Jump to content

Talk:Ted Kennedy/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

I've tried re-arranging the external links to group similar links together. No additions or deletions. I've made comments in the HTML to explain the groupings. If people think this is the wrong way to go, I'm very open to discussion; a concrete counterproposal would be welcome; note that Wikipedia policy clearly says that official sites come first.

I considered using subheads instead of (invisible) comments, but the list seems short enough that I don't think that's particularly useful. On the other hand, I wouldn't object if someone wants to do that. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:32, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


Quickpoll

See the proposed solution above first

Addenum: Since James brought it up before: do not use this poll as a way to push POV on any side of this issue, I am just trying to see where we are so we can work to find a solution, not to promote more hostility. Thanks everyone, I appreciate all your cooperation and everything. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 06:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

This is no by no means meant to be official but I just want to see where people stand on this issue, I think we all agree the original version was heavily POVed against Ted Kennedy but we can deal with wording etc. later.

Basically, I want to see we who supports the inclusion of the information about The Palm Beach rape trial. Please write comments elsewhere, this is just so I know where we are at right now. Please sign your vote and do not try to alter it by voting more than once, one person, one vote, simple as that. Again, this is not official but I just want to know where this is at right now. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 02:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • This is fun. Now we have editors messaging other editors trying to hustle up votes. Voting is evil. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Eviler than I intended... Do they not understand this is not official and purely for my benefit to see how far we need to go on this thing? Anyways, the good news is now we have a summary of everybody's stance on the issue and can now begin to work on a solution without pointless mudslinging which, I am ashamed to say, I may have participated in, but I guess we're all guilty of something ;-) Sasquatch↔讲↔看 04:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Include

  1. Include. Though, the trial should be mentioned in a VERY brief and NPOV manner, probably a sentence or two. Though, the section on the trial seemed to be written by a 2 year old monkey POVer.Voice of All(MTG) 02:51, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Include, perhaps two or three sentences in a longer section that includes in the cocaine and popper use, and other self-defeating character flaws.--Silverback 03:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Strong Include. Ted Kennedy's bio should be complete, warts and all. The paragraph in dispute is noteworthy, accurate, and should be included as written. Ted Kennedy was at the center of the most widely publicized rape trial in US history and his role should not be whitewashed.--Agiantman 03:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Include. Redwolf24 03:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Include. Perhaps the left could write 4 lines and the right could right 4, neither could argue the content of the other Thank you 24.147.97.230 03:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Include, but no more than a sentence or two, with a link to the appropriate article where the trial is actually discussed. And, yes, (1) I would certainly think the article on G.W. Bush should discuss his drinking and alleged drug use when young and (2) this article should, similarly, mention both Kennedy's drinking in the past and the fact that he stopped. This article from The Nation, hardly unsympathetic to Kennedy, talks about his heavy drinking in the 1980s and the fact that, of all people, Orrin Hatch was apparently instrumental in him getting sober. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:26, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Include. Ted Kennedy testified at the trial. Be careful it is not worded to sound anti-Ted Kennedy. though. Banes 13:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. Include. Kennedy's involvement in that trial had an impact on his effectiveness in the Thomas confirmation (he was quite quiet) and on his reelection in 1994. This was well noted in the media at the time. That is why it is relevant. NoSeptember 15:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Exclude

  1. Unless someone provides a persuasive & NPOV way to mention this, perhaps as part of a larger para. on his family or whatever, I'm inclined to say exclude. At best this deserves a sentence. Gamaliel 02:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Strong Exclude in absence of answer to my questions above. Robert McClenon 03:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    Exclude in this article; include in article about people actually involved. --BaronLarf 03:12, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Exclude, other than a sentence. It's just not that important, when stripped of POV. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Exclude -- not a paragraph, not a sentence, not a wikilink. Also, while I understand Sasquatch's wanting to get an idea of the overall lay of the land, I would protest the use of this poll for any other purpose, for multiple reasons. JamesMLane 05:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Exclude -- also exclude from this article any references to sexual molestation by Kennedy's cousin Arnold Schwarzeneggar. Gzuckier 14:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Every time I think this discussion has hit bottom, we manage to plumb a new low. Apparently Silverback is now suggesting that an encyclopedia article can characterize Kennedy's private life as "scandalous" and yet be perfectly consistent with NPOV. JamesMLane 06:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Could you can the ad hominem stuff. And stating your argument with hyperbole and sarcasm doesn't make it any stronger.--Silverback 06:16, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
It's ad hominem if it's about you personally. It's not ad hominem if it's about the merits of a passage you suggest or an argument you make, as the preceding comment of mine is. While I sometimes use sarcasm or hyperbole, the particular comment above contains neither. I made those statements as stark literal truth. JamesMLane 06:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Earlier you accused me of hating Ted Kennedy, and here you state I took the argument to a new low. How do those advance your arguments? They do seem to be an ad hominen attempt to dismiss the arguments. While I think Ted Kennedy is a mass murderer like most politicians and most voters who have voted for them (my past self included), I don't hate him. I find him a sympathetic and tragic figure, who probably has had a lot of fun that I would like to have had (wow man!), and a lot of tragedy I wouldn't wish on anybody. I am glad he seems to be turning his life around. --Silverback 08:27, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not voting on this....what are we going to say about it? Until someone comes up with how the wording is to be, with options of how the wording best fits NPOV, then I abstain. Furthermore, this is a discussion page...start discussing what the wording will be, and....someone needs to address the complete lack of information that this article needs to really become encyclopedic...right now it looks more like the only thing the guy has done is be involved in manslaughter, rape and drinking....has he done anything as a Senator...of course he has. However, I do agree that some mention of the rape trial needs to be in here...albeit brief for sure. But then get going on the rest of the story.--MONGO 07:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • See the Proposed Solution and Finalized Proposal above. That's what we're trying to get passed. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 18:27, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Kennedy testified at the trial: So what?

Yes, he testified, but the reiteration of this fact as a mantra is no substitute for thought.

In a civil case, it's common for many points to be agreed on before the trial. There's a detailed complaint and answer, the major witnesses are deposed in advance, and the parties can exchange "Requests for Admission" so that they don't have to waste time proving points that aren't in dispute.

In a criminal case, however, those mechanisms aren't available. The prosecution, which must establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, needs to win a jury verdict and see the verdict survive any appeal. To those ends, the prosecution will take care to introduce sufficient evidence to support a finding against the defendant on each point. If the prosecution gets careless and doesn't prove something that's necessary, then there's a possibility that the case will be dismissed after the prosecution rests, without the defense having to present any testimony or other evidence at all. The key is that the prosecution can't rely on an expectation that the defendant will admit (or not deny) certain points. The case against the defendant must be made from the ground up; the record, as of the time the prosecution rests, must be sufficient to support a conviction.

From what I've read about this case, I get the impression that these facts were undisputed: Smith was at the bar or nightclub with his uncle and his cousin. There, he met Bowman. He and Bowman went back to the Kennedy estate. Later, when they were out on the beach some distance from the house, they had sex. Smith said it was consensual, Bowman said it wasn't. Kennedy was in the house and nowhere near the couple when the act occurred.

Now, if I were the prosecutor handling that case, I'd call Ted Kennedy and Patrick Kennedy as witnesses to establish that Smith and Bowman left the nightclub together. It's just a routine aspect of making the necessary record.

If, as I'm guessing, Kennedy was testifying to undisputed facts, then on what basis can his participation in the trial be said to be a notable event in his life? Instead of endlessly repeating that he testified, does anyone care to provide any information about the substance of his testimony, to show that it was at all important? The mere fact that he happened to be sitting in the bar when Smith and Bowman first met doesn't seem like a big deal to me. JamesMLane 14:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

My last comment on the issue. I don't like seeing Wikipedia being used as a political blog by the left or the right to protect or attack articles on those biographed they either support are in opposition to...I know I have been guilty of this myself, so I state that as a reminder to me as well. Anyway, the only argument I have as to why a short statement in regards to the WKSmith trail is relevent is for the vary reasons you stated above...Teddy DID in fact testify in the trial...the alledged events happened right there on the Kennedy property, Kennedy was a prime witness for the defense...in comparison to the three events mentioned in contrast to the GWB article, Bush apparently had no involvement with his brother's banking situation...zero involvement that has been proven, Laura Bush was never charged with a violent crime...GWBush apparently never testified on her behalf and that was apparently just a terrible accident. The twins underage drinking may show poor parenting by GWBush but again, no violent crime was commited and they harmed no one. Besides, they are just doing the teenage thing.--MONGO 20:30, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Kennedy's involvement in that trial had an impact on his effectiveness in the Thomas confirmation (he was quite quiet) and on his reelection in 1994. This was well noted in the media at the time. That is why it is relevant. NoSeptember 15:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
OK.... "Kennedy was widely attacked as a hypocrite - his own personal life less than sterling - for taking a leading role as a defender of Anita Thomas against accused sexual harasser Clarence Thomas."[1] "During the day, Sen. Kennedy was ranting against Thomas's confirmation." [2] Gzuckier 20:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with JamesMclane, he testified at the trial, "so what"? If that was all there was too it, it wouldn't be notable. The notability, comes from the fact that once again his private escapades, and personal morality (or lack there of) made a big and negative splash on the public scene, and sworn testimony, seemed to confirm the swarmy rumors and innuendo that always had followed him. Frankly this was a mere scandal, but he is as famous for the scandals as his is for his work as a politician, in fact, the scandals may dominate his legacy. The mere mention of testifying at the trial, does not capture the notability, in fact, it is probably not his testimony, but the testimony of others at the trial, and evidence that became public but was not even admitted at the trial that make it notable for our encyclopedic purposes.--Silverback 23:55, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any way to get in the morality questioning of Edward Kennedy during the trial. I don't know if HE was the target of it, maybe just his brother was. I can find VERY few sources that even mention the trial, and NONE that I can use to cite criticism of Edward Kennedy.Voice of All(MTG) 00:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
You can't expect to find news stories about that to still be on the web, this is what encyclopedias and biographies are about, preserving this stuff after it is no longer news, but merely part of a person's development and legacy.--Silverback 03:45, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

He's stopped partying not drinking

Thanx to Jmabel for the article. Sadly, the article only states that he stopped partying, not drinking. That's a step at least.--Silverback 05:10, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Question on material

What purpose does the following passage serve? The Joyce Carol Oates novel Black Water is a fictionalized account of the events at Chappaquiddick. Set in the early 1990s, it chronicles the story of a twenty-six-year-old woman named Kelly Kellher who meets a character called "The Senator" at a Fourth of July party, leading to her inevitable and tragic demise. I am not familiar with the book Black Water. Is it a slam dunk on Kennedy or a defense of his actions?--MONGO 07:46, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed compromise about Smith trial and acquittal in this article

In comments on the George W. Bush page, on the subject of incidents in relatives’ lives, it was pointed out that the various Bush family follies were chronicled where they should be, in the articles about the people directly involved. That isn’t done here because there’s no article on Smith. I’ll volunteer to create one – mentioning the accusation, the trial, the acquittal, and, golly gee, maybe even something about what he’s done on the issue of land mines. Then, as a compromise, we could have a “See also” in this article to that one. This is the basic treatment given to Bush – his article refers to the articles about the family members involved, but doesn’t tell the reader anything about the fines or convictions or whatever imposed on those relatives. Given that Smith was acquitted, treating the charges against him the same way as the charges against Neil, Jenna and Barbara Bush is arguably unfair to Smith and to his uncle, but maybe it’s a way for us to move on. JamesMLane 01:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


As far as I'm concerned, you can print ANYTHING you want about George Bush on his page as long as it's true. Why not? If it's about George or his family, it's fine with me. The same goes for any figure, Bush, Kennedy, Clinton, Regan, anyone, and not just pols either. No holding back. If it happened, if it's true, then it deserves to be seen. Whitewater, Enron, Haliburton, if it happened and it's reported in a factual way it belongs to be here. 24.147.97.230 01:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the above anonymous editor. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not merely a repository of weird facts, but of knowledge. Truth is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion. Anything that happened should probably be listed somewhere. However, the question is where. Any particular article should be intended to provide information about the subject, not to be a repository for trivia about someone else. I agree with JamesMLane that a stub or real article on William Kennedy Smith is in order. He was tried and acquitted in a very well-publicized case, and is a public figure, and should be covered. Using his trial to dump on his uncle discards the concept that an encyclopedia should have organization.

Also, Wikipedia does permit anonymous editing, but I would encourage this anonymous editor, who seems to have reasonable opinions that I disagree with, to create an account. Robert McClenon 01:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


I plan to very soon. Thanks 24.147.97.230 01:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I've created the stub on William Kennedy Smith. It certainly needs work. I didn't yet happen to come across Smith's date and place of birth, and there should be more information about his work on the landmine issue. (The first sources I found were in conflict about the relationship between Smith, the Physicians Against Land Mines, and the Center for International Rehabilitation, so that particular point needs to be clarified.) If we follow the compromise I've suggested for the Ted Kennedy article, then it would free a lot of time for people to help Wikipedia by improving the Smith article, and to develop more substantive material about Ted Kennedy's long career, as MONGO and others have suggested above. JamesMLane 02:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


This isn't just about William Kennedy Smith, it's about Ted Kennedy and his involvement in the trial and the events leading up to the trial. There needs to be content which explains that Ted was drinking with William Kennedy Smith, and his son Patrick at Au Bar prior to the rape. He was with the defendant just hours before the rape, and the defendant was his relative. That Ted instigated the trip to the bar, that Ted took the stand during the trial. Ted was at the center of this trial right next to William Kennedy Smith. A quick line about William Kennedy Smith will not do. There needs to be text which explains the above. Sorry it happened, but it did. I'm reminded of those who seek to prove the Holocaust in Germany did not occur. This happened, the Holocaust happened. Ted was extrememly involved. 24.147.97.230 03:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


As to "Dr. Smith", don't forget to include his latest settlement in a sexual abuse case. You can get all the details here, [[3]] "Hamilton, who worked at CIR for nearly seven years, said that Smith frequently entered her office and gave unwanted massages, explaining that pregnant women "glowed" and he found them "irresistible." How did you miss that?? 24.147.97.230 03:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
The article I created has a "stub" tag on it. How did you miss that? As I mentioned above, there's lots of important stuff omitted from it. JamesMLane 03:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Willial kennedy Smith is probably only notable for the embarrassment he caused his family and uncle, not only through his own excesses, but through the glaring light it shed on theirs. Other than that he is just another rich kid who was able to afford a show trial. The show was bigger because his uncle was in it. A separate article for him doesn't really lessen our work here. However many lines we are going to dedicate to the continuing (up until that point) revelations about Ted Kennedy, WKS was probably going to be mentioned in no more than two of them. --Silverback 03:56, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting

Based on the discussion, I am unprotecting this article to see how it goes. Remember to remain civil, not violate 3RR, use proper Wikiquette and so on. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 04:04, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

there needs to be more on his later biography

I note that his current wife is barely mentioned and is listed as a "Kennedy", was she a relative? I think this latter section on his private life, would be a good place to mention the summary that Jmabel has found, where he appears to have given up his partying and become more effective in the Senate. The only other negative I can see mentioning, is his disappearance in the Clarence Thomas hearings due to his vulnerability on sexual harassment issues.--Silverback 05:07, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, your latest edit summary refers to "WKS trial revelations". In earlier discussions on this page I've noted one such "revelation" -- that Kennedy was in a bar at night with two adult relatives of his. That's the hard evidence I know of. You seem to imply that there was testimony about excessive drinking, reckless partying, and all manner of other lurid "revelations". The trouble is that it's always your summary/paraphrase/characterization of the testimony. What source are you referring to? Is the transcript available? Were there reliable news reports? You see, in order to consider whether your latest edit does indeed "capture" these revelations, I'd like to know exactly what was alleged, by whom, and on what basis. Because you seem so familiar with the substance of the testimony, can you elaborate on that subject? JamesMLane 05:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
You should know by now that I am much more moderate in my editing of the article than on the talk pages or edit summaries. On the night in question, you yourself have related more facts, his initiation of the night of drinking, actually rousing his son and nephew out of bed, and also his state of undress (no pants, I believe you mistakenly thought it was in his underwear), in his home while guests were still present. Now, we can put all these facts in the article, along with the use of cocaine and poppers, as disclosed in the Burke book (not online, but available from Amazon.com), or we can keep simple and allow perhaps an original research summarization as "partying". I think this is a straight forward application of the definition, and arguably a euphamism for what was going on.--Silverback 06:23, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
James, I would say that if The Nation, quite sympathetic to his politics, ran an article saying (among other things) that in the 1980s he was hurting his health and effectiveness by his drinking, that's a pretty credible source. [4] -- Jmabel | Talk 05:47, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Silverback, you misunderstood my earlier comments. The anon was saying over and over and over that Kennedy "rousted" the younger men out of bed. That came from the anon. I have no reason to believe it's true. I referred to it in my earlier comment merely to point out that, true or not, it was totally insignificant.
The anon is acting like someone on an obsessive anti-Kennedy campaign. I've tried not to mirror that behavior, though. I haven’t said that the article must be completely adulatory. I haven’t deleted any of the negative material about Chappaquiddick. All I’m saying is that, even though the Republicans hate Kennedy, and even though they’ve been smearing him for years, he is not a free-fire zone. The normal encyclopedic standards apply. We cover the important aspects of the subject. We cite our sources. Where there’s controversy, we don’t take sides, but we can report the notable conflicting opinions if they’re properly attributed. I asked you about the trial testimony because I’ve seen allegations flying around on this talk page that go far, far beyond any source that anyone has actually cited.
Jmabel, I’m not saying that any criticism of Kennedy must ipso facto be unreliable. You’re right that the Nation would probably tend to be pro-Kennedy, although that isn’t a certainty, given the left’s endless capacity for internal feuding. I really do think, though, that there's an air of that free-fire zone feeling here. "A lefty magazine criticized Kennedy's drinking, so it's a genuine issue, so we can toss in any old allegation about partying and lifestyle and whatnot, and we don't need to cite sources." That's no good. If we're relying on the Nation, we should give the citation. Even then, a particular passage from the Nation or anywhere else might be on an unimportant point, or duplicative, or conveying the opinion of someone whose opinion isn’t worth reporting. It’s a matter of looking at the specific assertion and at the source(s) provided to back it up, and making a judgment. So far, this talk page has been noticeably thin on the kinds of specifics that are needed to link a statement in the article to an acceptable source. JamesMLane 08:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I've got all the elements of his life into the article that I was concerned were needed for perspective. I think there needs to be more about his legislative "accomplishments". I'd be hesitent to call them that myself though, since think most legislation is counter productive, especially if it is passed into law.--Silverback 08:35, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
James, I've given the Nation citation. Twice. I'll repeat it more verbosely, if that helps:
The article is, I think, an excellent source both for praise and criticism of Kennedy. It is a generally favorable assessment of him as a liberal leader, and I think much could be drawn from it to address MONGO's request for more indication of what Kennedy has actually achieved. However, in terms of what was being discussed—an unimpeachable source for the claims that Kennedy's personal life in the 1980s impeded his effectiveness (and that he got past that phase), the relevant passage is:
During the 1980s Kennedy spent too many nights drinking too much, chasing younger women, trying to postpone the times when he was alone with his ghosts. He put on weight and seemed almost an Elvis Presley figure in premature, irreversible decline.
Kennedy's silences during the Judiciary Committee's 1991 confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas, who was accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill, were a low ebb for him, drawing rebukes from liberals and feminists for the first time. Anna Quindlen wrote in the New York Times that Kennedy "let us down because he had to; he was muzzled by the facts of his life." The hometown Boston Globe, usually loyal to Kennedy, editorialized that his "reputation as a womanizer made him an inappropriate and non-credible" critic of Thomas.
Thomas was confirmed 52 to 48, and Kennedy was ashamed of his inadequacy. But his failure also revealed that none of the other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee had the stature to fill the void he left. The weak performances of Joe Biden, Patrick Leahy and Howell Heflin--none of whom had the internal inhibitions Kennedy had--proved Kennedy was irreplaceable as an energizing leader. Nobody else could derail Thomas the way Kennedy had stopped Bork.
In April 1991 Senator Hatch, the teetotaling Mormon from Utah, took Kennedy aside and pleaded with him to stop or limit his drinking, suggesting he was drinking himself to death and that Hatch didn't want to "lose Kennedy as a friend or as a colleague." Hatch's lecture did have an impact on Kennedy; two months later he met Vicki Reggie, and ended his partying. They were married in 1992.
That seems pretty straightforward to me, especially when coming from a sympathetic source. Now if only we could find an unsympathetic source that would say as much about his accomplishments. But until we find that, sympathetic ones will have to do, and I think that article's retrospective overview of his career would be worth mining for the purpose. I suggest that someone actively working on this article (I'm really not, I'm mostly here to defend it from actively bad edits) should read it through, there is probably plenty to draw on.
Just in case it's unclear: I generally like Kennedy's politics, but think his personal life has been more than typicaly flawed, enough so that the latter belongs in the article, with appropriate citations. But, yes, the article certainly could stand to have a lot more about politics. If he were nothing but the playboy scion of a wealthy Irish-American family, he would be no more famous than, well, William Kennedy Smith, and certainly would not have come close to the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 1980. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:11, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Jmabel, I did see the citation, and downloaded and copied the article so I could read it offline. My point was only that specific statements must be tied to sources. I object to a general miasma of saying "Everybody knows this, so we can just assert it." As one place to begin, I was focusing on the Smith trial. I've been reading multiple references to all this apparently bombshell testimony about Kennedy's "lifestyle", yet the only hard fact I've seen is that Kennedy was in a bar one night. So, on the current state of the evidence, I'd there's nothing of any significance that can be attributed to that source. When I have a chance I'll look over Siverback's addition based on the Nation. (I already notice, Silverback, that you still haven't picked up on using sentence case in headings, but I won't bother to change it because I think "Political resurrection" is a bad heading anyway). JamesMLane 17:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thanx for the sentence case wikilink.--Silverback 08:38, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I saw Kennedy in 1994 at a function at the Washington Convention Center where he was so drunk he needed to be helped to stand. It is central to his character. Add it.--Agiantman 02:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Agiantman, add specifically what? Please read my comment above. I'm not saying that nothing about Kennedy's lifestyle belongs in the article. I'm saying that assertions on nontrivial points about a controversial subject should be cited to sources. "A Wikipedian who uses the screen name Agiantman saw this" isn't an acceptable source. JamesMLane 23:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Sources for Waitress Sandwich (its whats for dinner)

I thought the Dodd Kennedy “waitress sandwich” was common knowledge.

Sources: February 6, 1990, The Washington Times Penthouse scored an interview with the woman in the May 1989 issue. My Ten Years With Ted by Richard E. Burke, pg 176-179 TDC 21:55, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

You are so correct, Mr. TDC! It is common knowledge and it deserves to be included. --Agiantman 23:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Rumor has it that Kennedy was sued and settled, but that is just a rumor, and the Good Lord know I dont peddle in those. TDC 00:07, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
I don't give a damn if it's "common knowledge"; it's perhaps suitable for the Weekly World News, but otherwise is inappropriate. I mean: Penthouse. The Washington Times. Real reliable sources. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
ummm, you left out one: My Ten Years With Ted by Richard E. Burke, pg 176-179. What say ye now? Whats wrong, dont like your hero bineg nocked down a peg or two over an incident during a drunken stupor? 01:14, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
It's still not encyclopedic. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Please explain your justification, because I am dying to know. TDC 01:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
My justification for what? Believing that trivia about a stupid incident that had no bearing whatsoever on the man's life or career is unencyclopedic? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Its not trivia, its a good indication of what Teddy is like when he runs a few pints through his liver. And you are right, it is a stupid incident, one wonders of the voters of Mass can keep sending that drunk back to the Senate.
Want to hear a good one; When Ted was on the no fly list, it was a mistake......big time. He was supposed to be on the no drive list TDC 01:55, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

TDC. Your revert of my NPOV changes to the Kennedy article is disappointing. I am neither pro nor anti Kennedy, but lurk here trying to make Wikipedia an informative encyclopedia, with integrity.The article stated Kennedy "apparently" did something, and I changed it to it being claimed he did so. The article stated too that the lady involved "had several witnesses", (presented as fact) which I amended by inserted the word "reportedly". Do you think my version should be used UNTIL you can present substantive sevidence for your preferred version? Also you reverted one of my changes back to shoddy English usage, namely the use of the words the two in the single sentence --"that the two made a "human sandwich" with Carla Gaviglio, who was serving the two at the time". The words "the two" used in the space of only 14 words! Good heavens. Moriori 02:03, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

What do you want?!?! An afadavit from groper? TDC 02:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Hi TDC, There is a description of this event at [[5]] These guys don't want this link here because of the kind of true reporting at fatboy.cc. Forget logic with these guys, they don't negociate or respond like normal folks, they are so pro Kennnedy that it blinds them. Good luck and keep up your efforts. 24.147.97.230 02:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

If we've got verified sources, then there can certainly be some mention of this subject. But especially so long as TDC's citations consist only of a right-wing newspaper, a pornographic magazine, and a tell-all book (all of them conveniently unavailable online), the incident must be presented as allegation, rather than absolute fact. Also, the sarcastic and inflammatory tone of his comments and edit summaries are out of line. TDC, please take that as a polite request to obey Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:No personal attacks -- you've been around here long enough to understand what's appropriate and what's not. RadicalSubversiv E 04:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC

More sources... http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/features/2165/, Here's one by Howie Carr, WRKO talk show host & Boston Herald writer...Howie only reports facts. ,, http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/features/2165/ Here's a line about it by Rush, http://www.ronaldreagan.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000472;p=0 Here's a Boston Herald article by Howie Carr with the "sandwich" http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4154/is_20050703/ai_n14683223 The problem is not that this incident isn't well documented, the problem is the extreme bias of the democrats who push thier pov on this page. Try as you might, you will never sanitize Ted Kennedy. The truth is hard to cover.

"Waitress sandwich" is an overstatment, it is more like an unwelcome drunken mashing. A true sandwich requires a greater state of undress and penetration. Is there evidence that it featured prominently, in his carreer or campaigns or his general reputation? If not, it is mere supporting evidence that the reputation he had, was reenforced by another incident that became public. I will support the deletion of such an extensive section. Perhaps, it can be mentioned someplace in some small way. Is there a proposed text for something like this? Even though this appears to be a more serious event, the WKS scandal and trial did more to confirm and publicize the Senator's reputation--Silverback 06:55, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I lived in DC from 1990-94 and the "waitress sandwich" incident was reported in the Washington Post. See "THE BACHELORS; They Say Power Corrupts. In Washington It Also Seduces," Washington Post, Oct 3, 1990. --Agiantman 10:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to mentioning this incident - if it happened - briefly in the context of Kennedy's overall behavior, but to give it its own section is absurd and out of proportion to its significance and relevance. Gamaliel 20:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I concur with Gamaliel. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:14, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is probably more significant in Chris Dodd's career since people weren't as publically aware of his private character. A whole section in the Ted Kennedy article is overkill.--Silverback 14:51, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • Imus did an interview with Dodd a few years back talking about Kennedy's relationship with W, and Dodd spazzed on him when he brought this up. TDC 15:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Nice work Agiantman, Silverback, TDC Don't give up.. PS There was never an agreeement on posting of an article on the Palm Beach Rape. I'd like to see my work put back up... 24.147.97.230 02:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
The rape info, is incorporated in the references to Kennedy's reputation. The only thing added by the trial is that it became public again. What we know about Kennedy's behavior at the time of the alleged rape, doesn't compare with his alleged behavior with Chris Dodd and the waitress, which deserves a mention but not a section.--Silverback 14:51, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sources

The sources should be listed on the article page, and not only on this talk page. "Common knowledge" is not encyclopedic. Please list them on the article page, or I will have to delete the section, and I do not want a revert war, but we cannot have "common knowledge" that is unsourced.

Conservatives: The issue is not whether we should "protect' Kennedy from his past, but whether we can establish what his past was, and what is encyclopedic. Robert McClenon 03:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, which source should be listed on the page then? The Wapo, Times, or Penthouse? TDC 15:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Restatement on Where to Mention Sources

The sources for any incident, including the "waitress sandwich", should be mentioned in the article page, not merely in this talk page. Material whose sources are not contained in the article may be deleted. Such deletion is not an attempt to protect Kennedy from his past, or censorship. It is simply keeping the Wikipedia verifiable. Robert McClenon 15:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The article page clearly mentions a Washington Post source for the waitress sandwich incident. Next time, please read the article before making unecessary coments.--24.55.228.12 15:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Some of the disputed material was properly sourced, and some was not. In the case of the "waitress sandwich", the source reference was listed at so much length that it appeared to be part of the article. Robert McClenon 15:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I've done tracert's on all the anons

I've done tracert's on all the anons, to see if I can discern any clues that would reveal which are sock puppets and which are not. Strangely ALL of the tracerts failed to resolve within 30 hops, which I hadn't seen before, 10 to 20 is more typical. So, I did some testing of known sites, and I found one in taiwan that maxed out the hops, and a main one with aol.com that did too. The aol one was a killer, evidently a big outfit, will have that many internal hops.--Silverback 17:00, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

As you now know, we are all from Taiwan making a concerted effort to sabotage Teddy Kennedy's good name. You caught us. The gig is up. I have to go now to eat my General Tso's chicken. Goodbye.--Agiantman 17:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
You flatter yourself, I assumed you were aol newbies.--Silverback 17:26, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
The RfC attracted a flood of anti-Kennedy anon IP's. One of them, in offering an RfC response as his/her very first Wikipedia edit, wrote: "Thanks for the email on this Cookie." I thought there was a good chance that most of the anons were indeed real people (at least for some fairly broad definition of "people"), and that 24.147.97.230 had blasted an email notice out to a list of right-wingers. There've been a couple instances since then in which an anon showed up and started editing just as 24.147.97.230 would have; one or more of them may well be sockpuppets being used to evade the 3RR. JamesMLane 20:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


1994 race

An anon has added an attack on Kennedy for allegedly having "allowed" Romney's religion to be an issue. Not surprisingly, no source is provided.

It may be that someone somewhere urged a vote for Kennedy on religious grounds, and that Kennedy didn't take a gun and go shoot the person. What else might be meant by "allowed" isn't clear. It's certainly not a charge that Wikipedia should state flat-out as a fact. I'm changing it to an opinion. Even that much is totally unjustified unless it's attributed to a notable source, but, in the interest of assuming good faith, I'll give the anon a short time to provide a citation before removing the passage entirely. JamesMLane 20:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of mormonism being an issue out in Massachusettes. If it came up in the campaign, I bet it was to paint the candidate as possibly more conservative on some issues. If harsher rhetoric was used, I doubt Kennedy's campaign was directly responsible for it, or ran campaign ads raising it as an issue. If it is something substantial and could be documented that the campaign was involved, or if the issue became ugly and the campaign didn't disavow it. It could be relevant to the article, but certainly not the POV way it was presented.--Silverback 21:45, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


JamesMLane Vandel

You have been reported for your repeated vandalism. Please stop removing entire paragraphs. If you do not agree use the dispute resolution process. Use the sandbox if you want to play.

Please don't frivolously accuse other users of vandalism. If you're unfamiliar with the definition of vandalism, see Wikipedia:Vandalism. Thanks. Rhobite 02:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
This is not frivolous, it's vandalism to remove and entire paragraph of someone's work. The discussion page is here for this, stop wholesale removal of content. PS Thanks for speaking on behalf of JamesMLane

It is inappropriate to repeatedly refer to a honest disagreement about content as vandalism in edit summaries and even more inappropriate to clog up the normal anti-vandalism channels like Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress with frivolous reports. Deal with your disagreements on the talk page and stop the namecalling and false accusations or else I'll stop them for you by blocking you if you persist in this behavior. Gamaliel 17:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The anonymous editor obviously thinks that User:JamesMLane is making overly bold edits. Overly bold edits are not vandalism. He may think that User:JamesMLane is POV pushing. POV pushing is not vandalism. He may think that User:JamesMLane is being a stubborn bully. Stubbornness and bullying are not vandalism. Removal of content is not vandalism if it is removal of content that is disputed. I suggest that the anonymous editor post an NPOV banner on the article. If that is removed without discussion, that will be bad faith. Robert McClenon 17:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

In any event, JamesMLane's edits are clearly not more POV-pushing or bullying than the complainant's. I personally think they are less so: this is not the pot calling the kettle black, this is the pot calling the strawberry black. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you berry much. JamesMLane 22:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The anti-Kennedy obsession

Judging from timing and contents of edits, it seems that 24.147.97.230, who has been relentlessly pushing his/her POV here for several weeks, is now using 38.118.3.16 and other sockpuppet IP's to do the same at Rosemary Kennedy. It's the same pattern as here -- remove material, even if supported by citations, that would make a Kennedy look sympathetic; add material, even if irrelevant and completely unsourced, to try to throw mud at the Kennedys; make frequent reference to the dispute resolution policy while ignoring talk page comments about the substance of the edits.

It appears that User:66.176.129.11 is another sock-puppet anonymous IP. Robert McClenon 11:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Poor Rosemary Kennedy was born with what would today be called mental deficiencies, and the ill-informed professionals of that era left her worse off, not better. Let her rest in peace. This anon's attempt to use her article to spread more smears is, for some reason, much more offensive to me than many objectively worse things I've seen, from this anon and other POV warriors. I've reverted the anon's various IP's three times in the last 24 hours. I would be grateful if other editors would watchlist Rosemary Kennedy and help out. (At my request, Robert McClenon joined in, but he's apparently offline for the night, as, alas, I should be.) JamesMLane 05:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Same guy is trying to add another Howie Carr site ("liveshot.cc") at John Kerry, and POV pushing at Rosemary Kennedy. Rhobite 00:07, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Pro-Kennedy Obsession of Some Editors

I find it humorous that some editors want to smear anyone who wants balanced NPOV in this article as "POV warriors" and anti-Kennedy." In fact, a review of Robert McClenon and JamesMLane's contributions show that they have only introduced pro-Kennedy info to the article and, more often, reverted any info that may imply anything negative about their favorite politician. Their love for all things Kennedy has blinded their ability to edit in a neutral way.--66.176.129.11 12:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to try to exercise some self-discipline and waste less of my time trying to reason with one anti-Kennedy POV warrior, and his/her army of sockpuppets, who does not engage in reasonable discussion and who has demonstrated zero interest in improving Wikipedia. JamesMLane 12:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
If a comment like the above, implying the Ted Kennedy is one of my favorite politicians, which he is not, was posted on my user talk page, I would move it to an archive subpage called Personal Attacks and Other Deleted Nonsense. If any anonymous or signed-in editor thinks that any Kennedy articles are being edited to introduce bias, they are welcome to post an article RfC. If you can find a historian who supports your view that Joseph Kennedy Sr. was a monster, and I will agree that he was a complex flawed man, then I will support including a summary of his work in Joseph Kennedy Sr.'s biography. Robert McClenon 14:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

So it's not a joke, it is supposed to be intuitively obvious that anyone who does not believe that the information that Ted Kennedy's nephew's lawyer married one of the jurors in the nephew's rape case, in which Ted Kennedy testified, describes one of the more important events in Ted Kennedy's life is operating from a clear pro-Kennedy bias? And what about the depiction (apparently from People magazine, though uncited) of Kennedy as "sporting a long-tailed shirt"? Isn't it possible that he was not "sporting" it? Perhaps he was "dolled up in" it? Or maybe he could have been "decked out"? I find this pro-"sporting" bias to be POV and needs removal.Gzuckier 19:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comments

I have posted an article Request for Comments concerning two incidents, the "waitress sandwich" and the Palm Beach trial. Robert McClenon 18:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Revert Wars, Edit Wars

Do we need two quickpolls on whether to mention the Palm Beach trial, and on whether to mention the "waitress sandwich" incident? An anonymous editor claims that there was a consensus that they were encylopedic. It was my understanding that the consensus on the Palm Beach trial is that it was relevant to William Kennedy Smith rather than to Ted Kennedy. Robert McClenon 19:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Please read this entire page again and show me where any consensus was reached on the Rape Trial or "waitress sandwich" incidents. You obviously made whole the consensus business up when you indicated there was a consensus that they are non-encyclopedic. It does not mean consensus when you and your sockpuppet, JamesMLane, are in agreement. There is no consensus here and you continue to delete whole paragraphs of other's work just because you are uncomfortable with the content. Information on the Rape Trial and "waitress sandwich" incidents are relevant to Ted Kennedy's life and are not naturally intuitive. Those portions should and will stay within this article.--Agiantman 19:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Please do not refer to other users as sockpuppets when there is absolutely no evidence of this. See Wikipedia:Civility. Gamaliel 19:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Are you referring to my message? Or to the three times JamesMLane has referred to people as sockpuppets on this page? With regard to my single sockpuppet comment, I certainly apologize for referring to JamesMLane and Robert McClenon as sockpuppets if indeed they are not. The evidence I have is the identical pro-Kennedy POV and their habit of deleting whole paragraphs just because they are unfavorable. That is evidence, but perhaps it is insufficient to be conclusory.--Agiantman 19:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Gamaliel was referring to the sockpuppet comment by Agiantman, who labeled two signed-in users with significantly different writing styles and significantly different user histories, both of whom post in true name, as sock-puppets. Gamaliel did also refer to three anonymous IP addresses as possible sock-puppets, which is often plausible with anonymous IP addresses. He did not suggest that the anonymous IP addresses were sock-puppets of Agiantman, for instance, because there was no evidence to that effect. I consider the apology by Agiantman to be not in good faith, given the concluding comment. I am not asking for another apology, whether or not in good faith, but I will remind Agiantman of No personal attacks. Robert McClenon 20:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
The consensus was for a brief mention that he testified at the trial. The consensus was against the other events as unencyclopedic. Robert McClenon 20:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
You know, with a current RfC filed against you Agiantman, it doesn't help your case by continuing to attack other editors (and by the way, calling someone else a sockpuppet with an RfC littered with anon edits with total edits I can count on one hand, it's pretty ironic) --kizzle 05:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ethical Editing

We have a wiki administrator here deleting whole paragraphs and designating it as a "minor edit." Not too ethical if you ask me. Aren't admins held to a higher standard? Isn't it deceptive to remove a substantial amount of text and label it as a minor edit? And why is an admin engaging is a revert war anyway? And why is he not enforcing the 3RR rule, which JamesMLane admits to breaking: "I've reverted the anon's various IP's three times in the last 24 hours." As I am sure you know, admins who abuse their authority can lose their admin rights.--Agiantman 20:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand the 3RR rule. "More than three", not "three or more." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • FWIW, admins, when acting as editors, are not formally "held to a higher standard": we are held to the same standard as anyone else. And, as far as I know, admins have be de-admined only for abusing their admin powers, not for bad edits. As for the revert war: what are people supposed to do, roll over and concede to any group of persistent, mostly anonymous editors who seem to have a strong political agenda and no standards of scholarship? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:53, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting then, that you just restored the waitress and palm beach sections with the edit summary "added cite for the use of Romney's religion as an issue by the Kennedy campaign". Agiantman, would you decribe this as "ethical editing"? Gamaliel 00:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I only edit the main article we are working with. I automatically revert the pro-Kennedy POV warrior attempts to remove relevant paragraphs. I am sorry if that wasn't clear. Please assume that my future edits will restore those paragraphs. Other additions will be noted in the summary. --Agiantman 01:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Quickpolls a waste of time

We already did this, but you ignored the results. Why do it again? So you can discard consensus when you loose? Are you just running this until folk get tired of voting then declare victroy? This means nothing. 24.147.97.230 21:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Please state where we already did this. There was a survey on the fatboy.cc link, and the consensus was against the link. There was a survey on the Palm Beach rape trial, and the consensus was against the long account. It is being run again only to re-establish it. If there was a survey on the "waitress sandwich", please state what the numerical vote was, and I will research it in the archive, or show me a link to the archive. Robert McClenon 21:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


Look at the top of this page. Quickpoll

See the proposed solution above first

Addenum: Since James brought it up before: do not use this poll as a way to push POV on any side of this issue, I am just trying to see where we are so we can work to find a solution, not to promote more hostility. Thanks everyone, I appreciate all your cooperation and everything. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 06:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

This is no by no means meant to be official but I just want to see where people stand on this issue, I think we all agree the original version was heavily POVed against Ted Kennedy but we can deal with wording etc. later.

Basically, I want to see we who supports the inclusion of the information about The Palm Beach rape trial. Please write comments elsewhere, this is just so I know where we are at right now. Please sign your vote and do not try to alter it by voting more than once, one person, one vote, simple as that. Again, this is not official but I just want to know where this is at right now. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 02:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

This is fun. Now we have editors messaging other editors trying to hustle up votes. Voting is evil. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

o Eviler than I intended... Do they not understand this is not official and purely for my benefit to see how far we need to go on this thing? Anyways, the good news is now we have a summary of everybody's stance on the issue and can now begin to work on a solution without pointless mudslinging which, I am ashamed to say, I may have participated in, but I guess we're all guilty of something ;-) Sasquatch↔讲↔看 04:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Include

1. Include. Though, the trial should be mentioned in a VERY brief and NPOV manner, probably a sentence or two. Though, the section on the trial seemed to be written by a 2 year old monkey POVer.Voice of All(MTG) 02:51, August 8, 2005 (UTC) 2. Include, perhaps two or three sentences in a longer section that includes in the cocaine and popper use, and other self-defeating character flaws.--Silverback 03:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC) 3. Strong Include. Ted Kennedy's bio should be complete, warts and all. The paragraph in dispute is noteworthy, accurate, and should be included as written. Ted Kennedy was at the center of the most widely publicized rape trial in US history and his role should not be whitewashed.--Agiantman 03:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC) 4. Include. Redwolf24 03:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC) 5. Include. Perhaps the left could write 4 lines and the right could right 4, neither could argue the content of the other Thank you 24.147.97.230 03:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC) 6. Include, but no more than a sentence or two, with a link to the appropriate article where the trial is actually discussed. And, yes, (1) I would certainly think the article on G.W. Bush should discuss his drinking and alleged drug use when young and (2) this article should, similarly, mention both Kennedy's drinking in the past and the fact that he stopped. This article from The Nation, hardly unsympathetic to Kennedy, talks about his heavy drinking in the 1980s and the fact that, of all people, Orrin Hatch was apparently instrumental in him getting sober. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:26, August 8, 2005 (UTC) 7. Include. Ted Kennedy testified at the trial. Be careful it is not worded to sound anti-Ted Kennedy. though. Banes 13:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC) 8. Include. Kennedy's involvement in that trial had an impact on his effectiveness in the Thomas confirmation (he was quite quiet) and on his reelection in 1994. This was well noted in the media at the time. That is why it is relevant. NoSeptember 15:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

(the reinclusion of the above is unsigned, but occurred in sequence Aug 15.)

"Perhaps the left could write 4 lines and the right could right". Besides the bad spelling, this illustrates exactly why it is hard for me to take some of these "votes" seriously. Wikipedia is not a "he says she says"; the assumption that this is a left/right matter is appalling (There are plenty of people in the world to the left of Kennedy: do we have to seek out the anti-capitalist critique of the Kennedy family wealth?); and the assumption that Silverback, for example, by not wanting a hatchet job here has somehow suddenly migrated to the political left is particularly galling. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Two Quickpolls

In order for these quickpolls to find a consensus, they must both have two options only. Compromise proposals can be discussed, but the vote is for or against inclusion of the paragraphs as often inserted and deleted in the revert wars. Robert McClenon 20:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Waitress Sandwich

In favor

Those who favor including the description of the "waitress sandwich" incident as often inserted and often deleted can sign with four tildes.

  1. Of course it should be included as written. How silly! An encyclopedia should show all aspects of a public figure, including his negative character traits. --Agiantman 22:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. --Ernestocgonzalez 22:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. It does seem to have happened, so probably should be included. Coqsportif 09:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. I say include it, although it should be possibly polished/rewritten. - Sleepnomore 21:03, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Against

Those who oppose including the description of the "waitress sandwich" incident can sign with four tildes.

  1. Robert McClenon 20:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. although a short mention might be appropriate --Silverback 21:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  3. JamesMLane 21:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC) No separate mention of this incident is needed. The broader discussion about Kennedy's reputation on "lifestyle" issues is adequate. JamesMLane 21:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. With Silverback here: a passing mention might be appropriate, but it does not add much to the article, and treating it in lurid detail can have no purpose except that of a smear. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Do not oppose a brief mention (1-2 sentences) in the section discussing TK's lifestyle, but this large section is absurd. Gamaliel 21:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Maybe a short mention, if neutrally written and properly cited. Does not deserve its own section. Rhobite 00:05, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  7. I oppose this POV version, but would support a NPOV encyclopedic mention. Moriori 01:37, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Totally unencyclopedic. Luridity for the sake of luridity. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. Voice of All(MTG) 06:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)Total garbage, not needed in an article.
  10. I'm in agreement with Gamaliel and Rhobite. Shem(talk) 09:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. JP said it best. --kizzle 17:06, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Scimitar parley 17:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC). I don't support the current version, but it would be ridiculous not to mention it. Did it recieve coverage? Yes. Do people want to know it happened? Yes. Is it encyclopedic? Not at present. A direct mention of this incident would help explain why Kennedy has the reputation he does.
    The alleged incident. That's the problem. I think Chappaquiddick is pretty much sufficient. to explain said reputation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    Alleged incident, fine. However, the point about substantial media coverage remains- it did damage his reputation, and thus deserves a brief mention. Just not in its current form.--Scimitar parley 18:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

There was consensus that the fact that Kennedy testified at the trial is relevant. The quickpoll here is on whether to include the one paragraph account of incidents related to the trial or something shorter.


Against

Those who oppose including the longer description of events related to the trial can sign with four tildes.

  1. Robert McClenon 20:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. JamesMLane 21:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC) but there was not a consensus that the mere fact of testifying at someone else's trial is relevant to a public official's bio. I agreed to the inclusion of an unnecessary "See also" link only as a compromise.
  3. --Silverback 21:19, August 15, 2005 (UTC) last time around there was no mention in the article of alcohol, drugs and womanizing, now that there is, the behavior at the trial adds nothing.
  4. Jmabel | Talk 21:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Do not oppose a brief mention (1-2 sentences) in the section discussing TK's lifestyle, but this large section is absurd. Gamaliel 22:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    This from the same person who has been arguing for months for the inclusion in the Joe Scarborough article of the death of one of his aides? Once again, your hypocrisy knows no ends. TDC 22:07, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    I oppose removal of a brief mention of the aide's death from that article. I support a brief mention of TK's involvement in the trial in the appropriate section. That seems pretty consistent to me. Gamaliel 23:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    Good eye TDC 24.147.97.230 02:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. I oppose this POV version, but would support a NPOV encyclopedic mention. Moriori 01:51, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  7. This should be discussed at William Kennedy Smith's article. Rhobite 03:04, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Voice of All(MTG) 06:51, August 16, 2005 (UTC)As I said before, there should be a sentence on it, maybe two, but no more than that.
  9. Agree, brief mention. --kizzle 17:05, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

In favor

Those who favor including the one paragraph description of events related to the trial can sign with four tildes.

  1. TDC 22:07, August 15, 2005 (UTC), but of course
  2. This is a no brainer. This was the most highly publicized rape trial in history and Ted was a material witness at the center of it all. To remove it is to deny history.--Agiantman 22:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. --Ernestocgonzalez 22:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Definite no brainer. Kennedy was a witness, was implicated in the shenanigans that night and, most importantly, was back in the news *big time* during this affair. It is an important point in his career as a Senator. (That is unless the typical Wiki definition of "NPOV - as long as Democrats look good" is invoked by the biased moderators who have no problem with a still from a Michael Moore film being seriously presented as part of the GWB entry) (preceding unsigned comment by 141.155.154.108 02:47, August 16, 2005 (UTC))
    • User's first edit.
  5. Include as long as it is factually sourced and cited. Rangerdude 21:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you going to just ignore this vote if you loose? I have yet to see you dems play fair. You lost the US election and you lost on posting an accurate account of Teddy's past. Why another vote? So if you win you can say so and if you loose you can ignore it again? 24.147.97.230 02:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore it either way. Any text that is likely to get accepted is going to be so different as to make this vote irrelevant. Still it is a way to clear the air.--Silverback 09:36, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
This isn't a vote, it's a poll to help clarify the discussion. Content of Wikipedia articles isn't determined by a series of votes on the talk page. JamesMLane 09:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  1. I support inclusion as long as it is made very clear he was a witness only and had no other involvement in the alleged rape. It was certainly deemed newsworthy at the time so it needs to be mentioned in some way. Coqsportif 09:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


From previous poll:

  1. Include. Though, the trial should be mentioned in a VERY brief and NPOV manner, probably a sentence or two. Though, the section on the trial seemed to be written by a 2 year old monkey POVer.Voice of All(MTG) 02:51, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Include, perhaps two or three sentences in a longer section that includes in the cocaine and popper use, and other self-defeating character flaws.--Silverback 03:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Strong Include. Ted Kennedy's bio should be complete, warts and all. The paragraph in dispute is noteworthy, accurate, and should be included as written. Ted Kennedy was at the center of the most widely publicized rape trial in US history and his role should not be whitewashed.--Agiantman 03:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Include. Redwolf24 03:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Include. Perhaps the left could write 4 lines and the right could right 4, neither could argue the content of the other Thank you 24.147.97.230 03:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Include, but no more than a sentence or two, with a link to the appropriate article where the trial is actually discussed. And, yes, (1) I would certainly think the article on G.W. Bush should discuss his drinking and alleged drug use when young and (2) this article should, similarly, mention both Kennedy's drinking in the past and the fact that he stopped. This article from The Nation, hardly unsympathetic to Kennedy, talks about his heavy drinking in the 1980s and the fact that, of all people, Orrin Hatch was apparently instrumental in him getting sober. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:26, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Include. Ted Kennedy testified at the trial. Be careful it is not worded to sound anti-Ted Kennedy. though. Banes 13:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. Include. Kennedy's involvement in that trial had an impact on his effectiveness in the Thomas confirmation (he was quite quiet) and on his reelection in 1994. This was well noted in the media at the time. That is why it is relevant. NoSeptember 15:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  10. Include. Please keep it to provable facts, however. - Sleepnomore 22:10, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

My current position is that the part that was relevant has been included, Ted's penchant and well deserved/documented reputation for "partying", with that included the mere old news that he testified at a trial, and that his testimony did not touch upon any of the elements of the alleged crime, is unimportant. The article now acknowledges the pattern of behavior that went on. The "sandwich" which highlights, what is hopefully one of the extremas of this behavior (short of the fatal accident) is relevant for that reason, it goes beyond acceptable limits of "partying", however, even it doesn't need more than mention, since despite the impact if could have and probably should have had, it didn't have much impact.--Silverback 06:57,

Consensus process

The previous poll was on whether there should be at least a one sentence mention of the trial. The consensus was that there should, but there was no consensus on whether the long partly irrelevant account should be included, or only one sentence, or something in between. This poll should have been on whether to keep the long account as repeatedly added and removed in the article. The inclusion of the previous signatures to the poll, by an anonymous editor, is not helping determine what consensus is. Robert McClenon 11:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

1994 campaign

I don't think the subject of Mormonism in the 1994 campaign is particularly important. It should probably be omitted. Nevertheless, since the anti-Kennedy anons kept putting it in, I tried, in the interest of compromise, to frame a suitably NPOV presentation of it. My version is in this edit. We are not going to report a campaign dispute in a way that parrots right-wing charges against Kennedy as if they were facts. In response to my work, Agiantman and the latest vulgarity-spewing anon have reverted to the POV version.

If the compromise is unacceptable, then the issue will be whether to include a blatantly POV slam at Kennedy about a subject so minor it probably doesn't deserve mention at all, or to omit the subject entirely. If that's the choice, I'll be in favor of omitting the POV language. JamesMLane 00:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Now that we see the whole story, it seems pretty clear that this has nothing to do with Kennedy at all. I suggest we merge it with the Romney article. Gamaliel 01:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
That's a good idea. Romney's interest in running for President has sparked some discussion of the question of anti-Mormon prejudice. There was one poll that, surprisingly (to me, anyway), showed anti-Mormonism to be stronger than anti-Semitism, at least in terms of affecting people's votes for President. (Of course, both of those prejudices combined didn't come close to matching the prejudice against those of us who aren't religious.) The discussion in the Mitt Romney article about his Presidential ambitions could include a subheading about what role, if any, religion would play. JamesMLane 01:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
The anti-Mormon comments about Romney have everything to do with the Kennedy campaign. The Ted Kennedy campaign (first joe kennedy, then ted) smeared Romney in the effort to defeat him. I am convinced that there are editors here on the Kennedy payroll.--Agiantman 11:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
WP:AGF. Hipocrite 14:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Introduction Rework

Toshiba has reworked the introduction paragraph to provide a summary of the positions (points of view) of Kennedy's supporters and critics. I think that the new introductory paragraph is a reasonable neutral encyclopedic summary. I think that thanks are in order for this revision. (As a minor criticism, Toshiba forgot to provide an edit summary.) Robert McClenon 17:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Presenting a summary of opinions is fine, but I think the lead section should begin with undisputed basic facts. Although the assassinations are an unpleasant subject, Kennedy's status as the survivor of his two assassinated brothers is part of his significance in U.S. politics, as is his longevity in the Senate. I've put those facts in the first paragraph, with the pro-and-con discussion in the second paragraph. With regard to that discussion, is there really a serious contention that Kennedy is further to the left than his "moderate" brother Robert? In the 1968 campaign, Robert Kennedy was certainly regarded as being to the left of Johnson and then of Humphrey. I've left that in for now, to see if someone can provide a source, but it should be removed from the lead section unless there's a notable body of criticism of Kennedy on this score. JamesMLane 19:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agiantman

Editors here should be aware of this rfc, started this morning. Gamaliel 20:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This is just more harrassment from the pro-Kennedy POV warriors here (Robert McClenon, Gamaliel, Jpgordon, JamesMLane, etc.). If an editor refuses to give in to their bullying they try to stifle the editor in any wiki way they can find. Look at their comment histories and you will see this is their m.o. And everything they accuse me of doing, they engage in themselves. --Agiantman 20:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

They are biased and negative. To remove an entire paragraph is vandalism. Stick to you guns Agiantman you are doing the right thing.24.147.97.230 22:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


A witch hunt be the self proclaimed guardians of "NPOV", which needs to be defined what it is here at WikiKosAtriosPedia: Democrats must look good at all costs and Republicans must look bad and evil. JamesMLane admits as much on his user page! How can you take the supposed "neutrality" of a person who is "hostile to the right wing" seriously? This "project" is a sham circle jerk site for left wingers.

Protection

I've protected the page until the edit warring stops. As someone with no personal political interst in the subject, I think that the scandals should be discussed, but perhaps without the same level of prominence they are being given in the current version.--nixie 02:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

My first overview of the article, I think it reads well as it is protected.
The deleted: "including alleged serial adultery and alcohol abuse has distracted him from his political agenda, which has become increasingly left-wing and distant from the moderate positions of his late brothers." I do not support as Wiki appropriate. I will agree that it is common parlance that the Senator in earlier days had a big womanizing image and even today when he appears on PBS McNeil Hour or in a standup on Capital Hill there is always the memory of his drinking days.
Just the same, the adultery and alcohol comments are better left to the FOX news channel rather than an encyclopedia entry.
But more to the point of POV I believe editorially it is a misstatement to link the sadder side of Ted Kennedy's life to their being "distractions": and then to go for blood with "left-wing" in the same context. Clearly, to me, "left-wing" is used derogatively here rather than to inform. Editorially I could easily live with a discussion that could be crafted to demonstrate he is a lefty, but the linkage here is editorially unsound.
More wise folks than not point to the legislative record that comes out of the Senator's office as genuinely in the public interest. The deleted text above pretends this is neither true nor having validity.

"nixie, even on Aussie radio Teddy gets heavy blows from commentators, so it's no secret that there are deep feelings about this guy. But just the same any additional text needs to be crafted if it is to be accepted to a statement of facts, which I feel was very well done in the protected article describing the Chappaquidick episode. It demonstrates clearly his tarnished image, the reasons for it, and why it survives.Kyle Andrew Brown 02:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


I think that the revised introductory section as rewritten first by Toshiba and then by JamesMLane is a consensus addition. I think that it does summarize the substance of the scandals, which primarily have to do with drinking and sex. I think that it is also a consensus that the Palm Beach trial should be mentioned in passing. Robert McClenon 03:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I disagree with protecting the page. This only gives Kennedy's critics reason to think that there is a conspiracy to protect him. Please unprotect the page. Allowing the edit wars to continue is undesirable, but imposing a lock is more undesirable. In an imperfect world, can we let us teenagers continue to fight rather than being a vice-principal? Robert McClenon 03:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Without taking a position on the revised intro section, I don't subscribe to having text continually changing and revolving around. It is correctly political to present clearly opposing positions, but editorially unsound to reflect it on a page that changes by the minute over issues that are deepseated and views that will never change. The front page of the articles are not crafted to be debating vehicles.Kyle Andrew Brown 03:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
The page is protected because the same person is using multiple IPs to make the same edits repeatedly, so they cannot effectively be stopped from editing the article. Their activities waste the time of everyone trying to constructively participate in writing this article and disrupt the function of Wikipedia in general. It would also be constructive if the people involved in editing this article could come to a concensus if there is anything worth salvaging from the anon edits.--nixie 03:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

What a Joke!

nixie has now locked the page on JamesMLane's last edit. JamesMLane, of course, is the editor who writes on his user page that he is "Hostile to the right wing" so we can be sure that his version is a neutral version. LOL. The locked version does not include any mention of the William Kennedy Smith rape trial, the waitress sandwich incident, or the use of Romney's mormon religion during the 1994 campaign. The protection of JamesMLane's version speaks volumes about what is wrong with wikipedia. On the bright side, at least the NPOV tag appears on this version.--Agiantman 03:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • See m:The Wrong Version. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • You really shouldn't cite m:The Wrong Version, in a case when the admin edited twice after putting the protection on. The first edit was justified, because the protected version was obvious vandalism (the "hockey" stuff), but the second edit was not justified. It was an attempt to get the "right" version.--Silverback 04:21, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Point taken. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I've reverted to my first revert. Previous discussion on this page seemed to indicate that it was the last agreed upon version, since that's not the case I reverted.--nixie 04:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
        • It was the version with the most support. But once you eliminated the vandalism, I don't think you should have continued looking for the "right" version, in a content dispute. I happen to agree with the JamesMLane version you just reverted, but I'd rather have neutral admins than the "right" version. Thanx for doing the right thing! That said, we need a better way to deal with sock puppet anons.--Silverback 04:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Agiantman, instead of complaining and being deliberatly provocative why don't you suggest a NPOV rewrite on the scandals on the talk page, I will gladly add it to the article if there is concensus to do so.--nixie 03:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


BS - You Democrat=NPOV types will just continue to delete anything that makes Kennedy look bad, delete or fix polls on what should be added, and when all else fails initiate your witch hunt "RFC" crap against any user to the right of Lenin. Hypocrites. Agiantman is being persecuted here.
How did this get edited after the protection? I thought protection stops editing? If they don't like Ted Kennedy's past, perhaps they should not like Ted Kennedy. The Rape happened, the Waitress Sandwich happened, Chappy happened. Not to report the facts is censureship. This is the USA, let's live like it. Remember Bataan, men and woman died so that we can live with truth. If the "editors" want to write good stuff about Ted, go to it, we're not reverting it. Stop taking our work down.24.147.97.230 04:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
"The Rape happened"? Only if you wish to claim that the verdict was wrong. He was acquitted. You may mean that the trial happened, which is true. However, that misstatement is characteristic of why we have an edit war. Robert McClenon 11:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
You can't exactly blaim them, they're born this way, and they should recive the same compassion as anyone else with a debilitating mental disorder--I-2-d2 04:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Lay off the personal attacks. If you actually read my first comment on this page I said that I thought the information being disputed should be included but not in the form it was presented.--nixie 04:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You guys can make your points without personally attacking those who disagree with you. Really, it's not hard. --kizzle 04:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


Maybe it's your groups failure to negociate that upsets so many? I've offered to work with your team in the past many, many, times. I was never taken up on my offer. Our work is deleted, but not called by vandalism, though entire paragraphs are removed. How about a real effort to work together? So far it's been your way or no way.24.147.97.230 04:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
No. The majority has been very willing to negotiate. We have tried several methods of reaching consensus as to how to provide an encyclopedic summary. "How about a real effort to work together?" I agree. That does not mean simply adding the same material over and over again, but trying to rework it to make it encyclopedic and neutral. Robert McClenon 11:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Another Request for Unprotection

I think that the anonymous editors of this page have been out of control and behaving badly too long. However, allowing them to put material of dubious value on this page, which can be easily reverted, is the lesser of two evils compared with page-protecting it. Protecting this page creates the appearance that there is a conspiracy to suppress the truth.

There is a proposed policy to permit Wikipedia:Per-article blocking. This article is a case for that policy. This article should be protected indefinitely from editing by specific anonymous IP addresses, or even by all anonymous editors. That would be far less drastic than the current state of protecting it from editing by all non-admin editors, which amounts to transferring it from a Wiki community to an elite.

If any of the anonymous editors have committed vandalism, or violated 3RR, or engaged in personal attacks, they should be blocked. I disagree with the page protection and think that the Wikipedia community should not be blocked from editing the article due to a few anonymous misdeeds. Robert McClenon 11:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

3RR violations by vandalizing sockpuppets all day, every minute, require locking down the article. This is a matter of policy, not whethor or not conspiracy theorist have something to work on. If only android79 was here.Voice of All(MTG) 13:24, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

This page would be a good candidate for what you might call "dynamic protection." Whenever it is under attack by changable anon IPs, protect the page. After an hour or two, remove the protection, and wait until the next attack before protecting again. Eventually the vandal will get frustrated with the speedy protections, but the editors can edit when the vandal is not active. If you look at the article history, you will see that the vandalism is not constant, and a lot of the vandals are not changable anon IPs (so blocks could effective). NoSeptember 13:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Protection Needed

A group of "editors" with extreme POV is working very hard to have total control of this page. They include Voice of All(MTG), Robert McClenon ,Talk, jpgordon,JamesMLane,kizzle,Robert McClenon,Silverback,Gamaliel. Some of these editors are now engaged in an RFC to censure user Agiantman. Each one of these "editors" only presents views favorable to the left wing. The fact that they have organized into a group and monitor this page constantly give them no additional credibility. If this is to be a work of encylcpedic quality all POV's need to be presented. Past protection has not resolved this issue as they still refuse to include a paragraph on The Palm Beach Rape Incident and the sexual misconduct illustrated in "the waitress sandwich" incident. The past argument presented mainly focused upon anons like myself. This changed when registered editors began to be reverted. At this point the campagne to discredit and remove Agiantman began. One of the reasons stated in the RFC is that he is said to have accused an editor of being a sock puppet. How petty! History repeats itself, especially when whitewashed. There is a need for accurate and complete reporting of Ted Kennedy's past misconduct. These issues will not fade away without a new plan that includes all the participants, not just the left wing editors. Their begging for the lifting of protection is only to allow their badgering to begin again. 24.147.97.230 14:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy kills millions delaying access to life saving drugs through his support for the FDA, and you're focused on the drunken mashing of a waitress. For someone claiming not to be on the left, you sure are doing them a lot of favors. Get some perspective and stop discrediting the right.--Silverback 16:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Ted Kennedy is responsible for the death of millions and yet Republicans' stance on stem cells is saving the world? --kizzle 17:03, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
It is worse than that, Republicans generally support the FDA too, and I myself am a mass-murderer based on some past misguided lesser of two evils votes. The Iraq conflict and its mere 2000 deaths over two years is patti-cake by comparison. Those who advocate coercive "solutions" to problems, and presume to make "net lives saved" decisions for others bear a terrible moral burden. But Ted Kennedy exemplifies the hubris of those who presume to rule, back in the 70s, he proposed not only conscription, but universal mandatory public service. I haven't found an easy internet reference for this, so I may have to back up my recollection with offline sources. The fascist notion that there is such a thing as duty to a nation is the most destructive weapon in history.--Silverback 17:10, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I dunno about that. The concept of nation in the first place is bad enough, and religion has been doing far more damage for a lot longer time than nationalism. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the "longer time" is outweighed by the rise of nation states, and large conscript armies in the 19th and 20 centuries. --Silverback 21:40, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

hmmmmmmmm....Voice of All(MTG), Robert McClenon ,Talk, jpgordon,JamesMLane,kizzle,Robert McClenon,Silverback,Gamaliel...I'm sure that all of us are extreme POVers vying for control over the Ted Kennedy article...it really is a conspiracy. Logic, reason, and civility are just our secret weapons...:).Voice of All(MTG) 02:14, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for Agreement

Perhaps we could work as a team and all work to author the paragraphs. Each side could write 4 lines, each side can not remove the other's contribution. This would force a balanced view of each incident.24.147.97.230 02:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

What Do You Want?

First the article was page-protected, and the anonymous editors said that this was censorship. I then disagreed with the admins, and said that the most recent page-protection should be removed. The anonymous editors are now claiming that the moderate editors only want unprotection so that the "badgering" can begin again. I would like to see the article unprotected, in spite of the problem of the anonymous editors, because I am in favor of the Wikipedia concept of open editing. However, if there is a consensus for protection, I will agree to protection. Do the anonymous editors want the page protected, and kept in a left-wing version, or unprotected, to allow it to be made NPOV? The current protected version omits much of the neutral criticism of Kennedy, such as the mention that his critics think that his personal faults have made him ineffective. I think that they will get a version that is less flattering to Kennedy if they ask to have the page unprotected. What do they (the anonymous editors) really want? Robert McClenon 02:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The censureship is not due to the protection, it's due to a group of left wing editors who delete anything that is not written pro Kennedy. My proposal is to allow any content, but allow both sides to contribute. This would seem to end all the reverting. Your side would have an oppertunity for your POV on every paragraph, the same of my side. Left will not delete or change right's posts, right will not delete or change left's posts. You will have half the space provided to post anything you want. It can be easily be kept enclyopedic with proper writing. Any arguments would be within the opposed sides only, not between sides.24.147.97.230 02:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
But that can't happen. Even if some of the disputants here were to agree to such a solution, it would not be in any way binding on anyone else who cared to come in and boldly edit the article. Furthermore, it posits some sort of "left-right" split, which has not been at issue here the arguments here have been about the encyclopedic nature, or lack thereof, and the importance, or lack thereof, of the entries being inserted into the article by you (among others). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Your group reverts this site daily. How is this any differant, except to have most of us in agreement? As to a split, this had been the core issue all along. Thank you 24.147.97.230 04:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Both groups revert this site daily. That's the problem. There seems to be a basic disagreement over encyclopedic quality; I don't want tabloid-quality crap in articles about anyone (I've been busily keeping garbage out of Rick Santorum, for example, even though politically I find him loathsome.) Coverage of scandalous material should be proportionate to the impact of the scandalous material on the subjects life and career. That's why several paragraphs on Chappaquiddick are not only appropriate, but necessary; that's why a passing mention of the Palm Beach trial might be appropriate; that's why the "waitress sandwich" isn't. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


You would be correct if this was to be a children's encylopedia and only briefly state the main topics. Where do you see a description of Wikipedia that limits the content to "be proportionate to the impact of the scandalous material on the subjects life" The more detail available to read the better this work will be. Is this your argument? That the content "be proportionate to the impact of the scandalous material on the subjects life"? That this is an accepted and know Wikipedia rule? Or did you just make that up...


By the above new rule, what is really needed on this page? Is "In October 1971 Kennedy called for the withdrawal of British troops from Ireland, and for all political parties there to begin talks on creating a United Ireland. The senator has retained an interest in the Irish political situation since that time." proportional to the impact on his career? Or does the new rule just apply to scandalous material? Where are you getting this from??24.147.97.230 05:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Consensus as to encyclopedic content is the issue

The statement that there is a group of left-wing editors who delete anything that is not pro-Kennedy misrepresents the situation. Silverback is one of the editors who revert to a consensus version. There is a consensus of the editors of this article against the inclusion of the "waitress sandwich". There is a consensus for a brief mention of the rape trial but against the longer description of irrelevant events. I am criticizing the protection of the page because the rewritten introductory paragraph, which summarizes criticisms of Kennedy, is not included. Robert McClenon 11:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

An effort at 2 consensus edits

NOTE!! THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE, I'm not sure why this is being discussed here, it has nothing to do with why this page was protected. 24.147.97.230 00:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

In the reversion from JamesMLane's version to Robert McClenon's version, the following was removed from the lead:

1a. ...having served since 1963. Like his assassinated brothers, President John F. Kennedy and Senator Robert F. Kennedy, he is a Democrat.

replaced by

1b. ...senior Democratic U.S. senator from Massachusetts. Kennedy is an icon to some in his party and is known as one of America's leading liberal politicians.

Also removed:

2. Supporters regard Kennedy as a "lion" of the Democratic party, an articulate and reliable advocate for liberalism, a seasoned parliamentary perfomer, and a shrewd albeit personally unlucky politician. Detractors say his history of personal indiscretions, including alleged serial adultery and alcohol abuse, has distracted him from his political agenda, which has become increasingly left-wing and distant from the moderate positions of his late brothers.

I would have thought 2 was acutually more to the liking of those who seem to have insisted on the reversion, since it gets their issues into the lead. Who is objecting to that paragraph, and why?

As for 1a. vs.1a. 1b.: what (if anything) is the argument against mentioning his two assassinated brothers in the lead? And if the problem is with the specific wording, can someone propose an alternative?

Jmabel | Talk 05:45, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

If you are referring to the revert that took place after the article was protected, don't read anything about preference into it. The admin mistakenly had tried to find the "right" version of the article to protect, and then thought better of it, and restored the last version before the vandalism. The JamesMLane version is probably the preferred version among the non-anons, but admins that impose protection should neutral and not be participants in the content dispute.--Silverback 07:41, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
"Personally unlucky?" LOL! I guess it is unlucky when you are caught cheating in college or when you drive drunk off a bridge and a woman dies because of your inaction.--Agiantman 18:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Or when you ram your boyfriend's car, killing him and don't get charged. Oh no, wait, that's lucky! Gzuckier 19:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Without weighing in on any changes, I would say that if I were to read No. 2. as:

"2. Supporters regard Kennedy as a "lion" of the Democratic party, an articulate and reliable advocate for liberalism, a seasoned parliamentary perfomer, and a shrewd politician. Detractors say his past indiscretions have at times distracted his political agenda."

I would say it is balanced as I have rewritten it, with the exception of saying that both supporters and detractors could agree with both statements. That would be rewritten as "Supporters and detractors alike regard..."Kyle Andrew Brown 20:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Articulate? I don't agree with that. Do you consider this to be articulate:[http://www.moviesoundclips.net/misc/americanpolitics/kennedy1.wav]? A "seasoned parliamentary performer"? Are you kidding?--Agiantman 00:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

You don't help matters when you want to insert that "Supporters and detractors alike regard [Kennedy] as a 'lion' of the Democratic party, an articulate and reliable advocate for liberalism, a seasoned parliamentary perfomer, and a shrewd albeit personally unlucky politician." The statement that supporters think that way is fine. But don't try to attribute that nonsense to detractors without a very good source. I am unware of any detractor who thinks that way.--Agiantman 04:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Agiantman, I've stated that I do not take a position IN ANY WAY in this revert battle.
  • And I do not take a position that anything that appears in the article is "nonsense." Because were I to state that writers to the article were contributing "nonsense" then few writers and readers would respect any statement that I might make.
  • My shaping of content for the writer's No. 2 was an example of a process that the two sides of the Kennedy Revert Battle might undertake ON THEIR OWN to come up with THEIR OWN statement. I began the statement and left it incomplete to be completed by the revert warriors.
  • I believe you when you state that you are unaware of any detractor who thinks Kennedy is .... But the mail I recieve from both sides of the political spectrum soliciting donations attests that there are indeed those on both sides that do so believe.Kyle Andrew Brown 04:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Attn: Admins

Please change the category Category:United States Senators to Category:U.S. Senators from Massachusetts. Thanks. --tomf688<TALK> 00:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Editorial Craft

There are lotsa pols and media talking heads that are on both sides of the fence that everyone disagrees with. That in itself does not make them in-articulate. When Kennedy speaks he very definitely is articulating a position, especially as evidenced by the mailings sent out by the opposition quoting his statements and positions as articulations to be fought against. When a person articulates a position that does not imply that it is either correct or clear.

Without looking at your link, I'm guessing it is video of Kennedy swerving and swaying his speech. Yep, he's often painful to watch. But inability to be coherent, or at least to be ridiculed for it, does not mean he is not articulate as a Senator and a vocal and responsible representative of his party.

The direction I'm pointing towards is that the balance in an encylopedia can indeed point to an individual's foibles.

But enclyclopedias that are successful do so by the editorial craft that characterizes an enclyclopedia: The writing presents facts without being inflammatory to a lucid reader.

The facts of Kennedy's transgressions are legitimate for an article, yet how they are presented should in MHO meet the standard of the editorial craft that characterizes an enclyclopedia rather than a the standards of a partisan website.Kyle Andrew Brown 04:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

mistake

the link to Caroline Raclin is Caroline see the ) by mistake --Fabhcún 13:23, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

RFC Robert McClenon

Editors here should also be aware of this [[6]] concerning this abusive editors of this page. Please visit and add your input to cross the 2 users needed to validate.24.147.97.230 15:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

RFC Gamaliel

Editors here should also be aware of this [[7]] concerning this abusive editors of this page. Please visit and add your input to cross the 2 users needed to validate24.147.97.230 15:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I note with amusement that you have again solicited support from Rex071404. The last time you did so, I told you on this talk page that Rex is serving a six-month ban for his relentless POV warring, use of an IP account to try to pretend to be more than one person, and general disruptiveness. The lesson is here is that it would frequently be beneficial all around if you would actually read what other people write, instead of just assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is part of a "wolf pack". By the way, your "contribution" list shows that your latest activity is to try to solicit comments from several established Wikipedians, presumably those whom you believe have shown sufficient right-wing bias in their editing. The next time you go prospecting for friends in this fashion, you can skip 216.153.214.94; that account was Rex's sockpuppet and has also been blocked. JamesMLane 21:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
JamesMLane, you seem bothered by this. Are you afraid of a fair fight? 24.147.97.230 16:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Call him a "chicken" and make some clucking noises next. Gamaliel 16:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand the anon's comment. Am I bothered by the fact that Rex was banned? Obviously not. Our goal here is to write an encyclopedia; when we get rid of a user who doesn't share a commitment to that goal, and who is here solely to push a particular POV, and who does so in a disruptive and inflammatory manner, that ouster helps us achieve our goal. That's why we have an ArbCom that can ban people like Rex. Am I bothered by your demonstration that you don't read my comments? Of course I am. It's part of the general style you've displayed since the beginning of your participation in Wikipedia. It makes it harder for us to get anywhere, and it means that such progress as we do make consumes much more time and energy than it ought to. Most Wikipedians who've been around a while have a long "to-do" list, full of ways they could help the project. They (we) get deflected from that work when users like you come along and cause many people to spend inordinate amounts of time dealing with your disruptions. I'm bothered by it because it's an impediment to our goal. JamesMLane 17:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


But your complaint is, "By the way, your "contribution" list shows that your latest activity is to try to solicit comments from several established Wikipedians, presumably those whom you believe have shown sufficient right-wing bias in their editing." You constantly change your story24.147.97.230 18:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/24.147.97.230

Editors here should also be aware of this request for comments concerning the anonymous editors of this page. Robert McClenon 18:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The RfC is just more harrassment by the bullies here to suppress anyone who doesn't endorse their pro-Kennedy POV. I believe 24.147.97.230 and I are the two main critics of the POV in this article and we both have been subjected to this process. The bullying gang mentality by pro-Kennedy POVers is uncalled for and disgraceful.--Agiantman 21:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Agiantman, we are having a BBQ here tonight and I signed up lots of pals. I'll get more folks to sign up and then there will be no problem with consensus. You can also have you pals sign up. It's one vote per person, no limit on how many pals you can get to help. Best to you pal! 24.147.97.230 02:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

No Problem, You lynching will not stop all the new members I helped sign up tonight to help keep this page neutral. I assume they can contribute freely? 24.147.97.230 02:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought the editing on Ajax_(programming) was out of control. I've had threats made against me for simply mentioning a differing viewpoint there. However, this page is just unreal in its inability to come to a neutral position. This is part of what is wrong with this country -- we fail to find the ability to speak with a civil tongue (notice I said we because I get caught up in the same childish behavior too). First, how about we not call everyone into question simply based on their opinion here. Secondly, how about we start respecting each others opinions -- no one is winning by bickering here. In the outside, politics can be argued all you want, but when it comes to wikipedia, can we just stick to the facts for goodness sake and not bring an RfC to anyone and everyone that brings up a fact that doesn't exactly jibe with a personal viewpoint? Robert, in the spirit of taking the high road, why don't you request to drop the RfC on the anonymous user and Giant, in the same spirit, why don't we stop with personal attacks. Like it or not, this article about a political figure has to exist with factual data and try to leave politics to the guys who make a career of it. - Sleepnomore 22:22, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I have tried to respect alternate opinions, and I still respect them. I realize that Ted Kennedy is a complex and controversial figure. The question is exactly how much of his dark side is encyclopedic.
I would very much like to drop the RfC. I did not bring it because I disagreed with their viewpoint. In fact, I do not really admire Ted Kennedy. I only thought that the additions that they proposed were non-encyclopedic. Do you have a suggestion for how we can agree on this article? I would welcome it.
I probably made a mistake in posting the RfC against Agiantman first, even though he was guilty and is guilty of serious breaches of civility. I should have first filed it against the anonymous editors. I admit to a lack of courage, initially, in not being willing to do the difficult job of posting the RfC against anonymous editors. I think that I have now compensated for that error by posting that RfC. I hope that Agiantman will join me in recognizing that the anonymous editors include a number of sockpuppets who are being used falsely. Robert McClenon 02:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint on just how much "negative" to put down about someone. All I have to say about that is that everything is relevant. The percentage of bad to good isn't controlled by the people who are posting it. The only one in charge of how much negative press he gets is Ted Kennedy himself. Whatever your feelings for him, he has been involved in an awefully suspect number of events that could be construed as negative (trying to put it nicely). Don't confuse NPOV with the need to post an equal amount of good and bad. It means reporting incidents for what they are without bias. I would say if you want there to be an equal amount of good and bad about the man, you should write a letter to him and let him know that the fact scales are tipping toward the naughty side. If he wants something for Christmas this year, he's gonna need to do an aweful lot of nice! I know this will all be construed as my taking a side against Ted, but honestly, I could care less. I don't like any politician on any party these days. No one is doing the job we pay/elect them to do. Why should Ted Kennedy be singled out. Point is, I would say the same thing about any politician. If they want good press, make them earn it. Don't give them cover under the the name of NPOV. Hold your politicians accountable for their actions by making all of their good and bad available for research. - Sleepnomore 05:52, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well said.--Agiantman 12:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

New Pagagraph for Ted Kennedy Page

When this page is again not protected, I propose a new paragraph to highlight the Senator's violent act of smashing a phototographer in the face with his camera. The story is now at fatboy.cc Here is some of it. We can get a copy of the article from the Burlington VT Public Library. This did happen.

Kirsch 02-02-2005, 04:37 PM Let me share my personal experience with Teddy, something I saw with my own eyes...January of 1963 in Stowe VT at a ski slope. A news photographer was taking pictures of His Highness, and the royal Self took umbrage at that "invasion" of His privacy. Himself grabbed the camera, and taking it by its strap, swung it and smashed it into the photographer's head causing the photographer to suffer a concussion. The potographer was (in the hospital) arrested and charged with something, I truly don't remember what, but no charges were ever filed against Teddy for that assault. I may not have the date right, I was a kid in High School, and it was a long time ago before Teddy Kennedy really became some "National Icon", but I remember it vividly because I knew at the time that this man was the brother of our President. And I knew at the time that what I was watching was some Rich Asshole walking away from what I or anyone else would have gone to jail for.Susanrd 01:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Get some documentation to it (fatboy.cc is not an encyclopedic source; nor is the 40-year-old recollection of a high school kid) and then we can figure out what sort of mention it deserves in the article. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy killed my dog and I don't think that's fair. Gamaliel 14:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

lol:)Voice of All(MTG) 18:34, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] Please use the sandbox for playing. 24.147.97.230 18:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I'm shocked at your violation of the rules. I've confirmed with the cabal's High Council that, for publicly criticizing a Kennedy, you've been docked 10% of your pay for this week. As you know, the penalty for a second violation in the same week is that you will be tied to a chair and forced to listen to Rush Limbaugh for an hour, so watch yourself. JamesMLane 20:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Gamaliel, you are hereby ejected from the pro-Kennedy POV warrior cabal. You are now and a traitor, and forever a traitor. May your soul forever wallow in anguish. 'Qapla! --kizzle 07:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
[static]..you're listening to the EIB..now...now i'm just reporting the facts. And..., you know, I'm really gettin ticked off with these liberals lately. Let me tell you, the only reason people like Gamaliel defend monsters...monster, like Ted Kennedy, I'm tellin you, its because he's another rich liberal hypocrite...another liberal elite who controls the party and pulls all the stings. He's another liberal...who makes more money than the CEO's, who America needs to run companies, and protect jobs....American jobs, you now, the ones the liberals complain about going overseas even though they want all the environmental regualtion,...he makes more than the guys he's spends bashing all day,...you...you remember..uhh..his speech as Boston, "the excesses of Enron". Its that same crap...I mean Gamaliel is another idol worsipping christian-hating hypocrtical biggot. And this is all true, you look at the facts...He wants to give these politicians and millionares special treatment,...tell me..right now...tell me...what do rich liberals offer to society? They spend social security money on loly pops for orphans,...hmm...what else do we got, they complain about the deficit and then say "everything is underfunded, Bush doesn't like children nah nah nah". And these are the facts folks. Well its time to let the veiwers weigh in, lets uh,... lets see what callers we've got waiting, after this message about guter cleaners.....[music, one long augmenting note follwed by a short one of a lower pitch]......[static]...Voice of All(MTG) 05:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Your dog was insane and a bad parent and that's why her puppies signed up to go to Iraq. Gzuckier 21:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I want to edit this article to insert balanced information about Ted Kennedy. Who has locked me out and why?--Ernestocgonzalez 15:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The edits to this talk page

This page has gotten long, but the recent deletions by User:Sleepnomore are not the solution. The article is currently protected because of, in part, the anon's revert war over discussing Smith's trial, so the talk page material on that subject from two weeks ago should stay a while longer. Furthermore, I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy against using an article talk page as an efficient way of providing notice of a user-conduct RfC. JamesMLane 07:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

In addition, the excuse being given is the deletion of personal attacks, yet much is being deleted that is not personal attacks.--Silverback 07:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
That's correct. Even if you believe that one or more of the RfC's is a personal attack, it is clearly not a personal attack to give an objective report of the RfC's existence, as Gamaliel did. (He wrote, "Editors here should be aware of this rfc, started this morning.") Agiantman's responses to that posting, and 24.147.97.230's harsher language in reporting his/her own retaliatory RfC's, are certainly on a different footing, but I think it's best to leave all that stuff there instead of trying to sort through it. Furthermore, the most recent deletion removed the comments in this section about whether the other material should be deleted. Are we now going to get in an edit war about the deletion of the comments that Silverback and I made about an edit war about the deletion of comments? Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever, here we come. Let's all just stop this. Quite a bit of editor time has now been deflected from the underlying issue of trying to improve the article. JamesMLane 07:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Its now quite clear that the hatred of the users between one another follows the same example that our so-called political leaders set. We can't seem to agree to act civily. I've made my attempts to help in this matter, but its evident that isn't going to happen until some of the RfC's in question result in more than a few bans. - Sleepnomore 08:30, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Can we at least agree to clean this page up a little?

Since we can't seem to get anyone interested in removing personal attacks and moving RfC announcements to where they belong, I'd like to at least move all of the RfC pages to the end of the article and try to highlight the bulk of the article discussion to the top of the page, while leaving the personal digs and RfC's to the bottom of the page. My proposal for the RfC's would be to move them to the bottom of the page in their own section entitled "User RFCs" , leave the announcement, move the "discussion" of the announcement to a user page, and provide a link to that discussion under the RfC announcement. In this way, anyone researching the RfCs can still easily find the information, but we can try to move on with the article editing discussions in spite of those who refuse to drop these ridiculous arguments and attacks. - Sleepnomore 16:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we can compromise by archiving the page and starting with a clean slate. Gamaliel 17:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
No, there is a lot of good work there that is not personal attacks, as discussions are no longer attracting contibutions and responses, they can be archived off as per our custom. Sleepnomore appears to be a sock puppet that came into exist in an edit war elsewhere, on July 22nd in response to an opponent with sleepy as a component of the name. Her actions here demonstrate a similar lack of good faith, because she jumps to conclusions, extrapolates beyond the evidence, overgeneralizes with her sweeping unconsidered deletionism and makes personal attacks (a sweeping accusation of hatred, which she has also accused me personally of elsewhere). Your "clean slate" is rather sweeping as well. Why not just go through and strike out the personal attacks if you think are confident of your ability to catagorize in a consensus manner without stirring up more edit wars.--Silverback 18:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
I couldn't care less, I'm perfectly fine leaving the page the way it is, warts and all. I was just suggesting a possible compromise to end the Sleepnomore vs. everyone war. Gamaliel 18:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I thought it was being sweated a bit much too. One can take things seriously, without taking them personally. Sleepno was just jabbing a stick in the hive to see the bees fly out, she was hoping to see us sting each other instead of her.--Silverback 18:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sleepnomore, you are getting just a little of the abuse we have endured here by this group. Welcome. 24.147.97.230 19:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do not feed the troll.
So people who don't want unencyclopedic, poorly cited, garbage are abusive POV bullies? An attack coming from someone who wants those anti-Kennedy slams back in there? I don't get this; it is just unbelievable. I'm ignoring this guy from now on.Voice of All(MTG) 19:14, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ted_Kennedy/Archive_5&oldid=1053150019"