Talk:Ted Kennedy/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Article size tag

User:98.116.115.180 placed a tag on the article for it being over 100K in edit code size, with the explanation "taking much too long to load these days even on FIOS broadband (other smaller wiki article pages are fine as are other sites) - a probable high-profile article such as this should easily navigatable" and the edit comment "tag 'longish' because of loading problems - over 130kb in length - needs more tightening where possible and/or splitting". But all of Wikipedia's GA/FA-level biographies of long-serving political figures are of this kind of size: Jack Kemp is 161Kb, John McCain is 145Kb, Joe Biden is 135Kb, Barack Obama is 152Kb, and so forth. The reason is that in order to be GA or FA you have to comprehensively treat the subject's career, and you have to cite everything on a statement-by-statement basis. Both of these tasks will drive up the edit code size. And the load times for all these articles are bad, not just Kennedy's, and they're all high-profile articles.

In fact, it's that heavy citing, absolutely demanded for political BLPs in particular, that really helps drive up the load times. You can find 130K talk pages that load lickety-split, because they're all text with no citing templates, succession box templates, images, etc. But there's no way we can remove the cites or the succession boxes (well, I think half of them are dumb, but there are editors here who savor them) or the images. So there's nothing really that can be done with the load time on this article or similar articles, until the MediaWiki parsing becomes more efficient and the network load times become better and the browsers and underlying computers get faster. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your nice response. i think you understand - my comment clearly has nothing to do with content or heavy citation, etc. it's merely on the technical problem. if one can't access an article easily, what good is it? there must be a way to split a long article within wikipedia just as terribly long lists are with "see next xx" styled with a "continue reading" or something. it that is not wikipedia-doable, it's quite antique. (interestlingly, both the articles on obama, mcain, biden and kemp load, for me, night/day faster (minor sluggish but almost normal) than EMK's. perhaps the emk article has gremlins embedded (a joke).--98.116.115.180 (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
It's possible to split up biography articles in Wikipedia, but in practice it hasn't been very successful. Both Obama and McCain are split up, but the subarticles get very little readership (see this site if you're ever curious about how often WP pages get viewed) and there's a lot of redundant maintenance editing between the two and the main articles end up still being big anyway, as the above stats attest. Kennedy would be especially hard to break up because almost all of it is his Senate career, he doesn't really have discrete parts like Obama. As for why those other articles load faster for you than this one, I have no idea. For me, the Kemp article is always mega-slow, while the Biden article is a bit faster than the others. But it's hard to measure, because you don't know what caching effects are going on behind the scenes (article loads are slower if they are frequently being edited, like this article has been recently, because each change blows out the formatted and cached version on the proxy servers). As a frequent editor of many of these articles, I suffer the load times more than most anyone ... but in practice there's not much to do about it. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Death time

Though many of the sources were published on the 26th, his exact death was just before midnight on the 25th. Read the ABC source and others. Steven Walling (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Lock

Probably should lock this article for a bit, or at least protect it until more information is known. --Tarage (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

RIP, Ted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.221.143 (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Are we using Eastern time for date of death?

If so, he died on 8/26/2009 according to CNN. Prapsnot (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

CNN changed date of death to 8/25/2009, matching story by ABC News, never mind. Prapsnot (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Sean7phil (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy curse

I mistakenly linked to this page in a comment in the Kennedy Curse change history. The correct Talk page is Talk:Kennedy Curse#Absolutely Rediculous. YLee (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Help with obit at Wikinews

See n:Senator Ted Kennedy dies at age 77

Help would be appreciated, I added some sources but the article text itself could certainly be expanded a great deal, utilizing those sources. Cirt (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This statement in the article is one sided, and needs the other side to be added

The article states:

"Kennedy appealed to the Massachusetts governor and legislature to change its law regarding U.S. Senate vacancies, so that a temporary senator could be appointed pending a special election and a vote in favor of a health care bill would not potentially be lost."

However, the article does not mention that it was Kennedy himself who created the current law. In 2004 when Senator Kerry was running for President, Kennedy created the special election law because he did not want the Republican governor to appoint a replacement Senator. Now that the state has a Democrat governor, Kennedy wants to switch back to a governor appointed Senator instead of the election. The article should mention this information, in the name of balance and NPOV. Boston Globe Wall St, Journal.

I cannot add this to the article myself, as I have been topic banned from political articles. If someone else thinks this that adding information will improve the article, please do so. Thank you.

Grundle2600 (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the article to make it clear that the current governor of Massachusetts is a Democrat. However, Kennedy did not "create" the current law, since it's a state law, not federal. The Boston Globe article you point to says that Kennedy's people say he never liked the 5-month vacancy in the law, and doesn't mention any role for Kennedy in the 2004 law change. The WSJ piece you point to is an opinion piece and thus not a WP:RS. It in turn points to a 2004 Globe story that says Kennedy urged the change at the time, to prevent Romney appointing Kerry's successor if he won the presidency. But it's still possible that Kennedy wanted an early special election (rather than waiting until the next even-yeared November, as most states do) but also wanted a temporary appointment by the governor as well to fill in the 5-month gap (such an interim appointee wouldn't have much of an advantage in a special election). You'd have to find that 2004 piece, and others, to get the full story on this. But at such a level of detail this becomes a topic for some article on Massachusetts election law, not this article. It's obvious that the reason Kennedy wants the law change now is not some selfless desire to see Massachusetts always have two senators, but because he wants the vote to always be there for health care reform if he doesn't make it. I included it in the article because it's the best indication yet of Kennedy acknowledging his mortality and because it perfectly fits one of the section's themes, which is the effect that Kennedy's physical absence has had on the debate over his long-time top legislative priority. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Disagree. Here is just one article which points to the fact that Kennedy pushed to have the law changed to prevent Romney from appointing a senator had Kerry been elected. It is an important piece of context to point out the Kennedy pushed to have the original law put into place. Arzel (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Interestingly, in the edit you made immediately before this one, you wrote "Yes, but it is not up to US to provide the context." Gamaliel (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
That article is the same WSJ opinion piece pointed to earlier; as opinion it can't be used as a source. Furthermore, we need clarification on what Kennedy supported in 2004. The pre-2004 situation was the one most states use: upon a vacancy, the governor appoints an interim senator until the next regularly scheduled congressional election. For vacancies occurring soon after an election, this means the appointed senator gets almost two years of incumbency before they have to face election, which may give them a big leg up (consider how Gillibrand has muscled out all her major potential primary foes after being appointed to replace Hillary). The 2004 Massachusetts law changed this to call for a special election about five months after the vacancy, which Kennedy clearly supported then and now. But should the senate seat be vacant during those five months, or should a really-short-period interim senator be appointed? Such an interim wouldn't have much of an incumbency advantage in the special election (and could be formally or informally required not to run in it), but would ensure that the state is still fully represented in D.C. during that time. That's what Kennedy is calling for now, and per the 2009 Boston Globe article, Kennedy's aides say he was never happy with the vacancy aspect of the 2004 law. So Kennedy's stances are not necessarily inconsistent, depending upon what can be further found out about his position in 2004. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I've heard references to Kennedy supporting the 2004 bill, but never found a reference until now- Boston Globe, June 11 2004. This seems to clearly show in a non-opinion piece that Kennedy engaged in significant activity to promote the 2004 bill changing the succession process. Kennedy's aides now saying he was never happy with the bill have to be considered less reliable than they would be if they had made the statements before now, as those statements are clearly serving the interests of the person they worked for. The 2004 Globe article shows that Kennedy intervened in support of the bill that was stalled, and was instrumental in getting it taken back up and passed despite concerns over its partisan appearance. This means it is clear that Kennedy supported the 2004 bill at the time. He did not advocate that the then-stalled bill be modified at the time, which he clearly could have done, and would have addressed some of the charges that the bill was partisan. I believe it is reasonable to include that Kennedy supported the changes he recently did, that the 2004 law was passed for the purposes it was, and that Kennedy vigorously supported and contributed greatly to the passage of the 2004 bill. I am still on the fence as to whether is is necessary to reference the different interpretations of the facts that are out there now- whether enlightened interest in the representation of the state, or political hypocrisy motivated by hardball politics. I haven't added this yet, as I'd like to see any arguments against it, but it does seem to now be established by a non-opinion article in a reliable source.Packetmonger (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Since there has been no argument not to, I have added a simple statement that Kennedy intervened personally to get the 2004 succession process change passed. Packetmonger (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There need be no vacancy. The law contemplates the submission of a resignation that is effective weeks and months later. The law mandates an election occur 146 to 160 days later. The election merely needs to be held after the actual effective time for the resignation, which could be midnight before the election day. There is a hint on the vacancy process at the top of List of United States Senators from Massachusetts. A few cites/sorces below.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Belluck, Pam (June 25, 2004). "Massachusetts Politicians Fight Over a Kerry Victory". New York times. Retrieved 2008-05-21. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Zezima, Katie (July 2, 2004). "National Briefing: Massachusetts: Senate Approves Interim-Appointment Bill". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-05-21. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Greenberger, Scott S. (July 31, 2004). "Romney veto overridden: Governor can no longer fill vacancies in the US Senate". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2008-05-21. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |coauthors= (help)
  • Anderson, Rob (July 16, 2004). "Devil in the Details: After Kerry, The Deluge". The American Prospect. Retrieved 2008-05-21. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • "Chapter 236 of the Acts of 2004". Acts of 2004 (Session Laws). The General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. July 30, 2004. Retrieved 2008-05-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Thanks for all the references. While there need be no vacancy in the event of a resignation, there would always be one in the case of death. The American Prospect reference states that Romney tried to add a very-short-interim-senator-appointed-by-governor provision, as I was discussing above, but there's no indication of whether Kennedy was favorable towards that notion or not. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
In order to avoid edit war a simple referenced sentenced that the law was changed in 2004 to prevent Romney from appointing a successor is sufficient for now. There seems to be no debate about this aspect. Arzel (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
FWIW this article seems to imply that Kennedy did support the original change. [1] Arzel (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Did you perhaps mean a different article than the one that is linked in your note? Reading that, I can't find any comment about what your talking about. Its an opinion piece saying that Kennedy supported the 2004 bill. So I presume that you were reading a different article- care to point me in the direction of it? Thanks! Packetmonger (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Dead again?

He has not yet been confirmed as dead, trustworthy news sources are not yet confirming he is, in fact, dead. Shouldn't we hold off in declaring him dead until official word is given out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.10.113 (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, neither you nor anyone on Wikipedia is capable of declaring anything, let alone someone's death.65.215.94.13 (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
ABC ([1]) more than fulfills WP:RS guidelines. 71.103.96.80 (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

-- I'll take CNN as a source.. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/26/obit.ted.kennedy/index.html --24.141.236.57 (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

--BBC more than does it for me! jcuk (who forgot to sign in first..my bad) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.189.197 (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

--Why don't you look at the timestamp before you bash it? At the time, nothing was confirmed. It wasn't until almost 10 minutes later that it was actually confirmed by any reputable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.10.113 (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Intro too long tag

User:Tocino has added an {{intro-toolong}} tag. I disagree. It's a longish article about a person with a long, complex life and career, and the intro should correspondingly be on the longish side and fairly summarize the article. And the intro is four paragraphs, the upper limit allowed by WP:LEAD. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Because of the heavy traffic today, the day after his death, I have shortened the lede, placing three quarters of it into a new section "Life, in brief". It will be nearly impossible to edit the lede for the next day or two, and this makes it possible to edit the redundantly long summary of his life. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Your change was quite unorthodox and doesn't seem to have lasted long, as I never saw it. Somebody (or multiple people) then came along and shortened the lead by removing everything negative about Kennedy from it: expulsion from Harvard, guilty plea in Chappaquiddick, rhetoric against Bork (negative/positive depending upon viewpoint), and public personal problems in the late 80s/early 90s. At the same time, they extended the intro to five paragraphs, in violation of WP:LEAD. Surely a long lead is better than an unbalanced lead? Wasted Time R (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Now, editors are competing to see how much they can remove from the intro. I really don't see the point in this; the long intro was an alternative to those readers who didn't want to read the full article. Now it completely fails to capture the nature of Kennedy's personality or career. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Who decided that the introduction was too long? It seems to me it's just about the right length for this kind of article. I'll remove the tag for now. Lampman (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's compare Ted with the Presidents. According to a simple MS Word word count, Ted's intro has 479 words. Obama has 271 words in his intro, JFK has 309, LBJ has 323, Nixon has 357, Ford has 300, Carter has 345, Reagan has 377, H.W. Bush has 344, Clinton has 369, and W. Bush has 374. So Ted currently has at least 100 words too many in his intro. --Tocino 04:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy supported terrorist groups

Maybe we should include a paragraph detailing Kennedy's support for Noraid the US front for the IRA. Not just moral support but provided funds for the IRA. He said "[Ulster Protestants]should be given a decent opportunity to go back to Britain". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.7.65 (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

His 1971 position, and that quote, is already in the article (at least it was as of this morning), as is his backing off of it within a couple of years. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflicts.....

1926 (or whenever) – 2009.

I've been trying for ten minutes to change the dash between his year of birth and his year of death from a hyphen to a proper dash. "Edit conflict" every time.

OK, it finally worked.

I guess Wikipedia is no longer an obscure unheard-of-web site that it was a couple of years ago in 2002. I always thought it would become well-known some day. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll be needing protection as soon as someone can come along, of course. 71.103.96.80 (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Go to requests for page protection. miranda 05:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It helps to check "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page" in the gadgets section of your preferences. No more conflicts with section edits while you edit the lead of an article! UncleDouggie (talk) 10:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

More on the Chappaquiddick incident (Teddy not even in the car!)

See this source http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/08/27/teddy-kennedy-and-chappaquiddick-the-true-story/ as well as the 1994 BBC documentary which came to the same conclusion. Does this meet the reliable sources standard? If so, it should at least be mentioned. Jschnur (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Chappaquiddick incident is the place for weird theories, not here. And this "source" manages to get Kopechne's age wrong by almost ten years. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The "weird theory" seems to be more plausible than the idea that Kennedy crashed the car, extracted himself, left the girl behind, went to the hotel and went to bed! Jschnur (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

L'Osservatore Romano article

There was a L'Ossservatore Romano article published recently that criticized Kennedy's legacy over his political support for abortion. This could maybe be mentioned in the article, given that many Catholics were upset at the Kennedy clan for having given up on the pro-life cause. Ted Kennedy even got a 100 % rating from NARAL at the end of his life. [2] [3] [4] [5] ADM (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The article already says, "During the 1990s and 2000s, NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood typically gave Kennedy ratings of 100 percent, while the National Right to Life Committee typically gave him a rating of less than 10 percent.[239]" It's a given that every pro-choice Catholic politician will get criticized by the Church. Unless there's something more, like a threat to ex-communicate or being barred from receiving communion somewhere (see Joe Biden#2008 vice-presidential candidacy), it's not worth mentioning. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"Senator"

Correcting, "Edward Moore "Ted" Kennedy (February 22, 1932 – August 25, 2009)[2][3] was a United States Senate from..."

Should be: Ted Kennedy "was a United States Senator", Not a "Senate".

--Timbrophy (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2009

Looks like ... was a [[United States Senate|United States Senator]] ... to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Most influential leader In history!

Seriously Wikipedia....seriously? And I quote "Kennedy was one of the most influential leaders in history and one of America's greatest senators." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.68.66 (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I removed the whole "Senate section intro" material that someone added that I think contained this claim. Show, don't tell, is the operative principle here. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Burial at Arlington National Cemetery

As you may have heard, Ted Kennedy will be buried in Arlington National Cemetery. I always thought that cemetery was meant for veterans, for their spouses and children if they are buried there, and for U.S. presidents. I read through the criteria at the Wikipedia article at Arlington National Cemetery and couldn't find a reason that a U.S. senator may be buried there if he has no ties to military service. I do not think that siblings of U.S. presidents can be buried there. Does anyone know why he can be buried there? Midtempo-abg (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Read the article again. It says, Any former member of the Armed Forces who served on active duty (other than for training) and who held any of the following positions...An elective office of the U.S. Government (such as a term in Congress). Ted enlisted in the US Army in 1951, and was discharged as a PFC in 1953. I think he was an MP. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Aha. I did not know he had military service. Thank you for that clarification. I was listening to a conservative talk show where this issue was raised and the host said something like "I always thought the Cemetery was for veterans only - I didn't know that members of congress can also be buried there." The host (Jay Severin), as he often does, gave misleading or inaccurate information. And of course I didn't bother to read beyond the first paragraph of the Ted Kennedy article. And just in case it comes up, I don't listen to Jay Severin because I like what he has to say - I listen to him to hear the "other point of view" and because I find some of the bigotry and justifications for it entertaining. Midtempo-abg (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, as you can see, behind the bigotry is ignorance that could easily be corrected, if the bigot actually wanted to be informed as opposed to just another big mouth with a radio show. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Ted was a true fighter. He loved the army. --83.141.77.130 (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

After he was thrown out of Harvard for cheating on his Spanish exam Ted's father arranged for him to be a guard in Belgium, staying out of the Korean War.99.142.2.54 (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The article describes Kennedy's military service in some detail, giving it a full paragraph. It's always amazed me how many people post on Talk pages without ever reading the associated article! Wasted Time R (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Knighthood

I would like to propose changing the link for Knighthood under the Awards and Honors section of the article. The link directs readers to the classic definition of knighthood and not to the proper modern honors. I would instead suggest using this:

    • Senator Kennedy received a number of awards and honors over the years. These include an honorary Knighthood bestowed by Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom...

On a similar note, I would recommend the addition of KBE after the late Senators name. Not being British, we cannot refer to him as sir, but being an honorary recipient he is still intitled to the post-nominal abbreviation. Alex (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't put the KBE after the name either. This was discussed extensively a few years ago in connection with the Rudy Giuliani article, and the same conclusion applies here. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Did he actually receive the honorary KBE before he died? I've read it was announced but not yet conferred when he died. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of awards and honors received by Ted Kennedy has some discussion of that, but no WP:RS. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The horrible deaths of those called Kennedy

The many reports on the Media on the rumours of a 'Kennedy curse' probably warrants a wikipedia article. --AaThinker (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at Kennedy curse. PhGustaf (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Honor Guard

I've seen the video of the honour guard on the BBC news. I came here looking for an explanation why five ? I would expect to see one from each service. It's clear that there is Navy (All white) Airforce (Mid Blue), and I presume army (Dark Green). Who are the other two? Perhaps there should be an explain who is in the honour guard and why, what protocol is, etc. Thank you. 77.86.105.19 (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Coast Guard. MuZemike 15:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This is covered in Color guard. I don't think it is unique enough to Ted Kennedy to warrant inclusion in Ted Kennedy. --Crunch (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy and Harvard

Kennedy was expelled from Harvard and later graduated from the University of Deleware. [03:12, August 29, 2009 99.26.133.167]

Not true. He was expelled from Harvard and then later readmitted after a stint in the U.S. Army, just as this article describes. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Political career

Alot of what's written regarding Kennedys political career isn't sourced and probably can never be sourced since it's written from a partisan viewpoint. To say that 300+ of the things he was involved in was passed into law doesn't account for the number of those that were 'attached' to other things, therefore not really passing in a sense, rather just being thrown in there as a bribe for something else.

To say that he was bi-partisan is another partisan viewpoint. He might of shared dialog with rinos but far from that he wasn't gunning for bi-partisanship.

This probably isn't the best time to bring this up since his passing im sure alot is being done to this article but really having things removed that can't be sourced or aren't sourced could really lessen the size of an article like this.Woods01 (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Everything in this article is well-sourced and it was all done before Kennedy's death. You can look at the August 1 version of the article for example and except for the shortening of the intro and the addition of the "Death" section, it's very similar to the article now. There are reliable sources from mainstream publications for the number of laws enacted count (and indeed I've seen higher counts out there); you don't present any source for your "bribe" claim. His approach to compromising with Republicans was done in order to get imperfect (from his view) legislation passed, which he always felt was better than nothing happening at all. As for RINOs, much of his legislative success occurred before than term ever existed; remember that when he joined the Senate, there were many Rockefeller Republicans and many conservative Southern Democrats, and the party split was not along ideological lines. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Major legislative accomplishments

collapsed for readability
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Health care

Health Care

Protection & Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals

Nutrition Labeling

Americans with Disabilities Act

Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources

Health Insurance Portability

Children's Health Insurance Program - covers 11 million kids

Pandemic Preparedness

Genetic Information Non-discrimination

Establishment of 1,200 Community Health Centers

COBRA Health Insurance Coverage

HIPPA Health Insurance Portability

Family Opportunity Act - allows working families to purchase Medicaid for disabled children.

Meals on Wheels - feeding 2.5 million seniors

Women, Infants, & Children (WIC) Food, nutrition counseling and health services

Bioterrorism Preparedness Act

War on Cancer

More NIH funding for AIDS, breast and ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, infertility, leukemia,

National Center for Human Genome Research

Mammograms

Colorectal screnning

Early detection disease research

Treatment comparative effectiveness research

2009 Stimulus Bill including health information technology and patient medical information

Mental Health Care Parity

Research About Causes of Minority Health Care Disparities

Federal funding for training of pediatricians and pediatric specialists

National Immunization Program

Consumer protections

FDA Regulation of Tobacco

FDA Regulation of Medical Device Safety

Food Allergy Labeling

Funding for FDA Drug Reviews

Medicare Prescription Drugs

Close loopholes for delay of generic drugs

Civil rights

Fought the Poll Tax

Changing the Voting Age to 18

Voting Rights Act Amendments, 1982

Voting Rights Language Assistance Act

Martin Luther King Jr Holiday

Title IX funding for women's sports

Prohibitions of discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, disability, or age.

Extended Fair Housing Act to people with disabilities and families with children.

Civil Rights Act, 1991

Electoral Financing Reform, 1973

Violence Against Women Act, 1994 & 2000

Voting Rights Act, 1965

Federal Criminal Code & Sentencing Reform

Opposition to Mandatory Minimums

Funding for Police Officers & Scholarships, 1994 Crime Bill

Airline deregulation

Deregulation of the Airline Industry

Immigration law

Elimination of Immigration 'National Origen' Quotas

Immigration Act, 1990

Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act, 2002

Reduce backlogs in citizenship applications

Migrant Education Program, 1966

Bilingual Education Act, 1968

Gun control legislation

Gun Control Act

Assault Weapons Ban

Brady Law

Inside Washington

Congressional Investigation of Watergate

Fought Bork Supreme Court Nomination

Intelligence & foreign affairs

FISA - Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 1978

Ban on Torture

Education

Head Start

Early Head Start

Elementary and Secondary Education Act

School Telecommunication partnerships

No Child Left Behind

Higher Education Act 1965, 1968

Student Support Services

Upward Bound

Talent Search

National Advisory Council on Vocational Education

Basic Educational Opportunity Grant (BEOG) - became the Pell Grant

College Direct Lending Program

Income Contingent Repayment Program

School to Work Programs

Workforce Investment Act, 1998 - Job retraining

Increased funding for student aid, 2007

Increasing amount of student loan money available after 2008 credit market instability

Funding for Math and Science Education

National service

City Year

National Teachers Corps, 1965

National and Community Service Act, 1990

Learn and Serve America

AmeriCorps

Corporation for National and Community Service

Foster Grandparents Program

Senior Corps

Educational Service Grants

2008 Serve America Act

Workplace legislation

Federal Minimum Wage Increases (16)

Extended Unemployment Benefits

Pension Protection Act, 2006

Family & Medical Leave Act

Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

MINER Mine Safety At, 2006

Compensation for Energy Employees Exposed to Radiation and Toxic Substances

Energy and environment

Fuel Economy Standards, 2007

Clean Energy Advanced Research Projects, 2007

Weatherization Assistance

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program

Historic Preservation

Ireland and Northern Ireland

International Fund for Ireland for job creation, peace, & reconsciliation

Obtained a Visa for Gerry Adams leading to the IRA cease fire in 1994

George J Mitchell Scholarship Fund for post-graduate study in Ireland & Northern Ireland

International relations

Sanctions against South Africa Apartheid Government

Cut-off Funding for Pinochet Government in Chile

Exit Visas for Russian Jews, including Andrei Sakharov

Began negotiations for Intermediate Range Ballistic missile treaty, 1987

Sanctions against Libya after Lockerbie Pan Am bombing

Opposition to war in Iraq

Confronted Administration Over Abu Ghraib Abuse & Torture of Prisoners

Requirement for new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, 2006

Special Immigrant Visas for Iraqi and Afghan Translators & Interpretors

Iraqi Refugee Legislation

Scholarships for Countries with Significan Muslim Populations

Nuclear Freeze Amendment, 1982

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, 1998

Military support

Department of Defense Child Care System

Vehicle Armor and Body Armor for Troops

Redesign of Armored Vehicles for Iraq

Repeal Ban on Women Serving as Combat Aviators, 1991

Wounded Warrior legislation, 2008

National Guard and Reserve Mental Health Access Act, 2008

Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program

People with disabilities

Americans with Disabilities Act

Civil Rights for Institutionalized Persons, 1980

Polling Station Access for people with disabilities, 1984

Air Carrier Access Act requiring services for the disabled when flying, 1986

Assistive Technology Act, 2004

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Award of Attorneys fees to parents of disabled children, 1986

Respite care for parents of disabled children, 1982

Bill of rights for people with developmental disabilities, 1975

Source: Accomplishments of Senator Kennedy 1962 - 2009 Also available at: Kennedy.Senate.Gov

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.108.84 (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2009

This is a biography, not a comprehensive list of every piece of legislation Kennedy was ever involved in. This article thus discusses only the most important of them. You could try creating a List of enacted legislation involving Ted Kennedy article (I've seen a few like that). But you'd need a better source than Kennedy's own website. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

JFK's two requests

{{editsemiprotected}}

Add to Ted Kennedy#Early life, military service, and education, at the end of the first paragraph:

His brother Jack, a student at the Choate School at the time, asked to be the newborn's godfather, a request his parents honored, though they did not agree to Jack's request to name him George Washington Kennedy (although Kennedy was born on the 200th anniversary of Washington’s birth).
Here's the reference:
<ref>{{cite web| title=Kennedy dead at 77 |url=http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/08/26/kennedy_dead_at_77/ | last=Nolan| first=Martin F.| authorlink=Martin Nolan| publisher=[[The Boston Globe]] |date= August 26, 2009 | accessdate = August 26, 2009 | quote=The ninth child of Joseph P. and Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy was born on the 200th anniversary of George Washington’s birth, Feb. 22, 1932. His brother Jack, then at the Choate School in Connecticut, wrote to his parents, asking to be godfather and urging the new arrival to be baptized George Washington Kennedy. The parents agreed to the first request but named the child Edward Moore Kennedy.}}</ref>

Thanks. 72.244.204.220 (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC).

This seems to be more about Jack than Ted, and too minor a matter to include here. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Fun fact, but really relevant to Ted. Template removed. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 14:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact is actually relevant; it deals with a godfather, and a possible alternative name. It can be shortened a little bit; let me see what I can do with it. YLee (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's irrelevant. I'm the one who added the part about the 200th anniversary because without it, the point about naming him after George Washington made no sense. But the whole topic seems trivial. Just because something is supported by citations does not mean it has to be included in the article. --Crunch (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the 200th anniversary is relevant; plenty of people have been named after George Washington without sharing the same birthday. That said, it's a very brief (which is another reason why I didn't include the anniversary factoid, given its triviality) mention of two relevant facts about Kennedy's birth. YLee (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy and John Tunney seeking KGB help in 1980's against Reagan

If this revelation is not included, it will prove the liberal bias prevalent frequent in many wikipedia pages. Please include this piece of information. Look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.72.16 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Legacy of the Kennedy clan

It should not be forgotten when remembering the legacy of the "Kennedy Clan" the following "items of interest"

1) The strong links between Kennedy Snr and Adolf Hitler 2) The strong links between the Kennedys the Mafia & Marilyn Monroe's "dubious" suicide 3) Ted Kennedy getting away with Chappaquadic or wahtever way you spell murder! 86.154.130.0 (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't about the Kennedy clan. Ted Kennedy had nothing to do with his father's position on U.S.-German relations and nothing to do with Marilyn or the mob. This article does describe Chappaquiddick. I think the section on it still needs some work and a little expansion, but it's hard to describe Chappaquiddick without getting into lots of detail quickly. But in no case would the article be able to support your contention of murder, because there are no WP:RS to support such a claim. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There is also a separate article on the Chappaquiddick incident. --Crunch (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy is cited as the senator that people would most like to work with, right?

So Ted Kennedy is cited as THE senator that people would most like to work with, right? Well why the hell not include that in his intro. Also, I'm constantly hearing on how he's widely regarded as one of the greatest senators by a variety of highly notable politicians, why not include that in the intro. I mean, when discussing presidents I always hear "he's ranked as one of the greatest presidents ever" or however it went at the end of his intro. Why not include that in Ted Kennedy's intro? We have every reason to include it and no strong reason not to. Neverfades (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a source for it, include it, though I'd suggest it fits more in the United States Senator section, not in the intro.--Crunch (talk)
And it should be a reliable non-partisan source, such as a newspaper of record or a major magazine. Such things tend to be very subjective, for example, Jimmy Carter is called both the worst and the best president in recent history, depending on the political orientation of the source. Crockspot (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Who calls Carter the best President? I've heard about Clinton, but not Jimmy. Deserted Cities 01:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
You would be surprised at what some people say. Of course, they would most likely say such a thing on a blog, which would not be a reliable source. - Crockspot (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be wary of including statements like this based on just a newspaper or magazine quote, which usually come down to one writer and one editor. Presidential rankings are often based on surveys of historians and thus encompass a broader set of data points. So if there are several presidential rankings over time and the same presidents keep showing up in the top five, then adding "one of the greatest presidents" to the leads of those presidents seems really warranted. If Kennedy keeps showing up in surveys of the greatest senators, then that's definitely worthy of inclusion in the lead. (There's a fairly well-known 1982 survey, that has Henry Clay and Robert M. La Follette, Sr. tied for first, but I'll have to look around for anything more recent.) Wasted Time R (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I guess if there was a poll taken amongst Senators asking who was the Senator they most wanted to work with, and Kennedy came out number one, and that was mentioned in the Washington Post, then I would not be opposed to it being in. But if someone said that in, say, a eulogy, or some other memorial editorial, that would probably not merit inclusion. - Crockspot (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • We already do include things like that in the body of the article ("A late 2000s survey of Republican senators ranked Kennedy first among Democrats in bipartisanship.[236]") and we certainly can for other such things. The question is whether to put it into the lead. Given that in the (misguided, in my view) cause of shortness the lead has been stripped of key biographical items, I'd be hesitant to add in these kinds of assertions in their place. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Article name

Why is this guy listed as Ted Kennedy when everyone in the world knows him as either Edward Kennedy or Teddy Kennedy? Deb (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

See past discussion above at #Why not Edward M. Kennedy?. If the article name was changed, it would be to that. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the link - I see that there was a vote on this way back in 2005. Time for another one, I think. How ridiculous the present title makes wikipedia look. Deb (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really. "Edward M." was his name, "Ted" was his nickname, and "Teddy" a familiar diminutive of that. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that "Ted" was just one of several nicknames used for him, whereas "Edward" was not only his real name but the most common name by which he is known. Deb (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Perception is an odd thing; seems to me pretty much nobody called him Edward. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Except everybody outside the USA. Deb (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
[citation needed] --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
In the U.S., he was primarily known as Ted Kennedy, occasionally Teddy, but never Edward. The article was understandably named according to what he was known as in the U.S. (only a tiny fraction of Americans would have known that his first name was Edward, though that number may have risen to a small fraction since his death). In any case, the title should be Edward M. Kennedy. I agree that it's time for another vote. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"Former President"

There may already be a consensus on this sort of thing and I'm not sure how to go about researching it.

I wonder: is there a good reason Bush II is referred to as "former president Bush" or whatever in the caption for the photo of him and Kennedy? The photo was taken in 2002; Bush was not a former president at the time, and I found the caption to be confusing at first. Maybe it's normal for all presidents to be referred to as former presidents in all photographs? ...but it doesn't seem to be the most helpful of descriptions.

Can we change that to just "President Bush"? ...even with a qualifier like "then President Bush." It just struck me as weird to have a former president signing a bill. :) 12.19.84.33 (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss changes to Bush's article on that talk page, please. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
i believe the comment just above by User talk:12.19.84.33 relates to the photograph on ted kennedy's article (shows bush, kennedy and feinstein) down toward the bottom and so the caption would be appropriately discussed here.--98.116.115.180 (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The caption should just say "President Bush" and I've changed it accordingly. It's always assumed in historical writing that offices and positions are at the time between described, not the time the reader is reading it. Books about the Civil War just say "President Lincoln", not "then President Lincoln" or "former President Lincoln". Wasted Time R (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A caption under a photo should refer to a person as what they were at the time it was taken. It should not make any difference whether or not said person no longer holds that position. Politics a (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Cancer "battle"

I have altered the statement in the lead referring to his "battle" with cancer. As originally written, it used both a euphemism and a cliche to refer to his illness and the cause of his death, which is to be avoided per WP:EUPHEMISM. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I like to think that Ted relished the description of his illness as a 'battle' as he was a born fighter, and as we all know, a true champ. He was well up for it basically. --83.141.77.130 (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
That's not the point. It doesn't matter how he characterised it, or how the news media sensationalised it. Its use here is unencyclopedic, a euphemism and cliche used to describe an illness and his cause of death. If it is just being used to lionize him, as you seem to be suggesting, then it's a violation of WP:PEACOCK as well. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The phrase "battle with cancer" is used all over wikipedia in many biographical articles. It is a common phrase in at least the American English language, and to those who have had cancer, an accurate description of their experience. It is more than just getting treated in a hospital, it is a psychological "battle" as well, to keep the spirit up, and keep the will to survive. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow, this problem is more widespread than I thought. The fact that it is a "common phrase" is irrelevant. "Passed away" and other such euphamisms are also common phrases, but they are avoided in Wikipedia because they are unencyclopedic. Phrases like "battle with cancer" are equally cliche, equally euphemistic and equally unencyclopedic. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you should show some respect for the dead. Just because he lost his battle, you think you can make fun. Ted spent hours a pond hours fighting while his brain was bulging with a massive tumour. You need to step a day in his shoes before you become a judgerous person. --83.141.77.130 (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
No, battle is an appropriate word, and not a euphemism. Euphemism is defined as "an inoffensive or indirect expression that is substituted for one that is considered offensive or too harsh". I don't care who has cancer, Ted Kennedy or Arlen Specter, it is always a battle. The word "battle" has several definitions, one of which is "a protracted struggle". We could change the word "battle" to "protracted struggle", but that is awkward wording and it doesn't really make sense to change it since it means exactly the same thing. A euphemism specifically replaces an offensive word or phrase. There isn't anything offensive about the word battle. It is what it is. nut-meg (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah and also, Ted was a true champ, wasn't he? So he did win the battle. --83.141.77.130 (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It is just a way of romanticizing an illness. It may not me a euphemism by the strict dictionary definition, but it is a cliche and it is still innapropriate for an encyclopedia. And as for you, 83.141.77.130, I am not judging anyone, nor am I making fun of anyone. I'm just trying to help improve the article. If anything, your comments indicate exactly the problem that I am referring to. It is turning the simple fact that Kennedy had an illness into an epic battle that he was the true champ of because he won or whatever. Not encyclopedic. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Romanticizing? You've got to be kidding me! There is nothing 'romantic' about friggin' cancer. The word is perfectly acceptable in this context. It is not a euphemism or a cliche. It's a word. nut-meg (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought plenty of people would be interested to know about Ted's struggle. 'Seine Kampf', if you will. --83.141.77.130 (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe so, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle should never be used in an encyclopedia to refer to anything other than an actual battle in a war. Something like 'diagnosed with brain cancer in May 2008, from which he died in August 2009' is better as it is neutral, unemotional, and quickly gives the basic facts. Politics a (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Chappaquiddick must be mentioned in the lede

The leader/intro mentions all the "positive" things about Kennedy's life without even mentioning undoubtedly the most major - and arguably career-transforming - incident of his life, Chappaquiddick. Something like "Kennedy had a stormy and controversial personal life, as exemplified by his role in the Chappaquiddick incident" should be included in the leader. 24.13.213.117 (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy had a stormy and controversial personal life Really? What evidence is there for this.
As to the point of the Chappaquiddick incident, I do actually agree that it is notable enough to make it into the lead, since the majority of articles made in retrospect of his death mention it. The Squicks (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The evidence, obviously, is Chappaquiddick and also his cheating at Harvard. But that was just a suggestion; all I want is for Chappaquiddick, and its negative effect on Kennedy's career and reputation, to be mentioned. I am unable to edit (I was the IP who originally posted this) at the moment due to my lack of seniority so I request that someone else please mention it in the lead. TheFix63 (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
And I request the opposite, so, no. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you could try backing up your refusal with a reason. Williajm (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
What the heck? Chappaquiddick was mentioned in the summary until the burst of edits by everyone and their brother after Kennedy's death. And yes, it absolutely belongs there; in many ways it is the defining moment of his life, more than his marriages, more than his brothers' assassinations (which are still mentioned). YLee (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I've restored it. Of course Chappaquiddick has to be in the lead, it's massively important in Kennedy's life story. People went crazy when the "introtoolong" tag was put on the article and removed all sorts of important things, leaving less important things. The intro is going to be hopeless for a while, I'm afraid, until the media coverage and interest returns to normal levels. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring it; I found you did it right after I typed the above. That said, it's sad to see people push their own editorial agendas under the cover of the flurry of edits. (I know we are to assume good faith, and I know the summary was trimmed during the flurry explicitly in order to expedite discrete edits but, really, to take out Chappaquiddick?!? That's like omitting Reagan's assassination in his summary, and Chappaquiddick proved way more important, relatively speaking, in Kennedy's life than being shot was in Reagan's.) YLee (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Why no mention of his open support for irish terrorism ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor-Scrumpy (talk • contribs) 01:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the "1970s" section discusses his position on Northern Ireland at the time. Political positions of Ted Kennedy#Northern Ireland would be a better place to explore his various stances and actions on Northern Ireland in depth; what's there now is thin. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, BRIEF and neutral mention should be in the lead paragraph. Crockspot (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The lead has already been purged of far more important things in the (misguided, to me) name of brevity (education, cheating, plane injury, Bork opposition, marriages divorces children, names of major legislation, etc etc), so there's no chance that Northern Ireland would get into the lead. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Chappaquiddick should certainly be in the lede, as should brief mentions of his most notable policies, including his former support of Irish Republicans with terrorist links. Politics a (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No, his position on Northern Ireland should not be in the lead. While some people may obsess about it, it was not one of the major aspects of his career. This very long Boston Globe obit on Kennedy has only one paragraph on Northern Ireland, and its only mention of the IRA is that Kennedy called on Irish Americans to shun it. This long New York Times obit on Kennedy has only one phrase on Northern Ireland, "[he] pushed for peace in Northern Ireland". If these sources don't treat it as a major aspect of his career, then neither should we. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP protections removed

The subject of this article is no longer covered by the policy "Biography of Living Persons".99.142.2.54 (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Edward Kennedy's wife and children are living people, which is this article falls under that provision. The Squicks (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Which provision is this in the Biographies of living persons policy? I did not see it on the page. Wikipédiste Consommé (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't specifically, but all related Wikipedia policies still apply. Falcon8765 (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Note the warning box at the very top of this page. PhGustaf (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Anyone can make a template. That template apparently has no basis in policy. Wikipédiste Consommé (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't fall under BLP anymore, but the ideas of BLP are just as good and important for BDP as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Due to the fact that this article mentions many living people, including high-profile and controversial people, it is exactly the kind of talk page that should have the blpo template. Politics a (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Quote of the day or Wikiquote?

I removed an external link to Quote of the Day dot org because the article already has a template linking Wikiquote. The QOTD editor reverted me. What is the opinion of editors here? Which link should we have, or both?

Wikiquote has quotations related to Ted Kennedy.

Check them both out for quality before replying, please. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

QOTD doesn't cite any sources so I'd call it unreliable and hesitate to make it an EL. (Not that Wikiquote is perfect either.) —Noisalt (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikiquote is marvelous, and spurred by the discussion on the Amelia Earhart page, I have now included a link to Wikiquote in addition to the existing link to Wikipedia. (I've only included this link for George Bernard Shaw and Amelia Earhart so far, but the programming has been done.) In the world of printed books, there are resources (like Bartlett's) that are sourced and many other that are not. There is interest in both. When links to QOTD have been included on Wikipedia the response has been good, which tells me that it is of value to the Wikipedia audience. (I have no idea if anyone clicks the other direction.) I don't understand why this is a point of contention.Vanhorn (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
There are two drivers at work here: a wish to keep the external links section as trim as possible, per WP:EL, and a wish to keep commercial sites from external links. Each quote at QOTD is clickable—they take you to Amazon dot com where stuff is for sale. This makes QOTD look commercial in comparison to Wikiquote. In terms of keeping the external links to a bare minimum, the presence of Wikiquote factors against the inclusion of any one of the various webpages that have collections of quotes, no matter how good they are. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. No consensus for move, at this time. Closed because this is an active topic, and it being open is an unnecessary distraction. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy → Edward Kennedy —. Deb (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I know this is going to be controversial, but I was just amazed when I saw the title of this article. Looking back, I found that "Edward Kennedy" was indeed the article's original title, but it was moved without discussion to its present title. My reasons for proposing the move are pretty much the same as those given when it was proposed back in 2005 (when a total of 6 people participated in the vote). These are as follows:

  1. His name is Edward Kennedy.
  2. Throughout the world he is generally known either by his name or by the nickname "Teddy" rather than "Ted".
  3. Ted Kennedy should be a disambiguation page pointing to both Edward Kennedy and Ted Kennedy (hockey player).
  • Oppose. Wikipolicy is clear. Edward Moore Kennedy is better known as Ted Kennedy than anything else. As Jpgordon advised you above, if you want to justify this move you'd better [citation needed]. YLee (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly opposed: Is the page about the life of Marion Robert Morrison called that? Nope. What about Archibald Alexander Leach? Nope. What about 'Richard Cheney'? Let's be serious here. The Squicks (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A quick Google search finds that 'Edward Kennedy' and 'Ted Kennedy' are both frequently used, but 'Ted' is slightly more common. It's the name I'm more familiar with, at least. Robofish (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose based on clear policy, precedent, and previous consensus. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support move to Edward M. Kennedy (not Edward Kennedy as proposed here), out of parallelism with John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy and in conformance with serious mainstream publications. I believe in going by the New York Times and other publications' style guides for first reference, which use Edward M. Kennedy, not Ted Kennedy, but use Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton. There's a real but somewhat subtle distinction between the two cases, which I think WP should also observe. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support move to Edward M. Kennedy as with JFK & RFK. He is known as Edward Kenendy in Britain, occasionally (years ago) as Teddy. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Despite paying attention to health care debate had not heard the name "Edward Kennedy" before this morning, while being familiar with Ted Kennedy for years. InfiniteThinking (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I haven't done multiple searches, but my sense is that his name normally appears as 'Ted Kennedy' or 'Senator Edward M. Kennedy' - the initial is common but not always included. I rarely see 'Edward Kennedy' used. On my site, I had identified him as 'Edward Kennedy' at one time, then noted that Wikipedia used 'Ted Kennedy' and changed all references on my site to match. You could say that part of my opposition is that I've decided to follow the Wikipedia style for most names, so it's more work for me if it gets changed. But I think the current style is correct based on common usage. The 'Teddy Kennedy' form seems to me to be an affectation, used by those who want you to know that they actually knew the man personally. Vanhorn (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose He is known as Ted and Teddy in his home state of Masaschusetts. Headlines in his home state newspapers, and other forms of media are about "Teddy Kennedy" and "Ted Kennedy". The redirect is adequate for the purpose of locating the article. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support the proposed move or a move to Edward M. Kennedy per part of User:Wasted Time R's reasoning above. Mainstream publications and other media outlets use Edward or Edward M. As User:Wasted Time R notes, the New York Times and other publications' style guides "use Edward M. Kennedy, not Ted Kennedy, but use Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton. There's a real but somewhat subtle distinction between the two cases, which I think WP should also observe." Kennedy's own web page[6] uses "Edward M. Kennedy". News results[7] favor "Edward" over "Ted" with most of the uses of "Ted" being quotes of acquaintances. However, Britannica[8] uses "Ted" so there's one for the opposition. — AjaxSmack 03:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose use Teddy Kennedy, as he is/was commonly known. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Keep at Ted, as he was most widely known as. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article title is usually the most common name. And the name in the infobox should be changed to "Ted Kennedy" as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support move to Edward M. Kennedy (I repeat include the M. initial because...) Sen. Kennedy's official website and written works use "Edward M." as do many media outlets. If we echo the State Department in using Hillary Rodham Clinton as the default title, if we use John Murtha instead of Jack Murtha based on his House page, then the same should apply for Kennedy. I don't see how un-common "Edward M. Kennedy" is. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support move away from Ted Kennedy. Proposed alternatives are better for reasons already given. AugustinMa (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support move to Edward M. Kennedy. The press release from his family uses Edward M. Kennedy, not Ted Kennedy. Many of the other press releases on his official website do use Ted Kennedy, but these are all phrased in a very personal manner between close friends. I think we should respect the family's wishes on formal public references to him. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support move to Edward Kennedy, oppose excess inclusion of initial. Unlike his brothers he's best known without the initial. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support move to Edward M. Kennedy. A redirect from "Ted Kennedy" and "Teddy Kennedy" is just fine. People who prefer to call him Ted will still be able to find the Wikipedia page on him, and the article title will reflect his full name. -BloodDoll (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I adopt above reference: He is known as Ted and Teddy in his home state of Masaschusetts. Headlines in his home state newspapers, and other forms of media are about "Teddy Kennedy" and "Ted Kennedy". The redirect is adequate for the purpose of locating the article.--Timbrophy (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment I don't think so. See the August 27, 2009 issue of The Boston Globe. He was rarely referred to in Massachusetts as "Senator Ted Kennedy". He was "Senator Edward M. Kennedy" or "Senator Edward Kennedy." For those making comparisons with President Jimmy Carter or President Bill Clinton, that's the difference.
  • Oppose — WP:UCN.
    — V = I * R (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support-I think we should recognize a formalistic approach to the names of famous individuals upon their deaths.T.E. Goodwin (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I disagree. Look above for the person who referenced John Wayne and Cary Grant in this debate. If their pages were moved back to their original names, noone would know where to look. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment - stage names of actors is a completely separate matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:UCN doesn't make that distinction, and I don't see why we should. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose - Article titles are meant to be the name the person is best known as. This is why you will find the main article at Bill Clinton, not William Clinton, and Jimmy Carter, not James Carter. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment - as I pointed out above, Clinton and Carter are different cases than Kennedy, per the style guides that many major publications use. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
All the articles I see at the top of a Google News search are referring to him as "Ted" in the lede, with some referring to him as "Edward" somewhere in the article space, far less prominently than "Ted". Some others are going the "Mr. Kennedy" route. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - "Edward M. Kennedy" (with middle initial) is a professional encyclopaedic usage following his formal announcements, etc. style.--98.116.115.180 (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support. This is his full name and, contrary to claims, he was not always known in every situation as Ted or Teddy. The parallels with Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter don't hold, any more than we should argue that Richard Nixon should be changed to Dick Nixon, which was a sometimes-used nickname. Every article and every individual is different and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I also added this in a comment above, but the special section in the August 27, 2009 issue of The Boston Globe sums up the distinction very well. He was rarely referred to in Massachusetts as "Senator Ted Kennedy". He was "Senator Edward M. Kennedy" or "Senator Edward Kennedy." Teddy was a nickname, not used much by the general public until late in his life. --Crunch (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I think that we should definitely be using his full name in the title here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - certainly his given name was Edward M. Kennedy, but he was more commonly referred to as Ted, which is what we're after. Regarding his brothers, the interesting thing is that neither lived into the modern media age; how they might have been referred to had they done so might well be different, but it is a matter of conjecture. They are clearly historical figures; sources don't typically refer to them as Jack and Bobby, so we don't. Sources do refer to Edward M. as Ted, and in the less formal, Teddy. If consensus builds in support of a move, I would say to include the middle initial, as such a move would be to the formal name, and I think of all the possibilities, "Edward Kennedy" is the least-used.  Frank  |  talk  16:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - From The Boston Globe: "Senator Edward M. Kennedy ... died late Tuesday night. 'Teddy,' as he was known to intimates, constituents, and even his fiercest enemies ..." This can be used to support either position. Above, I favored giving the coin toss to the family, but we can justify it either way. We have 14 support and 15 oppose to this point. Hardly conclusive and I don't think it's going to get much better if we keep going like this. I suggest we focus on the rationale. Should the family's press release be a consideration? What about The Boston Globe article title and intro? How about The New York Times: "In a poignant farewell for his family and thousands of mourners, the elaborate funeral procession for Senator Edward M. Kennedy arrived in downtown Boston Thursday ..." Ted only appears in a quote half-way down the page. UncleDouggie (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Google news hits are running 47K for Edward Kennedy and 37K for Ted Kennedy. A Google web search for Edward Kennedy or Edward M. Kennedy returns a first non-news hit of: "Ted Kennedy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - In 1973, Kennedy's son Edward Kennedy, Jr. was discovered..." This doesn't seem quite right. UncleDouggie (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am flexible in my thinking on this, though I still believe it should remain "Ted Kennedy." However, if there is a consensus to move the article to "Edward Kennedy", I think it shouldn't happen so quickly. The man just died, after all. I think we should let things be, and as there doesn't seem to be consensus, this issue should be put on ice for a while before it's readdressed. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
If there is a move, I think the large majority of the advocates want it moved to "Edward M. Kennedy", not "Edward Kennedy". Wasted Time R (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment During their lifetimes the names Jack Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy seemed appropriate. However as the years have passed both John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy have come into focus as the names that best identify them. Edward M. Kennedy IMO is the way Ted Kennedy or Teddy Kennedy will be known as time passes. I think all three names should redirect there. That is - Teddy Kennedy, and Ted Kennedy redirected to Edward M. Kennedy...Modernist (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
My point is that if the decision is made that "Edward M. Kennedy" or "Edward Kennedy" is the appropriate way to refer to him, that's a few years away. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
It is far too early to say how history will choose to refer to him. Give it 10 or 15 years then come back and reassess. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support move to Edward M. Kennedy per above. feydey (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support move to Edward M. Kennedy. More and more of the media are using his full name and I suspect that usage of the full name will increase over time. --Tocino 17:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment A short-term trend and "suspicion" are not sufficient. We need to wait several years to see how the media refers to him after death, not several days. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose such a move. (1) Cite from MSNBC: "To the American public, Kennedy — known to friends and foes alike simply as Ted — was best known as the last surviving son of America's most glamorous political family, father figure and, memorably, eulogist of an Irish-American clan plagued again and again by tragedy." (My emphasis added.) (2) Official statement from President Barack Obama: "Michelle and I were heartbroken to learn this morning of the death of our dear friend, Senator Ted Kennedy. ..." (3) Statement from former President George W. Bush: "Laura and I are saddened by the death of Senator Ted Kennedy. We extend our condolences and prayers to Senator Kennedy's wife, Vicki, and all of their family." (4) Probably a better argument: His own official campaign website was tedkennedy.org. (Even though his formal name is used there, the fact that the URL is "Ted" indicates that the public at large knew him as "Ted.") (5) His own signature says "Ted." — Michael J 22:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Common names like this hold sway over formal correctness. Exact same logic the examples Bill Gates or Pelé mentioned at WP:UCN. That he's recently deceased has no bearing at all on this discussion. Peter Isotalo 07:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most of you are missing the point. You use a nickname as the principle reference if and only if the person wishes to be identified that way. That's the standard used by the New York Times. Since the Times freely called him Ted Kennedy, even sometimes in the lead paragraph, that means it was what Kennedy wanted to be called. Bobstar2 (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment.You are wrong about the New York Times. The front page story today refers to "Edward M. Kennedy." If you know anything about the Times style, you would know that there is only one reference using the first name (either Edward or Ted) and all future references will be to "Mr." See for example, today's lead story: In Kennedy, the Last Roar of the New Deal Liberal, which, by the way, uses Edward. --Crunch (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly support move to Edward M. Kennedy. He was known formally by that name, colloquially by Ted or Teddy. The fact that friends and acquaintances called him Ted is irrelevant (and the MSNBC article referenced above calls him Edward M. Kennedy in the lede). At his senate home page, he's Edward M. Kennedy. At the New York Times, he's Edward M. Kennedy. At the Wall St. Journal, he's Edward M. Kennedy. At the Boston Globe, he's Edward M. Kennedy. At the Washington Post, he's Edward M. Kennedy. At CNN, he's Edward Kennedy, "nicknamed Ted." It seems clear that he preferred "Edward M. Kennedy" as his formal name, and this encyclopedia should respect that. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, and Pelé. (Together again!) Gamaliel (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support move to Edward M. Kennedy. News sources always say "Bill Clinton," never "William J. Clinton," so the cases aren't analogous - my sense is that formal news sources and the like generally used his full name. john k (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Of course. We never hear or read of "President William Clinton." It is common usage to read "Senator Edward M. Kennedy." In fact it is more common than "Senator Ted Kennedy." I lived in Massachusetts for most of Kennedy's 47 year career. I have some familiarity with this. I find it absurd that this article was even renamed to Ted in the first place. --Crunch (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. True, but look at how his name is written on that site. At best it is half "Edward" and half "Ted." He even signs his name "Edward M. Kennedy." Also, check his official Senate site kennedy.senate.gov/ -- which has no mention of the word "Ted" at all. I think if we're debating and the names are used equally (which I'm not sure is even the case), we should go with the most formal version. --Crunch (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but the way someone signs their name isn't a valid argument. My real name is Anthony and I always sign that way even though everyone calls me Tony. Tony877 (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
His signature at the bottom of the infobox is signed as "Ted". Rreagan007 (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying the signature is the tipping point, but it's one more piece of information that proves that he is not always knows as Ted, as has been claimed here. The rest of the website on which the signature appears shows that as well. The only reason to go with "Ted" is if he was never, or rarely known as "Edward and that's simply not the case. --Crunch (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Move to Edward M. Kennedy because the M. disambiguates him from his son and others. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Move to Edward M. Kennedy as long as disambiguation link remains at top of article and Edward Kennedy, etc. link here. If the general usage changes to be something other than Ted Kennedy, then this issue should be revisited. That does not appear to be anywhere close to happening at this time. Packetmonger (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - he was Ted or Teddy both to those who know him and in the greater public discussion. It's the most likely search. - Nat Gertler (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Parts of article not related to Kennedy

One person said that a proposed change is not related to Kennedy. It actually is.

That's not the question to this section. The question is should we be consistent?

In 1973, Kennedy's son Edward Kennedy, Jr. was discovered to have chondrosarcoma; his leg was amputated and he underwent a long, difficult, experimental two-year drug treatment. [49][63] The case brought international attention both among doctors and in the general media,[63] as did the young Kennedy's return to the ski slopes on an artificial leg half a year later.[64] His other son, Patrick J. Kennedy, was suffering from severe asthma attacks.[49] The pressure of the situation mounted on Joan Kennedy, who several times entered facilities for alcoholism and emotional strain and was arrested for drunk driving after a traffic accident.[49][65]

Nothing to do with Ted. It is about Junior, Patrick, and Joan's drinking.

Biographer Adam Clymer rates Kennedy's silence during the Thomas hearings as the worst moment of his Senate career.[130] Feminist writer Anna Quindlen said "[Kennedy] let us down because he had to; he was muzzled by the facts of his life."[130] Due to the Palm Beach media attention and the Thomas hearings, Kennedy's public image suffered. A Gallup Poll gave Kennedy a very low 22 percent national approval rating

Nothing to do with Ted. It has to do about other people's speculation. 99.999% of people have never heard of Adam Clymer. More people know about Jimbo Wales. The Gallup Poll doesn't determine the cause, could have been Chappaquiddick.

On July 16, 1999, tragedy struck the Kennedy family again when a Piper Saratoga crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off Martha's Vineyard. The accident killed its pilot John F. Kennedy, Jr., his wife and sister-in-law

JFK, Jr. was not even Teddy's son. Should some of the editors using the "not related" excuse advocate removing this?

One trouble with some judges is that they make up their minds then search the law and court cases to justify their decision. I am starting to think this happens here. We should decide the framework of how to write this article then apply principles to write it. Not come up with some excuse to justify our demands.

One way would be to establish what is the most important fact (probably that he was Senator). We could probably include 1000-2000 facts. Fact #5000 would not make it. Fact #200 would. We could decide on how directly Teddy's involvement had to be. Physical involvement only (no, because Chappaquiddick would be the only event, other than his cancer). Having a significant role (active or passive), probably yes.

Let's try to work logically and systematically. Somehow, I doubt this will work. Probably will be attacked for just suggesting this. Dellcomputermouse (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you seem to consider disagreement or questioning of your intent an attack, yes, you probably will be. For example, you'll feel attacked when I direct your attention to WP:POINT. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Others' attacks are easier to see. For example, "editor doesn't care so much about.." then speculating with a bad reason. The use of POINT is just an excuse. As much consistency must be achieved. Otherwise, we'd say how bad Clinton was but don't mention Nixon's Watergate. The above examples illustrate how there is inconsistency. Those who say something shouldn't be included should then use their same logic for similar examples. Either that or they should redefine their position.
There has been job discrimination where excuses were made not to hire African Americans. Qualifications not right or some other excuse. If you compared them with a White person, then could they use WP:POINT? Of course, that would be wrong.
The POINT accusation is incorrect because I am not advocating anything regarding those passages. I just point them out to see if there is a consistent feeling among the readers or if some readers give excuses. Dellcomputermouse (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
All of these matters – family illnesses and tragedies, public perception, etc. – are quite relevant to Kennedy's full life and belong in his biography. You have a reasonable argument in trying to include the Wikipedia false death incident, even if I don't agree with it. But you're way off base by dragging the rest of this in and not doing your case any good. By the way, Adam Clymer wrote the most serious biography of Kennedy out there, in terms of describing his legislative impact; he's been quoted a lot in news stories the last few days. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that the details about who succeeds Ted aren't relevant to Ted's life, or death. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the "Death" section doesn't need subsections and keeps accumulating excessive detail. This is inevitable WP:RECENTISM given how prominent the story is; wait a couple of weeks until the attention has receded, and this can be dealt with. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I should've waited a few weeks as you suggested, but I got impatient and removed it just now.--Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I think at the very least a brief statement that there is a special election scheduled as a result of the vacancy created by his passing is appropriate and needed. I believe that a bit more is appropriate. This does not need to include who is running and the details- a reference to the 2010/09 special election page will handle that. But there should be information about how Kennedy involved himself in the process of picking his successor and was very involved in earlier changes to the law regarding filling vacancies. These were among his last acts and can be viewed as significant thoughtfulness regarding his states representation, naked partisan politics or both. No matter the interpretation, the underlying facts are significant to Kennedy's life and death. I'm going to revert the deletion of this section, but will try to help to trim it down to minimal facts and links to the appropriate detailed article. Packetmonger (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Looking at this more, it seems like it makes more sense for Kennedy's actions regarding succession to be a subsection under "Illness and a new President" before "Death". The Death subsection could just have a statement that his passing resulted in a vacancy and a pointer to the article for the special election. Packetmonger (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll sit on it for a bit. I took out the sentence about the "supermajority" because it's a misnomer. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Separate article- Senate career of Ted Kennedy

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No split-out of Senate material from this article to a separate article. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This section covers over 1/2 the article. Ted Kennedy has no doubt been one of the most influential Senators of all-time, he deserves his own article.--Levineps (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This section covers more like 4/5 of the article; Kennedy's biography largely is his senate career. Splitting it out would be pointless, just as it was for Joseph McCarthy when you tried to do it there and were quickly reverted. And "Senate career of ..." subarticles have some of the lowest readership rates in all of Wikipedia. Doing this here wouldn't benefit anybody. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I feel that his Senate career would be better in its own article, and then summarized here, similar to John_McCain#Senate_career_after_2000. I sense that this article is already restraining itself in terms of what information is included, and if it were split up, then we would definitely have less of a length problem. Wasted Time R, in my opinion, the point of splitting up the section is to make it more readable; frankly, I imagine that few people who want to learn more about Ted would be willing to read most of that section. The benefit of splitting the section up is so that we keep the information we already have and can add to it, and then in the main Ted article, we have summary style information for people who just want a general overview of the Senator. Gary King (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. Splitting the article does absolutely nothing but split the quality. WTR is absolutely correct that no one reads those compared to main articles. A significant part of Kennedy's biography is his Senate career, so that would just remove a huge chunk from the article. If it continues to grow and be unwieldly, much time should be carefully taken to keep a Senate section that is still long enough to be thorough in all major parts, with the subarticle filling in the details as well. There should obviously not be a full cut-and-paste carelessly moving the section to a subarticle, as Levineps is famous for. Reywas92Talk 19:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing inherently wrong in creating a sub-article, and heck there's plenty of extra info that could be added to such an article. At the same time, that doesn't mean anything has to be removed from the parent article, and as Reywas mentions, the Senate career should fill a big chunk of the main article. Joshdboz (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose also, still. The readership page view stats are daunting. For July 2009:

These are 100:1 and 200:1 and worse ratios, which is quite typical of biographical subarticles like these. (You can see some April 2009 page view stats in the section below, to show that these are consistently bad results.) And I'm the main (usually only) author of both of those "Senate career of ..." articles, so I know whereof I speak. Hell, you don't even need the readership stats to know nobody reads them; look at Talk:Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, it's completely empty, nobody's ever posted a single thing there!

So moving pieces of his senate career out of this article and into a subarticle would mean that 99% or more of readers would never see it, which is tantamount to deleting it. That's not good. Furthermore, on thematic and biographical grounds you can't usefully reduce and split his senate career out from the rest of his bio. The death of his brothers gave him newfound purpose in the senate. His 1980 presidential campaign fed off his senatorial dissatisfactions during the Carter administration. His late 80s/early 90s personal troubles led to his silence during the Thomas hearings. And so forth. Everything in his life is intertwined.

It's true, as Joshdboz says, that there is much more that occurred in Kennedy's long senatorial career than is included in this article. Having slogged through Adam Clymer's biography, which deals with Kennedy's legislative career in truly exhausting detail, I know! So somebody could, if they wanted, leave everything intact in this article and create a "Senate career of Ted Kennedy" that went into far more detail, using what's here as a starting point. But it would be a ton of work with very little readership reward, so I wouldn't advise it. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So if you want to hide things, then make a subarticle???? Dellcomputermouse (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose proposed split - WTR's suggestion that those who want to develop an outstanding and detailed Senate article is eminently sound, and prevents no editor from going ahead and doing the hard work necessary. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As the section currently stands, it's not only about Kennedy's Senate career but is about everything that happened to him while he was in the Senate. If material were split, most of the section should remain here since it is of general biographical nature. An article on the Senate career of Ted Kennedy should be more like the Political positions of Ted Kennedy article, a highly circumscribed detail only of his actions in the Senate. — AjaxSmack 03:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, now that you mention it, instead of having a chronological "Senate career of ..." article, why not just strengthen Political positions of Ted Kennedy so that it covers all or most of his Senate votes, positions, and legislative moves? (Right now coverage in it is very hit or miss.) An advantage would be that it would be organized by issue topic, and thus be a good alternative to the chronological organization of the main BLP article. Readers could use one or the other or both, depending upon how they wanted to look at Kennedy's career. One of Wikipedia's main drawbacks is that it doesn't have an index, the way that real books do, and this would somewhat counteract that. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the Senate career is integral to the biography and should not be split off. I also agree that the Political Positions article could be strengthened instead. Racepacket (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is a separate article, then the biography of Kennedy will be short. It would be "Kennedy was born, went to Harvard, got into trouble so joined the Army, finished up at Harvard, went to law school, married twice. Since 1962, he's been a senator. End of article." Dellcomputermouse (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose split. The statistics don't lie. Splitting off this article would mean the death of the Senate career information, and the personal article would be awful. CorpITGuy (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose split. The story of Teddy Kennedy's life is inseparable from his political career which is largely his career in the Senate. treesmill (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. As stated above, Ted Kennedy's life is inseparable from his senate career. Length alone is no justification for splitting the article.ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all the reasons mentioned. Is this issue dead enough to warrant the removal of the tag at the beginning of the Senate career section? Grunge6910 (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Filibuster proof?

Regarding this sentence-"With Kennedy's death, the Democratic Party has lost its 60-seat supermajority in the US Senate, although they do retain at filibuster proof 59 seat majority out of the 99 filled seats."- I'm not sure this is correct. I am under the impression that it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster in the US Senate. Am I wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.161.250 (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The potential effects on the health care reform debate will be interesting, to say the least. — Rickyrab | Talk 14:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't say "filibuster proof" now. It doesn't really matter, though, since the Dems have trouble getting all their votes together on anything significant, and anything that's modified enough to pick up their centrists will often pick up a GOPer or three as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There has been no proposed filibuster so this is just trivia and speculation. The same would apply to a sentence "with the passing of Kennedy, there is one less senator with the last name starting with K" NoRightTurn (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That text was removed from the article a while ago. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Alleged KGB connections and allegedly undermining Reagan

The Internet has plenty of buzz about Kennedy's connections to the KGB and his attempts to undermine Reagan's military policy by strategically eroding confidence in the President's policies. I see no reference to this on here. Much out there is biased and confusing; from what I can tell, Kennedy was borderline guilty of treason. Can someone please assemble the information and clarify these events? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.173.226.236 (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  • No, providing extraordinary documentation for extraordinary claims is the responsibility of the person wanting to introduce the claims. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
As a general rule, any claim that begins "The Internet has plenty of buzz about ..." is not likely to make much of an impression here. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That's not a very good source, because it's an opinion piece in Forbes (notice the url) written by a columnist who also writes for NRO, a Reagan-worshipping Kennedy-hating outfit. You'd be better off finding the original Times of London piece written by an actual reporter and see what that says. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't just Reagan, it was also Carter who Kennedy seems to have undermined. Although, more properly put, Kennedy sided with the U.S.S.R. over the U.S.A. Historian Paul Kengor recounts the details here and a link to the U.S.S.R. document in question is here. Details of the Kennedy/Carter/U.S.S.R. relations are provided here by Herbert Romerstein, who was head of the office to Counter Soviet Disinformation at the United States Information Agency in the 1980's. This link also contains the full text of the KGB document about Kennedy's advances to the U.S.S.R. to undermine the U.S.A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.80.57 (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

American Thinker and Human Events aren't great sources either. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course...only sources that agree with your bias are good. Perhaps you should look at the qualifications and reputation of the people being quoted, as opposed to trying to simply ignore information. Kengor's specialty is U.S.A./U.S.S.R. relations around the time of Regan. Romerstein's qualifications are already mentioned. If these are not good enough for you, then obviously you have a distinct lack of objectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.187.196 (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't Wasted Time R that you have a problem with, it is Wikipedia policy. If the sources you like don't qualify under that policy, it isn't his fault. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree that it needs reliable sources if it is to be reported as a fact. The fact of the allegations being made though may be sufficiently notable to be worth reporting in themselves. It has been reported in the Washington Post, the London Times and by the BBC. I think at that stage the allegation is sufficiently noteworthy to be included, even if the events are unproven. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you have links for the Washington Post, Times, and BBC reports? Wasted Time R (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, I tracked down Kengor's Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, and it definitely reproduces KGB director Chebrikov's letter from the Soviet archives as shown above, on pages 317-20. Kengor is certainly partisan, but is there any reason why he should not be considered a reliable source, especially when quoting directly from archive material?
A few points: I see no support in the letter for Robinson's contention in Forbes that Kennedy was asking for Soviet help to win the 1984 election. The letter transmits two proposals from Kennedy through Tunney: 1) Kennedy offers to visit Moscow and show Soviet officials how to present their views about nuclear disarmament better in the USA, and 2) Kennedy proposes that General Secretary Andropov visit the USA for TV interviews. The letter also describes (at third hand) Kennedy's views on the American political situation.
If the article is going to mention this affair, it is very important to find out who Tunney actually contacted in Moscow, and what did he know about that contact? Was this a deliberate, walk-into-Dzerzhinski-Square-and-knock-on-the-door outreach to the KGB? Or was Tuneny trying to reach Andropov through another medium who, unbeknownst to him, was a KGB asset? The letter only says that Tunney used "confidential contacts," which is not very enlightening. Pirate Dan (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
With uncovered documents like these, you really need a skilled, dispassionate historian to judge their importance. Is the letter genuine or part of some disinformation scheme? Does it accurately convey what Tunney was saying, and did Tunney accurately convey what Kennedy wanted? Were other contacts like this common with American politicians or is this an unusual case? Was anything likely to come of this? And so forth. My confidence in Kengor is weakened by his rants like: "Liberal reporters lionized Ted Kennedy in life and have begun the canonization process in death. They are liberal activists first, and journalists second." The reality is that all kinds of negative stuff about Kennedy was written by the mainstream press from Chappaquiddick on, and especially during the late 1980s/early 1990s period. Michael Kelly's devastating "Ted Kennedy on the Rocks" article in GQ started it; Time magazine said Kennedy was being perceived as a "Palm Beach boozer, lout and tabloid grotesque" while Newsweek said Kennedy was "the living symbol of the family flaws." And so on. So if the mainstream press has shied away from publishing Kengor's interpretations, it is likely because they don't think those interpretations stand up to scrutiny. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

How is the Washington Times as a source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.80.57 (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That's an editorial, not a reported news story. Editorials are not usable as sources, no matter what the publication. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
It's also a review of the Kengor book, and is full such disclaimers as, "If the letter is true...". If the Kengor book is dicey, this is right out. PhGustaf (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree, also there are some archived discussions about including this assertion; previous consensus has been against inclusion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The two I found are Talk:Ted Kennedy/Archive 7#KGB Letter and Talk:Ted Kennedy/Archive 8#Kennedy allegedly collaborated with Soviets against US foreign policy. The latter is a long, somewhat inconclusive discussion, partly derailed by silliness over whether one editor had accused another editor of a crime. It culminated in Talk:Ted Kennedy/Archive 8#Request for Comment - KGB-Kennedy Link, which indicated unanimously that the material in question should not be included. The only thing that's changed from then to now is that Kennedy has died; I haven't seen any new reporting on this matter. Much of the objections to including this matter were based around BLP concerns. There is no WP:BDP, however, WP:BLP#Dealing with articles about the deceased says "Although this policy specifically applies to the living, material about deceased individuals must still comply with all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Prompt removal of questionable material is proper. The burden of evidence for any edit rests firmly on the shoulders of the editor adding or restoring the material. This applies to verifiability of sources, and to all content policies and guidelines." Wasted Time R (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, if it has previously been discussed and decided, I don't see any basis for revisiting that decision now. --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I do feel that the decision should be revisited at this point for two reasons: 1) the earlier discussion revolved largely around whether far right-wing blogs were adequate sources, and the consensus, perfectly correctly, was that they weren't. But we have now verified at least one print secondary source as confirming the basic story (though not the wild accusations of treason, etc.), and my understanding is that Wikipedia gives such print secondary sources more weight. Out of an excess of caution, I also mean to obtain the Peter Sebastian article from The Times to confirm (or refute) the letter's authenticity. 2) As Wasted Time R said, the Wikipedia policy for BLP no longer applies, and thus the sourcing requirements now are the same as for any other article. Pirate Dan (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(od) I'm willing to revisit the material. Let's assume that the Chebrikov document is authentic, which I don't think has been challenged and which can be sustained by the 1992 Times of London story, which I discovered you can read here. Let's also recognize that there's a lot of second- and third-hand relaying here: what Kennedy thought may not have been fully accurately conveyed by Tunney, which may not have been heard fully right by Tunney's contact (unspecified), which may not have been fully reported right to Chebrikov, and Chebrikov could be further embellishing things to enlarge his own importance to Andropov. Let's also recognize that what Kennedy was telling the Soviets probably wasn't much different from what Kennedy was saying in the public in the U.S. In other words, it's hardly a secret that Kennedy wanted to see Reagan defeated in 1984. Finally, in the Times story Tunney specifically denies that any of this was related to Kennedy ever being elected president, and in his reaction even Andropov seemed to realize that Kennedy's presidential contending days were behind him. Tunney partially denies the idea of image enhancement. Overall, the Times reporter's interpretation of this memo is much more even-handed than Kengor's.

So, we could add on to the "1980s" section paragraph that already includes "Kennedy became very visible in opposing aspects of the foreign policy of the Reagan administration ...", this:

A 1983 memorandum from KGB Chairman Viktor Chebrikov to General Secretary Yuri Andropov reported that Kennedy, through former Senator John Tunney, had criticized President Reagan's confrontational policies toward the Soviet Union and suggested that U.S.-Soviet relations might be improved if top Soviet officials were able to address the American public through the U.S. news media. Andropov was unimpressed by the idea. [cited to Times]

This takes a middle stance between accusing Kennedy of disloyalty and ignoring the matter altogether, and lets readers ponder this question for themselves. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There's an implication that it would be disloyal to criticize Reagan's confrontational policies. For that basic point, we don't need to source anything to a KGB memo. Also, "reported" implies that it's true. What about revising along these lines:

Kennedy was a critic of Reagan's confrontational policies toward the Soviet Union [insert citation to some major U.S. corporate media outfit, a citation I'll go out and unearth if this approach finds favor). 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, had suggested that U.S.-Soviet relations might be improved if top Soviet officials were able to address the American public through the U.S. news media. Andropov was unimpressed by the idea. [cited to Times]

I'm still not sure this silliness merits inclusion in the article at all, though. JamesMLane t c 18:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm okay with this approach. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for running down the Sebastian article. The proposed modification looks close to me, but I would suggest two modifications. 1) Kennedy's proposal to visit personally with Andropov for arms control discussions should also be mentioned, and 2) the "through confidential contacts" language should also be included, lest somebody walk away with the impression that Tunney had just suggested this on a TV show or something. How about this change:

Kennedy was a critic of Reagan's confrontational policies toward the Soviet Union [insert citation to some major U.S. corporate media outfit, a citation I'll go out and unearth if this approach finds favor). 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, 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 were able to address the American public through the U.S. news media. Chebrikov said Tunney's overtures had reached him through "confidential contacts," who remain unidentified. Andropov was unimpressed by the idea.[cited to Times]

(od) I'm okay with that, but I think it can be made terser:

Kennedy was a critic of Reagan's confrontational policies toward the Soviet Union. [some new cite] 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 were able to address the American public through the U.S. news media.[cited to Times] Andropov was unimpressed by the idea.[cited to Times]

That the contacts remain unidentified doesn't seem that material to me; this is about Kennedy, not Tunney and how his USSR business dealings worked. And I think just saying "contacts" suggests that they were confidential, especially given the countries involved. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Thank you.Pirate Dan (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The copy suggested seems fine, although perhaps an inclusion of the fact the memo also indicated Kennedy's willingness to facilitate the suggested policy...something like

Kennedy was a critic of Reagan's confrontational policies toward the Soviet Union [insert citation to some major U.S. corporate media outfit, a citation I'll go out and unearth if this approach finds favor). 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, 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 were able to address the American public through the U.S. news media. Chebrikov indicated that Kennedy was willing to help facilitate this address to the American public. Chebrikov said Tunney's overtures had reached him through "confidential contacts," who remain unidentified. Andropov was unimpressed by the idea.[cited to Times]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.80.57 (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I added a brief reference to Kennedy's facilitation offer to my previous suggested text, and I've added the whole thing to the article. It now reads:

... Kennedy became the Senate's leading advocate for a nuclear freeze[99] and was a critic of Reagan's confrontational policies toward the Soviet Union.[100][101][102] 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.[103] Andropov was unimpressed by the idea.[103]

Hopefully this is agreeable to all. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't remove part where Ted Kennedy was so influential that Wikipedia policy was changed

Kennedy was so influential a Senator that when people said he died in January 2009, it shook Wikipedia so much that many reliable sources say resulted in the flagged revisions proposal. See references and google for more.

I can see how some people have a defensive, institutional mentality that says "we in Wikipedia stick together, we do no wrong, if you point out weaknesses, you are Satan". This is different because policy changing events are not only reported widely in reliable sources but have a place in Wikipedia. These include the Siegenthaler killed one of the Kennedy episode and Kennedy/Byrd died, both causing changes in Wikpedia (particularly the Ted Kennedy January 2009 "death").

To keep things in perspective, a mere one sentence should be enough, if written well. Dellcomputermouse (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Flagged revisions were not proposed because of Kennedy, and they are not implemented at the moment on en.wikipedia.org. Also, this article is about Kennedy, not Wikipedia itself.  Frank  |  talk  15:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The proposal for flagged revisions has been in the works for years now. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I read the BBC article again. The BBC cites a "system of flagged revisions" was proposed after the Kennedy/Byrd "deaths" in January 2009. The BBC is considered reliable. There have been other fake deaths in the news but they didn't result in the policy proposal. Therefore, this is good for the article because it shows that Kennedy helped Wikipedia. So the argument that this article is not about Wikipedia isn't a valid argument. The Siegenthaler issue was widely reported in the newspaper. Nobody is saying that all that information needs to be taken out of the Siegenthaler wikopedia article.Dellcomputermouse (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, that's not information about Kennedy, that's information about Wikipedia, and even two words about it in this article would be undue weight. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, you're getting closer to what the source actually says; your original edit claimed that Wikipedia "changed its policies", which it did not (either then or since) and which the source didn't claim. Furthermore, the flagged revisions proposal is definitely an old one, and the citation did not claim flagged revisions were even proposed as a result of the flap over Kennedy; rather, what it says is that "[i]t is proposing a review of the rules". Again, that's not the same thing. Finally, this article is still about Kennedy, not Wikipedia itself. If you feel the information must be reported somewhere, this is probably a good place to start.  Frank  |  talk  16:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

'Criticism of Wikipedia' is always in need of more information about how his policies run things into difficulty... The Squicks (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The proposal is not a criticism of Wikopedia. It is just some facts.

To say the information is about Wikipedia and not Kennedy is not accurate. The references say the Kennedy error (death) caused Wales to want to change Wikipedia. If we say that only the headline of the reference can be used as a reference, then quite a few sentences of this and thousands of other articles must be removed.

This fact put in this article shows how influential Kennedy was. Other people, I'm sure, have been called dead but were not dead but these events didn't cause a proposed change in Wikipedia.

I think the disagreement boils down to certain editors dispute the references that say that Wales supported the changes after Kennedy. If this, too, is a lie, then I think it shouldn't be included. Dellcomputermouse (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Nope. It's some editor's attempt to insert an incidental fact about some web site into the biography. It is of no consequence to Ted Kennedy's life, hence does not belong in the article. There are thousands of occasions in which the significance of Kennedy can be illustrated that are left out, that would actually demonstrate his influence and significance. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec: yup) This editor doesn't care so much about the references as about the matter's relevance. This article is about Kennedy, not Wikipedia. As far as Kennedy, or almost everyone reading this, goes, Wiki policies are irrelevant. Please don't reinsert the material without getting some consensus here first. (I'm not picking on you here; on pages like this it's routine to talk the matter out before making substantial changes in article space.) PhGustaf (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
These two comments are attacks on me. I like Ted. In fact, I initially went a little overboard and put in glowing comments from reliable sources about him being the best or the most influential. You two should immediately withdraw your statement and say sorry. Certain events change history. The Shoe Bomber caused the x-raying of shoes at airports. The aftermath of Katrina caused some overly cautious warnings the next year. The Kennedy death report sparked quite a few reliable sources over at least 3 continents to note it. Dellcomputermouse (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Please see WP:ATTACK. This is mislabelled. Should be WP:NOATTACKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dellcomputermouse (talk • contribs) 19:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • My statement about the non-desirability of inserting the text in question is not withdrawn, and as it was a criticism of the previous effort at insertion, there is no need to to recede from a non-existent attack upon a person. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings on this matter – I left the Wikipedia false death bit in the article for a long time, then I repeated a removal of it when I thought there was a clear consensus against it. But on balance I'm against including it. WP has always had lots of false death edits, which are usually reverted without attention (I reverted a few myself). What was different about the January 20 Kennedy case was that he was known to be suffering from a serious illness, and then collapsed on Inauguration Day with a zillion people watching. So it was credible to think that he might have died – as compared to the average false death vandalism about some 22-year-old movie star. That's what made it aggravating to Jimbo et al, and what set in motion another look at the flagged revisions change. But the change wasn't adopted any time soon thereafter (and still hasn't). And the same flap would have occurred if some other person known to be sick had been falsely edited; it wasn't anything truly specific about Kennedy. You raise the Siegenthaler parallel, but that's a different case; at this point, Siegenthaller is most known for the WP false edit, not for what he did in the rest of his career. That's hardly the case with Kennedy. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Vernon Kay is an article where he was falsely reported as dead. As bad as that was, it was changed without much fuss. With Kennedy falsely reported as dead, it shook Wikipedia. According to the BBC and the NY Times, it led to Jimbo Wales calling for changes in editorial policy. We could say flagged revisions, but 99% of the population is not going to understand such babble, count me among them until a few days ago. (We are not required to check the accuracy of reliable sources but I have exceeded the standard by confirming with Jimbo Wales himself in his talk page that calling Kennedy dead in Wikipedia was a turning point)

The fact remains that Kennedy was called dead. It was widely reported when it happened. I even saw it on TV minutes after it happened. Then that caused Jimbo Wales to "pound his hand on the table".

So the facts that should be in the article are that Kennedy was falsely declared as dead. To assist the reader in understanding the significance, we can add that it led to Jimbo Wales pushing for editorial changes at Wikipedia.

In contrast, the Vernon Kay death incident is not so notable.

There is always the problem that some people always want to hide things. That's true with life. For example, a police department doesn't want to say how big the alcoholism problem is among its ranks. Or a big company stonewalls to protect its own. That's always a potential problem with Wikipedia, that some will mistakenly think a falsely reported death is a slur on Wikipedia. That shouldn't be a consideration and the false death report just shows that such things are possible in an open society and open access thing like Wikipedia.

I see that the false death report was part of the article for a long time. That shows that it was not out of line. Let's put it back. It seems that others have thought of it well before me but none of them live in Wikipedia. 16:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dellcomputermouse (talk • contribs)

Again, no one is doubting that it was a significant moment in Wikipedia history, the question is whether it was a significant moment from a Kennedy biographical standpoint. A lot of long Kennedy obituaries have been published in the last few days; do any of them mention the Wikipedia incident as a measure of his importance? That would indicate whether WP:RS see it as significant in the Kennedy context. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not relevant to this article, as it is a biography of E. Kennedy. It may be relevant enough to be added to the article about Wikipedia. This article should cover his life, not issues that were not to do with his life. The article on George W. Bush does not mention the fact that his article has been vandalized more than any other WP article. Politics a (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This was a major event, news reports were reporting that Kennedy may have died. Wikipedia policy changes were proposed. Very good information to have in the article. TeacherA (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is well referenced and I have added references from 3 continents, North America, Europe, and Australia. Maybe we should require that all facts be referenced from sources in 3 continents or more or it would be removed? TeacherA (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the BBC also reported it. Somebody else can add that as a 4th reference. TeacherA (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm missing how this is particular relevant to Kennedy; if it is meant to show Kennedy's importance, the fact that some misinformation about him was once a consideration in people thinking about doing something that they did not go on to do seems a pretty weak measure of his impact. This article is not the place for it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It's well referenced and widely mentioned in several continents. The added text is only 1 sentence. In contrast, John Siegenthaler's article lists a whole section. Nobody is making the specious argument that the Wikipedia controversy is not about Siegenthaler so using that argument for Ted Kennedy is specious. I strongly oppose a separate section and several paragraph about it but I strongly support a short mention. At one sentence, it's about as short as it can be. TeacherA (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this has much to do with Kennedy, and I certainly don't think it's appropriate in his biography. If it goes in anywhere, it should go into the article about the death pranks (don't have the link handy). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The two cases are largely unlike each other. Siegenthaler was mostly unknown as a public figure, the false material about him went undetected for many months, and the error caused his reputation real damage for a while. Kennedy was very well known, the false statement was corrected very quickly, and the episode didn't do any damage to Kennedy's reputation. In other words, the Siegenthaler-Wikipedia episode was important to both Siegenthaler and Wikipedia and thus deserves to be in both of those articles. The Kennedy-Wikipedia episode was only important to Wikipedia and thus only deserves to be in that article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with Mr. R. Siegenthaler has enough history about his life to have an article just as Senator Kennedy. There should be mention of it in the article but not too much. Just a brief mention. It is more important that some of the minor bills that Senator Kennedy sponsored and are listed in the article NoRightTurn (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Siegenthaler may well deserve an article apart from his WP incident, but the incident still affected him in ways much stronger than Kennedy's did his. And Kennedy was responsible for some 300 bills that passed during his career; this article mentions maybe 20 of them, none of which are minor. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this is time to suggest my favorite solution - Ted Kennedy (wikipedia article)! The article about Ted Kennedy's Wikipedia article! john k (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Section "Illness and a new president" long and named incorrect

The section Ted Kennedy#Illness and a new president:

  1. Is very long. Readability might improve by parting it.
  2. Extends the subject of health care, but that is not in the sectiontitle
  3. Is titled vague: a president? Why not name Obama?

Propose subdivisions (possible: Illness, Support of Obama (both before and after election), his position on (current) health care legislation). -DePiep (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the section is too long. It's intended to cover everything that happened in the 2008-2009 period: Kennedy's important primary endorsement of Obama and the sense that Obama was carrying on the role of his brothers, Kennedy's initial diagnosis and treatment, Kennedy's appearance at the Democratic convention and collapse during the Inauguration, and Kennedy's prolonged absence from the Senate, especially in terms of what effect that had on Kennedy's long-time most important issue, health care. A more boring title would be "2008-2009", but I was trying to get across the idea that a new Kennedy-esque political promise and Kennedy's illness were happening at the same time. The title doesn't name Obama because he wasn't president during 2008; it is the process of getting a new president, and then the new presidency, that's being referenced here. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

KGB overtures by Teddy?

Anyone know more about this: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/kgb_kennedy_the_ted_kennedy_i.html ?

216.153.214.89 (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see discussion in #Alleged KGB connections and allegedly undermining Reagan above. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Committee assignments

Unless it's supposed to be a snapshot of how things were when he died, the assignment to the Judiciary committee should be added, or not? Hekerui (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Good question. The practice for current Members of Congress is just to list their current committee assignments. For past members, some have snapshots of their last state (e.g. Hilda Solis) while many older ones don't have any such section (e.g. Jack Kemp, John C. Stennis). And if present, the final snapshot isn't always the best representation, as you point out.
It seems to me that for former members, either the section should go away, or it should show all the committee assignments they had during their career. A case where the latter is done is in Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Of course, for a long career like Kennedy's, listing every committee (and subcommittee!?) assignment is something of a research task and will make for a long list. Note that the history of the former members committee chair positions is already given in the infobox (both Kennedy and Stennis show this, for example). Maybe that's enough, and just let the biographical narrative sections talk about what other committee assignments were most important in the legislator's career? Wasted Time R (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I would say that articles on current and former members ought to include all the committee assignments they have held during the course of their career, if possible. john k (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Rrius went ahead and deleted the section without commenting here. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was a discussion here. Frankly it is silly to list them. Kennedy served on Judiciary longer than anyone in history, but that is not on the list because he left the committee at the beginning of this Congress. If the assignments are important enough to the senator's (or representative's) service, it will be reflected in the text. As a result, it will be unnecessary to list it. If the committee assignments are not terribly important to understanding his or her career, they needn't be. For example, no one really gives a flying fig about Harry Reid's committee assignments because his legislative power comes from his leadership position. Including every single committee assignment is unnecessary because some assignments come just because your party has a relatively small share of seats, so everyone has to take up some slack by sitting on more committees. Continued inclusion of the subcommittees is even sillier because that is so mutable. The names, numbers, composition, and jurisdiction of subcommittees change often enough that is is absurd to try to list them all or to record a snapshot of where the legislator was on the last day of service. -Rrius (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we all agree that the "snapshot at end of career" approach makes no sense. The question is whether we have sections that detail all of the committee assignments throughout a career. For example, listing Harry Reid's committee assignments over the years might give insight into how he became majority leader. But I agree that this can (and should) be done in narrative bio text as well. However, by your argument, we shouldn't have these sections for current members of Congress either, should we? If this information is so silly and mutable, what purpose is there to the "snapshot at current point in career" approach? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that Reid's committees tell you a thing about his becoming majority leader. It is more likely that his being leader, and whip before that, explains his committee assignments and lack of chairmanships. Assuming he doesn't leave the leadership before leaving Congress, his committee life will not be a big part of the story of his career, so it won't have much treatment when he is gone. My argument has no impact on current members; the justification for having a list of current assignments for current senators is far different. What committees a current senator is on is part of the story of what they are doing now. We can't speak to the contours of their careers because they are not done with. Moreover, the current assignments tell readers what parts of American policy these leaders may have an effect on. For former senators, the text of the article should tell what parts of policy they had an impact on. -Rrius (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not fully convinced, but I can live with this distinction. And I've got no desire to try to figure out every committee or subcommittee some longtime legislator served on ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Further addressing john k's point, discussions such as those at Ted Stevens# Committees and leadership positions or Barack Obama#Committees are actually meaningful, where as a bald list of committees is pointless. -Rrius (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Creating new articles

You might want to create new articles. This is necessary, as this article is over 150KB. I'll be checking it from time to time. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 17:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding length, yes the article is long. But GA/FA-level many biographies of politicians are this long too; it sort of comes with the territory with the detailed, statement by statement citing that's required. Moreover, with Kennedy the only thing that could be split out is his Senate career, but that already takes up most of the article so splitting it out would gut the article. And, biographical subarticles have terribly low readership. All of this was discussed recently at #Separate article- Senate career of Ted Kennedy above, and the clear strong consensus was to leave this article the way it is. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation practices and styles

On another matter, your [SNIyer12] changes to reduce the number of footnotes by collapsing all book references into a single footnote each by eliminating page-level cites can't be kept. Per WP:CITE, page numbers are vital when the book reference is used to support specific facts. Without them, readers have no hope of finding the place in the book that supports the article. I've taken many articles to GA and FA, and all of them have been required to have page-level cites to books. And the preferred format for doing this is what this article uses, a full book citation in a "Bibliography" section and then "short form" cites with author, title, page number in footnotes. See WP:CITESHORT for more. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, SNIyer12, please don't change the short form book cite footnotes into using the {{citation}} template. Every use of a template increases article size and load time, which is not what we want for this article, and for short form cites the template provides absolutely no benefit. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

rule change

On the sucession law it should be added that Kennnedy originaly pushed the law change when mitt Romney was govenorSolarsheen (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This used to be in the article and got taken out. The crux is not whether Kennedy pushed for the early special election, but whether he liked or disliked the five-month vacancy that the law change brought about. I still haven't seen a definitive source on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is the crux because it points out why the law had to be changed. It also addresses the controversary of the decision. I think it belongs back in.Solarsheen (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've added it back in. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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. [2] —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)

I have moved the 1970 re-election from the Chappaquiddick section to the immediately-following 1970s section. However, I have provided a lead-in (in the Chappaquiddick section) saying that his next facing the voters was to be that 1970 re-election bid. There was a statement from Kennedy at the time (July 1969) about his continuing in office, so someone could make a note of that at the end of the Chappaquiddick section, to go along with the note about that upcoming re-election bid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That's already covered in the Chappaquiddick section: "That night, he gave a national broadcast in which he said, "I regard as indefensible the fact that I did not report the accident to the police immediately," but denied driving under the influence of alcohol and denied any immoral conduct between him and Kopechne.[53] Kennedy asked the Massachusetts electorate whether he should stay in office or resign, after getting a favorable response in messages sent to him, announced on July 30 that he would remain in the Senate and run for re-election the next year.[58]" Wasted Time R (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about overlooking that, so in that new sentence (the "lead-in" I referred to above), I changed "his" to "that" because of that earlier mention of the re-election bid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2012 (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)

"I back Jack but Teddy ain't ready"

Does anyone recognize that? That was used during the run for Democratic nomination for JFK's unexpired Senate seat in 1962. The article, in referring to this run, already has the "Edward Moore" reference (candidacy was asserted to be a joke if Ted had that name instead of Edward Moore Kennedy) and the 1951 cheating scandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ted's grave site at Arlington

Was there some modifications to the Kennedy graves at Arlington Cemetery? I could have sworn that Ted's is to the left of Bobby & the President. But when I was at the cemetery on Tuesday 6/26, it appears that it was now on the other side of the President. Am I disoriented or was the senator reinterred? Bob305 (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

National health insurance

I revised the national health insurance paragraphs in the "1970s" subsection of the "United States Senator" section—to include more accurate, descriptive information and less dubious personal opinion—
from:

Kennedy became chair of the Senate subcommittee on health care and played a leading role with Jacob Javits in the creation and passage of the National Cancer Act of 1971.

Meanwhile, Kennedy renewed his efforts for national health insurance. While proposing a single-payer solution favored by organized labor, he also negotiated with the Nixon administration on their preferred employer-based, HMO-oriented solution. The two sides could not come to agreement, and Kennedy would later regret not seizing upon the Nixon plan.

The eventual Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, built little by way of a relationship with Kennedy during his primary campaign, the convention, or the general election campaign.

Despite generally similar ideologies, their priorities were different. Frustrated by Carter's budgetary concerns and political caution, Kennedy spoke at the Democratic mid-term convention in 1978 and said, "Sometimes a party must sail against the wind." Carter later wrote that the most intense and mounting opposition to his policies came from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which he attributed to Kennedy's ambition to replace him as president.

Carter and Kennedy could not agree on a health care reform plan for the country. Kennedy wanted an ambitious, mixed private-government plan with comprehensive coverage, while Carter thought such a plan far too expensive given the troubled economic times, and instead proposed an incremental plan to be phased in over five to ten years. Neither plan gained any traction in Congress, and the failure to come to agreement represented the final political breach between the two. (Carter wrote in 1982 that Kennedy's disagreements with Carter's proposed approach "ironically" thwarted Carter's efforts to provide a comprehensive health-care system for the country. In turn, Kennedy wrote in 2009 that his relationship with Carter was "unhealthy" and that "Clearly President Carter was a difficult man to convince – of anything.")

to:

At the end of 1968, Kennedy had joined the new Committee for National Health Insurance at the invitation of its founder, UAW president Walter Reuther. In May 1970, Reuther died and Senator Ralph Yarborough (D-TX), chairman of the full Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee and its Health subcommittee, lost his primary election, propelling Kennedy into a leadership role on the issue of national health insurance. In August 1970, Kennedy introduced a bipartisan bill for universal national health insurance with no cost sharing, paid for by payroll taxes and general federal revenue.

In January 1971, Kennedy began a decade as chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, and reintroduced his bipartisan universal national health insurance bill. In February 1971, President Nixon proposed more limited health insurance reform—an employer mandate to offer private health insurance and federalization of Medicaid for poor families with dependent minor children. Hearings on national health insurance were held in 1971, but no bill had the support of House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committee chairmen Representative Wilbur Mills (D-AR) and Senator Russell Long (D-LA). Kennedy played a leading role, with Senator Jacob Javits (R-NY), in the creation and passage of the National Cancer Act of 1971.

In February 1974, President Nixon proposed more comprehensive health insurance reform—an employer mandate to offer private health insurance and replacement of Medicaid by state-run health insurance plans available to all, with income-based premiums and cost sharing. In April 1974, Kennedy and Mills introduced a bill for near-universal national health insurance with benefits identical to the expanded Nixon plan, both of which were criticized by labor and senior citizen organizations because of their substantial cost sharing. In August 1974, after Nixon's resignation and President Ford's call for health insurance reform, Mills tried to advance a compromise based on Nixon's plan, but gave up when the conservative half of his committee instead backed the AMA's limited "Medicredit" voluntary tax credit plan.

In April 1976, Democratic presidential candidate Jimmy Carter had proposed health care reform that included key features of Kennedy's national health insurance bill, but in December 1977, President Carter told Kennedy his bill must be changed to preserve a large role for private insurance companies, minimize "on-budget" federal spending (precluding payroll tax financing), and be phased-in so as to not interfere with Carter's paramount domestic policy objective—balancing the federal budget. Kennedy and labor compromised and made the requested changes, but broke with Carter in July 1978 when he would not commit to pursuing a single bill with a fixed schedule for phasing-in comprehensive coverage. In a December 1978 speech on national health insurance at the Democratic midterm convention, Kennedy said "sometimes a party must sail against the wind" and provide health care for all "as a matter of right and not of privilege."

In May 1979, Kennedy proposed a new universal national health insurance plan supported by labor, senior citizen, religious, civil rights, and consumer organizations—a choice of competing federally-regulated, community-rated private health insurance plans with no cost sharing, financed by income-based premiums via an employer mandate and individual mandate, with Medicaid replaced by federal and state government payment of premiums for SSI and ADFC recipients. Premiums would be paid to one of five private national insurer consortia which would perform risk equalization. Medicare would be extended to everyone over age 65 or disabled, and enhanced by eliminating premiums and cost sharing, and adding prescription drug coverage. In June 1979, Carter proposed more limited health insurance reform—an employer mandate to provide private catastrophic health insurance plus coverage without cost sharing for pregnant women and infants, federalization of Medicaid with extension to the very poor without dependent minor children, and the addition of catastrophic coverage to Medicare.

and revised the sourcing,

keeping:

  • Clymer, Adam (1999). Edward M. Kennedy: A Biography. New York: William Morrow. ISBN 0688142850.

omitting:

adding:

Apatens (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been in a time crunch the last few days, but even without studying your changes in complete detail, I can see that you've gone beyond the level of detail appropriate for this article. In particular, you are giving more detail about a few pieces of legislation that didn't move forward or pass, than the article gives about many significant legislative acts that did pass. I suggest that this level of detail belongs better in the History of health care reform in the United States article. Going further, you can create articles about specific failed legislative efforts, such as the 1970-71 bill or the 1974 bill or the 1979 bill. These can contain the details you've put into Notes here, such as the exact provisions, who the sponsors were, etc. There are several hundred examples of such articles on failed bills - see Category:United States proposed federal legislation - including ones that Kennedy sponsored and that are already linked to by this article, such as the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act and Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion to create an article about the bipartisan Kennedy-Griffiths-Corman universal national health insurance "Health Security Act" first introduced by Kennedy in the 91st Congress in August 1970, and reintroduced throughout the 1970s in the 92nd, 93rd, 94th, 95th, and 96th Congresses. This was the leading universal national health insurance proposal throughout the 1970s, and was cosponsored by most of the leading Democratic presidential and vice presidential candidates of the era—Hubert Humphrey, Edmund Muskie, Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Henry Jackson, Birch Bayh, Fred Harris, Mo Udall (and was cosponsored by Republican Richard Schweiker—Ronald Reagan's choice as vice presidential running mate in 1976).

I suppose the 1971 Nixon, 1974 Nixon, and 1974 Kennedy-Mills plans could also have their own articles, or be contrasted in a "Health care reform during the Nixon presidency" article; and the 1979 Kennedy-Waxman "Health Care for All Americans Act" plan and 1979 Carter plan could have their own articles, or be contrasted in a "Health care reform during the Carter presidency" article.

I was planning on revising the 1970s part of the "1960s-1980s" subsection of the History of health care reform in the United States article as a first step toward improving an article that is in need of a complete rewrite. Having individual articles on the Kennedy-Griffith-Corman "Health Security Act", etc. may help minimize the level of detail in that article too.

I trimmed the detail, removed the explanatory notes, and copyedited the national health insurance paragraphs, paring down the descriptions of the Kennedy, Nixon and Carter proposals in the "1970s" section to:

In August 1970, Kennedy introduced a bipartisan bill for universal national health insurance with no cost sharing, paid for by payroll taxes and general federal revenue.
In February 1971, President Nixon proposed health insurance reform—an employer mandate to offer private health insurance, federalization of Medicaid, and support for health maintenance organizations (HMOs).
In February 1974, President Nixon proposed more comprehensive health insurance reform—an employer mandate to offer private health insurance and replacement of Medicaid by state-run health insurance plans available to all with income-based premiums and cost sharing.
In April 1974, Kennedy and Mills introduced a bill for near-universal national health insurance with benefits identical to the expanded Nixon plan, both of which were criticized by labor and senior citizen organizations because of their substantial cost sharing.
In May 1979, Kennedy proposed a new bipartisan universal national health insurance bill—choice of competing federally-regulated private health insurance plans with no cost sharing financed by income-based premiums via an employer mandate and individual mandate, replacement of Medicaid by government payment of premiums to private insurers, and enhancement of Medicare by adding prescription drug coverage and eliminating premiums and cost sharing.
In June 1979, Carter proposed more limited health insurance reform—an employer mandate to provide catastrophic private health insurance plus coverage without cost sharing for pregnant women and infants, federalization of Medicaid with extension to all of the very poor, and enhancement of Medicare by adding catastrophic coverage.

The last two sentences describing the 1979 Kennedy and Carter health plans may be able to be shortened after I add their content to the 1970s part of the "1960s-1980s" subsection of the History of health care reform in the United States article, although as is the sentences do not constitute grossly undue weight considering that Kennedy said universal health care was the "cause of my life" and precipitated his 1980 presidential campaign.
Apatens (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's much better. I think the current level of policy detail is on the edge of being too much, but like you say, it was his self-acknowledged primary cause. However, going back to your original edits, I strongly disagree with your removal of material on the Carter-Kennedy political and personal dynamic. I think this is what you labelled "dubious personal opinion" above, but (a) it's from the same sources as used throughout this article (the Clymer bio, the Boston Globe series, NYT stories, Time magazine) and (b) I don't think these conclusions are disputed by anyone. Furthermore, the dynamic is central to one of the great bio questions that this article has to answer: people wanted Kennedy to run for president every four years from 1968 (after RFK's death) through 1988, six election cycles, yet the one time he actually did it was the one time he would be up against a Democratic incumbent - why? Accordingly, I've restored this. Also, I think both my original treatment and your treatment of the "sometimes a party must sail against the wind" speech were wrong - I divorced it from its health care context and you made it solely about health care. If you read the whole thing, the first section with the "sail" part is about liberal goals in general, then it turns into a plea for universal health care. I've tried to rewrite the text to indicate both aspects (although I've probably made a run-on sentence in the process). Also, it would seem that your "as a matter of right and not of privilege" is a paraphrase; I've put in what I think is the actual quote. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"Find-A-Grave" EL

I removed it. This is a GA, and that site is a crazier den of pigs than we are, with rampant COPYVIOS. It offers no resource that would add to this article per WP:ELNO (particularly points #1, #4, #12 and #13) and there is no reason to have it here. Why should it be? I'm all ears... Doc talk 11:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to get rid of all the "findagrave" links in all articles – I've seen them full of errors. It certainly adds no value to this article, since Kennedy's grave location is well known and there is already an image of it here. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
We should join forces! A terrible site, especially when one considers that the only arguable "unique" resource that can be claimed are pictures of headstones that are very easily uploadable to WP Commons for free by WP editors that are not terribly lazy. Doc talk 11:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Conspiring with the Soviet Union against the United States

This should be a major entry on any biographical story about Kennedy. It was clearly treason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1302:40F4:944D:2601:48C4:BE7 (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Disagreeing with US policy toward the Soviet Union is not treason. If you can find a reliable source that states that he was conspiring with the Soviet Union, rather than talking to them and advocating a less confrontational policy, we can consider whether to include it or whether its inclusion would be undue weight. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The article mentions Kennedy's actions vis à vis the Soviet Union in four places, relating to activities in 1974, 1978, 1983, and 1986; the third of these has the material regarding what you are concerned about. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/08/23/pure_power_politics/
  2. ^ {{cite web |url=http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/05/07/kennedy_doesnt_play_by_the_rules/ |title=Kennedy doesn't play by the rules
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ted_Kennedy/Archive_9&oldid=960410227"