Talk:Patrick J. Kennedy/Archive 1

Archive 1

NPOV

I'm concerned this article contains an exorbanent attention towards negitive aspects of Kennedy's life. There is clear NPOV and bias issues that need to be dealt with.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:64.247.71.102 (talk • contribs) 18:52, May 4, 2006 (UTC)

Less than one third of this article deals with "controversies" Kennedy has been involved with. Of those, I feel they are fairly balanced. If you have specific concerns you should either state them, or make the changes yourself. Be bold! --Assawyer 00:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

On wikipedia, it's acceptable to say whatever bad things you want to say about a person, but you put in something good about them, then it is POV. 75.3.4.54 14:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

---

After reading this article, I am very much inclined to dislike Kennedy. "His critics say..." appears three times, but there is no mention of "His supporters say..." or "He defended himself from this criticism by arguing...." I don't know anything about the man, but he must have supporters and good defenses to these criticisms or he wouldn't have been re-elected so many times, right? What is his defense against these attacks? -5/26/2006

"But I'm a Kennedy!" or "Do you know who I am?" are the most common defenses. I agree some aspects of the article are not NPOV, like the "carreer future" paragraph, but listing his notable bumbles is not. There is a reason he is known as the runt of the Kennedy clan. 68.238.55.103 17:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, in all honesty, Patrick Kennedy, and his father for that matter, have been riding on their last name for 20 years. Ted Kennedy has won re-election a countless amount of times, and sometimes, you have to ask, would Mr. and Mrs. Joe Massachusetts ever elect him if his name was "Ted Stephens" or "Patrick Johnson." Probably not. New England still have an obsession with the Kennedy's and it is one that probably won't die anytime soon, unfortunately. --Mike Murray 07:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can find some redeeming qualities about him, please add them to this article! And while your at it, please tell his constituents too! (Lord knows he needs the help!) And can I just put something out there? Why is it everytime Woonsocket has a mill-fire, Patrick does something spectacular. Last time it was the "I never worked a [bleeping] day in my life. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 19:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Biased much, Jerry? Users like yourself are the reason why this article was a mess. I cleaned up the section on his comments on the war in Afghanistan, as most of the criticisms of his speech were not noteworthy and smelled of partisan hackery. I'll be monitoring this article and looking for more ways to bring balance to it. Given your comments here, I'm going to consider anything you to do this page to be vandalism, and your comments in this discussion section are evidence of this. Shabeki (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Jokingly?

I removed the reference "jokingly" from the article. I can't find anything that shows that he "jokingly" said what he said. If someone can find something, please point it out. Thanks! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 19:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If you had clicked on the link right next to it, and read it, you would have seen it.75.3.4.54 21:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't resist. Here's the joke I think Leno or Letterman should have used after PK's May 2006 driving mishap. "Young Patrick got in BIG trouble with his Dad once word of his accident leaked out. Yeah. Dad chided him endlessly for not having a FLOTATION DEVICE in the car!" Sorry. I'm a Democrat, but that one occurred to me on the way to work and I had to get it out. Thought this discussion page would be a more suitable place than the article itself.

"Kennedy’s office explained to CBS News that the tax cut comment was a self-deprecating joke that fell flat; he was calling attention to the fact that his detractors criticize him for never working a day in his life. " [1] dposse 22:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Triple Hate Crime

Added the "triple-hate crime" reference back to the article. Reference is verifible criticism from his critics. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 21:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia entry not a site for criticism of him. 75.3.4.54 21:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on the references it doesn't sound like the incident comes even close to being a hate crime, --Mr link 20:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed the reference. I didn't find that "his critics" refer to him as that. A Google search for '"triple hate crime" -wikipedia -carr' generates exactly one hit containing the phrase; without the "-carr" it gets four. Not a particularly notable expression; just one wit's turn of phrase (and a darned inaccurate one.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I encourage Jerry G. to restore the "triple-hate-crime" reference. The anon user's statement misses what we're up to here. In certain topics (like Politics, Literary Criticism, etc.,.) much of the material is necessarily POV-- *not* the Wikipedia editor's POV, but the PsOV of those involved in the reported event. Some of these people are using this "triple-hate-crime" rhetoric,and so it is perfectly fine to reflect it in the article. JDG 07:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't feel that google is the be all end all for research. We all know that google has it's own flaws. Most of the people (that I know of at least) use that phrase on talk radio. I feel that the phrase is important, and since it is verifible it should be included. But alas, I will wait for more comment. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 13:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If it's verifiable, you can verify it. A link to a use by a single opinionist certainly doesn't warrant "His critics have called this...". Now, if you want to be accurate and say "Howie Carr called this a triple hate crime", it would be an improvement, but then I'd be asking "who cares what Howie Carr says? Feel free to include this slur in the Howie Carr article; it says nothing about Patrick Kennedy." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Career Future section

I removed good parts of this and merged the rest with the regular Career section. It included speculation about Kennedy becoming the ranking member of the Appropriations committee -- which seems at best many years in the future, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There were also completely out-of-school lines like "seeking power and authority", which could fairly describe almost any politician. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Chappaquiddick

Sorry Dhartung, contrasting the similarities of the Capitol Hill incident and Chappaquiddick is not POV... --Fluppy 22:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It is clearly POV. Do not put it back in without an explanation here. 75.3.4.54 22:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

For instance, the word "eerily" is clearly POV. Is this your first day on wikipedia? Do you know what POV is? 75.3.4.54 22:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 75.3.4.54. The accident is POV and has no place in the article. There is no evidence that the two are related. It might look like they are related, but if it is not a fact, it doesn't belong here. dposse 22:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

May 5th, 2006 Drunk Driving Incident

The Smoking Gun has posted the Police Report of the driving incident from May 5th, 2006. I'm not entirely supportive of Patrick Kennedy, and so I'd rather not put my own entry about it, because it'd probably be apt to being distorted by my point of view... but if anybody else is looking for the Police Report: Capitol Police Report on Patrick Kennedy --Mike Murray 06:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason not to reference it. It does conflict with Lou Cannon's description of events. There is nothing in the police report which mentions smelling of alcohol. matt kane's brain 08:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Resignation

Morning folks. During the overnight there have been edits to the page in regards to "constituents calling for his resignation". I have read the Woonsocket Call, Pawtucket Times, and the Providence Journal (all newspaper in his district) and have yet to see anything to that effect. From what I have read, the only person suggesting he resign is RI Republican Party Chairwoman Pat Morgan. She also states that if he doesn't resign, he should at least "take a medical leave of absence". Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 13:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

well, then that is vandalism and should be deleted. Right now, the facts are that he is in Rehab and he is still a Representative from Rhode Island. Anything relating to "constituents calling for his resignation" is just speculation, and wikipedia doesn't deal with that. Just the facts, please. ^_^ dposse 15:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for delayed response, had to take my chill pill. What speculation? Fact, when he was asked about resigning he said no (which was in the source that your also deleted). Fact, Pat Morgan, Chairwoman for the RI Republican Party has suggested that he "resign or take a medical leave of absence". Both of these facts were properly cited from the Woonsocket Call, a newspaper in Kennedy's district. Both fact are relevant to this article. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 16:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

An opposing party member's call for a politician to resign are not noteworthy in this case. The comment was deleted and there is no need for it to be reinserted. Shabeki (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Airport Incident

I know that the main page seeks a citation for the tape showing PJK shoving the security guard at the LAX incident. Boston.com's story in today's paper makes mention of it on the second page, albeit briefly. Could serve as a temporary citation while something more authoritative is found. GeofFMorris 05:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The tape shows that the guard pushed Kennedy after he complained his suitcase was being destroyed by the metal detector and Kennedy pushed the woman back.[citation needed] The settlement was made in order to save Kennedy the time and attention of having to attend the proceedings.[citation needed]

I feel that if references are not produced soon that these sentences should be deleted. I've read the boston.com article, and feel that it doesn't mention the sitiutation in the detail written above. Any thoughts? Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 15:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the words "African-American" and "female" from the phrase "...Kennedy was accused of pushing an African-American female security guard at Los Angeles International Airport..." because they lacked relevancy. What is important about the story is that Kennedy committed battery on a security guard at LAX. The security guard's race and sex are no more important to the story than her hairstyle, religion or her favorite food. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msf3 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The gender is definitely relevant, for obvious reasons (which I shouldn't have to mention here). As for whether her race is relevant to this, that is debatable. I think we should, in fact, include that, but we can discuss that later; for now, I am putting the gender back in. Pacificus (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

April car crash

In what way is the April car crash a controversy? Kennedy was broadsided and is considered not at fault. I'm deleting it; anyone with reasons why it should be there, state your case. --Fearfulsymmetry 16:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Two car accidents in two months? I feel it is revelant and should be included in the article. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 16:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

They're under totally different circumstances. Coincidences aren't notable. matt kane's brain 17:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, except in exceptional cases.matt kane's brain 17:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I feel that giving the recent accident, the April 2006 accident is relevant to this article. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 17:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, but why? The two accidents aren't related except through time.matt kane's brain 17:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me expand on that, even. Why should the April 2006 accident be broken as a separate controversy? Why that and not his history of drug use and mental illness? matt kane's brain 17:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy wasn't at fault in the earlier accident, unlike the later one. The first has nothing to do with the second. If Kennedy had crashed into something, it would be relevent, but Kennedy himself was crashed into. I wouldn't be opposed merely making mention of it in the section about the May car crash, but it does not warrant its own section nor its own place in the controversies section. --Fearfulsymmetry 18:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think there's a real problem with this: Those who witnessed Kennedy and read his witness statement, which was barely legible, have expressed their opinion that he was impaired. But then we look at the reference, and there isn't any "those"; there is exactly one person who says that. It's POV to take one person's opinion and attribute it to many; wouldn't it be more correct to say "A witness has expressed her opinion that he was impaired"? And there's no evidence in the article that the witness saw Kennedy's statement. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

William Kennedy Smith

Kennedy was present during the night of the events that led his cousin to be charged with rape. Does anyone know if Patrick was significant for the case in any way? Was he called to witness at the trial, was he questioned by police, and so on. If he was in any way notable or the events had an impact on his career, I think it should be mentioned in the article due to the prominence of the case.

He was questioned by police and did testify. He did not contribute much other than the timeline of the event e.g. when the three of them went to the bar, came home, and he went to his room with the victim's friend. Otherwise, he lacked any knowledge of the alleged rape. No noticable impact on his career. IIRC, he was newly elected to the RI legislature, and the trial did not influence a re-election.Sweepsgoddess (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not just that he was present, but he also brought home a woman. Michele Cassone was a key part of this situation, as was recognized by the media at that time. Pacificus (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So? That's about Cassone, and Smith, not Kennedy, and no sources have been produced that suggest that this incident is significant in the life of Patrick Kennedy - this is his bio, after all, not that of his cousin. Are there sources that indicate the importance of this to his life story? Tvoz/talk 18:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Never worked a day in my life. Quote

Why would we want to eliminate the Patrick Kennedy quotation about never working a day in his life? I do not understand why that must be removed. If it is factually accurate, relevent, and cited it seems like it has a valid place.

Because it's already in the article. Try reading. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

DUI in general

Okay, so Kennedy has a drug/alcohol problem, and he has caused several minor traffic accidents. While that problem is definitely relevant, especially because he talks about it openly, I don't see any sense in giving all details about these traffic accidents. Compared with the other sections of this article, they clearly take up too much space. Proposal: Condense, and remove the illustration of Kennedy's handwriting on the police report. If someone really wants to see that report, a link would be sufficient. --Bernardoni (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"An African-American in Anacostia"

I'm deleting Patrick Kennedy's about wanting to be treated as such in relation to his car accident. Upon first impression, it may seem like a somewhat racist comment to make until one realizes that Anacostia has a large African-American population. So in essence, Mr. Kennedy is asking to be treated like anyone else for the incident. While Patrick Kennedy clearly lacks eloquence, this POV quote in the article seems like race-baiting by a right-winger messing with the article. Thus I deleted it. Shabeki (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This article read like an episode of "Inside Edition"

I've cleaned up a lot of it. For instance, I don't know why it was important to constantly mention which cars Patrick Kennedy drove, nor the intricate details of a car accident he was involved in, especially when the other person involved in the accident stated that there nothing noteworthy about it. Some people should understand that this is an online encyclopedia, not an outlet for tabloid journalism. Shabeki (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal challenges

Seems as if the "personal challenges" section (not a title I'm particularly fond of anyway) is a catch-all for just about anything controversial about Patrick Kennedy's career. Is keeping a tainted donor's campaign contribution really a "personal challenge"? I think the structure of article needs some reediting. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

POV check tag

I added a POV check tag. Almost half of the article is devoted to criticisms of Kennedy, which violates undue weight. Additionally, there is little indication that all five "political controversies" listed are even important or relevant enough to include on his Wikipedia page (same with the Rhode Island auto accident). For example, a Democrat (Kennedy) criticizing a Republican (Brown) and the Republican responding hardly qualifies as a "controversy." This page appears to dredge up everything bad that has ever happened to Kennedy, regardless of importance. Orser67 (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the political sniping between Kennedy and Brown is not notable enough for inclusion, and neither is a traffic accident in which Kennedy was not cited, That said, NPOV cannot be measured by how much praise and criticism is contained in an article. Some politicians, by their nature, draw mostly praise, and some draw mostly criticism; that is not the fault of Wikipedia, or necessarily a violation of NPOV. If you consider that more space should be devoted to his accomplishments, by all means add them. Likewise, if spurious criticisms have been refuted by reliable sources, please add that to the article. Regards. Plazak (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)