Talk:Ted Kennedy/Archive 7

Archive

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3
• /Archive 4

External links

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

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

Quickpoll

See the proposed solution above first

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

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

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

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

Include

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

Exclude

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

Comments

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

Could you can the ad hominem stuff. And stating your argument with hyperbole and sarcasm doesn't make it any stronger.--Silverback 06:16, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

It's ad hominem if it's about you personally. It's not ad hominem if it's about the merits of a passage you suggest or an argument you make, as the preceding comment of mine is. While I sometimes use sarcasm or hyperbole, the particular comment above contains neither. I made those statements as stark literal truth. JamesMLane 06:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Earlier you accused me of hating Ted Kennedy, and here you state I took the argument to a new low. How do those advance your arguments? They do seem to be an ad hominen attempt to dismiss the arguments. While I think Ted Kennedy is a mass murderer like most politicians and most voters who have voted for them (my past self included), I don't hate him. I find him a sympathetic and tragic figure, who probably has had a lot of fun that I would like to have had (wow man!), and a lot of tragedy I wouldn't wish on anybody. I am glad he seems to be turning his life around. --Silverback 08:27, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not voting on this....what are we going to say about it? Until someone comes up with how the wording is to be, with options of how the wording best fits NPOV, then I abstain. Furthermore, this is a discussion page...start discussing what the wording will be, and....someone needs to address the complete lack of information that this article needs to really become encyclopedic...right now it looks more like the only thing the guy has done is be involved in manslaughter, rape and drinking....has he done anything as a Senator...of course he has. However, I do agree that some mention of the rape trial needs to be in here...albeit brief for sure. But then get going on the rest of the story.--MONGO 07:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• See the Proposed Solution and Finalized Proposal above. That's what we're trying to get passed. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 18:27, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Kennedy testified at the trial: So what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

My last comment on the issue. I don't like seeing Wikipedia being used as a political blog by the left or the right to protect or attack articles on those biographed they either support are in opposition to...I know I have been guilty of this myself, so I state that as a reminder to me as well. Anyway, the only argument I have as to why a short statement in regards to the WKSmith trail is relevent is for the vary reasons you stated above...Teddy DID in fact testify in the trial...the alledged events happened right there on the Kennedy property, Kennedy was a prime witness for the defense...in comparison to the three events mentioned in contrast to the GWB article, Bush apparently had no involvement with his brother's banking situation...zero involvement that has been proven, Laura Bush was never charged with a violent crime...GWBush apparently never testified on her behalf and that was apparently just a terrible accident. The twins underage drinking may show poor parenting by GWBush but again, no violent crime was commited and they harmed no one. Besides, they are just doing the teenage thing.--MONGO 20:30, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Kennedy's involvement in that trial had an impact on his effectiveness in the Thomas confirmation (he was quite quiet) and on his reelection in 1994. This was well noted in the media at the time. That is why it is relevant. NoSeptember 15:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

OK.... "Kennedy was widely attacked as a hypocrite - his own personal life less than sterling - for taking a leading role as a defender of Anita Thomas against accused sexual harasser Clarence Thomas."[1] "During the day, Sen. Kennedy was ranting against Thomas's confirmation." [2] Gzuckier 20:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

I don't think that there is any way to get in the morality questioning of Edward Kennedy during the trial. I don't know if HE was the target of it, maybe just his brother was. I can find VERY few sources that even mention the trial, and NONE that I can use to cite criticism of Edward Kennedy.Voice of All(MTG) 00:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

You can't expect to find news stories about that to still be on the web, this is what encyclopedias and biographies are about, preserving this stuff after it is no longer news, but merely part of a person's development and legacy.--Silverback 03:45, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

He's stopped partying not drinking

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

Question on material

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

Proposed compromise about Smith trial and acquittal in this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As to "Dr. Smith", don't forget to include his latest settlement in a sexual abuse case. You can get all the details here, [[3]] "Hamilton, who worked at CIR for nearly seven years, said that Smith frequently entered her office and gave unwanted massages, explaining that pregnant women "glowed" and he found them "irresistible." How did you miss that?? 24.147.97.230 03:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The article I created has a "stub" tag on it. How did you miss that? As I mentioned above, there's lots of important stuff omitted from it. JamesMLane 03:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

Unprotecting

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

there needs to be more on his later biography

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

Silverback, your latest edit summary refers to "WKS trial revelations". In earlier discussions on this page I've noted one such "revelation" -- that Kennedy was in a bar at night with two adult relatives of his. That's the hard evidence I know of. You seem to imply that there was testimony about excessive drinking, reckless partying, and all manner of other lurid "revelations". The trouble is that it's always your summary/paraphrase/characterization of the testimony. What source are you referring to? Is the transcript available? Were there reliable news reports? You see, in order to consider whether your latest edit does indeed "capture" these revelations, I'd like to know exactly what was alleged, by whom, and on what basis. Because you seem so familiar with the substance of the testimony, can you elaborate on that subject? JamesMLane 05:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You should know by now that I am much more moderate in my editing of the article than on the talk pages or edit summaries. On the night in question, you yourself have related more facts, his initiation of the night of drinking, actually rousing his son and nephew out of bed, and also his state of undress (no pants, I believe you mistakenly thought it was in his underwear), in his home while guests were still present. Now, we can put all these facts in the article, along with the use of cocaine and poppers, as disclosed in the Burke book (not online, but available from Amazon.com), or we can keep simple and allow perhaps an original research summarization as "partying". I think this is a straight forward application of the definition, and arguably a euphamism for what was going on.--Silverback 06:23, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

James, I would say that if The Nation, quite sympathetic to his politics, ran an article saying (among other things) that in the 1980s he was hurting his health and effectiveness by his drinking, that's a pretty credible source. [4] -- Jmabel | Talk 05:47, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, you misunderstood my earlier comments. The anon was saying over and over and over that Kennedy "rousted" the younger men out of bed. That came from the anon. I have no reason to believe it's true. I referred to it in my earlier comment merely to point out that, true or not, it was totally insignificant.

The anon is acting like someone on an obsessive anti-Kennedy campaign. I've tried not to mirror that behavior, though. I haven’t said that the article must be completely adulatory. I haven’t deleted any of the negative material about Chappaquiddick. All I’m saying is that, even though the Republicans hate Kennedy, and even though they’ve been smearing him for years, he is not a free-fire zone. The normal encyclopedic standards apply. We cover the important aspects of the subject. We cite our sources. Where there’s controversy, we don’t take sides, but we can report the notable conflicting opinions if they’re properly attributed. I asked you about the trial testimony because I’ve seen allegations flying around on this talk page that go far, far beyond any source that anyone has actually cited.

Jmabel, I’m not saying that any criticism of Kennedy must ipso facto be unreliable. You’re right that the Nation would probably tend to be pro-Kennedy, although that isn’t a certainty, given the left’s endless capacity for internal feuding. I really do think, though, that there's an air of that free-fire zone feeling here. "A lefty magazine criticized Kennedy's drinking, so it's a genuine issue, so we can toss in any old allegation about partying and lifestyle and whatnot, and we don't need to cite sources." That's no good. If we're relying on the Nation, we should give the citation. Even then, a particular passage from the Nation or anywhere else might be on an unimportant point, or duplicative, or conveying the opinion of someone whose opinion isn’t worth reporting. It’s a matter of looking at the specific assertion and at the source(s) provided to back it up, and making a judgment. So far, this talk page has been noticeably thin on the kinds of specifics that are needed to link a statement in the article to an acceptable source. JamesMLane 08:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I've got all the elements of his life into the article that I was concerned were needed for perspective. I think there needs to be more about his legislative "accomplishments". I'd be hesitent to call them that myself though, since think most legislation is counter productive, especially if it is passed into law.--Silverback 08:35, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

James, I've given the Nation citation. Twice. I'll repeat it more verbosely, if that helps:

• Newfield, Jack. The Senate's Fighting Liberal. The Nation, March 25, 2002

The article is, I think, an excellent source both for praise and criticism of Kennedy. It is a generally favorable assessment of him as a liberal leader, and I think much could be drawn from it to address MONGO's request for more indication of what Kennedy has actually achieved. However, in terms of what was being discussed—an unimpeachable source for the claims that Kennedy's personal life in the 1980s impeded his effectiveness (and that he got past that phase), the relevant passage is:

During the 1980s Kennedy spent too many nights drinking too much, chasing younger women, trying to postpone the times when he was alone with his ghosts. He put on weight and seemed almost an Elvis Presley figure in premature, irreversible decline.

Kennedy's silences during the Judiciary Committee's 1991 confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas, who was accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill, were a low ebb for him, drawing rebukes from liberals and feminists for the first time. Anna Quindlen wrote in the New York Times that Kennedy "let us down because he had to; he was muzzled by the facts of his life." The hometown Boston Globe, usually loyal to Kennedy, editorialized that his "reputation as a womanizer made him an inappropriate and non-credible" critic of Thomas.

Thomas was confirmed 52 to 48, and Kennedy was ashamed of his inadequacy. But his failure also revealed that none of the other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee had the stature to fill the void he left. The weak performances of Joe Biden, Patrick Leahy and Howell Heflin--none of whom had the internal inhibitions Kennedy had--proved Kennedy was irreplaceable as an energizing leader. Nobody else could derail Thomas the way Kennedy had stopped Bork.

In April 1991 Senator Hatch, the teetotaling Mormon from Utah, took Kennedy aside and pleaded with him to stop or limit his drinking, suggesting he was drinking himself to death and that Hatch didn't want to "lose Kennedy as a friend or as a colleague." Hatch's lecture did have an impact on Kennedy; two months later he met Vicki Reggie, and ended his partying. They were married in 1992.

That seems pretty straightforward to me, especially when coming from a sympathetic source. Now if only we could find an unsympathetic source that would say as much about his accomplishments. But until we find that, sympathetic ones will have to do, and I think that article's retrospective overview of his career would be worth mining for the purpose. I suggest that someone actively working on this article (I'm really not, I'm mostly here to defend it from actively bad edits) should read it through, there is probably plenty to draw on.

Just in case it's unclear: I generally like Kennedy's politics, but think his personal life has been more than typicaly flawed, enough so that the latter belongs in the article, with appropriate citations. But, yes, the article certainly could stand to have a lot more about politics. If he were nothing but the playboy scion of a wealthy Irish-American family, he would be no more famous than, well, William Kennedy Smith, and certainly would not have come close to the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 1980. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:11, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, I did see the citation, and downloaded and copied the article so I could read it offline. My point was only that specific statements must be tied to sources. I object to a general miasma of saying "Everybody knows this, so we can just assert it." As one place to begin, I was focusing on the Smith trial. I've been reading multiple references to all this apparently bombshell testimony about Kennedy's "lifestyle", yet the only hard fact I've seen is that Kennedy was in a bar one night. So, on the current state of the evidence, I'd there's nothing of any significance that can be attributed to that source. When I have a chance I'll look over Siverback's addition based on the Nation. (I already notice, Silverback, that you still haven't picked up on using sentence case in headings, but I won't bother to change it because I think "Political resurrection" is a bad heading anyway). JamesMLane 17:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

thanx for the sentence case wikilink.--Silverback 08:38, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I saw Kennedy in 1994 at a function at the Washington Convention Center where he was so drunk he needed to be helped to stand. It is central to his character. Add it.--Agiantman 02:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Agiantman, add specifically what? Please read my comment above. I'm not saying that nothing about Kennedy's lifestyle belongs in the article. I'm saying that assertions on nontrivial points about a controversial subject should be cited to sources. "A Wikipedian who uses the screen name Agiantman saw this" isn't an acceptable source. JamesMLane 23:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Sources for Waitress Sandwich (its whats for dinner)

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

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

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

Rumor has it that Kennedy was sued and settled, but that is just a rumor, and the Good Lord know I dont peddle in those. TDC 00:07, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I don't give a damn if it's "common knowledge"; it's perhaps suitable for the Weekly World News, but otherwise is inappropriate. I mean: Penthouse. The Washington Times. Real reliable sources. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

ummm, you left out one: My Ten Years With Ted by Richard E. Burke, pg 176-179. What say ye now? Whats wrong, dont like your hero bineg nocked down a peg or two over an incident during a drunken stupor? 01:14, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

It's still not encyclopedic. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Please explain your justification, because I am dying to know. TDC 01:33, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

My justification for what? Believing that trivia about a stupid incident that had no bearing whatsoever on the man's life or career is unencyclopedic? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Its not trivia, its a good indication of what Teddy is like when he runs a few pints through his liver. And you are right, it is a stupid incident, one wonders of the voters of Mass can keep sending that drunk back to the Senate.

Want to hear a good one; When Ted was on the no fly list, it was a mistake......big time. He was supposed to be on the no drive list TDC 01:55, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

What do you want?!?! An afadavit from groper? TDC 02:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

• I'm just trying to figure out what the significance of this event is in his life. Of course he was a drunken asshole in that period; what's so special about this one event? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

• I concur with Gamaliel. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:14, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is probably more significant in Chris Dodd's career since people weren't as publically aware of his private character. A whole section in the Ted Kennedy article is overkill.--Silverback 14:51, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Imus did an interview with Dodd a few years back talking about Kennedy's relationship with W, and Dodd spazzed on him when he brought this up. TDC 15:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Nice work Agiantman, Silverback, TDC Don't give up.. PS There was never an agreeement on posting of an article on the Palm Beach Rape. I'd like to see my work put back up... 24.147.97.230 02:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The rape info, is incorporated in the references to Kennedy's reputation. The only thing added by the trial is that it became public again. What we know about Kennedy's behavior at the time of the alleged rape, doesn't compare with his alleged behavior with Chris Dodd and the waitress, which deserves a mention but not a section.--Silverback 14:51, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sources

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

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

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

Restatement on Where to Mention Sources

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

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

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

I've done tracert's on all the anons

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

As you now know, we are all from Taiwan making a concerted effort to sabotage Teddy Kennedy's good name. You caught us. The gig is up. I have to go now to eat my General Tso's chicken. Goodbye.--Agiantman 17:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

You flatter yourself, I assumed you were aol newbies.--Silverback 17:26, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

The RfC attracted a flood of anti-Kennedy anon IP's. One of them, in offering an RfC response as his/her very first Wikipedia edit, wrote: "Thanks for the email on this Cookie." I thought there was a good chance that most of the anons were indeed real people (at least for some fairly broad definition of "people"), and that 24.147.97.230 had blasted an email notice out to a list of right-wingers. There've been a couple instances since then in which an anon showed up and started editing just as 24.147.97.230 would have; one or more of them may well be sockpuppets being used to evade the 3RR. JamesMLane 20:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

1994 race

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

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

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

JamesMLane Vandel

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

Please don't frivolously accuse other users of vandalism. If you're unfamiliar with the definition of vandalism, see Wikipedia:Vandalism. Thanks. Rhobite 02:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

This is not frivolous, it's vandalism to remove and entire paragraph of someone's work. The discussion page is here for this, stop wholesale removal of content. PS Thanks for speaking on behalf of JamesMLane

• Above unsigned comments are from 38.118.3.16 (talk · contribs). Check his contributions carefully; they're interesting. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The anti-Kennedy obsession

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

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

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

Pro-Kennedy Obsession of Some Editors

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

I'm going to try to exercise some self-discipline and waste less of my time trying to reason with one anti-Kennedy POV warrior, and his/her army of sockpuppets, who does not engage in reasonable discussion and who has demonstrated zero interest in improving Wikipedia. JamesMLane 12:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

If a comment like the above, implying the Ted Kennedy is one of my favorite politicians, which he is not, was posted on my user talk page, I would move it to an archive subpage called Personal Attacks and Other Deleted Nonsense. If any anonymous or signed-in editor thinks that any Kennedy articles are being edited to introduce bias, they are welcome to post an article RfC. If you can find a historian who supports your view that Joseph Kennedy Sr. was a monster, and I will agree that he was a complex flawed man, then I will support including a summary of his work in Joseph Kennedy Sr.'s biography. Robert McClenon 14:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

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

Request for Comments

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

Revert Wars, Edit Wars

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

Please read this entire page again and show me where any consensus was reached on the Rape Trial or "waitress sandwich" incidents. You obviously made whole the consensus business up when you indicated there was a consensus that they are non-encyclopedic. It does not mean consensus when you and your sockpuppet, JamesMLane, are in agreement. There is no consensus here and you continue to delete whole paragraphs of other's work just because you are uncomfortable with the content. Information on the Rape Trial and "waitress sandwich" incidents are relevant to Ted Kennedy's life and are not naturally intuitive. Those portions should and will stay within this article.--Agiantman 19:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do not refer to other users as sockpuppets when there is absolutely no evidence of this. See Wikipedia:Civility. Gamaliel 19:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you referring to my message? Or to the three times JamesMLane has referred to people as sockpuppets on this page? With regard to my single sockpuppet comment, I certainly apologize for referring to JamesMLane and Robert McClenon as sockpuppets if indeed they are not. The evidence I have is the identical pro-Kennedy POV and their habit of deleting whole paragraphs just because they are unfavorable. That is evidence, but perhaps it is insufficient to be conclusory.--Agiantman 19:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel was referring to the sockpuppet comment by Agiantman, who labeled two signed-in users with significantly different writing styles and significantly different user histories, both of whom post in true name, as sock-puppets. Gamaliel did also refer to three anonymous IP addresses as possible sock-puppets, which is often plausible with anonymous IP addresses. He did not suggest that the anonymous IP addresses were sock-puppets of Agiantman, for instance, because there was no evidence to that effect. I consider the apology by Agiantman to be not in good faith, given the concluding comment. I am not asking for another apology, whether or not in good faith, but I will remind Agiantman of No personal attacks. Robert McClenon 20:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The consensus was for a brief mention that he testified at the trial. The consensus was against the other events as unencyclopedic. Robert McClenon 20:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Ethical Editing

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

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

Two Quickpolls

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

Waitress Sandwich

In favor

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

1. Of course it should be included as written. How silly! An encyclopedia should show all aspects of a public figure, including his negative character traits. --Agiantman 22:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
2. --Ernestocgonzalez 22:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Against

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

1. Robert McClenon 20:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
2. although a short mention might be appropriate --Silverback 21:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
3. JamesMLane 21:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC) No separate mention of this incident is needed. The broader discussion about Kennedy's reputation on "lifestyle" issues is adequate. JamesMLane 21:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
4. With Silverback here: a passing mention might be appropriate, but it does not add much to the article, and treating it in lurid detail can have no purpose except that of a smear. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
5. Do not oppose a brief mention (1-2 sentences) in the section discussing TK's lifestyle, but this large section is absurd. Gamaliel 21:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

One Paragraph of Incidents Related to Kennedy Rape Trial

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

In favor

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

1. TDC 22:07, August 15, 2005 (UTC), but of course
2. This is a no brainer. This was the most highly publicized rape trial in history and Ted was a material witness at the center of it all. To remove it is to deny history.--Agiantman 22:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
3. --Ernestocgonzalez 22:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Against

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

1. Robert McClenon 20:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
2. JamesMLane 21:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC) but there was not a consensus that the mere fact of testifying at someone else's trial is relevant to a public official's bio. I agreed to the inclusion of an unnecessary "See also" link only as a compromise.
3. --Silverback 21:19, August 15, 2005 (UTC) last time around there was no mention in the article of alcohol, drugs and womanizing, now that there is, the behavior at the trial adds nothing.
4. Jmabel | Talk 21:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
5. Do not oppose a brief mention (1-2 sentences) in the section discussing TK's lifestyle, but this large section is absurd. Gamaliel 22:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

   This from the same person who has been arguing for months for the inclusion in the Joe Scarborough article of the death of one of his aides? Once again, your hypocrisy knows no ends. TDC 22:07, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

   I oppose removal of a brief mention of the aide's death from that article. I support a brief mention of TK's involvement in the trial in the appropriate section. That seems pretty consistent to me. Gamaliel 23:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Quickpolls a waste of time

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

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

Look at the top of this page. Quickpoll

See the proposed solution above first

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

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

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

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

[edit]

Include

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

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

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