Talk:Ted Kennedy/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Duplicate article? 2 Chappaquiddick 3 Violation of Neutrality 4 Suggestions for greater detail and accuracy 5 Persistent Vandalism 6 Political resurrection 7 Election campaign 8 Why no mention of the Big Dig in his bio??? 9 Section removed 10 Depends whether you are only writing for people in Massachusetts 11 Removed from Category:American lawyers (for now) 12 Featured Article 13 Liberalism 14 KGB Letter 14.1 Moot point 15 No mention of the drunk-driving incident in DC? 16 Sockpuppetry & Partial Lock 17 Good Article 18 cut a section? 19 Poor citation 20 NCLB

Duplicate article?

Ted Kennedy/Draft 1 seems to be the same or very identical article. Why does the Draft 1 article exist? Manufracture 20:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The article has now been merged with this one. Manufracture 22:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Chappaquiddick

This doesn't seem right. Chappaquiddick is the largest section, and by far the central theme. That's definitely not fair.

Yeah, you're right. It probably needs to be spun off into its own article (keeping a concise summary and link). That way one incident, no matter how notorious, won't dominate an article about an incredibly prominent politician. You just can't cut the material, because it does have a place here. But, you can try to keep individual articles balanced by creating sub-articles for lengthier discussions. Opinions? Derex 07:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with moving the detail to a daughter article. The summary that's left behind here, though, can't be just a couple sentences, given the impact that the event had on Kennedy's political career. JamesMLane t c 10:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is largely a matter of the rest of the article being underdeveloped. But I could see doing three paragraphs here and the rest at Chappaquiddick incident. - Jmabel | Talk 04:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe I misspoke myself (as Nixon's press secretary put it, except Nixon didn't just speak too soon: he lied). Looking at the article right now, the Chappaquiddick section doesn't look terribly big. Am I missing something? - Jmabel | Talk 05:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have one question that is really bothering me. If Kennedy escaped from the car, then he must have opened the door. The divers released a "large pocket of air", and found the trunk was "remarkably dry" when they raised the car.

How was that possible? If the car was "upside down" with an open door, then there would have been no ´large´ air pocket.

There is the possibilty that he opened a window to escape, of course. Hmmm...

Please help.

andreasegde 16:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to make a correction. as a resident of marthas vineyard i can tell you that chappaquiddick is NOT a seperate island. it is attached to the rest of the island via a beach. in fact it is not even its own town rather a section of edgartown. hope that is okay with everyone. if you have problem i'm sure you will lett me know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.101.65.2 (talk • contribs) 1 August 2006.

Is it attached even at high tide? I'd heard that there was a bar that could be traversed at low tide… Jmabel | Talk 07:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Just checked our article, which says "Chappaquiddick Island is a small island off the eastern end of the larger island of Martha's Vineyard. The two islands are connected, along their southern coast, by a narrow barrier beach accessible only by four-wheel-drive vehicles." - Jmabel | Talk 07:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This section probably violates WP:NPOV as a result of undue weight. I suggest that most of it be moved to its own article. --AaronS 01:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Did Kennedy ever notify police or did then Chief Arena send for Kennedy? Kennedy never reported the accident to authorities until he was summoned by Arena, nor did Gargan, Markham, or any of the boiler room girls. From the official transcript of the inquest of Monday, January 5, 1970 before Judge James A Boyle, Kennedy is questioned on page #62.

THE COURT. I think the answer had been no. Q. [by Mr. Dinis] And now may I ask you, Mr. Kennedy, was there any reason why no additional assistance was asked for? A. Was there any reason? Q. Yes, was there any particular reason why you did not call the police or fire department? A. Well I intended to report it to the police.

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

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

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

Kennedy never reported the accident before being contacted by the police. It was Chief Arena who sought him out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.49.160 (talk)

One, a paperback novel(/Blaxthos 01:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)) isn't exactly a reliable source. Two, edits pushing particular POV by an otherwise uninvolved ip aren't likely to pass scrutiny. /Blaxthos 00:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a novel -- but it's published by Regnery, so the same rules of truth and accuracy and artistic license apply. Reliable sources might well be available to support the anon's position, though. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Book is titled, "Senatorial Privilege" by Leo Damore. My edition is published is Dell ISBN: 044020416X —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.49.160 (talk • contribs)

Again, one single source that has no obligation to ensure truth, NPOV, or is subjected to peer review is not going to be enough to get it in the article in any case, and that it's a WP:BIO + living makes it all the more unlikely. /Blaxthos 11:52, 29 October

2006 (UTC)

Not single sourced, this is also verified from the official transcript of the inquest of Monday, January 5, 1970 before Judge James A Boyle, Kennedy is questioned on page #62. What proof do you have the Kennedy did seek out the police and report this before they found him? You are dead wrong on this issue. It's fact that he did not. To have these facts presented with sources, and have you revert without any proof to the contrary other than a previous post and that you just don't think so, is beyond reason. State a reliable source to my contrary or prove with facts that Kennedy did what you claim. It won't happen, you can't change history. You might like Kennedy, but this is what he did.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.49.160 (talk)

The source you cite is a paperback essay, and is not obligated to have any factual correctness. It cites ANOTHER work (or rather, does so indirectly). Beyond that problem, your conclusion based on the existance of the question is flawed logic. It sounds like you have an interest in villifying rather than a neutral collection of information. I suggest you also take a look at WP:BIO and the header at the top of the talk page here. WP:SIG might also be a good read. /Blaxthos 15:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is the work which you use to claim that Kennedy ever initated contact with the police? Where did you get the idea Kennedy did contact the police before they contacted him? Are you just guessing? The fact that someone put it on Wiki does not give it value. Wher is your proof? There has been a referece to the inquest and a historical book to your contrary. All you do is say "no" with absolutely NO PROOF. How can you just guess at this and call it a fact??—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.121.73 (talk) ^{at 16:12 on 30 October 2006}

Paperback essay? The original is Hardcover and is hardly an essay. Again, where is your proof?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.125.114 (talk) ^{at 16:20 on 30 October 2006}

Okay, let me try and clear it up for you. First of all, negative information about a living person (esp. an active politician) must pass extraordinary scrutiny. Second of all, it's not a reliable source (as noted by other editors previously). Each of those individually would kill its inclusion, and the burden of proof is not on someone to disprove negative information. To top it all off, if you pay attention to the timestamps for the two "supporting" editors, you'll notice one single purpose IP, and one IP that has one or two other edits; both edits occured within 8 minutes of each other. Wikipedia does not tolerate sockpuppetry at all. So, overly negative POV material from an unreliable source on a living politician from a single purpose IP that looks to be committing sockpuppetry is not going to fly. /Blaxthos 23:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again, before you accuse of sockpuppets, consider I have a computer at home and at work. My work is not nearly as static as home. And again you ignore the inquest and Leo Damore book. You have NO SOURCES and are only guessing. I suggest you do some research and then come back with facts. TED DID NOT REPORT THE ACCIDENT TO THE POLICE, THE CAR WAS FOUND AND THEN CHIEF ARENA HAD KENNEDY FOUND. You might not like it, but it's a fact and you WILL NOT find any a truthful source to deny it. You are just plain wrong. Why are you defending something you have no souce for? Just because you want it to be true?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.49.160 (talk • contribs)

The issue is not if I "like" it or not -- I refuse to re-state the issues clearly stated above. Again, the burden is not for me to disprove negative information. Additionally, using multiple IP's to give the appearance of support is a texbook example of a very clear and serious violation of policy, which will be dealt with accordingly. The page has been protected to prevent further vandalism by unregistered users. /Blaxthos 03:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I can upload scan of a page of the inquest with this statement...THE COURT. I think the answer had been no. Q. [by Mr. Dinis] And now may I ask you, Mr. Kennedy, was there any reason why no additional assistance was asked for? A. Was there any reason? Q. Yes, was there any particular reason why you did not call the police or fire department? A. Well I intended to report it to the police.,,,,, Surely you will find this offical transcript of the inquest to be proof that Kennedy did not intiate the contact? The official transcript?? Will this satisify your burden of proof? It's Kennedy's admission that HE DID NOT CALL THE POLICE OR FIRE DEPARTMENT—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.49.160 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 31 October 2006

Repeating the same thing over and over does not a convincing argument make. Any credibility you might have had is shot due to socketupuppetry and single use IP's. /Blaxthos 15:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice. You ask for proof but won't accept it. How biased can you possibly be? This is EXACTLY why Wikipedia will never be a real source. Very nice.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.49.160 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 31 October 2006

Save conspiracy claims on a conservative blog, I can find absolutely not verification of the information you claim to be true. There isn't even mention of the "paperback book" (your words) you claim as a source. This is not the place to axe grind, especially violating multiple policies in the process. Please, go read up on what wikipedia is and is not, as well as how to behave appropriately and contribute constructively.  :-) /Blaxthos 23:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I leave you to your ignorance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.49.160 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 1 November 2006

I believe ignorance is best examplified by quoting (believing) poorly sourced material, defying community consensus, reverting articles repeatedly, using sock puppets to give appearnce of additional support, and issuing personal attacks against those who actually bother to read/follow Wikipedia guidelines. However, whatever reason you use to stop your behaviour, I support. /Blaxthos 07:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

While I do not support someone switching IP's and agreeing with his/herself and claiming consensus; this unsigned individual appears to have a point and readily claims that both IPs do belong to him/her. The actual court documentation does indictate that Police Chief Arena had to reach out and contact Senator Kennedy. If the above individual simply quoted a partisan book, with an obvious axe to grind, I would not be defending him/her but he/she presented the actual court documentation from the Kennedy trial. This supports his/her claim; you have not presented any alternative argument, no court documentation, not even a news article that defends your side of the issue. The argument does not start for or against Senator Kennedy, it starts in the middle. The burden of proof now lies on you to disprove what this individual has brought forward. Wikipedia does not exist to paint every act in a glorious light for the sake of looking neutral, we argue facts and the fact is (as supported by court document excerpts above) Senator Kennedy did not seek out the police. Vinnievesh 01:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That is absolutely incorrect. Please read WP:BIO and WP:BLP regarding unsourced or poorly sourced information and it must be immediately removed from all namespaces of Wikipedia. That means the burden of proof is for you to prove a negative, not for me to disprove it. Additionally, the only source specifically cited is a non-peer reviewed book that does not pass the standards necessary for inclusion of negative information -- one source with no obligation to present the truth doesn't cut it. Now, as far as the court transcript (which was mentioned, but not cited) -- I have been unable to find this transcript anywhere. Indeed, the court proceedings were closed and sealed. How, exactly, have you read the transcript? Where did you obtain it? How can the rest of us WP:VERIFY this? Please familiarize yourself with these policies before (incorrectly) claiming that "the article starts in the middle" and now I must "disprove" negative (and potentially libellous) information. Thanks! /Blaxthos 01:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You're gay!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.8.226.203 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 13 November 2006

Violation of Neutrality

Tha section of the article dealing with Chappaquiddick is unfair at this point. The story is one-sided and makes it seem like what he did was okay because he tried to save her. It probably came from a Democrat. The Republican point of view on this is needed or make the "" a separate article.CubsFan2006 00:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

As I read it, it makes Kennedy look like a panicked rich kid who wanted to help her, but also wanted to keep the world from knowing what happened. That is not stated in the article. That is my (democratic) reaction to the facts presented there. Do you have some specific suggestion for facts that are missing which would give people more of a basis to judge for themselves?Juneappal around April 30

Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, and Richard Nixon were in the same situation and all prominent political figureheads deserve equal analysis of their mistakes, this includes Kennedy's. This is regardless of whether someone drowned, was accidentally shot, spied on democrats, or recieved sexual favors.

Is it the role of this encycolpedia to present analyis or to present facts and refer to analysis inasmuch as such analysis factually exist?Juneappal 13:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for greater detail and accuracy

I staffed the Senate in various positions between March 1974 and November 1985, and I think there are several places that this article could be improved.

For example, prior to the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment granting the vote to 18-year-olds, Kennedy had proposed federal legislation that made that possible, and he personally argued the case at the Supreme Court when the law was challenged. He was successful in his arguments. There are not many sitting senators who argue cases at the Supreme Court, which deserves mention. There is no mention at all of his advocacy of getting the vote to kids of draft age now (4-29-2006).

Also, Kennedy is generally considered the best defender of civil rights issues in the Senate. When debate turns to civil rights, Kennedy is generally at his best, arguing without notes and with great specificity to expand rights (see his completely ex temporaneous debate with Sen. Gurney in 1974, over Gurney's proposal to end school busing for integration; Kennedy's arguments won the day).

Kennedy's chairmanship of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee before 1981 generally won him recognition as the top health legislator; his chairmanship of Judiciary, later, was marked by several historic pieces of legislation and a lot of federal judge nomination hearings -- from the current article one would not know that he chaired either committee, ever.

There should also be a link to his speech at the 1980 Democratic Convention, a speech which should be in the top 100 of the century.

Anybody got time and resources to fix it?

Ed Darrell

• Where can we find more about his arguing before the supreme court? I'm a bit puzzled; I thought that the sequence was that Congress passed (and Nixon signed) an 18-year-old vote law, but Oregon v. Mitchell knocked down parts of it, thus making the 26th Amendment necessay. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The decision in Oregon v. Mitchell was a split mess; several states sued to nullify the law, arguing that they should be the determinants of who is eligible to vote in their states. Some states joined the U.S. in defending the law. The Court split on reasoning and decisions, but the final effect was that the federal government could decide who could vote in national elections for president (and perhaps for Senate and House, I'd have to study the opinion more to determine), but states could set age limits for state offices. This set up a situation where states would have to have at least two ballots for certain people at the polling places, and track who was eligible to vote for which office -- so the states then jumped on the amendment bandwagon.

I was looking at the Findlaw.com account, and it makes no mention of Kennedy arguing that one. I'll have to dig to see whether there is verification. Edarrell 13:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism

I am new to wikipedia - At what point does persistent vandalism warrant an editing block? Chappaquiddick is edited so often that even when people revert vandals, good writing is lost, because vandals sneak in between the real editors. Even in the best recent edit I have found, there is a lot of POV and a few flagrantly inappropriate editorializings (drunken, bloated kennedy floated across to Edgartown) Much of the vandalism comes from IP addresses, so it seems like a basic block would cut it down signifigantlyJuneappal 15:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO, this article has long warranted a semi-permanent sprotect against vandalism by anons only. The GW Bush article is protected thus. Clearly Kennedy is controversial and his article attracts a great deal of vandalism. I would love to see an admin put it on sprotect and leave it on. --AStanhope 15:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I put in a request for protection which was denied due to "not enough recent activity to justify protection." I still think it is warranted. Perhaps it will help if anyone who reverts vandalism makes it explicit that that is what they are doing in the edit comment so the page history will show how much work people are having to do to keep this article's quality high.Juneappal 22:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

More persistent anonymous vandalism today. Please sprotect - it only prevents anons from editing. Anyone can register in a moment if they wish to do serious editing. Would an admin here please sprotect?

Political resurrection

This section, from the title down is replete with POV phrasing. What exactly has he been "resurrected" from? He's been a senior member of the Senate forever. In fact, I'm not really sure what the point of the section is at all. It's a disjointed mess with very little connecting thread. I suggest removing it entirely, and merging any non-redundant facts into the appropriate section. Derex 23:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. I'll start by removing it and copying it here. There are several valuable elements in that section that should be repurposed. I do not believe, however, that the weasel-word-shielded allegation of "drug use" is appropriate here. --AStanhope 12:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Democratic Party icon is also a pretty useless section. And Presidential bid is a flop as well. Early career starts with current information. What I recommend is re-organizing all those sections into Political career with sub-headings for the periods. Then Chappaquidick and the womanizing/drinking stuff can go in a Controversies section with similar subheadings. Right now it's all mingled up into a mess. Derex 04:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The business about Mudd striking a blow with two questions: His answer to the first question (to me) seems a little bit rambling, but not really ambiguous. I wasn't old enough to be in politics at the time, but was that really considered a striking blow to his campaign, in the sense that it made people who might have otherwise supported him turn elsewhere? That is hard to believe. I can see where the second answer might have been damaging, but even there, it seems like it must be overstated. Someone who was not alive then would read this article and think that if he had been more clear about reasons for wanting to be president on this particular occasion, he would be. Is that really so? Can we cite it?Juneappal 23:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Election campaign

While Kennedy campaigned in 1962, article 109th United States Congress says that's when he took office the same year. Is that a mistake in that article? Jack Daw 19:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, because he was elected to serve out the remainder of his brother's second term in the Senate (which ran from 1959 to 1965). Benjamin Smith, a family friend, took the seat under the condition that he would resign it as soon as the next election came around. That was 1962, coincidentally the first election year that Teddy finally met the age requirement set about in the Constitution for Senators.

Teddy, therefore, took office two months before Daniel Inouye, even though both were elected on the same day. BernardWebb

Why no mention of the Big Dig in his bio???

Ted Kennedy was totally instrumental in bringing in the pork to fund that disaster yet there's no mention of it on his bio or the Wikipedia article for the Big Dig??? Impartiality, my ass.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Gamaliel 17:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Section removed

I've removed the entire "Alternative energy" section. It read, in total (refs removed), Ted Kennedy once maintained a record in favor of alternative energy sources as seen in his voting record as a senator although he opposed Cape Wind, a proposed wind farm, within sight of his home. As it stood, it was just a statement without any context -- except to imply some sort of hypocrisy on Kennedy's part; but it only takes a small bit of reading the actual supplied reference to see that there is no contradiction whatsoever; what's more, opposing one particular alternative energy project says nothing whatsoever about his support of alternative energy in general. And so on. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Depends whether you are only writing for people in Massachusetts

Or whether you want any credibility if anyone from another state reads your article. Two different situations. Too whom are you trying to be believable? LemonIce 00:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed from Category:American lawyers (for now)

FYI, I removed this article from Category:American lawyers for the moment because, surprisingly, it never mentions him being a practicing lawyer. He passed the bar, so he was able to practice, but the article goes straight from that to his political career. It implies he managed his brother's campaign during and after law school, and it's not clear he actually practiced law during that time. And once he won election, the rest of his career is political with no mention of work as a lawyer.

So since the article never talks about him as a practicing lawyer, I removed him from the category. However, if the article is expanded to include some of his work done as a lawyer prior to entering political office, then go ahead and reinsert it into Category:Massachusetts lawyers. Dugwiki 17:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read up several paragraphs (under the request for greater detail heading):

For example, prior to the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment granting the vote to 18-year-olds, Kennedy had proposed federal legislation that made that possible, and he personally argued the case at the Supreme Court when the law was challenged. He was successful in his arguments. There are not many sitting senators who argue cases at the Supreme Court, which deserves mention. There is no mention at all of his advocacy of getting the vote to kids of draft age now (4-29-2006).

/Blaxthos 23:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article

This isn't an official suggestion, but any thoughts on nominating this article for FA status? It seems well written, very NPOV (especially given subject matter!), and properly sourced (and looks good to boot!). What do you guys think? /Blaxthos 00:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Not even close. For starters, the "political views" section is almost nothing except stances on a few hot-button issues. - Jmabel | Talk 23:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

How much more information do you think needs to be present to be worthy of FA status? All the political views listed have proper citations, and the issues listed seem to run the gamut. What else do you think should be in that section, specifically? Also, if that's for starters, what other issues should be addressed? /Blaxthos 00:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any way to quantify what is needed. I'm just remarking that a list of stances on hot-button issues does not add up to a featured-quality discussion of someone's politics.

If you want a peer review, I suggest asking for one, instead of directing the question to me as an individual, but a few things that leap out are:

• What on earth is discussion of running for a ninth term doing under "Family and youth"? Similarly, "Early career" jumps straight to him being "senior Democratic Party member on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee."
• "Family and youth" gives no indication of the role he has played in a rather famous dynastic family; it's just a recitation of the usual marriages, children, etc.
• Nothing in the "Early career" section is cited.
• The section on his presidential bid is a single paragraph.
• The citations make technical use of cite.php, but most of them are just blind URLs in footnotes. At least one is to http://www.nndb.com, which is not any more reliable a source than an uncited Wikipedia article.

I could go on, but beyond these specific objections, the summary is that the article is pretty slight, and does not even approach featured quality. Compare Gerald Ford if you want to see what a featured article on a U.S. politician might look like. - Jmabel | Talk 01:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try to do some work on the issues you brough up and check out Gerald Ford article as a guide. /Blaxthos 07:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Liberalism

Changed "liberalism" to "progressive politics" in the first paragraph. Word was used incorrectly. See Liberalism Cameron 15:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted, and slightly edited. The very fact that there is no article on progressive politics, as you put it. Liberalism is a term every politically literate person can understand. To clarify between European Liberalism and American Liberalism, I had the link specifically redirect to Contemporary Liberalism. (USMA2010 01:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

Keep Liberal, Progressive is not what a liberal is, they wish to maintain the Status Quo. Bueracracy, unions etc.Tannim 10:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

KGB Letter

There's a new section, currently entitled "The KGB Letter and Allegations of Treason". It outlines an allegation that Paul Kengor, a professor at Grove City College makes in his book The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.

According to Cybercast New Service, Kengor states that he discovered a KGB memo that analyzes an offer by Sen Kennedy to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a PR strategy to hamper Reagan's foreign policy and his reelection efforts.

This is an extremely serious charge, and if true, it certainly merits inclusion in Kennedy's biography.

However: 1. IS it true? Cybercast News Services is an organization I've rarely heard of. The first time I encountered them was the breaking of the Dan Rather forged documents scandal. This is about the third time I've run into them in the last 2 years... so not often. That said, while they clearly slant to the right, on the rare occasions I've encountered them before they have been accurate. (Not intended as an ad-hominem, simply to note that there's a difference between the Wall Street Journal news page saying something and the National Enquirer.).

2. Even if CNS' report is accurate, is Kengor's book? While I don't want to engage in ad-hominem arguments, it's unusual to see leading edge historical research from someone from Grove City College. Publisher's Weekly (perhaps unkindly) describes Kengor's book as a "hagiographic account" (in the Amazon reviews).

On point 2, in the end, I find it quite believable that an archivist -- even a very obscure one -- could have uncovered something like this. Please note that I say "could".

3. I don't think the 'treason' heading is appropriate at this time. I don't mind a discussion of it in the sub-section, but the CNS article does mention a desire on Kennedy's part to discuss and negotiate (as a prelude to forming this strategy) in conjunction with Senator Hatfield (R-Ore). Some element of bipartisanship suggests that this would not be entirely hidden. It certainly suggests, if true, monstrously bad judgment on Kennedy's part. I am not convinced it suggests treason.

Much of my analysis above is going to be rendered null once we see whether or not this book is for real, and see what the author's sources are. The 'treason' argument, I think, will remain valid.

I intend to edit this later today and remove treason from the heading, but keep most of the section intact. (It needs cleanup, though). I'd ask that any that feel it should be deleted outright post here with their reasons for doing so, rather than simply doing so. Holmwood 08:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I read the cited reference. It is extremely vague about actual facts. All I can discern is that Kennedy wrote Andropov (not the KGB) offering public relations advice. The specific contents are not mentioned at all. This makes me extremely suspicious. No sourcing for the "treason" language was provided, it appears that possibly some blog used the term. If you care to re-write it, please focus very carefully on the actual _facts_ presented in the source, and not their spin or interpretation (CNS is quite partisan). All I could find was one fact satisfying both WP:RS and WP:V — That a poli sci prof said Kennedy offered public relations advice to Andropov, and said professor felt that the (unknown) details were very shocking. I think we should wait until the major press have had a go at it, and some actual facts (memo contents for example) are available before spending a lot of energy on it. We're not wikinews; we should follow the coverage, not lead it. And if this is of any note, there will be some mainstream coverage in the next day or two.Derex 08:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

As of now, almost a day later, google news shows 5 hits. These consisting of 4 blogs and the Christian News Service article, which contains no straightforward facts at all about the memo.[1] So, at this point, what we have is some unknown guy trying to sell a book saying he as "shocking" findings, but they aren't made clear in the only reference we have. No one is running with it at all. At this point, the issue is to preliminary to be included as a notable item in this article. Removing. Of course, if mainstream coverage meriting inclusion follows, this should be revisited in Talk. Derex 22:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a recent Op Ed in the Washington Times about this since the discussion. It's certainly newsworthy, and I'm not sure why we'd question the reliability of the author right now. This is definitely worth a mention. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, if it's newsworthy, that it still (2 weeks on) hasn't actually made the "news" part of any mainstream media source. You know, the reality-based fact-checking part of a paper. The part we use as references. Derex 20:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Moot point

“

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

”

/Blaxthos 00:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly. The problem here is determining what rises to the level of a reliable source. So far, there is not much sign that anything does. - Jmabel | Talk 17:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No mention of the drunk-driving incident in DC?

Yeah...nice to see how THAT piece of information is not listed in this article. Definitely an intentional "ommission" of an incident that bears noting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.240.78.20 (talk • contribs)

If you can find a reliable source for that information, feel free to add it yourself. Gamaliel 16:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you (anon - non Gamaliel) confusing Ted Kennedy with his son, the congressman from Rhode Island who got into an accident in DC while drunk driving earlier this year? If so, the action of the son doesn't belong in this article. --AStanhope 19:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

See Patrick J. Kennedy. It is mentioned there. Ufwuct 18:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry & Partial Lock

There is some very obvious sockpuppetry going on from three IP's that all aim to include negative information from unreliable sources.

• 24.34.49.160
• 72.72.125.114
• 71.243.121.73

I move that we get the page partially locked. /Blaxthos 23:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Investigating action for socketpuppetry. Also, anyone know if there is a template similar to { {lu} } but for IP's? /Blaxthos 00:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Good Article

Whether you agree or disagree, the article is comprehensive, well-documented, hits the high points and generally does a good job of representing both Mr. Kennedy and the best of Wikipedia. I'm too much of a newbie to nominate it for Featured status, but its seems that if this isn't a good article by the criteria given, what can make the grade?

Let the revision and discussion continue, but let there be no doubt... good job, Wikipedians. Good article on Mr. Kennedy. Kghusker 15:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

cut a section?

Is "Grounded by terror watch list" really worth a section. It might be a bulletpoint in a trivia section, but I have a hard time seeing it as more than that. Derex 09:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- given the broad scope of the other sections, it seems pretty trivial. Where should we put it? It would be kinda silly to make a trivia section for one point. I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but I've seen trivial sections turn into a hodgepodge of less-than-worthy info in other articles. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm against them completely... thoughts/suggestions? /Blaxthos 09:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm against them actually; didn't mean to suggest adding one. I'd say we should simply cut it here, as it's not so much about Kennedy as about the list. It's already mentioned on the appropriate page, No Fly List. Derex 09:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Poor citation

There is at least one citation of nndb.com. This is a very weak source in terms of reliability. Just like we don't consider other Wikipedia articles citable, nndb raises pretty much the same issues. - Jmabel | Talk 07:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

NCLB

This was cut recently: "Kennedy has since argued that the No Child Left Behind is an unfunded mandate because the President and Congress have mandated obligations upon the states without providing equivalent funds, forcing the states to spend money to comply with the federal law." I believe it is accurate; I don't have citation though, and will not restore without citation; someone may want to follow this up. - Jmabel | Talk 07:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree. Pardon my laziness in not checking myself, but was it sourced originally? /Blaxthos 22:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Not that I can tell. If it had been, I would simply have restored it. - Jmabel | Talk 07:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)