Talk:Ted Kennedy

Carter and health care

[copied from my talk page]
Are you really saying that memoirs cannot be cited?

Are you saying you cannot cite an author who dislikes or likes the subject he writes about (think Adam Clymer)?

I believe history wants to hear from ALL the principals of an event.Cgersten (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You were correct to originally change this section to reflect that Carter had a health care plan of his own. The previous text didn't mention this, and its presentation of the whole health care split was disjointed. However, the best sources for that plan and the split do not include Carter's memoirs, since memoirs by anybody are by definition skewed towards that participant's viewpoint. See WP:PRIMARY and footnote 6 there for more. So, I made use of Boston Globe, New York Times, and Time magazine sources to better describe Carter's plan and the differences with Kennedy's. I left out Carter's memoir view of the split because I thought it self-evident. You felt strongly enough about this to revert all the additional sourcing and description I had done, which is a bit bizarre. So I restored that but also put back in the Carter memoir view, along with Kennedy's later memoir view of Carter. So if nothing else, the article now makes clear that these two really didn't like each other. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Liberal, not green

He was liberal, but not "green". He killed what would have been the nation's first offshore wind energy farm off the coast of Nantucket Sound- 130 wind turbines which would have emitted no pollution and been barely visible over the horizon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.121.55 (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Beyond a typical Democratic voting pattern, Kennedy wasn't known for being an environmentalist, and this article makes no mention of him as such. The debate over this project (which is still alive, contrary to your assertion), and Kennedy's opposition to it, is discussed in the Cape Wind article. It's also mentioned in Political positions of Ted Kennedy#Environmental record. Wasted Time R (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"for cheating"

There's an edit war going on about this modified text: "In May 1951, anxious about maintaining his eligibility for athletics for the next year,[1] he had a friend who was knowledgeable on the subject take his Spanish language examination for him.[8] The two were quickly caught and expelled for cheating, but in a standard Harvard treatment for cases of this kind, they were told they could apply for readmission in a year or two after demonstrating good behavior.[8]" The dispute is about whether the "for cheating" addition should stay in or not.

It's slightly redundant, but I think on balance it's a good addition because it makes clear what offense he committed in the plainest, more direct language. The word "cheat" or "cheating" does not appear anywhere else in the article, and having it here also helps those searching for the details of this incident in Kennedy's life. The objection that it's undue weight doesn't strike me as valid, since it increases the size of this text only marginally. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The most NPOV would be simply state the official reason for which they were expelled. We know they were expelled, but do we have a Reliable Source that states why? It could have been for cheating, it could have been for lying during the investigation (it's not the crime, it's the coverup), it could been for "conduct unbecoming a Harvard man", it could have been that this was the last straw after a series of incidents. What do the sources say? Rillian (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Clymer, the source cited, says this: "But when Frate [the fellow who took the Spanish exam for Kennedy] got up at the end of the exam and turned the blue books in, with Ted's name on them, the graduate student supervising the exam stared at him. He knew him as Frate, not Kennedy. Perhaps no more than an hour later they were both called to the dean's office and expelled." Clymer, p. 18. However, he starts telling the incident with this simple, one-sentence summary: "Ted remembers not having a very good time his freshman year, and one day in the spring of 1951 he cheated on an exam." There is no other reason given for expelling him, and as seen, there was no investigation: grad student saw Frate, grad student reports him, dean expels Ted and Frate, on the same day and maybe within an hour. The cheating is the only reason Clymer gives for the expulsion, not bad grades, criminal activity, disruptive behavior, or anything else. Ted seems to have been admirably frank with Clymer about this, and Wikipedia should be frank with its audience too. Pirate Dan (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

An additional source: Richard Reeves, President Kennedy: Profile of Power, Simon & Schuster 1993, ISBN 0-671-64879-9, says in so many words: "The youngest Kennedy had been thrown out of Harvard for cheating." P. 324. Perhaps Reeves should be added to the reference section. I'll do it if we get consensus. Pirate Dan (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There's isn't any dispute or question that Kennedy was thrown out for cheating. You look at this Boston Globe multi-part bio installment; even Kennedy's father said, "Don't do this cheating thing, you're not clever enough." Wasted Time R (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"Poll about Kennedy's character"

Wasted Time: Are you saying that a news article from the New York Times citing a reliable poll is less of a source that an author's source? tuco_bad 22:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

No, that one was fine, I just formatted the cite correctly. What I pulled out is this: "Kennedy expressed to reporters that he was content with his congressional leadership role and viewed presidential ambitions as farfetched.<ref>New York Times March 5, 1977, P. 1.</ref>" It's often the case that politicians say they are content with their current office and have no interest in running for president ... until they actually declare they are running for president. It's just a standard disclaimer that nobody really believes. So there's nothing interesting here and it's not important enough to include in an already long article. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Brown in the Lead?

An editor removed a reference to Kennedy's successors in the lede, saying it was trivial.

While I agree that normally we wouldn't put info about a short-lived successor and a new-minted post-successor in a senator's article, I think this is an exception. Brown's election is a direct consequence of Kennedy's death, and it led to a huge shift in power in the Senate at a critical time. It cost the Democrats their filibuster-proof majority, and it will at least reshape, and possibly prevent, an extremely important U.S. health care reform law. The fact that Kennedy considered universal health care "the cause of my life" only makes it more significant in this case.

How about something like "His death led to a special election in which a Republican won the seat, depriving the Democratic party of its 60-vote majority in the Senate."

Pirate Dan (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not trivial, but I don't think it belongs in the lead (it's already mentioned in the body of the article). The Democrats' filibuster-proof supermajority was something of a fluke in the first place (being due to Arlen Specter's switch) and both the gain and the loss of it had little to do with Kennedy. Nor did Brown's win constitute a rejection of Kennedy personally; note that Kennedy had survived his 1994 Senate challenge against a well-funded, strong candidate (Mitt Romney) during an anti-Democrat wave even stronger than the one we're seeing now. So even if Kennedy had lived and had been up for re-election in 2010, there's little evidence he would have been in danger. As for whether Kennedy's illness and death imperiled health care reform, that's a theme that's already covered in the body of the article. We'll have to wait to see how it all plays out to know whether it belongs in the lead as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Think about the purpose of the lead. Is Scott Brown's election really one of the most important things about Kennedy and his Senate career? -Rrius (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In this case, Kennedy's untimely death was very important. If Kennedy were still alive, health care reform would pass in whatever form the Democrats could agree on. Now the agreement of at least one Republican is required, and that's going to be like pulling hen's teeth. Andrew Sullivan, a blogger for the Atlantic and an Obama supporter, called it the "crippling of Obama's presidency." But I admit, it is a bit early to judge; theoretically, Snowe or somebody might still come around in exchange for small concessions, and health care reform might escape with a few bruises. So I won't push the point; let's see how health care plays out first.

BTW, I agree that the Brown election wasn't a personal rejection of Kennedy (more a personal rejection of Coakley). That's why his death was so devastating for the Democrats; the fact that they had nobody equally electable to step into his place. Pirate Dan (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

His death is mentioned in the article, but the question I posed was not whether the his death was important to the health care debate or to the current news cycle generally. What I asked was whether Scott Brown's election is one of the most important things about Ted Kennedy. The lead is a summary of the entire article, and it should mention the most important things about him. Scott Brown's election is not one of the most important things about Ted Kennedy, notwithstanding the fact that the election is indeed noteworthy. -Rrius (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Kennedy served for 46 years. The fact that the successor to his successor was a Republican is hardly material enough to this article to be worthy of mention in the lede. That result and the effect on the Democratic caucus is potentially worthy of lede mention in an article about the US political situation in 2010 or in an article about health care reform legislation in 2010, but not in the lede of a biographical article about Kennedy. Rillian (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Events have indeed proven you right, and myself wrong. Pirate Dan (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Chappaquiddick.

There is no mention of the alternative explanation for events at Chappaquiddick. Independent researches (and even some Police Officers involved in the case), have cast serious doubt on whether Senator Kennedy was driving the car the night Mary Jo died. One commentator summed up the case, 'If you take the statements by all those involved on the morning Ted Kennedy reported the crash, it makes no sense whatsoever that he was in that car when it crashed. The most likely explanation is that he gave his car keys to Mary Jo after the party and then walked home. Crash experts also state he could never have got out of that car after it went off the bridge'. Asked why Ted took the blame for the crash the commentator explained, 'well stop and think. He had given his car keys to a person who could be proven to be drunk. Either way he was in trouble. He just thought he was doing the chivalrous thing by taking the blame'.Johnwrd (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Never heard that one before. Anyway, there's nothing we can do here without naming and quoting the cops and commentators. Try proposing this at Chappaquiddick incident, where the event is discussed in more detail. PhGustaf (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Kennedy wasn't driving that car. For decades, he just said he was driving and he let it ruin his chances for ever becoming president because he was a glutton for punishment. The notion that he did the "chivalrous thing" by confessing to playing a role in Kopechne's death (he was THE main cause) is absolutely ludicrous. Seems some people have let the Kennedy mystique REALLY cloud their judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

American Spectator and Tunney 1980 discussions with Soviets

I have reverted this addition by User:KevinOKeeffe:

According to high-level KGB operative Vasili Mitrokhin, during a March 5, 1980 meeting with former Senator John Tunney of California (acting in the capacity of Senator Kennedy's informal and perhaps illicit emissary, as per the Logan Act), Tunney expressed Kennedy's view that the Carter administration's objections to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan were the principal cause of heightened tensions between Washington and Moscow, rather than the USSR's policy of invasion and occupation of that nation. Mitrokhin's documents to this effect are on file with the Cold War International History Project of the Woodrow Wilson Center. These views were expressed in the midst of a contentious fight for the 1980 Democratic Presidential nomination, between Senator Kennedy and President Carter. [Sourced to http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/22/ted-kennedys-kgb-correspondenc The American Spectator, "Ted Kennedy's KGB Correspondence" by Kevin Mooney (June 22nd, 2010 - retrieved on June 23rd, 2010).]

There are several problems with this text. First, American Spectator does not qualify as a WP:Reliable source. It's a political opinion magazine designed to advocate a particular point of view; no publications of this type, including The Nation or National Review or Reason or any of them, are RS no matter which ideology they are pushing. The slant in the Mooney story is evident from the first words: "Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's self-serving ..." It's also not news; the author takes an unrelated event (the FBI releasing its files on Kennedy) as an excuse just to rehash old allegations.

Second, it adds WP:Undue weight to the subject of the Kennedy-Tunney discussions with the Soviet Union. This Wikipedia article already includes the following text:

A 1983 memorandum from KGB Chairman Viktor Chebrikov to General Secretary Yuri Andropov noted this stance and asserted that Kennedy, through former Senator John Tunney's discussions with Soviet contacts, had suggested that U.S.-Soviet relations might be improved if Kennedy and Andropov could meet in person to discuss arms control issues and if top Soviet officials, via Kennedy's help, were able to address the American public through the U.S. news media. Andropov was unimpressed by the idea. [Sourced to http://www.scribd.com/doc/19401082/Teddy-the-KGB-and-the-Top-Secret-File-Tim-Sabastian-the-Sunday-Times-Feb-2-1992 "Teddy, the KGB and the top secret file" Sebastian, Tim The Sunday Times February 2, 1992.]

This text got included because it was based on a mainstream news source (The Sunday Times) not a political advocacy magazine. It was also the subject of a long discussion in Talk:Ted Kennedy/Archive 9#Alleged KGB connections and allegedly undermining Reagan as to whether it should be included and what the wording should be. It is also is much more significant than the 1980 discussions; rather than just allegedly voicing a view, in 1983 there is a proposal that represented material action (meeting with Andropov, Soviet appearance on American TV). I agree with the final decision to include it, but I don't think adding further material from the Tunney-Soviet discussions is especially warranted, certainly not based on the American Spectator piece. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Kennedy "a married man" at time of Chappaquiddick

User:KevinOKeeffe has tried to add, with this edit and with this edit and with this edit that Kennedy was "a married man" or "married at the time" of Chappaquiddick. These edits have all been reverted by User:Fat&Happy.

Fat&Happy is correct to remove these. That Kennedy was married at the time is obvious to anyone reading the article (which is done in chronological order, personal life included) or glancing at the infobox. That Kennedy was unfaithful during his first marriage is also stated in the article: "By the mid-1960s, their marriage was troubled by his womanizing and her growing alcoholism.[20]" But that does not mean that Kennedy and Kopechne were involved, which is clearly the slant that KevinOKeeffe's addition is trying to put forth. The relationship between Kennedy and Kopechne has been one of much speculation, many theories (some of which do not have them being involved with each other) but few facts. That there was speculation is already indicated in the article: "[Kennedy] denied driving under the influence of alcohol and denied any immoral conduct between him and Kopechne.[47]" That is sufficient; an editorializing "married at the time" is unwarranted. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The Chappaquiddick incident's known facts are bad enough for Kennedy. There is no need to introduce unsourced, unprovable insinuations regarding the incident. As Wasted Time R states, to restate the fact that Kennedy was married when that is already apparent from the article is both bad writing and NPOV, unencyclopedic commentary. YLee (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Stillborn son

Back on September 30, 2010, I updated the "Family and early career" section to note that Ted and Joan had a stillborn child on June 1, 1964. This line was promptly removed. That's fine, but this is definitely true: the child is buried in a marked plot in Holyhood Cemetery in Brookline with Ted's family. Pobbard (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)