Talk:Ted Kennedy/Archive 6

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 5 |
Archive 6
| Archive 7 →


Contents

Clean Slate

Yes, there were current conversations going, but frankly, this talk page has become a battleground over RfC's, accusations of sockpuppetry, accusation of all and mighty powerful Pro-Kennedy Cabals, attempts to remove info by Sleepnomore, etc. Stop the Madness!!!

Everyone needs to just take a second and chill out. Lets start over and try to calmly dialog with each other as to what needs to change on the page. No more accusations of sockpuppetry for now. No more accusations of cabals either. Just state your point without personally attacking the other. --kizzle 19:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

those ignorant of history, may well be doomed to repeat it.--Silverback 20:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
It's not forgotten, you can go back in the archive and read it all you like. --kizzle 20:40, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Is good faith really in such short supply? We've all fought with trolls who had no good faith to offer, but I doubt everyone here is a troll. Good faith is what separates the tried-and-true from the trolls.
Come on folks, as Kizzle suggests, let's all step up and conduct ourselves as adults - so this article can be unprotected and the "Ted Kennedy" encyclopedia article given it's due. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
The article can be unprotected now, it was the wrong solution to the problem in the first place, it just transferred the problem to the talk page. This gimmick is just an intellectual crutch. The issues and principles involved have not changed, we just have to replicate them again, some immature people were distracted by personal attacks, or at least found them more interesting to discuss than the issues, since the page was protected.--Silverback 20:39, August 22, 2005 (UTC)


I'm in agreeement with all. I look forwared to working as a team to resolve the issues of content. 24.147.97.230 20:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy attacked Romney's mormonism?

Mormonism came up in the campaign only to paint the candidate as possibly more conservative on some issues. I see no evidence that there was a religious attack rather than focus on the issues. --Silverback 21:45, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where this was ever a big issue, I don't think it needs any mention but would not object to it's being here. 24.147.97.230 22:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It needs to be removed. Kennedy is on record saying Romney's mormonism will not matter in his 08 POTUS run (See atlanitc monthly one of the summer 05 issues, one of the major stories i ons Romney) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.6.14 (talk • contribs) 11 Sept 2005

I would also like to see this removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:25, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Does the "Waitress Sandwich" deserve its own section?

This drunken mashing deserves no more than a line or two, perhaps it can be mentioned than the incident has been pejoratively (or perhaps mockingly or dismissively) referred to as a "Waitress Sandwich".--Silverback 21:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I did not mean to be too dismissive of this incident. It does DESERVE the line or two, as it shows Kennedy's reckless career threatening and philosophically inconsistent and indefensible behavior (well hopefully this is not consistent with his philosophy). He risked possible assault charges, and if convicted, the public tends to take these pretty seriously.--Silverback 21:14, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
As a reader (not yet a major contributor) of the article, I think these sorts of reports of prurient incidents are most POV when over-emphasized beyond the public's level of awareness. Few non-Kennedy-haters are that 'up-to-speed' on the allegations behind this incident, and an entire section to me seems disproportionate and POV-laden. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
This deserves a small item on the page. It's not as important as the Rape Trial, but shows a side of Kennedy that needs to be presented. Four sentances would cover all that needs to be said. 24.147.97.230 22:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree, this doesn't need to be a major highlight of the article. - Sleepnomore 01:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see why it deserves any mention at all. It's luridness for the sake of luridness, and is of minuscule importance in Kennedy's life and career, assuming it ever happened at all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

the WKS rape trial

The only import the rape trial had in Ted's carreer is that it once again publically stirred up all the rumors and yes facts about his womanizing, drug use, and drunkenness. This is already well represented in the article. Perhaps there can be a note on the link to the WKS page, that mentions there is more information about the rape trial there.--Silverback 21:07, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

On this point, I'd point to actual statements or actions by Senator Kennedy in the context of the WKS trial, and leave other 'some say' or 'others saw this as'-type anecdotes out. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Sworn testimony admitted into evidence is not usually considered anecdotal. Kennedy's own testimony at the trial was not that interesting or informative, nor was the behavior testified to, that scandalous, but the publicity and rehashing of all the other revelations about his private life were significant. I submit though that the signficance is already reflected in the article. The trial itself deserves no special mention, beyond in a link to elsewhere.--Silverback 21:20, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
I understand the difference between anecdote and testimony, and I trust you understood my point rather than dismissing it with a snipe. Little snipes like that start bad faith exchanges. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
This is one of the highest profile rape trials in the history of the US. The fact that the Senator was invloved with the participants the night of the rape is significant. The fact that the Senator testified is significant. The fact that the defendant was a relative is significant. I doubt that anyone thinks of Ted's Immigration Policy before the rape trial. Why is the Immigration Policy here?24.147.97.230 22:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it was high profile, but we need to separate the significance of the publicity in relationship to the Senator's life and career, from the significance of the Senator's involvement with the trial. The senator was merely involved in the drinking that occurred before the alleged incident, and was not involved in the incident itself. There was testimony about him walking around a private home with partying guests present, unclothed from the waist down. Frankly, this does little to alter the Senator's reputation, other than to revive it once again with a spotlight. The fact that Ted was there and that WKS himself was a Kennedy is perhaps unfortunate for the accused, since it resulted in the public glare, however, that is perhaps compensated by the ability to afford the best legal defence, and to enjoy considerable bleeding edge sexual freedom without much concern for the women as human beings. The trial is a general Kennedy family thing that can be handled best on the WKS page or a general family scandal page. It did little for the Senator's reputation.--Silverback 22:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
"that is perhaps compensated by {...} considerable bleeding edge sexual freedom without much concern for the women as human beings. "
I was with you until you tangented into Limbaughesque commentary. Sans that line, I agree with your assertion. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Hey, a few mindless romps with willing teenage super models might be fun, what you characterize as Limbaughesque commentary, may merely be sexual jealousy. Somehow these guys find women that are really like the porno queens, but without the diseases. You are right, that in the broad of scheme of things, these are less important than a good intelligent companion and loving nurturing mother for your children. But that is perhaps the wrong comparison, a more correct comparison might be to an evening watching primetime TV. Power and wealth have their privileges, lets just not pretend they are caring and not exploitive ones.--Silverback 00:00, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

An honest description without scandal-mongering or innuendo would be something like: "In 1991, Kennedy's nephew William Kennedy Smith was accused of rape, but the jury acquitted him of all charges. Kennedy was one of the witnesses at his nephew's trial." Of course, to put it in context like that -- accusations against Smith, not Kennedy -- makes it clear that this little factoid doesn't belong in the article. JamesMLane 23:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane has jaded me enough that I now agree that the rape trial deserves no mention at all. It just doesn't belong here.Voice of All(MTG) 00:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)


Again, Ted pulled his son Patrick and nephew WKS out of bed to go drinking. He lead the way. Ted's tie to the rape and trial is well know and documented. If this was about a relative in Wyoming that he never saw or wasn't with the night of the rape it would be a diff story and I would agree with you.

From http://www.usatoday.com/community/chat_03/2003-07-11-klein.htm , 'The Kennedy Curse': Author Edward Klein,

Birmingham, Alabama: Mr. Klein, what do you believe to be the worse story of ALL of the cursed Kennedy's, I mean the most hurting and longest lasting curse or death to overcome?

Edward Klein: I think the worst story concerns the alleged rape in 1991 in Palm Beach of Patricia Bowman by William Kennedy Smith. Patricia Bowman told her best friend that while she was being raped and shouting for help, that Sen. Ted Kennedy was nearby, watching, and did nothing. That, to me, is truly shocking. 24.147.97.230 00:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Link to Fatboy.cc

I am not so sure that Kelly Martin had the authority to make a decision on this matter. I would like to see this link here with a disclaimer that it is an anti kennedy site. There are many other pages with external links with disclaimers. It only takes a small part of this page to post it. For all of the political satire, there is much content which appears on no other site. The Rosemary Kennedy section is written non POV. There are high resolution photos and items of Ted's past found at no other place. 24.147.97.230 22:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you proposing a descriptive link to this site as an alternative compromise to extensive recounting of the scandals in the article?--Silverback 22:40, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
We've already spent months on this exact issue. The consensus was quite clear: fatboy.cc is an attack site, and as such is not encyclopedic -- it's focus is on attacking Ted Kennedy in any way possible, and the information contained on it is not reliable. Do we have to go all the way back to the beginning of May and have this argument all over again? (Or maybe it was June. A long time ago, regardless.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I wonder how consistent we are willing to be on this. There is something refreshing and honest about an attack site called fatboy, it certainly isn't pretentious, yet has some good information hard to obtain on the web otherwise. What if it had been called tedkennedywatch.org? Consider these two sites with more pretentions that are cited on Christian right, [1] [2]. There is not reason to think they are anything other than attack sites. They accumulate one sided evidence and then spin the patterns they want to see with that evidence.--Silverback 03:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Good reason to get rid of those links, then. An encyclopedia should prefer unspun references. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't mind discussing it (again). Many issues in wikipedia require multiple discussions. Personally, I don't think linking to an "attack site" is by any means a reason unto itself to be unencyclopedic. There are multiple items that many feel don't deserve inclusion on this site due to their weak links to Mr Kennedy. However, they are of items of interest and can apparently be found on this site. Obviously, I think the link, if included, should be noted as highly anti-Kennedy POV. - Sleepnomore 03:11, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Compromise

Here is a possible compromise. I cleaned up and shortened the text a bit. The Palm Beach Rape Incident is not needed because:

  1. His testimony was not very significant
  2. The type of issues raised about the Kennedy's lifestlye during the trial are already mentioned in the article.

Voice of All(MTG) 23:48, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Waitress harassment

"Kennedy and fellow Democratic senator Chris Dodd, from Connecticut, were accused in 1985 of sexually assaulting a waitress at Washington DC’s La Brasserie restaurant. It was reported that Kennedy threw Carla Gaviglio on top Dodd, who was slumped in a chair, drunk, and then jumped on top of her, after which Gaviglio ran from the room screaming. Although there were several witnesses, Gaviglio declined to press charges.[3]"

Further reading

Burke, Richard E. (1993). The Senator: My Ten Years With Ted Kennedy. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0312951337.

"The Bachelors; They Say Power Corrupts. In Washington It Also Seduces," Washington Post, Oct 3, 1990.)

Lets discuss this proposal with our "clean slate"

Regarding the The Palm Beach Rape Incident, Ted Kennedy's role in the incident is absolutely needed. Sen. Kennedy was a central figure in the most widely publicized rape trial in US history. --Agiantman 23:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
"most widely publicized rape trial in US history" - care to substantiate that with a citation or fact? Off the top of my head, I can think of a few more high-profile rape cases than this one. Like Kobe? -- RyanFreisling @ 23:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Ryan, you are probably exaggerating the trial's coverage. And remember, Agiantman, that the trial centered around Teddy's brother, not Ted himself; Ted was just testifying because he was around the are when the incident took place(or didn't, he was acquited). For any comprimise, there will not be a Palm Beach Rape section, its just pointless. Just accept that and move to the other incidents that carry at least some relevance......hmm...Ryan and Kizzle in the same room, what a dynamic duo:-)Voice of All(MTG) 23:28, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
I still don't understand why his involvement should be stricken from an encyclopedic article about the man. I know this will be construed as anti-Kennedy, but I really don't understand what the issue is. The trial took place and Kennedy was involved -- since when is the involvement of a politician in a sexual crime not encyclopedic, even if mentioned briefly? I'm of the opinion that politicians need to be held accountable and the only way to do this is through making sure the facts can be researched. What is accomplished by not including this text? What harm does it do by including it in a factual basis (i.e. he was involved and acquitted)? I do agree that their is some definite exageration of importance, but I think the incident needs mentioned. - Sleepnomore 01:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
[sigh]. When we kept calling it unencyclopedic, that was because, after we just had consensus to put in a sentence about the trial, people kept adding in a whole speculative, poorly cited paragraph. Nobody said that any mentioning of the trial is unencyclopedic; JamesMLane and I are saying that once the speculative unencyclopedic stuff is removed, that you have nothing important left. Also, as Silverback and I have said, liftestyle issue have already been added to the article. I fear you are not reading into the discussion enough, just like when you deleted "personal attacks," many of which were not. I will tell you something someone else told me: "haste makes waste". If I must say however, you do a better job at staying calm than I do sometimes;-).Voice of All(MTG) 01:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
"Momma always said..." - I try to remain calm cause I'm too stupid to do otherwise. - Sleepnomore 01:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe you are too young to remember. The William Kennedy Smith Rape trial was first celebrity televised, gavel to gavel trial on the new Court TV network. Millions watched the new cable channel and the media soaked up every drop, esp. the tabloids. The Kobe trial, which was not televised and really ended before it began, did not come anywhere near the phenomenon that was the William Kennedy Smith trial. When User:Voice of All(MTG) states "that the trial centered around Teddy's brother, not Ted himself" (LOL!), it is pretty clear that there is more POV at work here than actual knowledge. The incident is encyclopedic, esp. since folks like User:Voice of All(MTG) need to know what actually happened.--Agiantman 02:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
There's no need to attack other users as having 'more POV than knowledge' or 'needing to know what actually happened'. That's bad faith and the editors here have agreed to make an effort to avoid such anti-Wikipedia behavior.
Your original point is that it was the most publicized rape trial in U.S. history, and although you are correct that it was quite public, you haven't convinced me of your point on the face of fact. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
As Ryan said, avoid the Ad Hominem. Anyway, Kennedy was there to give any relevant information, his nephew was actually on trial, he was the focus of the trial. Speaking of facts, you have yet to convince me and Ryan of your claims.Voice of All(MTG) 02:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Google search, "most publicized rape", 3rd hit is the Kennedy trial. "--In 1991, William Kennedy Smith was found not guilty by a jury in West Palm Beach, Florida in the most publicized rape case in U.S. history. Patricia Bowman accused Smith of raping her on the Kennedy estate lawn on March 30, 1991. Senator Ted Kennedy testified in court." It's a Florida radio station web site, but it shows that some consider this trial to be the most publicized rape case in U.S. history. It was fully broadcast, complete with "blue spot" if you watched. I feel this belongs, how many other US sentators had to testify at their relatives rape trials? This was front page news for a long time. Thanks 24.147.97.230 06:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Same google search, only 7 results. Only one points to the WKS trial (and it's the Orlando radio station's web site you mentioned). The others point to the Kobe trial, or the Scottsville trial of the 30's. So it's unfair to call that conclusive, and I would consider it appropriate to assert in Wikipedia that the MKS trial is one of the most publicized rape trials in U.S. history. Anything more is unsubstantiated.
He testified and his nephew was acquitted. If there is relevant testimony of Kennedy's that warrants inclusion, fine - but the fact he testified at a rape case by a relative has dubious, if any, value to an article about Kennedy himself - this is an encyclopedia, not a character evaluation. To prove a point about Kennedy's behavior, stick to Kennedy's behavior. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree, lets move on to the waitress issue.Voice of All(MTG) 14:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
User:Voice of All(MTG), please educate me. You wrote "Kennedy was there to give any relevant information, his brother was actually on trial, he was the focus of the trial." Could please identify the brother who was actually on trial?--Agiantman 11:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
That is a typo, it should be nephew, obviously, William Kennedy Smith.Voice of All(MTG) 13:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I was sure it was a typo in both comments. Thanks for clarifying. The rape trial will be included.--Agiantman 21:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
We're not all in agreement with that assertion, Agiant. Care to raise any other reasons why you think it should? Because right now, it's far from certain. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Ted Kennedy was a central figure in the most widely publicized rape trial in US history. There was a prior consensus here, even among POV pushers, that there should at least be a brief mention of the incident. Please stop your repeated efforts to keep unfavorable information out of the Ted Kennedy's article. It is not encyclopedic to maintain a puff piece for Ted Kennedy on wikipedia. We can get that from Kennedy's official Senate bio. Care to raise any other reasons why you think it shouldn't be included? Because right now, it's far from certain that it won't be.--Agiantman 22:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Please do not refer to people who disagree with you as "POV pushers". Thank you. --kizzle 23:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Agiantman, your assertion that there was a consensus to include something about the Smith trial is false. I'm not the only person who thought the Smith trial should be discussed in the Smith article. JamesMLane 23:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
(Scratching head) I must have been watching a different trial; I thought the central figure was William Kennedy Smith, and his uncle was an interesting sidebar. The trial wasn't widely publicized because of Ted Kennedy, per se; it was widely publicized because of the Kennedy family as a whole. Which possibly points to the solution to this: the information belongs in the Kennedy political family article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Attacking me for 'repeated efforts to keep unfavorable information out' is completely disingenuous. I have only asked for facts to justify this inclusion, and there are still little coming. As stated, let's concentrate on what actually happened.
'Puff piece'? Hardly. 'Central figure'? No. He testified in the trial of a family member, who was acquitted. 'Most publicized rape trial?' Unsubstantiated. Is Kennedy's conduct at issue? Nope, just that it was a rape trial... and so on the face of it, this does NOT belong - since there is nothing about Ted Kennedy at issue here, except his having testified. As I asked before, is there relevant testimony here?
For an article on Kennedy, we concentrate on Kennedy. For a section describing womanizing or questionable judgment, we use Kennedy's behavior and judgment - not his having testified (which as you may or may not agree, does not confer guilt upon the witness). Again, I implore you to assume good faith, exercise restraint, concentrate on facts and actions of Kennedy himself, and stop making personal attacks against other editors who DO display good faith. Right now, your behavior is marginalizing your input, to the detriment of the article. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Have we really come so far and become so right-wing and left-wing jadded that we can't look at the fact that a United States SENATOR was involved in a RAPE TRIAL and consider that noteworthy on his record on its face? Additional relevant testimony aside, this fact alone is noteworthy. I can see your argument to a point, but the fact is the judge and jury found Kennedy a noteworthy enough figure in this trial to call him as a witness, yet we can't seem to include this fact in an article about the man? I look at it like this, if someone reads a wikipedia article about Ted Kennedy, they should know the man's life. If someone came up to him after reading this article, he really shouldn't have to say "gee, I didn't know about that" after someone else informs him about the incident. Furthermore, lets consider the fact that this is encyclopedic. The very definition of encyclopedia is a "written compendium of knowledge". And the definition of compendium is "A compendium is a comprehensive compilation of a body of knowledge." How can you claim this article to be comprehensive if it only includes some of the details of the mans life? That's my argument on the point. I get what you are saying, Ryan, but those are my reasons why I feel it should be included -- even if nothing else is known about the incident, it should be mentioned briefly and further information should be linked to (if possible). - Sleepnomore 00:29, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • the judge and jury found Kennedy a noteworthy enough figure in this trial to call him as a witness -- That's not quite how the American legal system works. He wasn't called because he was noteworthy. He wasn't called by the judge. He wasn't called by the jury. He was called by the prosecutor because he was with the defendant some time before the crime alleged by the prosecution (and rejected unanimously by the jury) occurred. If you or I had been there rather than Ted Kennedy, we would have been called. What does it say about a man's life that his 30-year-old nephew was accused of a crime of which he was found innocent? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
It's not about being jaded, and it's not about left-wing/right-wing. Accusing someone of partisanship is a form of personal attack, and I haven't demonstrated any behavior to warrant that attack.
It's about applying a critical filter to the issue and it's encyclopedic value. The fact that he testified at his nephew's rape trial is noteworthy - and I have not contested that - but on the face of it, other than the fact that he testified, there is no additional relevance to the Senator himself - meaning one sentence will do nicely:
"In 1985 Senator Kennedy testified during the rape trial of his nephew, who was subsequently acquitted."
Is there anything more relevant than that point? Because unless I missed it I haven't seen it mentioned, and anything more than factually relevant information incorrectly paints the incident as a character aspect of Senator Kennedy's character - which would be erroneous and would ágreatly cheapen the article. Again, please focus on the issue, not on painting others as partisans. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Of course you would take that as a personal attack. After the previous talk pages I can understand why. Please re-read this topic. I in no way attacked you (or intended to do so). I didn't accuse you of leaning one way or another. I simply mean that this political climate unto itself sort of glosses over the basic idea here - that Mr Kennedy was involved in a rape trial is all that I currently feel is relevant and that's all I'm trying to say. - Sleepnomore 03:09, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
If you didn't mean a personal attack, then I take no offense. I misinterpreted your response to me to mean that 'we' (in particular meaning me) were jaded by partisanship. Your more general point is well taken, and I agree with it. And, I didn't even need to re-read the topic. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Sleepnomore, I gave my take on your first point a while ago, probably before you were editing the page. So let me set the wayback machine and give you this hypothetical: Kennedy, his son, and his nephew are sitting in a bar one night. They notice a tall striking redhead walk past them, laughing, and holding hands with a guy slightly shorter than she is. The two leave the bar. The three men in the Kennedy party all agree that the woman was gorgeous, and they make some jokes about how her date better watch out for competition from tall guys. Because of these facts, all three remember the incident. When the woman later accuses the man of having raped her, Kennedy is called to testify about what he saw. OK, so now we have "a United States SENATOR [who] was involved in a RAPE TRIAL". Should it go in the Senator's bio? Would your answer depend on whether the defendant was an unknown or a celebrity? I know you think this case is different. I'm just trying to see exactly where we disagree by considering a different case. I think this would be "Clearly omit", but what say you? "Lean toward omit", "Undecided", "Lean toward include", "Clearly include", or none of the above?
As for your second point, there's a difference between an encyclopedia article and a biography. McCullough's biography of John Adams is 752 pages long. Someone who reads the Wikipedia article, and then McCullough's book, will indeed often say "gee, I didn't know about that". A Wikipedia article is a summary. We have to make some judgments about what's most important. JamesMLane 01:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I think if Mr Kennedy wasn't a celebrity, he wouldn't have a Wikipedia article about him and therefor most certainly wouldn't be of note. That he is a senator and was involved in the case is all I'm saying is important to cover at this point. Its the only "fact" that I currently see in the situation and I think it deserves coverage. Beyond that, you can debate further details with those who feel they belong in the article. - Sleepnomore 03:09, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand your response. We have articles on all current Senators and many former ones. Obviously, they're all notable. The difference here is that the Kennedy family, as a whole, is so prominent that Smith's trial received more attention than would a similar trial of another Senator's relative. But my question sought, as a first step, to set aside the question of a family relationship. A Senator in a bar watches as a couple he doesn't know leaves. He testifies at a subsequent rape trial. Should that fact be in the article about the Senator? I ask this because your reference to "the fact that a United States SENATOR was involved in a RAPE TRIAL" suggests that you would include it, and I'm trying to understand whether that is in fact what you're arguing for. JamesMLane 03:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
"We have to make some judgments about what's most important." We being the Leftist POV warrior moderators of course. That is what you folks call "consensus", isn't it? Unsigned comment by User:162.83.165.105
No, the "we" in this instance is the people who volunteer our time here, with the goal of making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Your petty nastiness is the only edit under that IP number, so I'm guessing that you've come here solely to push an anti-Kennedy POV, and the rest of the project be damned. Therefore, you and I are doomed to talk past each other on this point. JamesMLane 01:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I will chime in and say that the trial was really really covered big on the big three networks and it was water cooler talk. And it certainly was clearly covered because he was a Kennedy. I'm thinking as I write this, yes because he was a Kennedy, but that is not the same as saying it was because he was Ted's nephew.

So to me the logic of saying this is vital to put into the Ted Kennedy article would to me be a logic that any article that is about any Kennedy would require inclusion of this trial. That to me just doesn't work.

I say all this without taking any position of whether the info belongs in this article. However, I would note that the fact that an individual testifies in a relative's trial does not reflect that the person giving testimony has done any wrong. I sense a little that reporting in Ted's article that he gave testimony/that a nephew was prosecuted is done with the intent not so much as to inform but to provide a negative composite of Ted. Ted may be deserving of coverage of negative facts about his own activities, but juxtoposing Ted to another individual's conduct, I'm not so sure that is Wiki.

If it is considered editorially necessary that this encylclopedia have coverage of the trial then to me it would go into an article on the nephew; sorry, I don't know if there is one. If there is a article on the nephew then it seems appropriate to link to that article from Ted's article without comment.

In fact, that may be the compromise the two sides here can settle on.

If there were links to all my misdeeds in life then Wiki would surely crash.Kyle Andrew Brown 00:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

This has to stop

tag removedVoice of All(MTG) 03:51, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sleepnomore, please stop accusing everyone(even yourself:-)...) of POV as I feel that it is counterproductive; Agiantman please stop the personal attacks and uncivility.Voice of All(MTG) 03:48, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's healthy to have them both here to balance the extreme pov of the left. If you ask them to leave, please ask a few of the left to leave also. Thanks 24.147.97.230 21:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
What have Kizzle, Robert, Ryan, James, and I said that was uncivil (personal attacks) or POV. We are arguing(to varying degrees) over the subject's merits, citation, and worthyness in an encyclopedia; Agiantman responds by calling us leftist POV-warriors.Voice of All(MTG) 22:09, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
As if any one with an extreme left POV would give one rats ass for Ted Kennedy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, Kennedy is generally not an idol for liberals to sacrifice themselves on the alter too.Voice of All(MTG) 22:27, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
-Further comments moved to my talk page-.Voice of All(MTG) 03:49, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Compromise

"Gaviglio had several witnesses to the event" is POV. The witnesses existed, or didn't. Was there any testimony, or coverage of witness statements? If so, "Although there were several witnesses, Gaviglio declined" would (imho) be more factual and POV-neutral. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
imho? Ryan, I am not sure what you mean, please clarify a bit so I can make the corrections. Thank you.Voice of All(MTG) 23:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
OK, I just reworded the proposal. (writing a new one for this will just waste space since both are mine.)Voice of All(MTG) 23:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
No problem - and btw (by the way), imho means in my humble opinion. My larger point being that she 'had' no witnesses - witnesses are, or are not. Whether they are hostile or not to either side of a criminal event does not affect their status as witnesses.
Thanks for the edit. I assume the existence of witnesses is citable? :) -- RyanFreisling @ 23:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Does this rise to the level of "sexual assault"? Was there any unclothing or penetration? was groping rather than pressing described?--Silverback 23:43, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Good point, I just updated that too.Voice of All(MTG) 23:46, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, the more I look at it, it was violent enough to be assault(jumping on top of her). I just changed it back.Voice of All(MTG) 23:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Googling 'Gaviglio Kennedy Dodd' reveals only 3 pages of links, and only the first 6 or so relevant to this issue, and of those, most are Rightist blogs. Googling 'Waitress sandwich' reveals a lot more, but a cursory glance didn't find any 'news sites'. From what I gleaned, it was a drunken physical contact (the pressing of body against body) between clothed individuals, without Ms. Gaviglio's consent. So, based on my quick scan, no evidence of sexual assault, nudity, penetration, or groping appears on the record. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Try ted kennedy dodd waitress in google, 916 hits. This is a well known incident. Thanks
Yes, but old news can be very hard to find on the internet. I know what you are talking about though, I already spent 30 min searching around. That is why I kept the Washington Post source. Anyway, I will take your word for it with regards to sexual assault. Wow, I just flip-flopped twice;-).Voice of All(MTG) 23:55, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
It certainly appears to be a case of physical (not sexual) assault. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, now what else is on the list of things to do?Voice of All(MTG) 00:07, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, but perhaps that is because sexual assault is associated with felonies in our mind. The behavior is probably more in the misdemeanor range, the type for which incarceration is a possibility, but not likely in first offenses. Still serious stuff. I prefer calling it an assault or a mashing, but in our society sexual assault usually is reserved for something with either more force or more invasive behavior.--Silverback 00:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know that I agree there. We refer to sexual harassment in a variety of ways that don't include invasive or forceful behavior. How much more sexual can you get than forcing a woman to be sandwiched between two men? If we put our political defense aside, I think if this were anyone else -- lets say a family member -- we would definitely call this what it was -- sexual assault. - Sleepnomore 01:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
A whole lot more sexual, as far too many actual sexual assaults daily attest. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
You are right there. I misspoke. What I mean is, how much more sexual do you have to get to cross that line from assault to sexual assault? - Sleepnomore 01:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Florida Statutes on Sexual Battery

{...} Florida Statutes chapters 794 and 800 {...} define and prohibit rape and similar sexual assaults, lewdness and indecent exposure {...}. Florida Sexual Assault Victims - Privacy Statute

Either it's:

  • Sexual Battery
794.011 "Sexual battery" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual battery does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose. [4]
  • or an Unnatural and lascivious act
800.02 Unnatural and lascivious act.--A person who commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A mother's breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance violate this section. [5]

-- RyanFreisling @ 01:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  • what about:
794.005 Legislative findings and intent as to basic charge of sexual battery.--The Legislature finds that the least serious sexual battery offense, which is provided in s. 794.011(5), was intended, and remains intended, to serve as the basic charge of sexual battery and to be necessarily included in the offenses charged under subsections (3) and (4), within the meaning of s. 924.34; and that it was never intended that the sexual battery offense described in s. 794.011(5) require any force or violence beyond the force and violence that is inherent in the accomplishment of "penetration" or "union.">2005->Ch0794->Section%20005#0794.005 - Sleepnomore 01:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
That says that sexual assault does not require physical assault. Do you agree? Having reviewed the contents of the relevant statute, I believe it would be very difficult to successfully define the 'Waitress Sandwich' as sexual assault/battery. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
My appologies, I should have been a bit clear. I'm agreeing with you, but wanted to bolster the opinion with this statute which makes it even more clear that penetration / union is required in Florida to be considered sexual battery. Just trying to help out once you pointed out the appropriate links. - Sleepnomore 01:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Good stuff, Sleep. Thanks for the citation. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
It's still just allegations, unproven and untried. Of what importance is this in understanding the life and career of Kennedy? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree. This section is merely intended to reflect whether the incident, as described, constituted sexual assault (imho it doesn't). The incident was described as someone else as a 'side' (sic) of Kennedy that needed to be shown, and although I personally don't contest the allegation and wouldn't contest the bad 'rep' Kennedy has among some for drunkenness and womanizing, I can only point to the fact that in this incident, no charges were brought. So, imho, the value of this incident to the actual (encyclopedic) purpose of the article is dubious. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
It nonetheless adds to a string of lifestyle issues, which are legitimate for an encyclopedia as long as it is balanced. Perhaps this could have been a dubious charge based on the fact that people might believe it just because the Kennedy's did similair things(groping, womanizing, JFK, ect...). But it might also have been legitimate. Part of me would rather not have it in at all because no charges where actually filed. But since some people will revert this indefinetely, even using revolving IPs, and admins will pull the restrictive lock option for months, I have proposed this as a compromise to calm down the situation.Voice of All(MTG) 03:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
You're a gentleman and a scholar. Thanks for throwing the other side a bone. I'm sure they appreciate it and will act in kind by "giving" a little themselves. - Sleepnomore 03:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
This is not entirely appeasement, if that is what you mean. As I said before, I do feel that these issue should be mentioned, but I wish that this was a better example, not just a claim that was never a formal charge.Voice of All(MTG) 03:57, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
The importance of this article is that a US Senator is held to the highest standards as a member of the US legislative branch. The conduct of a person in such a position of importance is important as a representative of the people and as a role model. This sexual misconduct of Ted Kennedy is already in the public domain. It should be presented here at least in a brief mannor, no more than 4 sentances, to provide an accurate biography of this person. 24.147.97.230 06:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • And Chappaquiddick doesn't suffice in destroying any idea that this guy is a role model? I mean, c'mon. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that he isn't a roll model. The point is, why give any politician a pass on events like this? Why not hold them accountable for their actions by recording them so any young Massachusetts school kid can do a book report on their senior senator. I don't care what the politician claims to be, what his excuses were, or any thing of that sort. The point is, if the guy wants a balance of good and bad in a public record about his life, he should have to actually do a balance of good and bad deeds to achieve that result. Why would anyone, republican or democrat, want to give any senator a pass to do bad and only record those deeds if it was as important in his life as Chappaquiddick. - Sleepnomore 00:16, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Progress

Just a quick thanks to everyone, especially to "the editors" for working with the spirit of cooperation. We're not there yet, but the level headed discussion is appreciated. I have to think that this page is fast becoming a model for others. Thanks Kizzle, Ryan, Sleep, Silver, Voice,JP, Agiant, and any I missed. Maybe there is hope for us all.24.147.97.230 02:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You too, 24. Thanks for the good words and amity! -- RyanFreisling @ 03:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Kumbaya :) --kizzle 03:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)



I've restored the past, hopefully we are past it now.

As a matter of principle, I restored the past, because we lost it due to unethical activities by someone who disregarded the 3RR rule.--Silverback 07:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate Silverback's support for the principle of an accurate record. (As noted below, I still think it should be re-archived, but I recognize that his action was based on principle and integrity.) Robert McClenon 16:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverting the archive out was extremely pointless. It leaves needless long RfC sections taking up space along with personal attacks. I liked Kizzle's clean slate. I originally wanted to keep the stuff there, but since the discussion has grown, it is just time to archive.Voice of All(MTG) 15:18, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

It is not quite fair to characterize all the text as needless and personal attacks. Much of it was not much different from what is here now. You shouldn't be so dismissive of other peoples efforts.--Silverback 23:15, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I too found the reversion to the long version (with rambling and upsetting personal attacks) to be counter-productive and discouraging. If folks don't mind grabbing the 'still live' topics they care about amidst the chatter, I'd consider re-archiving the rest progress. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the previous deletion was inappropriate because it violated the 3RR rule. I think that Sleepnomore was absolutely certain that she was doing the right thing by deleting all of the personal attacks. (Maybe she thought that we had no human memories, and that deleting the written record of the past would actually eliminate the past.) However, being absolutely certain of one's own rightness does not justify violating the rules. On the other hand, I agree with Voice of All(MTG) and RyanFreisling that it is time to re-archive most of the talk. The length of the talk page causes performance problems on editing. Robert McClenon 16:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm confused how wiping the slate clean with a full page archive is any different from a sequential archive. I had attempted to archive the majority of the personal attacks. I furthermore didn't violate the 3RR rule because the 3RR rule specifically allows an exception for simple vandalism. Now vandalism can quite often be an excuse, but specifically, the Wikipedia:Vandalism page states that comments can be removed if they involve personal attacks WP:RPA. The attempt was made in good faith despite what others might say. Once I saw that others continually reverted the page, I left the page alone before Kizzle wiped it completely. Kizzle was able to accomplish in one fell swoop what I had accomplished to do with multiple sequential archives. In any case I support the clean slate (obviously) and am glad it has been restored once again. - Sleepnomore 17:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
You were warned in advance of your 3RR violations that you were also deleting material that was not personal attacks, so don't pretend you didn't know. It is a shame that the 3RR rule can be so blatently violated without repercussions because of such a transparent pretence.--Silverback 18:20, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Sleep's pretense notwithstanding, can we please stop the personal attacks and focus on this article's contents in this talk space? If you wanna ruminate further on this topic (Sleeps' 3RR), please take it elsewhere. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is this back to a mess? For the first time we were all getting along and working together. I think we need to get back to a clean slate again. 24.147.97.230 16:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"For the first time we were all getting along and working together." Well, Agiantman has yet to stop the personal attacks and lack of cooperation. 24, you pretty much represent those who want this section added to the article since Agiantman is still not cooperating. As long as you continue to be reasonable, as you have so far, we can comprimise; without you, this effort will fail.Voice of All(MTG) 16:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Plea to Agiantman, please give your best effort to negociate and get along with this group. We are seeing an honest effort on their part, please help work in the spirit of cooperation. Thanks Agiant, and thanks Voice of All(MTG) 24.147.97.230 18:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Archive 5 restored.Voice of All(MTG) 16:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I have and continue to make a good faith effort to edit this page. I am a pro-choice agnostic liberal independent with a healthy skepticism of ALL politicians. When I came to wiki, I had no idea that wikipedia was so dominated by left-wing editors. I have since been amazed at the efforts that many left-wing POVers will go through to create a positive image of their icons. It wasn't until I visited the Josef Stalin site that I was able appreciate the full extent of the problem. The efforts made here by numerous POV pushers to protect Ted Kennedy's "honor" is indeed extraordinary. I will do what I can to keep it in check. I lived for 30 years in Massachusetts, so I know Ted Kennedy's history very well. BTW - You will not see me on any site defending Bush or anyone other conservative Republican. You can review my edits regarding my current conservative Republican congressman here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ileana_Ros-Lehtinen&action=history. Good day!--Agiantman 00:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Quite honestly, no one cares about your or anyone else's political orientation. This is an encyclopedia, not an encounter group.
You can be a Libertarian lesbian nun with a healthy skepticism of all pomeranians, for all I care. If you can contain yourself to the facts, and not attacking others for what you perceive as their bias, you will be an effective editor. If instead you focus on others' perceived political orientations and a grand conspiracy theory of leftist manipulation of Wikipedia, you will find your influence greatly reduced, by no one's actions but your own.
Can you please make an effort to limit your thoughts and posts on this talk page to the facts of this article about Senator Ted Kennedy - as others here have recently committed to - and not on your own political beliefs and fears, or speculations about the politics of your fellow editors? That kind of misplaced focus (by 'both sides', whatever that means) was what screwed this talk page up last time. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
You, User:RyanFreisling, are a POV warrior of the worst kind. Your POV pushing history here and elsewhere is a matter of record. I think it may be time for a User:RyanFreisling RFC.--Agiantman 01:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
That is a blatant personal attack, it is utterly unwarranted, and I stand by every one of my posts. I have never attacked you in this way, and I'm comfortable with what your post really says about each of us. You are welcome to follow Wikipedia policy to correct any abuse you perceive. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Agiantman, there is no Cabal. And please stop making assumptions about us. I don't like Ted Kennedy, most of us know that he is an ass. I know about Chappaquiddick, I know that he blames republicans for Enron, even though Democrats(ahem...Nansi Pelosi and others) were also having huge $250,000 Enron parties, and I don't like him saying that we have already lost in Iraq not long after the war began(thanks for the support Ted!). Other than being reluctantly pro-choice, wanting to remove taxcuts for millionaires and spend a decent sum of money on environmental research and incentives, I am not that liberal, or "to the left" as you call it. I generally don't like Democrats or Republicans at all. The point is that your assumptions about me are blatantly unsupported and wrong. Please actually address the arguments James, Ryan, Gamaliel, Kizzle, and I make. Voice of All(MTG) 01:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
If you will look at archive 5, you will see that some of us also think of Ted as a mass-murderer. I notice there has been more hacking at the talk page. That was an unfortunate precedent.--Silverback 04:38, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Huh???Voice of All(MTG) 04:44, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Here.[6]--Silverback 05:33, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
This is not a message board and such things do not belong here. Gamaliel 05:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. - Sleepnomore 06:15, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Yeah that probably didn't belong on this page.Voice of All(MTG) 06:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Community building is a legitimate use of a talk page during an edit war. --Silverback 08:51, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
User talk pages can serve that function. I thought it was an irrelevant, space-wasting distraction from the primary mission here, which is what this conversation is becoming, ironically. Gamaliel 19:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Why didn't you just ignore it. I intended to, but we don't need to be hacking at each others edits on the talk page. I doubt a large spate of personal sharing was going to follow in its wake, but independent of that it represented a point and perhaps a reminder.--Silverback 23:49, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
I see it is part of my administrative responsibility to assist in making sure talk pages are used for their intended purpose and that time and space are not wasted on frivolous or irrelevant uses. Gamaliel 00:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
The vague irony here is that the fatboy anon, whose personal outreach was removed, is complaining below that other people are talking about things he doesn't want to talk about right now. But yeah, talk pages are to discuss articles, not for "sharing". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
It was JamesMLane not the anon.--Silverback 01:22, August 25, 2005 (UTC) WHOOPS!!!, I had been thinking it was JamesMLane that was all touchy feely. Nevermind. Whack it!--Silverback 01:25, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, as a general principle, an admonishment if the discussion strays, is more appropriate than whacking on the talk page. Straying off topic a bit can assist in better understanding the other side, I generally think straying to a discussion of general principles, or analogous examples of their application is more productive than hobbies and pet peeves, but the talk pages, are where the community reaches understanding, and that is more important than keeping the talk page in pristine condition.--Silverback 01:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I brought up the discussion strays because it seems to have little to do with the real problems here. No on is really contesting the lead paragraph. As to the "sharing", I had hoped to bring us closer together by allowing us to see each other as people instead of ascii text. It was a bad idea and Gam was right to remove it.24.147.97.230 01:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Radical idea

Instead of expending all of this effort arguing over whether a few points of scandal deserve mention in the article, how about some effort into the clearly encyclopedic issue of better describing his political career? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:35, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • If he ever did anything in his political career worth mentioning, that might be a great idea! (I'm kidding!). Actually, this is a nice idea, but the "few points of scandal" are actually more prevelant in many people's minds than what hes actually done in office. Go take a poll on how many people can name something Ted Kennedy has done that was improper, and I'll bet you get an answer from most people. Ask them about something he's done in his political career and I'll bet you'll be lucky to find 25-30% of people can name one or two items of interest and note. They would most likely say "no child left behind" only because its been in the recent election news. Obviously this is all speculative. - Sleepnomore 06:45, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • No you aren't kidding, and you aren't neutral as you pretended to be while hacking the talk page.--Silverback 08:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • You are right. I'm actually George W. Bush trying to pull one over on everyone so I can secretly sneak some back-handed comments in on the democrats -- and I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you meddling kids! - Sleepnomore 19:57, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
There had been an effort briefly to talk about the introductory paragraph that would summarize how his supporters and critics assess his political career. Does someone have a revised draft? Here is another radical idea. While the article page is protected, could someone open an article subpage to try subpage, but at least there can be constructive edits to the introductory paragraph that can then be applied to the article when it is unprotected. Robert McClenon 11:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
It's as simple as clicking this link: Ted_Kennedy/Introduction (or Ted_Kennedy/Temp or Ted_Kennedy/Whatever you want) and editing. Just remember to ask an admin to delete the subpage once it is no longer needed, ie: when the main article has been unprotected. Func( t, c, @, ) 15:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Try Ted Kennedy/Draft 1.
Done. Try Ted Kennedy/Draft 1. Robert McClenon 02:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Lead section

It ought to be possible to make progress by working on a subpage (whether of the article or in someone's user space; I think there's some obscure technical reason to prefer the latter). In practice, though, I've found that many people simply don't visit the subpage. For a limited goal like crafting a short lead section, we might have more success using this regular talk page. Here's a starting point:

Lead section, draft #1:

Edward Moore Kennedy (born February 22, 1932) is the senior U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, having served since 1963. Like his assassinated brothers, President John F. Kennedy and Senator Robert F. Kennedy, he is a Democrat.
Because of Kennedy's personal prominence and his longtime advocacy of liberal principles, he is widely regarded as a "lion" of the Democratic Party. Supporters admire him as a forceful and reliable advocate for liberalism, whose personal and political skills enable him to achieve some gains even in an era of conservative ascendancy; however, some Democrats see him as being too ready to compromise with Republican legislators. His critics on the right charge that he is stuck in a "big-government" ideology from the 1960s, and has not adapted to changing times. Republicans seeking to rally their supporters often invoke Kennedy as the example of the enemy that must be opposed. They also criticize his alleged adultery and alcohol abuse.

One purpose of a lead section is to help the reader decide whether to read the full article. I've tried to focus on why Kennedy is more notable than the average U.S. Senator. JamesMLane 21:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where the lead section has been much of a debated issue. The real points here are the waitress sandwich, the rape trial, and the link to fatboy.cc. Why are we even talking about the lead???

  • I believe I said before: The purpose of a Talk page is to discuss the article. The article is being discussed. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I felt that I had said just about all that I had to say on the more contentious subjects, at least for now. Rather than simply repeating myself, I thought about where else we might make progress. There was some reversion of the lead section, and different people had problems with different aspects of it. Therefore, I tried to write a version that would meet those concerns. Also, it may be that making progress on the less contentious issues will make it easier to move forward on the tougher ones. JamesMLane 03:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
The introduction is an area on which we might actually make some progress. If we can make progress on an introductory paragraph that mentions the criticisms of Kennedy, then reasonable conservatives might agree with liberals and moderates that there is no need to introduce the non-encyclopedic minor incidents. At the same time, I doubt that the contentious issues can be resolved until the Arbcom agrees that the conduct of the anonymous editors is ready for arbitration. That means that the main article may stay locked for weeks or months longer. Robert McClenon 12:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Because the subpage Ted Kennedy/Draft 1 has been created, I inserted this new lead section there. People who aren't editing the subpage can still comment on it here, though. JamesMLane 07:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Status of This Article

This article has been locked for a long time. Is it the plan that it will remain locked for the remainder of this calendar year, or that it will be unlocked when the pigs come flying home to roost?

Alternatively, is there any plan either to unlock it and see if reason can prevail, or to seek some way of achieving reason (such as mediation)? Robert McClenon 14:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps when the secret Kennedy Assasination Files are released from the National Archieves cooler heads will prevail here...Kyle Andrew Brown 17:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
It could be unlocked if the "editors" would negociate. Historically they have not. It's been "our way or no way". 24.147.97.230 05:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I didn't know that?--Silverback 08:50, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

This article does not appear to be listed on Wikipedia:Protected page#Real articles. A long term block without public notice is inappropriate here. It is not a good idea to block pages about major public figures for long periods. George W. Bush gets a lot more vandalism than this page, but does not remain on perma-block. There are other ways to deal effectively with vandalism. If it remains locked, it will become a good candidate for an RFC on the excessive use of the locked page (regardless of what content disputes are at issue here, which I don't care to research) NoSeptember 12:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The reason for the protection of this article is not vandalism. It is locked due to a revert war that was due to a content dispute. I agree with NoSeptember that keeping it locked for several weeks due to a content dispute is inappropriate.
24.147.97.230 states that the article can be unlocked if the editors will negotiate. I would be interested in a specific non-frivolous proposal as to how to negotiate the content. I tried consensus surveys. However, 24.147.97.230 Agiantman asserted that consensus means unanimous consent. That is not how Wikipedia uses the term "consensus"; if it were, it would grant any editor a liberum veto and make articles on controversial subjects impossible. (If I misunderstood that statement, please rephrase it.) In the absence of an alternate proposal, I think that the article should be simply unlocked. Robert McClenon 13:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


To Robert McClenon, please state where I have written or implied "that consensus means unanimous consent." are you just making this up? 24.147.97.230 17:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
It was a different editor who made that statement. Robert McClenon 23:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
You're right, Robert, Wiki is explicit that this is NOT a democracy.Kyle Andrew Brown 00:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

See Also

assassinated brothers in introduction

Does anyone else think the introducion sentence: "Like his assassinated brothers, President John F. Kennedy and Senator Robert F. Kennedy, he is a Democrat." is very tacky. It would be better to just say he is a member of a prominent political family. NoSeptember 19:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I've been bothered by that -- I think I started to comment on it before, got caught in the middle of serial edit conflicts, and decided "eh, may as well wait". But -- yeah. It's clumsy. Maybe not tacky, but clumsy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Gamaliel's change is an improvement. NoSeptember 19:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I realize it's an unpleasant subject. The fact is, though, that Kennedy's prominence comes only partly from his long tenure in the Senate and from his willingness to advocate liberal positions. It's also partly a consequence of the family's history, including the tragic deaths of his brothers. I do think, though, that "most prominent surviving member" is a little too ghoulish. It has some connotation of "they haven't gotten him yet". I've changed that to "most prominent living member". JamesMLane 08:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Robert McClenon's Changes

First, I believe that these substantial content additions should discussed more fully in Talk first for discussion. This is a consensus effort.

To me it reads well. However, the summary paragraph has a lengthy link to his brothers, when I wonder if in a summary paragraph the focus should be on Ted.

The attribution that the right wing says such and such is going to sit badly with many.

The summary stating that the Republicans use Ted to rally.... Well, Republicans use LOTSA folks and issues to rally folks. I suspect this is dangerous editorial waters as well. And I don't think many articles on Dems start out the same manner.

And really, with all we've discussed in TALK, opening up with the broadside about Teds drinking and adultery, well, again, I think this all belongs in TALK.

I give Robert the benefit of the doubt, but I wonder if it reads like "consensus" but actually fosters a biased anti-Kennedy broadside.

Broadsides may be appropriate, but in the opening?

I'm not gonna move it to TALK, but just watch this space...Kyle Andrew Brown 19:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Kennedy Campaign Cover

Sorry, timed out on loger, I made the presidential rewrite. Also, Time has the Kennedy campaign cover for Nov 5, 1979 at http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101791105,00.html. I'm not so good at inserting them into content. Any takers to put in the presididential bid section?[[User:Kyle Andrew Brown 21:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

"stuck in big government" in summary. Any idea for a better word than stuck?Kyle Andrew Brown 11:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Alternative energy

The short section entitled "alternative energy" seems POV to me. It says, Ted Kennedy has maintained a strong record in favor of alternative energy sources as seen in his voting record as a senator. Some people, however, see Kennedy's opposition to a wind farm within sight of his home as an example of a NIMBY philosophy.. Which people are those? Certainly, the cited article doesn't support any charge of NIMBY-ism; his opposition (at least as described by the article) has to do with the lack of sufficient regulatory oversight. The implication of NIMBYism either needs to be supported, or the "some people" who see his opposition have to be cited explicitly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Image of Kopechne

I see no reason why the image of Mary Jo Kopechne should be on the Ted Kennedy article page. It should be and is on her article page. If someone wants to try to establish a consensus in favor of its inclusion, that can be done via discussion on this talk page.

I do not see the value of the changes about his views on abortion, but I am willing to agree that they may be word-smithed. Robert McClenon 15:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

There is not reason to have only flattering photos of Kennedy on this page. Wikpedia bios of people whose lives engender controversy generally include a photo related to that controversy. Seems POV to exclude them. A prominent senator from a prominent family committed a crime directly related to a woman's death. This is no small part of his life - the incident very likely helped keep him from being the democratic nominee for president. No small thing. 214.13.4.151 16:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I think one picture related somehow to Chappaquiddick would be in order, and that Kopechne's picture would probably be one of the better choices. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:40, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
If there is consensus that a picture of Chappaquiddick is in order, then I will defer to the consensus, but only if the consensus is an honestly established one. Robert McClenon 22:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
This article links to Mary Jo Kopechne, which is where her picture belongs (and is included). An appropriate image to illustrate the Chappaquiddick section of this article would be a photo of the accident scene or, what I would think the anti-Kennedy editors would want most, a photo of the intersection where he made the wrong turn. JamesMLane 07:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I would agree to a photo of the accident scene. Robert McClenon 11:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
This is ultimately not an argument about whether it will make the article complete and fair; this is simply Teddy's supporter's versus his detractors. I think we all realize this. His supporters probably feel that a photo of Mary Jo Kopechne would be manipulative; his opponents most likely feel that it would be bias not to show it. Both sides are right, to a certain extent. Personally, I feel that Chappaquiddick does not affect his political career, and a photo of her would be used only to make him look like a worse politician. I will note that there is no photo of Michael Dutton Douglas on the Laura Bush page, there is no photo of Jessica Hahn on the Jim Bakker page, there is no photo of Monica Lewinsky on the Bill Clinton page, and there are no photos of Watergate conspirators on the Richard Nixon page. I name these to make two points: one, focus on these scandals are used to make the person look bad, even if they have no bearing on their career, political or not; two, scandals deserve their own special attention, i.e. their own pages, and focus on them on the person's main page is ultimately manipulation.
However, I recognized that I am biased on this issue, and will agree to a photo of the accident scene if that is what everyone else wants. --Marco Passarani 18:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with JamesMLane, perhaps an accident photo would be appropriate.Voice of All(MTG) 18:22, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


I disagree. This is not simply Kennedy's supporters versus his detractors. It is also an argument about what will make the article more nearly complete and fair. I think thatMarco Passarani makes an excellent point by comparing this article to others involving politicians who have had scandals. I did not see and do not see the need for any image about Chappaquiddick on the Ted Kennedy page. I simply was taking stronger exception to the image of Kopechne than to an image of the accident itself. I agree that focusing on images of scandals on a politician's main page is manipulative.
I also disagree with Macro Passarani when he says that he is biased on this issue. He does himself a disservice in making that statement. It appears that he is doing a very good job of explaining how to approach this issue from an unbiased perspective. Robert McClenon 18:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


I think there should be SOME sort of Chappaquiddick-related photo. It is without question the DEFINING moment of his political career (That is unless he drives off another bridge with some girl he's not married to in tow.)

Those of you that think otherwise are just deluding yourselves.

This is the BROTHER of Jack and Bobby Kennedy for goodness sake!

He'd have already BEEN President or CERTAINTLY have received the democratic nomination once or twice if not SPECIFICALLY because of this incident.

Think about it.

But, if I may, let me bring up another issue...

I'd like to ask about the propriety of this statement:

"Kennedy's political opponents question whether justice was served in this case, though their motives may be political, rather than based on any evidence"

Since they are already ID'd as 'political opponents' the rest of this is overkill.

I suggest the following substitution:

"Kennedy's political opponents have always claimed that justice was not served in this case."

Big Daddy 04:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that rewording. Robert McClenon 11:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I favor a photo of the accident scene. It seems more descriptive and relevant. Recalling the incident has generally been a successful tactic of his opponents in undercutting his moral authority and viability as a presidential contender. Worth a photo. And for the record, a photo of the cause of Clinton's impeachment should be included, but since that would be pornographic, a head shot of Lewinsky ought to be there. 214.13.4.151 12:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Waitress Harassment restored

Is the recently restored one-paragraph summary of the waitress harassment claim considered both sufficiently well-sourced and sufficiently significant to warrant inclusion in this article? Robert McClenon 18:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I added in a sourced version, but it was reverted. After reading the Political Ressurection section again, I realized that womenizing claims were sufficiently mentioned alredy, so I didn't bother to put it back in. I think it is somewhat questionable, which I could tolerate if it was not redundant, so I guess it should be removed, continuing the revert-war, but I am not going to be the one to do it ;).Voice of All(MTG)

The following needs to be sourced if it is going to remain in the article...I'm not sure it's worth inclusion anyway: Kennedy and fellow Democratic senator Chris Dodd, from Connecticut, were accused in 1985 of sexually assaulting a waitress at Washington DC’s La Brasserie restaurant. It was reported that Kennedy threw Carla Gaviglio on top Dodd, who was slumped in a chair, drunk, and then jumped on top of her, after which Gaviglio ran from the room screaming. Although there were several witnesses, Gaviglio declined to press charges. There is no source for the above...I've never heard of it, so if it has to be here, then it should be sourced.--MONGO 18:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

The source is listed in the Additional Readings. It should be linked to the incident if the incident is included, and deleted along with the incident if the incident is deleted. It appeared to me before the page was locked that the consensus (super-majority) of named users was not to include it. I will delete it. Robert McClenon 19:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
No, the consensus was that it was to be included, but kept to a few sentences, not an entire section. TDC 20:19, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
I do not recall seeing a consensus that it should be kept but shortened. There was a consensus that a mention in passing of the Palm Beach rape trial would be in order, but that the long tabloid description should not be in. There may have been a "majority vote" to include the waitress harassment by counting anonymous editors. Please cite where the "consensus" in favor of including the waitress harassment was. Robert McClenon 11:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
...and away we go. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Listen, if we can include garbage such as Lori Klausutis to the Joe Scarborough article, certainly we can have this included as well. No one denies it ever happened, and Dodd threw a hissy fit on Imus when he brought it up. TDC 20:26, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Feh. That's how we make Wikipedia generally trashier, not generally better. The best response to garbage in one article is not adding garbage to another article. That's like dealing with graffiti on your wall by putting it on someone else's; just escalates the ugliness. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Kept but shortened, that is exactly what my edit has done. TDC 15:51, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

"The best response to garbage in one article is not adding garbage to another article."-Jpgordon


Well said! I might put that quote on my user page because it is true and little funny, :).Voice of All(MTG) 21:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

The best response to garbage in one article is to apply equal standards to all articles to motivate recalcitrant users into seeing the light and setting a precedent for some kind of generally accepted standard for content. TDC 15:51, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
No. See WP:POINT. If you think the standards are too low, you are disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point by lowering the quality of one article because you're dissatisfied with the quality of another, or because you wish to motivate users and set precedents. This is exactly why the WP:POINT policy exists. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


And now we have an entire section on his mistaken inclusion on the "no fly" list, but not even a mention on the waitress sandwich? I never knew Ted had garnered such a cult of personality. TDC 16:11, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it must be a cult of personality, not ongoing assassinations against prominent Liberals (in this Kennedy's case only his character, and not he himself, are assassination targets). It's disengenuous to claim any 'not-unfavorable' information in the article is a result of a 'cult of personality' when so many seem so fixed (especially our resident DoD editor, '214') on assassinating his character. You cannot have it both ways... if there is such a cult, those who ruthlessly attack his character here are members as well. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey, all I want to see are all issues dealt with fairly, in all articles .... including this one. TDC 16:24, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
That's very good to hear. Me too. Thanks for that. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 16:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Please Discuss the Introduction

There is a revert war in progress about the end of the introductory paragraph. Can we discuss it here rather than only in edit summaries? I am putting an NPOV banner up to direct attention to this talk page. Robert McClenon 11:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Kennedy is a left-wing liberal. His political opponents are right-wing conservatives. No POV there. What is all the fuss about? That is a fair and even-handed use of terms. 214.13.4.151 12:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with that statement on this talk page. To characterize Kennedy as a left-wing liberal is POV, at least if he does not refer to himself as left-wing. On the other hand, the language onin the 214.13.4.151 introductory text in the article itself, which attributes those characterizations to Kennedy's critics, is accurate and neutral. Robert McClenon 13:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • All those characterizations: left-wing, right-wing, etc -- are POV unless the subject describes himself as such. "Liberal" is certainly accurate for Kennedy, and at least within the context of American politics has some context; does Kennedy use it for himself? But "left-wing" doesn't have any meaning, really; it's been degraded by constant pejorative use to include Bill Clinton and Al Gore, for example (who are about as left-wing as Richard Nixon). So yes, specifically attributing the characterizations to his critics is accurate. (Or, in short: "what Robert McClenon said.") --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

214.13.4.151 = DoD

For some reason, I cannot find this section in the archives... anyone know of what became of the IP trace/determination (to which this anon never responded) that he/she is in fact accessing Wikipedia from withing the DoD Network Information Center, in Vienna VA? -- RyanFreisling @ 14:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Technically, the anon is probably not accessing Wikipedia from the DoDNIC in Vienna, VA. That address in Vienna (Virginia) is simply the business address of registration of the Class A block of 214.*.*.*, which is assigned to the DoDNIC, which is the subregistrar for the block. DoDNIC either knows where that static address is, or at least knows what agency within the US Department of Defense has a smaller block. The address might be at the Pentagon, or it might be at Fort Hood. Robert McClenon 00:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Karl_Rove#Anon_editor_214.13.4.151_.3D_DOD is this what you're looking for? GangofOne 00:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Ah, there you go. The user was defacing another article (albeit an equally political one) entirely. Thanks for that, Gangofone. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Chappaquiddick

i've changed a few things in this section to reduce its cruftiness a bit. there were a number of redundancies, several irrelevancies, and somehow the medical examiner's determination of drowning had been elided, giving the impression that the cause of death was never legally determined. gargan discussed kennedy's drinking at the party and the conclusion is that he was not intoxicated when driving. i also added back kennedy's claim to have attempted to swim down to kopechne to the narrative, as the controversy is mentioned later in the section with the rest of the controversial claims. and i clarifiedn that after they went to help, gargan and markham tried to reach kopechne; kennedy was too exhausted to be of help at that point and stayed on the bank; gargan and markham also failed to get to kopechne, lending credence to kennedy's claims of trying and failing. let's try not to get into a childish edit war over this. these facts were researched (most of the pro-kennedy facts come as factual admissions from ostensibly anti-kennedy websites) and placed in this article some time ago and have been lost to wikientropy since then. all i'm doing here is making the section look less like it's been stepped on by biased interlopers. 24.221.121.232 17:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I did some wikius reparo on this section. It drifts like a sand-dune due to its status as a popular target of vandals and anti-Kennedy types. Someone had even removed the last paragraph, which was inserted to keep the political nutballs from having an excuse. 216.237.179.238 22:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Socialite?

I find the inclusion in Category:socialites bizarre. I have almost always heard this term applied only to someone with little or no other claim to fame. Is my usage idiosyncratic? Or is this category wrong for TK? --

Reverted. If someone thinks that it is appropriate, they can discuss it on this talk page first. Robert McClenon 22:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Protected

There seems to be general agreement that there should at least be some mention of the rape case on this page, but only a short one. Please hash out a proper phrasing here and when you've found something you can all live with we can unprotect the page again. --fvw* 05:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

OK...hashing.

Up above, Ryan suggested something like In 1985 Senator Kennedy testified during the rape trial of his nephew William Kennedy Smith, who was subsequently acquitted. Consider this the first entry into the hash pile (or whatever it is one hashes out). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

For the record, my revert of the anon was accidental because I was reverting Stevertigo due to our disagreement about the disambiguation note. I would have reverted the anon anyway, but I just want to note that the edit summary refers to that issue and not the issue of the rape trial and I was not trying to start another edit war on that subject. Regardless, I think the consensus is more than clear. The rape trial is mentioned in the first paragraph of the "political resurrection" section. I think that's more than enough, as do most of the editors on this page I believe. The anon is just trying to stir up the same crap that's plagued this article for months. Gamaliel 05:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Succeeding? At breaking your grip of POV pushing on this page? Look at the history. It's been your way or no way. I'm not going away, get used to it. It's time to negociate a fair compromise. Just because you can harass others into giving up the fight for balance here don't think you can do it to me. You and your group do not own this page or the content. This is a group effort. The rape deserves a paragraph, the waitress incident deserves mention.
The ArbCom can be the judge of whether there has been POV pushing, harassment, or failure to negotiate. Robert McClenon 16:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
If you truly believe this is a "group effort" you will respect the clear consensus of that group. Gamaliel 18:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The waitress incident deserves mention. It is mentioned briefly. The statement that "the rape deserves a paragraph" is inaccurate and misleading. The rape trial does deserve a mention, and it is mentioned. There was no proof of a rape; the trial resulted in an acquittal. Robert McClenon 18:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


So, am I to understand that you all feel that I am the only person with this view?
No, but as anyone reading this talk page and its archives for the past several months will eventually figure out (though I wouldn't recommend such a painful task to anyone), consensus has been established, and you refuse to accept it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


jpgordon This is not true at all. Consensus was NEVER established. I proposed several times and was ignored. You and your group may have made plans, but NEVER with those of other POVs24.147.97.230 04:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Some relevant quotes from Wikipedia:Consensus. Gamaliel 04:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

  • "Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith."
  • "Those who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a large group of editors should at least consider that they may be mistaken."
Another relevant quote is: "In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it."
That mixture can apply here also. Do those who disagree with the majority view choose to give the disagreement a low priority, to disagree strongly but to concede that there is a community view and so respect it on that level, to be vocal and unreconciled, or to operate "outside the law"? Robert McClenon 13:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Me and JPGordon and others have been through this already. We where there. There was concensus. The rape trail was orinionaly supposed to get a line, although I became indifferent to its inclusion. The waitress event also was to get some mention origionally.
However the concensus changed, partly due to different editors coming and older ones leaving and lines mentioning "allegations of womenizing" were added, which made the shaky, lower credibility waitress incident redundant. JamesMLane was the one who convinced me that the 1991 trail testimony was of little relevance. When it was removed, few people bothered to put it back. This issue has dragged on for to long, see archive 5, it just got nasty there.Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 05:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

Well I don't know whether the sound I hear is the sound of people "hashing something out", or simply the chirping of crickets. Whatever, time to edit again. Unprotected. Yes, I know there's a RfC. Get over it. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The sound was that of crickets. Thank you for unprotecting. Robert McClenon 11:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
What exactly was Tony Sidaway saying about the RfCs, anyway? Yes, there is a content dispute. I do not understand how page protection helps resolve long-term content disputes. It may work in cases of vandalism. A 24-hour page protect may work as a cooling-off period. This is not the sort of dispute that calls for a 24-hour cooling-off period. Robert McClenon 11:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm of a general opinion that we've been protecting articles for too long. A couple of weeks ago we still had some articles that had been protected way back in early August. I've instituted changes on Wikipedia:Protected page and currently we have only one article that has been protected for longer than seven days, and in that case the vandal has progressed to blanking the talk page, which is very unusual. Most of the other article protections are less than three days old. I've been monitoring closely to spot adverse effects, but so far I'm not seeing any. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Worst that will happen will be a bit of thrash before someone protects a troubled page again. That's no big deal, and far less harmful than keeping articles protected for a prolonged period. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

War on Terrorism

A speech by Kennedy has been completely inserted into this article which is longer than the length of this article warrants. An external link should be inserted in its place. If this is not done shortly, I will move it to an archive. Robert McClenon 19:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


War on Terrorism

"He withheld any comments concerning the fact that no terrorist attack has taken place on American shores since the decision to go to war."

This seems coincidental and irrelevant. Stian Oksavik 05:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Horribly POV paragraph

From the current text of the article: "Although Sen. Kennedy's lack of evidence in this case is often criticized for what seems a two-faced political move, he remains staunchly devoted to his opposing view despite the fact there have been no attacks on the U.S. since Bush's decision to go to war." This reads like an ill-researched anti-Kennedy editorial, not part of an encyclopedia writing. Weasel words, as well: "often criticized". At this time, this paragraph has been in the article for over 24 hours. I believe it should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

No Child Left Behind

From the current article:

Kennedy has argued that President and Congress have failed to budget enough funding for the programs mandated by the law. His premise is that the Federal government is obligated to allocate funding up to the the authorization levels found in the legislation for several programs. However, Congress has traditionally treated such authorization levels as spending caps.

I have several problems with this. First, the presumably easiest: the last statement is uncited and sweeping. I would hope we could easily agree to get rid of it. But my bigger point is that I believe this paragraph is misleading. Kennedy's issue isn't that all programs should be funded to the max. It is that, in this case, there is a mandate to the states to take certain actions, but no federal funds for those actions. You would never know that, or even guess that, by reading this. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, it is misleading because Kennedy does believe in "Leaving Childred Behind" Just ask Mary Jo. --- --Keetoowah 00:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That's just stupid. She was 29. He was 37. Keep trying, though; eventually you'll be able to insert asinine irrelevancies and actually get them right. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Ya, next time you make a dumbass comment, try and at least spell it right. --kizzle 01:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)"
Dear Kizzle & JPGordon: I hope that you feel better after your outbursts. I would think that your outbursts gave you a deep sense of sanctimonuous self-satisfaction. And, JPGordon, do you really think that Kennedy killing a 29 year old was ok and proper just because she wasn't a child? --- --Keetoowah 15:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Riiight. Just hold your tongue next time you want to attempt to be clever and then I'll truly feel "sanctimonuous" self-satisfaction. --kizzle 17:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Does the dog have Buddha-nature? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Mu. Robert McClenon 16:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

NCLB Again

Kennedy's conduct at Chappaquiddick is discussed in the article. His views on NCLB are also discussed. We do not need to conflate or interrelate them. I did not see any outbursts. I did see breaches of civility by both liberals and conservatives. Incivility does not justify incivility.

I disagree with the edit summary that said that the reference to an unfunded mandate was POV or inaccurate. It was not. It was a statement that Kennedy said NCLB created an unfunded mandate. It is a fact that Kennedy said that. It is also a fact that GAO stated that NCLB did not create an unfunded mandate. Can we state both positions in the article? Robert McClenon 16:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Why? Kennedy has an opinion. We record the opinion. We have no reason to present counter-arguments to his stated opinion, other than perhaps something like "Kennedy said (contrary to the GAO's position) that NCLB created an unfunded mandate." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • That might be a good way to handle it. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Children

"He has four grown children from his first marriage with Virginia Joan Bennett: Kara, Edward Jr., and Patrick…" So which is it? Three? Or four, one of whom is not named? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

TED??

Can somebody explain why the title of this article is "Ted Kennedy". I know that has been his nickname for all of his life, but, for example, his brothers where nicknamed "Jack Kennedy" and "Bobby Kennedy", and yet, their articles here appear under "John F. Kennedy" and "Robert F. Kennedy". So, the title of this article should be "Edward M. Kennedy", which is his name, not his nickname. Does anyone has any objection to rename this page to the proper name of this senator?<<Coburn_Pharr>> 16:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No one but intimates ever called JFK "Jack" to his face. RFK was about equally often "Robert" or "Bobby". Ted Kennedy has pretty much always been "Ted" or "Teddy". I don't think most Americans even know he's "Edward". -- Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The article should be renamed Edward M. Kennedy and a re-direct created for Ted Kennedy. 192.168.159.130 10:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to use the name by which the person is most commonly known. For example, Bill Clinton is the article and William J. Clinton is the redirect. JamesMLane 12:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Links

These two links were recently removed; as far as I can tell, this occurred without substantive comment:

While, politically, I might wish them away, they ended up in the article after extensive discussion and a hammered-out consensus. I believe they should be restored. Was there some rationale that I missed for removing them? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Having received no response in just under 24 hours, I will restore these. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
They're actually two links to the same site (different pages within the site). I agree with you about not deleting it, but I think a single link to the site homepage, with a brief note that it's anti-Kennedy site, would be preferable. JamesMLane 09:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
James, feel free to edit; my biggest concern with this one is that our annotation of the link makes it clear that it provides the driving record info, which seems well-researched and which I could imagine a quite neutral party wanting to access. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Views on Abortion

Multiple paragraphs on the evolution of Kennedy's views on the right to abortion were just deleted without discussion. They did appear to be of encyclopedic value. I will restore them unless a reasoned case is made why they should remain deleted. Robert McClenon 14:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I see that they were reverted. I agree. Robert McClenon 17:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Response to abortion

I think it's not important to include Teds former views about abortion. It only matters what he thinks today and what his record is. It's meaningless to include it considering he was a staunch abortionist for the last 30 years. I am in favor of taking it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJstroker (talk • contribs) 18 Dec 2005

Strongly disagree. This is an encyclopedia, not a voters' guide. (BTW, did you really mean to write "a staunch abortionist"? I am rather certain that Kennedy has never personally performed an abortion.) The evolution of his politics is important, not just what they happen to be now. Yes, something like this can be carried too far (for example, our article no Hugo Black is more thorough in discussing his KKK connections as a young man than what he did on the Supreme Court bench), but here it is not. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sliding out of neutrality

Looking at the way the article has changed in the last few days, it looks to me like it is sliding out of neutrality:

  • Once again, we have a long section about Kennedy's driving record, this time under the unencyclopedic title "Further Controversy". Didn't we get clear consensus some time ago that the driving record merited an external link, but not a lengthy discussion?
  • Why is debate over No Child Left Behind finding its way into this article? We have an article on NCLB. Kennedy's own role and views belong here. The rest does not.
  • I have literally never before seen a section entitled "Controversial Quotes" in a Wikipedia article.

Jmabel | Talk 04:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ted

Does anyone know why he is called Ted and not Ed? His name is Edward, so that confuses me. --Revolución (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Because "Ted" is a common nickname for Edward. Ted Turner is another example. "Ned" is also an Edward nickname. Nowhere near as weird as "Peggy" for Margaret. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Swimming team

I have cut the recently added claim that Kennedy captained the Harvard swimming team, pending citation. Given Chappaquiddick, this would be more than idle trivia, but that makes it all the more important that it be cited from a reliable source. For all I know, it might be true, he was certainly a strong swimmer prior to his back injury, but I have my doubts. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

discrepancies: mary jo kopechne

The Kopechne article says "Undertaker Eugene Frieh told reporters that death "was due to suffocation rather than drowning." This article says it was due to drowning. Which one's right - can somebody clear it up?

News of the accident was hardest on debilitated family patriarch, Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. He refused food and became uninterested in life, because he knew the scandal would kill the political career of his sole surviving son. He died shortly afterwards.

says who? source? Derex 22:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Derex 01:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Scandal? What scandal?

I shot at my own swiftboat, and gunned down little children, and they don't even call that a scandal! hell I even got a purple heart for it, just leave poor Teddy Alone--John F. Kerry 17:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you got three Purple Hearts, and a Silver Star, and a Bronze Star. You humble fellow, you. Babykiller though; that's hippie talk. Do you spit on vets too, Mr. John? Derex 22:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Attack sites

The anon writes in an ES, "The argument against fatboy.cc was that there was already an alternate pov." No, the main argument was that the site was worthless in terms of conveying additional information that a reader might find useful but that was more detail than we wanted in the article. The Y Ted K site, although also viciously partisan, seems to me to have more substance. I restored it for that reason. (It still merits only one entry in the Ext links section, though, not two separate entries as it had for a while.) JamesMLane 07:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Can the IP address be blocked for violating the ban? Robert McClenon 12:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Law school

Tried to add " University of Virginia, 1959 " to infobox, but I am restricted from doing so. Someone with editing capacity can add it. Potatoe 21:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. NoSeptember talk 22:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

political resurrection

That section, especially the title, is pov. As best i can tell, the man has always been a tremendously prominent US Senator, and a Presidential contender for many of those. What's this about resurrection? What's with the third sentence, just kind of hanging there, implying to those who aren't already familiar that Kennedy helped rape someone. The factual material from this section should be included in various parts of the article. But, that section as it stands really needs to go. Derex 23:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)