Talk:Ted Kennedy/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 |
Archive 4
| Archive 5 →


Contents

User:Jpgordon reported for 3RR

Since Jpgordon has not submitted himself for the 3RR violation as I had hoped (but not really expected, although it SHOULD have happened). I have filed it.--Silverback 08:45, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

yes, but techinically we should block all IPs involved as there is more than enough evidence to suggest it is just one person "gaming the system". I will let it go this time but any further use of multiple IPs to revert to the same revision more than 3 times in 24 hours on this page will be considered a 3RR violation on my standards. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 18:45, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comment

I was invited to "help" on this article by 24.147.97.230....not sure why...must think I am interested in combative situations here just because I was so heavily involved in the George W. Bush article. Anywho, just read through the article and it seems to cover the subject matter with more bad news than good...why isn't there a listing of major bills and legislation passed? Perhaps some of the sentence structure could be worked on. However, as a strong supporter of Wikipedia:Accountability, I am not a strong supporter of anon contributions but I am also opposed to locking pages....if they are problems, perform WP:3RR or hope for semi-protection in which only registered users can edit hotly contested articles as this one seems to have been off and on.--MONGO 20:24, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • This is what happens when a single editor fails to understand the nature of consensus and editing on Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Consensus on wikipedia is a complex, non-linear phenomena probably covering several academic disciplines. Not all consensi or components of consensi deserve respect, even when understood.--Silverback 21:13, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Consensus is a fourth-declension Latin noun. Its Latin plural is consensus. Robert McClenon 22:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Wow, and sometimes people call me pedantic.  :) JamesMLane 23:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Diverging from Latin to Greek for a moment, shouldn't Silverback have used phenomenon instead of phenomena? JamesMLane 23:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, if he uses it with a singular indefinite article (as he did). Robert McClenon 23:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
My bad.--Silverback 01:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
I would imagine that 24.147.97.230 turned to you because I refused to intervene after I previously intervened on his behalf (although eventually not in his favor). I suspect that if you refuse to help him accomplish his goals, he'll go looking for yet another friendly Wikipedian to do the same thing. Kelly Martin 00:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Kelly Martin , I contacted you in accordance with wiki policy. I had thought you were inpartial and fair. I am surprised to see you have a bias on this issue. As to contacting any other wiki members, isn't that what helps solves these issues? I am starting to think that Wikipedia is controlled by the left wing folks and will never be respected as impartial, and that's fine as long as everyone knows what is going on here.

I chose to refuse to mediate this conflict on the grounds that I felt that mediation would not benefit the encyclopedia. It's quite evident to me from your conduct that your intention is not the benefit the encyclopedia, but rather to serve your fetish with Ted Kennedy. And I wish no part in that. This has very little to do with my political beliefs (I've never cared for Ted Kennedy all that much, although I certainly don't see him as the spawn of Satan either) and far more to do with my feelings about how I can best benefit Wikipedia. Kelly Martin 06:24, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
As I tried to say, I don't think much of Teddy kennedy myself, but I don't completely disagree with all his efforts. For a Senator that has been in office so long, the article seems to argue and counterargue mostly the controversies of his career...surely there have been other things he has done. I know if I were him, I would want an encyclopedia to tell people about WHAT legislation I have passed, the political fights waged for the voters, were their any serious oppositions for his senate seat....etc. I simply don't see the article as a well written piece...not that I am an expert by any means.--MONGO 06:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Questions as to Encyclopedic Relevance

The William Kennedy Smith trial is a necessary part of any biography of William Kennedy Smith. It is not applicable to Ted Kennedy unless a connection is made that I do not see.

I would suggest that the following questions should be asked:

  • Has there been any reliable statement that Kennedy's alcohol use in the past twenty years has affected his performance as a Senator?
Slurred speech affects his ability to communicate, most reports of this have been in speeches to constituents, not on the Senate floor. He authority to sit in judgement of Clinton was questioned, and he had to take a background role because of the appearance of hypocrisy. Missed votes during his testimony at the trial can probably be documented.--Silverback 00:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Has there been any reliable statement that Kennedy's alcohol use in the past twenty years created a risk to the safety of other persons? Chappaquidick, in which his alcohol use probably was factor in a death, is addressed adequately in the article.
There is some risk with the poppers and cocaine that introduced a 17 year old girl to. Does it really have to be alcohol related? --Silverback 00:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Has there been any reliable statement that the problems of any other members of the Kennedy family have affected Ted Kennedy's performance as a Senator, either by causing him to use his influence improperly or otherwise?
Damage to his reputation, missed votes, etc. --Silverback 00:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Any such claims published by reputable sources should be addressed.

Unless any of those questions can be answered "Yes", then I question the encyclopedic relevance of the material. Robert McClenon 23:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The questions of course should be extended to other drugs, not just alcohol, and also to whether the damage these behaviors have done to his reputation, not merely effected his performance as Senator, but his viability as a presidential candidate. --Silverback 00:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion above about this exact issue... Sasquatch↔讲↔看 23:40, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


The fact that you can create a set of questions does not contribute to the validity of your argument. I can create 4 questions and make a statement as to a conclusion also. This means nothing. You can't change history. Ted was involved and was part of the trial. That's part of his career and history. It's not like he wasn't there or didn't prod the others to go drinking and then parade around without pants on. That's what happened. No need to hide it from the public, most people already know. This is for the ones who don't. Why keep it from them> 00:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
This is preposterous. "Ted was involved." You make it sound like he was a conspirator in something. That may be your POV but he was involved in the sense that he gave testimony. I haven't even seen anything to suggest that any other witness contested the accuracy of his testimony. As for all the vague stuff Silverback raises, the things that "can probably be documented", maybe they can and maybe they can't. This particular incident, however, is that Kennedy was with two relatives and a whole bunch of other people having a convivial time in a public bar. That's it. There is nothing in this "material" (if it even rises to that level) that sheds the slightest bit of light on alleged slurred speech, nothing about Kennedy's use of alcohol endangering others, nothing about poppers, nothing about cocaine, and nothing about 17-year-old girls. This amounts to saying, "Other allegations have been made about Kennedy, so we don't need to worry about trivialities like accuracy or documentation or relevance -- he's become a free-fire zone." Yeah, maybe he missed some votes. I'll bet Bob Dole missed a heck of a lot more just in the first few months of the next year, when he was running for President before his resignation from the Senate. Shall we go through every Wikipedia article about a U.S. Senator and include something about all his or her missed votes? or is that datum relevant only when it serves someone's anti-Kennedy POV? This also answers the comments below. Premise, the trial was famous (because the media made it a circus); conclusion, it was a notable event in the career of a major public figure who happened to give testimony. Sorry, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. JamesMLane 01:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
That's like saying we should NOT include information about Clinton's impeachment, because the oral sex and the perjury were "trivial". In Kennedy's case, yes his private behavior in this incident may be trivial, but it is factual, and highly publicized, and confirmed and renewed the damage to this major figures reputation caused by his private life. Are you supporting McLenon's standard of relevance, that if it doesn't effect his performance as Senator then it isn't relevant? I'd like to see you apply that standard in the Bush article, there is a lot there that doesn't impact his performance as president and was just publicized to besmirch his reputation, and not just stuff about his relatives.--Silverback 01:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
I may have to stop editing this page, if the arguments continue to get more and more ridiculous. I don't want to have to go back on my blood pressure medication.
I've always made clear the standard I support: notability in the life of the subject of the article, including but not limited to performance of public duties. Clinton's impeachment was a notable event in Clinton's life and so it should be covered in the Clinton article (even though, yes, it was trumped up over trivialities). Bush's DUI was a notable event in Bush's life (and was not trumped up), so it should be covered in the Bush article. By contrast, the activities of Neil Bush, Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, Jenna Bush, and William Kennedy Smith could be covered in their respective articles, but are not notable enough in the lives of their famous relatives to merit coverage in the relatives' articles. Is that so hard to understand?
Among all those episodes, in fact, the strongest case for inclusion is the Bush girls' underage drinking. Bush has been a Governor and President, but he's also a father. That role is an important aspect of his life. He can't be held fully accountable for everything his children do, but if at age 19 they engage in documented misconduct, and receive (low-level) criminal penalties as a result, some readers would consider that worth knowing. Smith, by contrast, was Kennedy's nephew, not child, and was acquitted of the charges against him. Now, I think it would be only fitting if you and the other people who keep campaigning for this rubbish were to answer some straightforward questions: Should the information about Neil Bush's financial malfeasance, Laura Bush's driving record, and the Bush twins' underage drinking be included in the George W. Bush article? Should the article on Henry Kissinger mention that he testified in a highly publicized trial, the suit by Carol Burnett against the National Enquirer? I say no to all this stuff. JamesMLane 02:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
No to Neil Bush's malpheasance. I've never heard of Laura Bush's driving record. Yes, to the twin's drinking under age, reflect on him as a father, and gave him some bad publicity, and to the extent they got light treatment or off because of the financial resources or political pull of the family. It reflects on Kennedy's character as an uncle that he instigated a night of carousing with his son and nephew. Its no suprise that a family that winks at reckless partying has developed members that go to far. What is a surprise, is that someone such a Ted, doesn't have the will or judgement to correct it, even after it has been exposed and cost him several times.--Silverback 02:55, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure how a person's willingness to go carousing reflects on anyone's character, nor how it relates to the fact that one of the carousers may or may not have been a rapist. I've been carousing many, many times, and I don't think that makes me a lesser person than someone who swears of the firewater, nor does it make me a potential rapist. Gamaliel 03:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
And on it goes. Facts in the real world: The three men were out socializing, they went to some bars, they had some drinks, they came home. Fact as it gets translated by Silverback: The family "winks at reckless partying". Forgive me for sounding like a broken record here, but the trial and acquittal of Smith does not involve the slightest iota of evidence that Ted Kennedy, the subject of this article, was involved in any reckless partying. The leap to "reckless" is pure POV by people who don't like Kennedy -- in Silverback's case, because Kennedy is against legalizing heroin and polygamy (!). Yes, Kennedy has been attacked a lot by Republicans, and, yes, his family's prominence has been exploited for profit by our disreputable media, but I repeat that those facts don't make him a free-fire zone. This is still an encyclopedia. The only thing "reckless" here is the disregard for the standards that would be automatically applied in any other article -- even Bush's. JamesMLane 05:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
How can any neutral person suggest that a description of Ted Kennedy's actions relating to the William Kennedy Smith Rape incident doesn't belong in his own article? The William Kennedy Smith Rape trial is the most highly publicized rape case in United States history and Ted Kennedy was right in the middle of it. To remove references to his connection to the incident -- and his negative behaviour-- is blatant POV. I will revert to put that section back in as soon as I can. It absolutely deserves mention.--Agiantman 00:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Was Ted Kennedy at Palm Beach during the rape? Did Ted Kennedy walk around the house with guests present with no pants on? Was Ted Kennedy put on the stand in this trial of William Kennedy Smith? If you can find any of these true than you must include the rape incident on this page. Logic provided by Robert McClenon 24.147.97.230 00:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
user Agiantman makes a very valid point, this was one the most famous rape trials in US history. A search for famous rape trials in Google returns a referance to this trial as the 3rd hit. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=famous+rape+trials&btnG=Search 24.147.97.230 01:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
So one sentence should suffice. "For details of the William French Smith rape trial, see William French Smith." Because, given Kennedy's almost half century in the Senate, this is very low on the list of important events. Or is there some sort of theory I'm missing here regarding the culpability of one's uncle when one is accused (falsely, as far as the jury was concerned) of rape? Nope. This is Kennedy-haters attempting to impose a POV. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
JamesMLane, I believe that the trial should be mentioned because of all the attentioned that it generated, some of which focused on Ted Kennedy. I do however believe that it should be VERY brief because this article is about TED KENNEDY, and God knows that a lot of articles could have pages of additional section devouted to what happened to their siblings or parents, nephews, ect...The George Bush examples you gave don't have enough prominence to deserve being mentioned in an article about Bush. But I see where you are coming from, and it is kind of sad that the media decides what is important(Kennedy's brother's trial) and what's not(Bush family issues/corruption). Unfortunetely, the "prominence test" is the best thing we've got when it comes to things that don't really have to do with the person the article is about, but that he/she just got sucked into by the media.Voice of All(MTG) 02:41, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Pretty much irrelevant to Ted Kennedy. Drop it. Gzuckier 02:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Solution

For those who support the inclusion of this as it is NPOV in your opinion, you would also therefore support ths inclusion of information about George W. Bush's alcoholism and his Jenna's repeated arrests in the George W. Bush aritcle right? Afterall, it is only fair. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 03:24, August 8, 2005 (UTC) That was more or less irrelevant to the discussion at hand, see below for the good stuff. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 04:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

yup, someone's definatly missing the point, this is wiki, npov is generally accepted as pro-bush, and anti-people-who-aren't-bush.. therefore by the generally accepted definition of npov, only comments insulting to democrats, and praising republicans, can be considered neutral, anything else and they'll consider you part of the liberal media, which exists, somewhere, or so I'm told by all the republicans on my TV on a nightly basis--172.142.111.56 12:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Just for the record, I have no problem with notes of George Bush's past drug abuse. It's commonly known that he used at least cocaine. Jenna's arrest? I'm ok with that too. If it is true,..and it is, why not post it? I happen to think George is a great president, but he has a background that includes drug abuse. I'm all for posting anything that is true. 24.147.97.230 04:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
No, there is no proof that Bush used cocaine...there is strong evidence, but not proof, that he did use grass...there is strong evidence and such things as a DUI conviction that Bush drank a lot...he even said so...but no evidence that he was an alcoholic...just a person who drank a lot (for those that don't know, alcoholism and drinking a lot are not the same thing)....As far as Kennedy goes, is there proof he was or is an alcoholic? Drinking a lot, partying with friends, etc.....does not mean alcoholism.--MONGO 07:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
See my post to JamesMLane above. I want a brief and fair inclusion. I think that the old section was POV and made no sense(I was thinking "huuuuuuuh?") so you were right to delete it. You SHOULD NOT however have locked the page to get in the "last word" ESPECIALLY when a poll is going on. Isn't wikipedia about consensus, about people chosing what they want. I could understand if you were locking out vandalism but that is just not the case. Please add in:
The Senator was involved in the rape trial of William Kennedy Smith in 1991, having took the stand during the trial.[1]
This is an NPOV, fair inclusion of the incident.Voice of All(MTG) 03:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
That seems like a fair compromise to me. I don't think anyone can truly object to that. If this seems fair to everyone else I will unprotect the page and let people start editing again. I am not going to edit the page again as User:Silverback has raised quite a ruckus about doing so even though it was to delete what most people considered blatant POV. Again, is this compromise acceptable to all parties involved? I honestly don't really know enough about the issue at hand to care but I respect WP:NPOV as part of WP:TRI more so than than any other rules on Wikipedia. I am not trying to get the last word in as I said before: I am a Canadian and not attached to this issue at all so all my judgement are much less biased then that of the people arguing on this page and I started the "poll" to see where we are at. The discussions are just getting too long to follow closely. But anyways, lets just agree on this and get this whole thing over with. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 04:21, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
(Should it be "took" or "taken"?) Yeah, this seems just right. A brief mention, and a pointer to where a more complete discussion might ensue (and I imagine the William Kennedy Smith page would be most appropriate). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
The Senator was involved in the rape trial of William Kennedy Smith in 1991, having taken the stand during the trial.[2]
How does that look now? Sasquatch↔讲↔看 04:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
How about, The Senator took the stand in the rape trial of his nephew William Kennedy Smith in 1991. Any details can go in the William Kennedy Smith article (should someone care to write it.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


Proposed working Proposal

"The Senator took the stand in the rape trial of his nephew,
William Kennedy Smith in 1991."

What do you guys think?Voice of All(MTG) 05:06, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Doesn't need the "accused of no wrongdoing"; people taking the stand in other people's trials rarely are accused of wrongdoing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
No, I don't think it explains the scandal that surrounded the incident. Needs something, like "After a night of barhopping and partying with his son and William Kennedy Smith, his nephew, was accused of rape and later acquitted. Ted Kennedy testified at the trial, and details of his scandlous private life were made public." How, much is needed depends on how the writing of the context goes. If more of the scandals of his private life are discussed earlier like I have proposed, then this section would mainly serve to indicate that it became public that his life style was still continuing. It might all finish up with reports of how he has turned his private life and career around, perhaps per Jmabel's citation.--Silverback 05:32, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Saying that he was barhopping and partying is in itself a tad POV along with saying that his private life was scandolous. Remember, the rape trial concerned William Kennedy Smith more than Ted Kennedy. I have to agree it is irrelevant in this article though William Kennedy Smith has yet to have an article. Again, remember we are trying to remove ALL POV and keeping it neutral. I have editted a tad above to include "allegation were made about his lifestyle" no need to comment on what it is as that would push this more POV. How does it look now? It doesn't shed him into a bad light and presents the clear fact that he was involved. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:37, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
I added a comma and the word "scandalous" to summarize the allegations. How is it now?Voice of All(MTG) 05:49, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
I think there can be this type of criticism of any attempt at summary. Although, I don't think my summary is unfair, others can argue that not only is it POV, but it also violates NOR, because the summarizing conclusion "barhopping" (from the two bars) and "partying" (from the drinking and women) is original research. This would indicated the impossibility of getting the relvant facts in without actually taking more lines to relay the facts. Note that the Jmabel citation, also characterizes his general behavior as partying, which his critics would probably consider an understatement.--Silverback 05:52, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Well let's just link to the article he provides somewhere in External links. I think it is a fair article and users looking for such information will be able to find it. It seems that we have all cooled down, there are no loud objections to it and it seems fair to me. Let's all just agree to a) respect 3rr on all sides b) reword rather than delete and c) if any new dispute arises, take it to the talk page first before you start an edit war. If we all agree on those principles I will have more than enough faith to unprotect this article and let you guys work on the rest. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 06:08, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
I deleted the original section because it was too heavily POVed, in my opinion, to be included on this encyclopedia. Again, this event happened and therefore can deserve mention in this article in a NPOV manner without tilting the article. Just try to work with us here. I'm trying to appease both the critics and supporters, which is more than difficult, and I believe that this is the best solution for all involved. I'm trying to be like Wilfrid Laurier and conciliate both parties to some sort of agreement and reach an eventual compromise which should be the right thing to do. I apologize to anyone offended by my actions but I think I have helped somewhat. Just try to make suggestions on the compromise as there is no clear consensus to remove it but a clear consensus to make it as NPOV possible. Anyways, I'm off to bed for now. If this is solved, you can leave a note on my talk page and I will unprotect this page in the morning. If not, I'll check back here to see how the discussions are going. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 06:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Exactly how does one "reword rather than delete" if one's sincere opinion is that the entire subject is inappropriate and pure POV? Rewording to something like "Kennedy spent part of 1991 in Florida" seems a trifle disingenuous. JamesMLane 06:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I think that "The Senator took the stand in the rape trial of his nephew William Kennedy Smith in 1991, where scandalous allegations were made about his lifestyle." is the best. But where will it go? It can't be its own section. I guess it goes in Family and youth.Voice of All(MTG) 06:22, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Your wording, taken literally, means that the allegations themselves were scandalous -- for example, that allegations were made with no basis in fact, simply to smear Kennedy or to exploit his celebrity status to sell magazines. That's probably true, but it would be POV for us to point out that the conduct of the media was despicable. Of course, regardless of what words you use, seizing on a minor aspect of the Smith trial would be POV.
With regard to Sasquatch's comment above, it's true that, if we were to take the "poll" results so far, reflecting in part the anon's attempt to recruit supporters, as definitive, then there would be no consensus to remove the reference to the trial. There would also, however, be no consensus to include it. On VfD, absence of consensus means that the article stays, but I've never heard of any such principle being applied to the question of including particular material within an article. JamesMLane 10:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I was afraid it would be interpreted that way. How is this:
"The Senator took the stand in the rape trial of his nephew,
William Kennedy Smith in 1991."

OK, back to how I had it origionally, NOBODY can argue with THAT. Voice of All(MTG) 06:22, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

So, in the course of Smith's trial, person or persons unnamed made statements about Kennedy's level of drinking and partying. Those levels were characterized as "excessive" by person or persons unnamed (maybe the same one(s), maybe not; either way, we don't know whose POV is being presented in the word "excessive"). Whether there was any relationship between these alleged allegations and the actual issues at the trial is not stated. Whether the person or persons unnamed had any factual basis for their allegations is not stated.
And, uh, all this is encyclopedic how?
For comparison, let's consider that allegations about George W. Bush's fundamental personality (not his partying habits), appearing in published works by named sources with relevant professional credentials, specifically setting forth the facts on which they relied to support their conclusions, have been censored out of the George W. Bush article on the stated basis that it "would make us look tabloidish to include it." JamesMLane 15:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
See my above post(modified)Voice of All(MTG) 15:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
It's generally better not to make a substantial change in a previously proposed version after someone's commented on it. The problem is that the comments (mine, in this case) can then look completely off the wall to a reader who doesn't dive into the page history. Nobody needs to bother trying to untangle this particular instance, because I'm so totally disgusted by this whole episode that fixing this point doesn't matter to me. In the future, though, if you want to change something you've proposed, just add the new version after the comments on the old one.
As to the substance, your new version makes it abundantly clear that the sentence doesn't belong. Kennedy testified in a trial. There were a lot of cameras and microphones at the trial, but that doesn't mean that this testimony was important in his life. He's faced cameras and microphones before. JamesMLane 16:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Work with us here. It appears quite a few users want the trial to be mentioned and we should respect that. It is a fact that he testified at the trial, therefore making it relavent to his life, and his critics used the trial to crticize his lifestyle etc. I don't think you can argue with those facts. Remember, NPOV means we include both crticism and support for Ted Kennedy. The incident happened in his life and therefore is relavent. The sentence has a NPOV without making judgements on what his lifestyle was or making any note of any allegations. The overall consensus from what I can gather is to include it but tone it down so that it has a NPOV. Can you just work with it instead of stating your opposition over and over? Like its getting obvious this is descending into a big great Republican vs. Democrat debate so everybody just be bi-partisan for a second and work on the compromise, suggest improvements and stay focused. Thanks. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 20:52, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
I am a hardcore independant by the way:). But anyway, lets just use the one that I have above, since it is NPOV and we can work from that. There at least won't be accussations of POV.Voice of All(MTG) 23:29, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
It also appears that quite a few users don't want the trial to be mentioned. Is anyone supposed to respect that? Or is there some Wikipedia policy that, if there's substantial disagreement about whether a particular item is worth including in an article, the dispute must always be resolved in favor of inclusion? It's rather surprising that you're suddenly able to discern an "overall consensus" when you yourself said "this is not official" about a poll in which one side had been heavily recruiting voters, and even so there was substantial support for the other view. If you want to proclaim a consensus perhaps we should do an RfC.
I'm not just stating my opposition over and over. I'm trying to make people see the broader consequences of the position they're advocating. We just went through a huge battle on the George W. Bush page about whether material that was far more significant should be included in that article. It is important to NPOV that we be consistent. As for stating things over and over, simply asserting twice that the trial happened, therefore it's relevant, doesn't advance the argument. You could say that about any truthful statement about any subject's life, such as one of the examples I gave above, the incident about the bulge in Bush's jacket. It happened, so it's relevant, and it was on national TV no less, so it should be added to his article? Along with the pretzel incident? When we talk about major public figures like Bush and Kennedy, there's a mountain of truthful information we could put in the article, so we have to make judgments about the importance. JamesMLane 01:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Facts versus opinions by third parties with dubious credentials do not make for a fair comparison. Fact: Ted Kennedy was out drinking with his nephew..Fact: Ted Kennedy and his nephew were both at the Kennedy complex later that evening when the allegations of rape were lodged by a third party aginst Teddy's nephew...Fact: Teddy testified for the defense on behalf of his nephew...Fact: The nephew was cleared of all charges.....as comparison...Opinion: Bush may be a dry drunk due to previous drinking...Opinion: Bush is a dry drunk as he never joined AA and went through their oftentimes questioned quasi religious approach to recover from alcoholism...Opinion: Bush was/is an alcoholic...Opinion: Bush used cocaine...the facts as we best know them about Bush ARE in the article...he was convicted of DUI, he may have avoided his military obligations due to alcohol or drugs, he admitted to Billy Graham that he drank too much in his youth, finally, Bush admitted to his friend in a taped conversation that he may have engaged in drug use...the double standard you are saying is false....the facts are the facts and the opinions are POV...where is there an opinion as to the events of the WKSmith rape trial...a trial that Teddy DID testify in, was with the defendent immediately prior to the alledged incident, and admitted they were all out drinking (the last point is not a big deal, but it was all given under oath. I fail to see that what you say is a double standard exists with the comparative issues presented.--MONGO 01:40, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
I won't bore the editors of this article with a full rehash of 100+ kb of wrangling about Bush, but, MONGO, you should know that the disputes in both articles are similar in that they they involve some facts, and opinions drawn from those facts. It's a fact that Ted Kennedy was in a bar at 11:00 p.m. It's a fact that George Bush uses phrases like "either you are with us or against us." One difference is that, in the Bush case, we weren't dealing with a second-hand report of someone's anonymous allegations. We knew who had formed and published an opinion based on the stated facts. Another difference is that the allegations about Bush were relevant to assessing his character. The allegatons against Smith are relevant to assessing his character. The allegations against Smith are not relevant to assessing Kennedy's character, nor is the fact that Kennedy happened to be in the same general area (though indoors) at the time of the disputed incident. I can tell you why a reader of the Bush article might want to know whether Bush has a "worldview [that] traps people in a pattern of destructive behavior." [3] I still haven't heard any good reason why a reader of this article would want to know whether Kennedy testified at a particular trial. JamesMLane 03:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Because it happened, and there was controversy. Again, not helping. I am respecting the people who don't want it included by toning it down a whole lot from the original. Honestly, its not from the poll that I think we should include it, its from the following discussion. Have you noticed yet you are the only one against including this passage? Even jpgordon is working on it. Again, try to help rather than prolong an argument that is going absolutely nowhere. If you still feel this way, I suggest you take a break from editing this article. Again, compromise, since we already shot down the idea of including a whole POVed section, which is good, this NPOV statement is more than fair. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 04:03, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Some specific points:
  • "I am respecting the people who don't want it included by toning it down a whole lot from the original." So, if someone wants to add an irrelevancy to an article, the method is to write a laughably POV presentation of it. Then the "compromise" will be to leave in a toned-down version of the irrelevant material. You act as if the other side has made some significant concession by not "including a whole POVed section". That approach would reward bad behavior. Another editor could write something like "The hypocrisy of George Bush's self-righteous invocations of 'family values' is shown by how he raised his own daughters, who between them have multiple arrests for illegal activities related to alcohol." I'm not planning to do that -- I've read WP:POINT -- but we shouldn't deal with disputes in a way that encourages people to violate that guideline.
  • "Have you noticed yet you are the only one against including this passage?" I don't understand, Sasquatch, how you of all people could say this. You were the one who set up the poll. Now you're saying that, even though some editors responded to your solicitation of their opinions by saying that this junk should be excluded, their opinions don't count unless they follow up by participating in this discussion. I can understand why they haven't -- I've been in disputes on Wikipedia before, but the discussion on this subject has been one of the least enlightening I've ever seen.
  • "Again, try to help rather than prolong an argument that is going absolutely nowhere." I've tried to help by proposing a compromise. I've tried to help by creating the article where this subject actually belongs. Unlike the blather here (by which I mean your comments, my comments, and everyone else's comments), that step had the additional virtue of actually improving Wikipedia. Also, I don't see how you can see the argument is going nowhere. To me, it looks like it's going to an RfC.
  • I just took a break from editing the article. We all did.  :)
I'll now try inserting the unnecessary link to William Kennedy Smith and see whether the compromise of including that much irrelevancy is enough to produce stability. If it isn't, do you see any realistic alternative to an RfC? JamesMLane 04:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


To any who don't understand where JamesMLane is coming from, read his profile where he states "Hostile to the right wing". We are seeing this here. He has no desire to negociate and only want's his POV presented. The majority of the folk here want an inclusion. When it was time to vote on the fatboy.cc link and he was in the majority that was just fine. Now that he is in the minority he refuses to agree on a compromise. This is a joke. 24.147.97.230 01:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to see how completely off-base this comment is will find ample evidence in the first half of this talk page (although it probably ought to be archived soon). JamesMLane 03:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Maybe we could start a drinking game and all do a shot each time he brings up those five words on your profile. We could celebrate excess in the proudest Kennedy tradition. ;) Gamaliel 05:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Since this proposal seems okay with most users, I will unprotect the page to let you guys edit it again. 1) I will monitor the page and if any evidence of a revert war starts AGAIN I will protect it. 2) It seems clear that a short NPOV statement about the trial is okay. 3) I will block any user violating 3RR on this page for 24 hours per Wikipedia policy and 4) smile and be nice. If you really really still want a RfC after this is all done, go ahead. Again, I based this off the discussion on the proposal not any stupid evil poll I may have set up below. You also have to realize this is the farthest the discussion has gone. Before it was just include vs. exclude. Now we have a viable compromise that does not violate Wikipedia policy on any degree. Again: jpgordon, Silverback, Voice of All and the anon IP seem to support this compromise while JamesMLane's objections are duly noted. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 04:03, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Here is another long winded comment by me....the anon IP, solicited "help" and this brought in new comments such as mine which may have tilted the "concensus". My comment carries no weight for several reasons: firstly, I have no intention of editing this article as I see myself biased against the subject and therefore, do not want to fill the page with my bias...secondly, as a new contributor to this article's talk page my major conplaint about the article is that in my eyes, there is more negative here than positive...tell me please, in written form, that Teddy Kennedy has achieved something of substance during his tenure as Senator and put it in the article. Lastly, I am amazed at the polarizations politically charged articles such as this one generate...I see that the testimony of Ted Kennedy on behalf of his nephew who was exonerated of the rape charge to be a positive...not a negative...it tells me that ted Kennedy's word carried weight and...had the jury found WKSmith to be guilty, then that would be the negative...but that is not what happened. As far as the comparisons made to the GWB article...GWB wasn't directly involved in those events cited...they have only the slightest thing to do with him. Oh well.--MONGO 07:38, August 9, 2005 (UTC)