editing them on Wikipedia. You're injecing your analysis (see WP:OR) and it reflects your point of view (see WP:NPOV). We should attempt to create a credible encyclopedia using reliable sources; we do not welcome editors who want to use their personal bias to influence decisions.

To your credit, I appluad your honesty about your point of view. However, there are certainly other interpretations of what happened. The court didn't feel that any criminal activity occured other than leaving the scene of the accident. Also, perhaps his sentence was suspended because it was his first and only offense. My whole point is that the article seems to convey the point of view you're pushing, which is exactly why I am requesting a review. Since you admit your obvious bias your review does not comply with WP:NPOV. /Blaxthos 03:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[The court and authorities were working with the info they had, which Kennedy and his many advisors and attorneys sought to limit / obfuscate, according to numerous sources. It was not Kennedy's first offense. In fact, his license was expired at the time, also (a misdemeanor), but this was 'corrected' by others. LAEsquire 02:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)LAEsquire]

I'll just leave you with the facts that (1) I have three times the edits that you do, so I obviously have a clear sense of policy (not saying you do not). (2) I was just showing my POV, but the truth is, there are more sources which support the opinion which I coincidentally share, which leads me to (3), that I don't recall ever editing this page, so nothing I've said physically reflects what's been put on the page, and if it does, it's because it's probably the best way to put it.
I applaud your decision to request a review, as any knowledgeable Wikipedian would do when there seems to be POV bias. With more experience, you may realize that some topics are intrinsically biased to a certain degree because that is what is generally accepted. A court case doesn't actually make one story better than another, although it can definitely be a good piece of evidence. I would, however, go ahead with the peer review. → JARED (t)  20:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. Edit counts don't really have much to do with the issue at hand, do they? I'm at a loss as to why you'd even want to look that up, much less use it to try and justify your position. I've been around Wikipedia for longer than you (by a fair margin) -- does that mean anything? Of course not... let's stick to the issues at hand.
  2. I'm not pushing any particular point of view; I'm trying to keep it neutral. You answered the request for a POV review by calling the Senator a criminal, insinuating that he was drunk (despite no evidence of such), and that we shouldn't trust the subject at all. What I find ironic is that you want to discredit "Ted" due to him being a "criminal" ("suspended sentence" not withstanding) and then in the same breath you want to ignore the same Court when it decided that there was no other culpable conduct. Having the cake and eating it too, no ?
  3. WP:BLP is very clear about POV and sourcing. I would also subject the sources you claim to have to WP:RS.
  4. "A court case doesn't actually make one story better than another, although it can definitely be a good piece of evidence. - I have no idea what this means.
  5. I make no claim that you've touched the article. My point is simply that if you're going to answer a call for POV check, please don't do so by trying to push your significantly biased point of view. If you can't do so while adhering to WP:NPOV by at least trying to be unbiased, then you shouldn't answer it at all.

IMHO. /Blaxthos 00:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just so that it doesn't look like I'm ignoring this, I'll respond to say that you should just go ahead and get the darned thing over with. I'll just remind you of WP:IAR. Sometimes, as I said, it may be better to leave a somewhat knowingly biased section in an article because it would be closer to the truth than any other NPOV source. I think that it is inappropriate to talk about our thoughts, though, so this would be a good time to call it quits. I apologize if I offended you at any point of this seemingly bitter conversation. My personal opinions kind of intervened (a little...). → JARED (t)  02:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really get bitter over things (especially wikipedia talk pages), and I apologize if I came across as such. You didn't offend me, and I guess we both exhibit some pretentiousness. However, I don't resort to edit-counting and WP:IAR when I think my viewpoint is the right one. What you've basically saying is that "it's okay to be biased because it's what I believe" -- even though the Courts are at odds with what you espouse as fact. Which do you think is in a better position to say -- people pushing an agenda, or our best efforts at an independant and accurate judiciary? The courts aren't always right, but you shouldn't jump to ignoring all rules (of which you'd have to ignore at least three of the most important) just to justify your point of view. Make some effort at being objective. Be it noted that (1) i'm simply asking for a non-biased evaluation (because I never take my own objectivity for granted); and (2) I respect the fact that you at least acknowledge your bias. No hard feelings. /Blaxthos 02:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Also the article says "According to the testimony of the surviving party-goers". When i read this first i thought it implied that all party goers were somehow involved in the accident. I assume however that the testimonies of the other party-goers were taken immediately after the accident become known. In other words, isn't "surviving" in this context a weasel word? 194.248.249.199 (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

All the surviving partygoers testified at the inquest: their testimony was eventually made public. Obviously, Kopechne could not testify as she was dead. I suppose we could have said, "According to the testimony of the party-goers other than Kopechne", but "surviving partygoers" seemed a more elegant phrase. Grover cleveland (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "POV Check" question

Please, could you make a specific point about the POV check request. Do you have a specific part of the article that you take issue with? What I have seen so far is you simply saying you "feel it has a negative slant" and then arguing with some people. They might be biased, but the article is not. If you have nothing more specific than that, it seems that the point is moot. I personally see no slant— only facts are presented as such, speculation is referred to as speculation. Also, if anyone is really interested in finding more information there are reliable sources to be had. (Try http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,878649-3,00.html for a start) I would not consider myself to have any more knowledge of the incident than anyone else (I most certainly know less than those of you editing the article), nor am I very interested in it, so I don't see myself adding or editing right now on this article. I just don't like that unfounded "Unreferenced POV Claim". Kylesandell 05:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That template has been on the article since November. I originally placed the template after a major cleanup effort, just to be sure. I had hoped at the time there was some roving band of POV-checkers (as so many people claim to be) who would follow these templates to the articles upon which they were placed and check them against WP:NPOV. Apparently my understanding of How Things Work was somewhat flawed, however we've had numerous editors stop by and offer their counsel on various matters relating to POV. For the most part, as you have noted, the article seems to be well within WP:NPOV; template removed per your suggestion (and others'). /Blaxthos 09:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broadcast official statement copyvio

I have removed the 'Broadcast official statement' section from the article page because it appears to be a violation of copyright of the material at [1], which says at the borrom of the page, "Copyright Status: Text, Audio, Image = Restricted, seek permission." -- Donald Albury 14:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time of day?

At what time of day did the incident alledgedly occur? And where were Kennedy and Kopechne headed for? Was there a respectable and plausible destination given, or were they joyriding? Thanks, Maikel 15:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have found the relevant information in the article on Mary Jo Kopechne. Maikel 15:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

1115p Kennedy said in a statement: ""On July 18, 1969, at approximately 11:15 PM in Chappaquiddick, Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, I was driving my car on Main Street on my way to get the ferry back to Edgartown. I was unfamiliar with the road and turned right onto Dike Road, instead of bearing hard left on Main Street.". Others say it was more like 1245a. - Kennedy's story didn't add up, because he said he was unfamiliar with the road, which he wasn't, and he said he was trying to get somewhere that was in the opposite direction. http://www.ytedk.com/chapter2.htm < Not sure why this site isn't listed as a link or source; it's got more info and docs on the incident than any other site on the web. LAEsquire 02:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)LAEsquire

[edit] Proposed wikiproject

I created a proposal for a new wikiproject to deal with political scandals and controversies. The idea would be to try to get a group of people involved in making sure that current and past political scandals were accurately stated and sourced on wikipedia. Anybody that is interested can sign up at [2]. Remember 14:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drunk

Should it not be noted that many think Kennedy was drunk, thus casuing him to drive off the bridge?--68.192.188.142 05:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Not unless there is more than speculation (which there is not). See our biographies of living persons policy, as well as the need for reliable sources and attribution. /Blaxthos 08:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the speculation that he was drunk be mentioned in the Impact or Significance sections? The implications of the scandal affecting the '72 elections make it seem noteworthy enough to expand on the public (and thus speculatory) perception of the event, not to mention it's historical impact upon Kennedy's career at large.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.211.173 (talk)

Did you take a look at the policies that Blaxthos referred to, above? I have been unable to find one reliable source that says (or even speculates) that he was drunk. We have to be careful with biographies of living persons. Innuendo will not cut it. Sunray 09:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
We do not speculate. We are an encyclopedia. /Blaxthos 17:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Reporting that many, many other people have speculated is certainly not the same as offering an unqualified speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.114.140 (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the word you're looking for is libel. Please see WP:BLP and the multiple explainations above. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Saying that Ted Kennedy was drunk at the time is libel, saying people have speculated that he was is an entirely true statement.--68.84.186.169 (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't know anything about this incident, and I was very confused while reading the article. I didn't understand why voters would choose not to vote for Kennedy just because he got into a car accident. Was it because they thought he was drunk? If so, shouldn't that be mentioned? Maybe there is some other reason; if so, can someone knowledgeable please put that into the article? 68.73.153.128 (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm - because he left a girl to die rather than call the police? In any case, he got re-elected to the Senate several times (and is still there today). Grover cleveland (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually one of the books, I think Senatorial privilege, calculates on the basis of the inquest testimony (including Kennedy's own) that Kennedy had consumed a huge amount of alcohol in the 24 hours before the incident. If anyone can find the refs for this, it could be included as long as attributed per WP:NPOV. I may try myself if I have time. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Autopsy

As I read this article, I find myself asking why no autopsy was performed. 75.82.208.152 02:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC) My name failed to appear 75.82.208.152 02:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC) I'll try again 75.82.208.152 02:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Oops, my login had timed out. LorenzoB 02:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not autopsy was performed? Because there was no evidence that an autopsy was required and, most likely, also because the body was already buried. Autopsies tend to only be performed if the cause of death was unknown or in the case of a homicide. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I believe in most jurisdictions, any death that does not occur in a hospital or under the care of a physician is a coroner's case, and could be taken to autopsy. Most of the time, although a death may not occur as in the above situations, the death is so clearly not an instance of foul play (for example, an elderly, ill person dying at home in their sleep), that autopsies are usually not done. In the Kennedy case, however, the cause of death was most certainly not known. She was found under water, but this was a violent death witnessed only by a man who fled the scene. Nothing points inescapably to death by drowning. Nobody examined her for bullet wounds, knife wounds, evidence of strangulation or contusions, or for the presence of pregnancy (the latter a possible motive for a slaying). I can think of no other instance where such a situation would not result in a forensic study including autopsy. Only the powerful Kennedy family could have manipulated the situation to avoid an autopsy, and we have to wonder why. If nothing else, an autopsy which confirmed death by drowning would have silenced many a conspiracy theorist.Cd195 (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
In any case, the talk page is not a forum for discussing the topic, but rather a place to discuss improving the article. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
According to the article (which cites Bly for this statement), it was Kopechne's family that refused an autopsy, not the "powerful Kennedy family". --Dystopos (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why no mention of the BBC documentary?

The theory it puts forward, that Kennedy was not in the car, is too credible to ignore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.108.243 (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have citable references on this, please add it. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comments: Improper source

A user has requested comment on biography for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCbio list}}.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.

Please consider the following text:

On November 4, 1979, CBS presented a one-hour special entitled "Teddy", during which the journey from the cottage to Dike Bridge was retraced by a car-mounted camera. As the car makes a sharp turn off the main road toward the bridge, the camera jumped up and down because of the rougher surface of the new road. According to one account, this suggested to viewers that Kennedy could not have been telling the truth when he said that he was unaware that he had taken a wrong turn. This was one factor that led to Carter defeating Kennedy for the nomination.

This paragraph has been repeatedly re-inserted based on the following reference:

  • Jamieson, Kathleen Hall (1996). Packaging The Presidency: A History and Criticism of Presidential Campaign Advertising, 3rd edition, New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195089421. 

I am concerned about its inclusion for the following reasons:

  1. WP:BLP - The source is accusing a sitting United States Senator of lying, in opposition to the facts as adjudicated by the court. The innuendo of "suggested to viewers" is absolutely not strong enough to support the accusation contained therein.
  2. WP:RS - While books may be reliable sources, this is a non-peer reviewed source. When coupled with the WP:BLP concerns this doesn't rise to the level necessary to support the allegation.
  3. WP:UNDUE - This source is three pages in a nonfiction book on an entirely different topic (Criticism of Presidential Campaign Advertising). To use it as justification to include innuendo and improper conclusions gives it both too much weight and too much credibility (on this topic).
  4. post hoc, ergo propter hoc - The included text supposes a conclusion ("This was one factor that led to Carter defeating Kennedy for the nomination.") that the source, without actual relevant research, cannot conclude.

In conclusion, I do not believe this material is suitable for inclusion. Comments requested. Thanks in advance. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Judge Boyle concluded that he was lying. This is just another reference. In addition, it isn't really the book that is the reference, it's the CBS show. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Blaxthos. I think the root of the problem is that this quote isn't about Kennedy's actions at Chappaquiddick per se: it's about the effect that Chappaquiddick had on his subsequent political career.
  1. The source does not accuse Sen. Kennedy of lying. It claims that a television program suggested to its viewers that Kennedy had told an untruth. This is not the same as claiming directly that the senator told an untruth. In fact it is quite clear that the Roger Mudd, the presenter of that show, believed that Kennedy lied and tried to convey this impression to viewers, as the following quote (Jamieson p. 380-381) shows: If you're a journalist and you go up to Martha's Vineyard and you take that trip you come back knowing that he's lied, and when you have somebody who wants to be president of the United States and you know he's lying, you go for the Holy Grail. If you feel that it would clarify the matter we could include the entire quote in the article.
  2. I really don't see how you can have a problem with this source. Its author is a Professor at the University of Pennsylvania. It is recommended by the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. It is published by Oxford University Press. It's now in its third edition, and has been reviewed in multiple academic journals. It seems to meet just about every criterion imaginable for a reliable source.
  3. I think the source quite clearly states that the Chappaquiddick TV coverage damaged Kennedy's campaign for the 1980 Democratic nomination. It describes the two parts of the CBS special as "two of the most politically damaging segments ever to air on national television". (p. 380). It then continues in the next paragraph, talking about the Iran hostage crisis, "The second event that dramatically tipped the presidential popularity scales in Carter's behalf" (p. 381), clearly implying that the CBS TV show was the first such event. Grover cleveland (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Frist RfC response: It seems to me this broadcast was at least significant enough to merit mention in the article because (1) There weren't that many channels back then, and one program was often viewed by millions. TV was much more influential in those times; and (2) Because there seems to be some evidence that this program actually did have influence. That said, if the program really was that influential, we should have more than one source to substantiate that impact - not just one. And more than one should definitely be used, since the assertion in this article is that this contributed to a political loss. Without more than one source, I would remove the information. Otherwise, keep the information. Another issue is this sentence: "This was one factor that led to Carter defeating Kennedy for the nomination." This statement is an opinion. Wikipedia does not have opinions - EVER. Wikipedia, when appropriate, does report the notable opinions or consensus of respected or famous individuals. So, this sentence needs to first be removed, never to return. Two, if this opinion is notable (not necessarily true or even credible, just notable), then we need to find sourcES (plural) to substantiate it. The reason we need multiple is because the assertion, again, is far too grand for simply one source.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I am confident that more sources can be found if necessary. Give me a day or so... Grover cleveland (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OUTSIDE OPINION I basically agree with the above comment. The last sentence is pure synthesis. If a source were given, it would need to state it in a way like "some attributed this to Kennedy's loss to Carter". If uncited, it should go. The rest appears to be fine. We can use information from a book that isn't completely about this incident, as long as the source says what it's claimed to say. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Suggested rewrite

In light of the concerns expressed above about WP:SYN and the request to add more sources, here is a proposed rewrite of the section:

Kennedy challenged incumbent President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination in the 1980 U.S. presidential election. On November 4, 1979, CBS aired a one-hour television special entitled "Teddy" presented by Roger Mudd. The program consisted of an interview with Kennedy, interspersed with visuals. Much of the show was devoted to the Chappaquiddick incident.[1] During the interview Mudd repeatedly questioned Kennedy about the incident, and at one point the interviewer said "Kennedy, you know, you were drinking, you lied, and you covered up!"[1] Mudd also asked Kennedy "Do you think, Senator, that anybody will ever believe your explanation for Chappaquiddick?"[2] In one of the visual segments the journey from the cottage to Dike Bridge was retraced by a car-mounted camera.[3] As the car made a sharp turn off the main road toward the bridge, the camera jumped up and down to indicate the rougher surface of the new road.[3] This segment was juxtaposed with interview footage of Kennedy claiming that he turned off the main road by mistake.[3] "Teddy" is credited by several sources with inflicting serious political damage on Kennedy.[4][5][6][3] The Senator went on to lose the nomination to Carter.

  1. ^ a b Barry, p. 182
  2. ^ Bly, p. 246
  3. ^ a b c d Jamieson, p. 379
  4. ^ Barry, p. 188
  5. ^ Boller, Paul F (2004). Presidential Campaigns: From George Washington to George W. Bush. Oxford University Press, p. 355. ISBN 0195167163. 
  6. ^ Baughman, James L. The Republic of Mass Culture: Journalism, Filmmaking, and Broadcasting in America since 1941. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, p. 169. ISBN 0801883156. 
Oppose as written - The entire presentation (most especially the cherry-picking of quotes that are accusatory, the lack of the Senator's responses, and the diction in general) seems intentionally designed to give a decidedly negative point of view, specifically prohibited by WP:NPOV. Better sourcing improves some of the claims made (particularly the supposition that the incident had an influence on the outcome of Kennedy's presidential campaign), however the way this information is presented is far from neutral. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
But the Barry book makes it clear that the whole TV show was designed to give a "negative point of view" on Kennedy. There was very little positive material about Kennedy included in it. For example, video footage of Kennedy and his wife together at a sporting occasion was undercut by verbal commentary suggesting that their marriage was fake. Kennedy's responses to Mudd's Chappaquiddick questions, if there were any, don't seem to have been recorded in the available literature. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We should avoid exclusively using (and over-relying on) material that presents only one side of an issue. Barry (and the show) may have a negative POV, but Wikipedia certainly may not. By choosing to include only (or mostly) negatively slanted information, we guarantee that our presentation will likewise have a certain slant (something we should strive to avoid). My suggestion would be to trim out some of the gory details and superfluous information that serves only to spin this (for example, the extremely subjective quotes). The TV show (and possibly the literature quoted) were designed to be negative... they are opinion pieces. We shouldn't rely on explicitly biased material to write an encyclopedia. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to emphasize once again that this section of the article is not about the Chappaquiddick incident per se (which is covered earlier in the article), but about the effect it had on Kennedy's subsequent political career. The TV program about Kennedy, a large portion of which was devoted to Chappaquiddick, is widely sourced as inflicting serious political damage on the Senator. It seems to me that an article can describe how this damage happened even though the TV program itself may have been biased against Kennedy. Reporting the questions Roger Mudd asked on TV, when these seem to be highly notable and are reported in the relevant literature, is important not because of how Kennedy answered them, but because they were the means by which the damage was inflicted. Consider a parallel case: in the article Watergate scandal the question "What did the President know, and when did he know it?" is reported because it was a highly notable quote from the Congressional hearings on the scandal, and caused serious political damage to Nixon. The reply from John Dean or the Nixon administration, if there ever was one, is not given in the article. It would be absurd to demand that this Watergate quote be stricken from the article in the name of NPOV. Indeed, I don't see anything in the WP:NPOV policy that explains why the quotes from Mudd violate the policy in the first place. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)