Talk:Ted Kennedy

---

Ted Kennendy was treated for a seasure while at a luncheon on January 20th 2009 and responded well to medical treatment by capitol medical team —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.79.178 (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Good Article Nominee?

Whether you agree or disagree, the article is comprehensive, well-documented, hits the high points and generally does a good job of representing both Mr. Kennedy and the best of Wikipedia. I'm too much of a newbie to nominate it for Featured status, but its seems that if this isn't a good article by the criteria given, what can make the grade?

Let the revision and discussion continue, but let there be no doubt... good job, Wikipedians. Good article on Mr. Kennedy. Kghusker 15:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy allegedly collaborated with Soviets against US foreign policy

Recently published news articles have told how Sen. Edward Kennedy sent Sen. Tunney to the USSR to collaborate with the KGB against the foreign policy of both the Carter and Reagan Administrations. These news reports are recent and are described by Charles Dunn, dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University that Kennedy's activities were in "clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and at the expense of presidential authority." It is also possible Kennedy violated the Logan Act of 1799 which "prohibits American citizens from engaging in private diplomacy with a foreign government with the intention of influencing public policy." [1][2]RonCram 14:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your source is unreliable and your accusation libelous. Please see WP:VERIFY and WP:BIO for appropriate guidelines. /Blaxthos 20:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

CNS News is a reliable conservative news outlet. If you had bothered to do any reading you would have known that these facts have been reported in other media outlets as well. Some of the stories date back to 2003. The reason the CNS News story was particularly interesting is because this is the first reporting that Kennedy and Tunney were collaborating with the Soviets under Carter as well as Reagan. [3] [4] My source is both reliable and verified. This report is certainly relevant to an encyclopedia. The information came out prior to the election but I did not seek to include it here until the election was over. Your attack against is both personal and completely unwarranted. RonCram 12:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, your first response and already claiming to be persecuted and victimized by personal attacks. Please, reference the personal attack. With regards to the Conservative News Service -- IMHO, any "news service" that blatantly claims to push a particular point of view is, by definition, not a reliable news service (think about WP:NPOV).

There is no doubt they [CNS] have a conservative bias, just as there is no doubt the NY Times has a liberal bias.

— RonCram

Regarding your comparison of CNS to NYTimes, there are multiple distinct differences: NYT has paid reporters who have at least an education in and obligation to journalistic ethics and the truth, CNS has commentators; NYT has a vast circulation and a long history, CNS is relatively new and has no traditional circulation; NYT makes no claim of bias (although you seem to think everyone agrees with you re: no doubt of liberal bias), CNS is an online resource catering to a particular POV. I have no idea how you've turned this into me saying anything about NYT (other than pointing out the flaws in your comparison), but despite the flawed logic, you're essentially saying because they do it, we can do it too. Let's not forget WP:BLP and the implications of incorporating accusations of treason by a sitting U.S. Senator into an encyclopedia -- I strongly oppose incorporating any such innuendo or direct statement based on your sources. /Blaxthos 13:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Blaxthos, you wrote to me: "Your source is unreliable and your accusation libelous." It is pretty difficult not to take your comment personally, since you are accusing me of an indictable criminal offense. You cannot accuse a person of a crime and then claim you did not make a personal attack. I am willing to let this go, but you have to learn that you cannot behave in this manner. Regarding your opinion that "any 'news service' that blatantly claims to push a particular point of view is, by definition, not a reliable news service" is not an opinion that will garner much support. Bias in the media has been studied (see the UCLA study since it is the most recent) and the NY Times is clearly seen as one of the most liberal media outlets. Indeed, many people would argue that it is not possible for a media outlet not to reflect the political leanings and worldview of its reporters and editors. Media reports are published by people who have views. Deciding what information is pertinent and what information is not is the most basic way biased viewpoints are expressed in the media. You are under the mistaken impression CNS News employs commentators and not reporters. You are wrong. CNS News has a large stable of professional reporters, many of them stationed overseas. Let me repeat: What is important about a media outlet is their accuracy and credibility, not their political leanings. CNS News has a strong and well deserved reputation. They have never been sued for faking truck accidents (ABC News) or publishing stories based on documents known to be forged (CBS News) or publishing stories made up from nothing (NY Times and Jayson Blair). People are watching CNS News closely. If they ever get a story wrong, it will be all over the pages of the NY Times and Washington Post. The information about Sen. Kennedy is quite accurate and was recently published in book form as well. This is not an issue that will go away. Wikipedia readers deserve to have information about the Senators actions. RonCram 06:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Blaxthos, to save you the trouble of looking up the UCLA study on media bias I have decided to provide you with two links here. [5] [6] RonCram 06:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

RonCram:

1. Criminal offenses are indictable, which is done by the government in response to crimes against the state ("the people").
2. Civil torts (lawsuits) are brought by individuals for remediation from a personal wrong.
3. Slander and libel are damaging ("defamatory statements") to an individual. As such, relief from libel would come in the form of a civil action initiated against you by the defamed party. In no way has anyone accused you of an indictable criminal defense -- your claim seems like bluster with little understanding of what you're talking about.
4. Personal attacks are ones in which a post deals with the editor instead of the content. The source refers to Conservative News Service (the source you quoted), and is unreliable. Your accusations refers to you insisting that the Senator committed treason (the only criminal offense outlined in the Constitution; punishable by death). Libelous means a written defamatory statement. Where exactly are you discussed in my post at all? False claims of personal attacks revoke the good faith we assume, and destroys any credibility you might have had.
5. Regarding you statement I am willing to let this go... -- there is nothing to let go of (see point above). Please read WP:LAWYER.
6. The bias of the New York Times has no relevance here. We're discussing the reliability of your source, CNS News. Additionally, I made the distinction between news sources that at least try to be balanced, and media outles that blatantly cater to a particular POV.
7. WP:BLP is very clear about the additional rigor to which negative information about living persons must be subjected.

Now, you're trying to insert an accusation of treason against a sitting U.S. Senator using a source that admittedly has a bias against the Senator. Doesn't that seem a little egregious to you? Hope this helps. /Blaxthos 07:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Follow up -- I've requested a third opinion on this matter as a matter of good faith. /Blaxthos 07:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hello! I'm here to respond to a request filed for a third opinion.

After looking through the sources cited, I do not believe that the level of reliability rises to fact. Source two, three, and five are written by evidently-partisan sources. As the reliable source guidelines caution, we should always be careful of sources published with a declared and announced bias. Caution should also always be exercised when adding negative information to the biography of a living person. Given the convergence of the two here, Blaxthos was correct to err on the side of caution.

Regarding source four, it is an editorial and therefore inherently unreliable.

As it seems the existence of the book and controversy on this topic is well-established, I believe that some information regarding it can be added without being libelous. However, the information should be added in terms of "controversy over", "claims that", and the like, rather than statements as fact, at least until and unless verifiable and more neutral sources have been shown to agree with this information. Caution should also be exercised not to give this viewpoint undue weight, given that it currently is new and controversial. Seraphimblade 08:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I still believe that the inclusion of such an accusation using these sources is not appropriate. A quick google turns up this article that challenges the basic assumptions CNS News uses to assert fact. I'll do some more digging, but I'd daresay when you compound all the points I referenced above, this is an absolute no-go in the current form. /Blaxthos 08:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Did some more myself. While I'd tend to agree CNS (and any partisan publication for that matter) should be taken with a large dose of salt, it seems the actual source here is a book written by a professor, based on a statement/letter from a former KGB agent. The controversy, then, exists-however, it should be reported as controversy, not fact, as there's no report of how thoroughly the former agent's claims have been verified. It's unfortunate that any neutral sources in anything like this get buried in partisan rhetoric, generally from both sides. However, the fact that the book's been written is verifiable, and the fact that it's caused some degree of controversy certainly is as well. I'd say that those facts are really all that's suitable for inclusion (and whether or not they belong here or elsewhere is up to consensus on this particular article, that's a separate issue from verifiability).

Of course, if the claims are investigated and found to be true (or false), that should be included at that point, but not before. Seraphimblade 08:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this was covered at length above -- that discussions needs to be considered when evaluating all this. I would argue that mere existance of a few articles that all circularly reference a book does not overcome the provisions found in WP:BLP -- in fact, I believe this so strongly that I request a full RfC if there becomes a minority consensus of editors who demand its inclusion (as opposed to a single user pushing it). As someone else mentioned above, it appears to be self-created buzz to sensationalize a story and sell some books... opinions aside, thanks for taking the time to comment, Seraphimblade! /Blaxthos 08:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly welcome. With something this potentially contentious, I don't think a full RfC would be a bad idea at all if it continues to be controversial. Seraphimblade 08:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nail in the coffin

Jimmy Wales considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity

— WP:BLP

Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.

— Jimbo Wales

/Blaxthos 09:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No controversy on Kennedy-KGB link

It was nice to see Seraphimblade agree that the source for the CNS News and Washington Times op-ed piece is solid. (As an aside Seraphimblade, your conclusion that the Washington Times piece "is an editorial and therefore inherently unreliable" is not exactly accurate. Any reader is free to disagree with the conclusions of an op-ed piece, however, the facts presented in the piece have to reach the same level of accuracy and verifiability as any reporting. When reading op-eds, you have to be able to separate the reporting from the opinion. It is common practice for op-ed pieces to be linked on wikipedia.) It is wrong to say a controversy exists on the issue because neither Senator Kennedy nor John Tunney have denied the story. The story is based on far more than the recently released book by Paul Kengor. Kengor's research has certainly moved the story along by providing fresh details, but the story is based on several recovered KGB documents. Former KGB agent Vasiliy Mitrokhin published a paper in February 2002 based on document(s) he found. You can read that paper on pdf here. [7] An op-ed piece by Herbert Romerstein gives some additional facts. One of the KGB documents "was found by the knowledgeable Russian journalist Yevgenia Albats and published in Moscow's Izvestia in June 1992." The first document was "discovered in the Soviet archives by London Times reporter Tim Sebastian and a report on it was published in that newspaper in February 1992." [8] According to the London Times, businessman John Tunney (he was already a former senator by this time) admitted going to the Soviet Union on 15 occasions during the late 1970s and early 1980s to represent Kennedy and other senators. There is certainly more to the story and more of it will come out. However, we cannot say the story is "too new" for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The story has been verified repeatedly and has never been denied by Senator Kennedy or John Tunney. You may also wish to listen to Professor Paul Kengor discuss the issue at this link. [9] RonCram 10:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate if my opinion was not misrepresented, so I'll try to place a clarification here. I believe really here the only potentially reliable sources are the book and the KGB letter, and even then they're not too many sources on this. I don't consider editorials reliable sources-the term "editorial" specifically means that the piece is a reporting of opinion, not fact. (By this reasoning, we could put "The Iraq war was wrong" and "The Iraq war was right" as facts, as editorials have stated both. This would be clearly absurd. The correct way is to report that there is significant controversy over it-an easily verifiable conclusion.) The others initially cited were all from the the CNS site (which is an admittedly partisan site and should be treated with skepticism, per the reliable source guidelines). Also, please note that "lack of denial" should not be considered proof-else I could accuse someone of being a space alien, and since they'll likely blow it off without comment, state I've "proven" my case. Until this should be reported as verified by more mainstream media or sources, we should hold off on reporting it as fact as well. The facts here are that some analysts have stated these conclusions-that might belong in the article. However, as a serious accusation, without a criminal conviction or an overwhelming expert consensus, this should not be treated as fact. I'm not even sure the book is solid, I've not read it. Its publication is fact, its contents are not necessarily-and especially given the biography of living person policies, we should wait for that to settle out before any type of inclusion of its contents as fact. At most, it should be reported as controversy or an accusation (and even that should be placed for wider consensus here, or as Blaxthos has suggested, run through an RfC). We should always err on the side of caution in a living person's biography. Seraphimblade 11:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I believe a controversy does exist

Seraphimblade, I certainly did not misrepresent you. As you say, the KGB document and book have been published. These are the sources for the CNS News article and the Washington Times op-ed piece. I am not certain if my explanation of journalistic standards for op-ed pieces was unclear or simply unpersuasive. (By the way, there is a difference between an editorial and an op-ed piece. An editorial is written anonymously by someone on the newspaper's editorial board. An op-ed piece has a named author.) Columns and op-ed pieces can be relied on for basic facts. The opinion portion comes in the form of judgments or conclusions by the author. For example, in the piece by Herbert Romerstein [10], he provides some classic reporting regarding the KGB documents. He talks about what journalists found them and when. He reports what the documents say. In all of this, he is reporting the facts. However, he allows his judgments and conclusions regarding Kennedy to come out saying:

Kennedy was not a KGB agent. He also was not "a useful idiot" who was used by the KGB without understanding what he was doing. Kennedy was a collaborationist. He aided the KGB for his own political purposes.

This was Romerstein's conclusion, his opinion. It may not be your opinion or my opinion, but if Romerstein did a good job of writing - then at least we know the facts and logic behind Romerstein's opinion. It is also possible for someone else to look at the same situation, consider the same facts plus a few others and reach an entirely different conclusion. Op-ed pieces are commonly linked on wikipedia because of the facts in them, not because of their conclusions.

It is contrary to journalistic ethics for a newspaper to allow an op-ed piece to be published with knowingly false information. Romerstein's piece was published in Human Events, a well respected conservative weekly that was first published in 1944. Human Events is not a blog which may publish scandelous accusations without proof. It has very high standards and carries the columns of nationally known writers. This is what Human Events has to say about itself:

In reporting the news, HUMAN EVENTS is objective; it aims for accurate presentation of all the facts. But it is not impartial. It looks at events through eyes that favor limited constitutional government, local self-government, private enterprise and individual freedom. These are the principles that inspired our Founding Fathers. We think that today the same principles will preserve freedom in America.

By the way, you might find it interesting to know the editor of HumanEvents.com was formerly a journalist with Cybercast News Service (CNS News) and the LA Times. In fact, while at CNS News he was the first professional journalist to write about Dan Rather using knowingly forged documents in the story about President Bush. The story eventually got Rather "retired."

Regarding Senator Kennedy's lack of denial, the radio interview with Paul Kengor informs us that Kennedy's office has responded to one question on this story. About 16:40 into the radio interview, Kengor details the response by Kennedy's office. They did not deny Tunney's trips to Moscow or any of the essential elements of the story. However, they did try to spin it to say that the charge is "off the mark" and Kennedy only opposed Reagan's "Star Wars" plan (aka Strategic Defense Initiative). Professor Kengor disagrees with this statement. Historically, Kennedy was a very outspoken opponent of Reagan's foreign policy during this time period. The fact Kennedy's office made any statement at all was news to me. Having been asked the question, Kennedy's office could have addressed specifics of the story but did not. The fact they made any statement at all means that a "controversy" exists. Again, the radio interview can be found here. [11] RonCram 12:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, it does seem that some controversy certainly does exist here! Reporting on that may well be appropriate for the article (though, once again, I would object to reporting accusations as fact in any case including this one). My opinion (or yours) does not a consensus make though-for an accusation this controversial against a person this high-profile, a request for wider consensus such as an RfC would be more appropriate. Seraphimblade 12:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of commentary in a section above, most of it highly skeptical of inclusion. Derex 13:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity

— WP:BLP

Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.

— Jimbo Wales

Now, how exactly is this not tabloid journalism? I'm not going to sit and argue this point over and over again. I've now seen RonCram claim to be personally attacked when none existed (RonCram: see WP:NPA to understand what a personal attack is); I've seen him make false claims about the criminality of libel (RonCram: this is not Zimbabwe or Singapore, criminal indictments are not handed down for written defamatory statements); I've seen him misrepresent and mischaracterize other editors' words to suit his needs, and I've observed what can only be described as pushing a particular agenda. Even after a third opinion, RonCram still insists on pushing this into the article by trying to twist the words of the person issuing the third opinion (and got called on it). Everything else aside, the quotes listed right above this little paragraph should effectively end this debate -- wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to voice POV-laiden theories that accuse Senators of treason. Save that for the far-right "sources" you quote. /Blaxthos 16:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment - KGB-Kennedy Link

I have issued a request for comment regarding incorporating accusations of treason against Senator Kennedy. One editor (User:RonCram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) has insisted that we incorporate accusations that Senator Kennedy worked with the Russian Government to trump U.S. Policy based on articles published by the Conservative News Service (renamed to Cybercast News Service) and a "sensational" book. Several editors have raised concerns about the objectivity and reliability of a source that openly caters a particular agenda to the fringe-elements of a particular political party, as well concerns regarding the implications of accusing a sitting U.S. Senator of treason based on a Washington Times Op-Ed piece and CNS pieces that all quote one novel-style book. I believe that any one of the issues would be enough to make inclusion of this accusation unlikely, but when you compound the rigor required by WP:BLP along with the openly-agenda-pushing source (Conservative News Service -- which has been accused of using faulty logic to insinuate fact and draw incorrect conclusions -- see above) there is no way that Wikipedia should be a tabloid through which those with a history of agenda-pushing may factualize accusations that serve their POV. Comments? /Blaxthos 17:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. (Less succinctly: no reliable sources; all we have is sensationalism.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• No reliable sources in that list. Agreed. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. This is sensationalist slander not backed up by WP:RS. It degrades Wikipedia to publish such things (and, let's face it, we don't have to resuscitate bizarre KGB conspiracy theories in order to find negative things to say about the gentleman from Massachussetts!) csloat 00:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree, as I indicated in discussions above. Derex 09:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. Extraordinary claims (like treason) should require excellent (if not extraordinarly good) sources; such is not the case here. There is no reason for wikipedia to give any credence to such a poorly-supported claim. John Broughton | Talk 21:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

RFC Conclusion

RFC concluded. Result was unanimous reject of negative claims by single editor USER:RonCram. /Blaxthos 22:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A few clarifications

• "Now, how exactly is this not tabloid journalism?" It is not tabloid journalism because the accusations were not published in any tabloid. They were published in the London Times, Washington Times, Human Events, CNS News and a book written by Prof Kengor and published by Regan Books. [12]

• "I've now seen RonCram claim to be personally attacked when none existed (RonCram: see WP:NPA to understand what a personal attack is); I've seen him make false claims about the criminality of libel (RonCram: this is not Zimbabwe or Singapore, criminal indictments are not handed down for written defamatory statements)." Too bad you did not provide any links for your statements. As you know, I provided one. [13] Libel is a crime on the books. It is not often prosecuted but it certainly can be prosecuted in the U.S. As to your personal attack on me, you claimed I was guilty of libel.

I have had enough of the conflict for a while. Life is too busy to waste time arguing with people who vote politics rather than facts. Even Seraphimblade admitted that a controversy exists that the article could rightly mention. RonCram 01:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Electoral History

It would be nice if the electoral history of Ted Kennedy was shown. Other politicians who are less famous have such history. Kerry Healey is an example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.60.144.131 (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Citations

I'm in the process of trying to clean citations here. Per WP:BLP, I removed one remark about a Kennedy bodyguard, because the citation provided did not even relate to the matter (my guess is linkrot, but since the citation was just a blind URL there was nothing I could do about it). I commented out a citation for the party he attended the evening of the Chappaquiddick incident because it was just a mirror of our own article on Mary Jo Kopechne. And another link cites NNDB, which is a very weak citation: NNDB is exactly as open as Wikipedia itself, and lacks even a citation apparatus. It's no more authoritative than writing something here without citation. - Jmabel | Talk 00:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Shares Washington's birthday

Is this at all worth mentioning? He was born 200 years after George Washington (different date, but exact time difference) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.212.141.175 (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.174.135 (talk • contribs)

Sorry to disagree with you, but I think that, yes, it is worth mentioning. This information conforms to Wikipedia standards because it not only arouses the reader's interest, but is also factual and easily verifiable. I'm putting it back. If you still disagree with me then why don't we have a different editor mediate on our impasse?

I should point out that we're using the Gregorian (not the Julian) calendar to designate Washington's birthday, which is February 22 under the new calendar, and this is the date which is officially recognized as his birthday by the U.S. government, in any event. --Sean 2015 03:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No. I disagree that it is likely to arouse much interest. It's just trivia, and WP:NOT a random collection of facts. Derex 04:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, about one out of every 365 people shares Washington's birthday. Two out of 365 if we use both his birthday by the old Julian calendar and the new Gregorian one. - Jmabel | Talk 21:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

What's up with the back and forth over the nomenclature used in the info box? If you want to be technical about it, Kennedy is the Senior United States Senator from Mass. I wouldn't leave out the U.S. part, because it could be confused with State Senators. Either way, let's come to a consensus and stop the edit warring. Thanks. /Blaxthos 21:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Has he lost weight?

He looks thinner lately. Anything is press? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.16 (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Chappaquiddick incident

It's becoming tiresome to try and keep both the sub article and the main article in sync. As someone mentioned previously, we should just have the main article point to the proper place. Done. Should the sub-article be a subpage instead of a seperate article (i.e. Ted Kennedy/Chappaquiddick incident instead of Ted Kennedy Chappaquiddick incident)? /Blaxthos 21:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There should at least be a summary of the sub section. Your example of the IBM article gives a brief summary of each linked sub article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with TDC. We can trim the section down, but there must be some discussion or summary of Chappadquiddick here. Gamaliel 22:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Point taken -- I'm in no way opposed to such, but the existing version was littered with POV and was out of sync with the parent article (probably due to too much detail). I'll find time to write a decent summary over the next few days, unless someone else wants to jump on it. /Blaxthos 22:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Three or four sentences, two describing the undeniable, undisputed facts, and one or two on the scandal. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you (some summary). Extremely sexy 00:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the current wording (I should... I believe it's the intro I did for the actual incident article ;-) ), however I've noticed someone tried to slip inebriated into the summary. It should be noted that notice was taken that there was never any evidence that the Senator was intoxicated; including such would be libelous. /Blaxthos 23:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is this not even mentioned in the Summary at the top? According to WP:LEAD, the lead of an article should briefly describe its notable controversies. This certailny qualifies as a notable controversy and should be included at the top.--LSUMeathead 14:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

{tl|{editprotected}}In accordance with WP:LEDE, the Lead should be ammended to include the following sentence... In July of 1969, Ted Kennedy drove his vehicle off of a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island killing Mary Jo Kopechne. He failed to report the incident until the following day causing a controversy.

Oppose -- "great controversy" is surely a POV characterization. Let's try to keep the appearance of neutrality. I don't know how I feel about the content entirely... you have a point regarding including it in the introduction, but I don't know how that meshes with WP:BLP (and if it qualifies as a "controversy"). However, I do know that the wording you chose is not compliant with WP:NPOV. I also note that this seems like a response to this edit... coincidence?  ;-) /Blaxthos 14:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the word "great" from my edit request to remove any violation of WP:BLP or WP:NPOV. And you are correct that this ties directly into my edits of another page where a controversy is being placed prominently in the top summary. I am simply using the exact same reasoning found in WP:LEAD to request this change.--LSUMeathead 17:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The question becomes whether the incident in question rises to the level of "notable controversy". I personally don't think it's a "controversy" -- as clarified by a court of law, it was an accident in which the Senator plead guilty for his criminal culpability. There are those who think otherwise (and grumble about it), however that becomes more of a criticism than a controversy... WP:BLP is pretty clear regarding negative information, and when coupled with WP:OR and WP:NPOV ("the Court said x, but we really think it was z") it becomes a stretch for the lead (IMHO). I'm interested in seeing what others think. Regarding the other, I think it's kinda poor form to bring your sour grapes onto another article -- I'm not personally involved in the other article, but if you're involved in an edit war elsewhere, don't go bringing your shit here to make a point. If your favorite philandering moral-crusading Senator gets his visits to prostitutes mentioned in the intro of his article, that doesn't mean you need to go and start warring on your favorite alcoholic Senator's article. /Blaxthos 17:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that we are still talking about this incident nearly 40 years after the fact is evidence enough that it is significant & notable. Also, the fact that the incident was tried in court and a verdict was reached does not erase the incident into the background. This is significant enough to merit its own wiki page where it is described in depth as a scandal that possibly prevented Kennedy from running for President. I am not sure what your definition of controversy is, but that certainly sounds like a controversy to me. As for my favorite whore-mongering senator, I was simply looking for fairness on his page. When it was pointed out that the controversy belonged in the Lead as per WP:LEAD, I stopped editing the Lead and began looking for consistency. This happened to be one of the first pages I came across where a significant controversy is noted on the page, but not in the Lead as it is being done on Vitter's page. This is simply an effort to keep the wiki pages consistent. What's good enogh for a whore-mongering republican is certainly good enough for a convicted accidental murdering democrat.--LSUMeathead 17:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, the controversy is extremely notable. And i think that if a certain user were writing this page, the lead would be the following: "Edward M. Kennedy (February 22, 1932 - the day our Saviour was born) is a Senator from Massachusetts. He is the greatest orator to walk the halls of the Senate, and it is a blessing to be in his presence. Those who speak ill of him are part of a grand conspiracy formulated by the likes of Prescott Bush, Rupert Murdoch, and the oil companies to stain and taint his great aura and legacy" New England 18:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am looking for something a lot less biased. I think that a neutral notation of the controversy is appropriate and it fits the criteria set forth for Lead Summaries set forth in WP:LEAD--LSUMeathead 18:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Your not the one i was refering too. New England 18:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See, this is where the good faith gets lost. New England, your comments add no substance to the discussion, and merely have the effect of gasoline to a fire. While falling short of a personal attack, you certaily aren't giving out any respect. Smart assery aside, I conceeded that you have a point, LSUMeathead, but I would note that Kennedy was not ever accused of murder (which, by the way, requires mens rea (intent)). I also note that the sub-article (from which you quoted) doesn't properly attribute what otherwise appears to border original research (specifically: "it is described in depth as a scandal that possibly prevented Kennedy from running for President.").

It looks like there is disagreement about this subject. Since the page was protected from edit warring, I am very conservative in changing it. Please find consensus and then request unprotection. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Without getting into too much detail on the incident, I think it would be good to change the subheading on Chappaquiddick just to clarify that Kopechne was Kennedy's passenger. The way it is now, someone who never heard of the incident might think she was a pedestrian or the driver of another car. How about The Chappaquiddick incident refers to the circumstances surrounding the 1969 death of Mary Jo Kopechne, a campaign worker for Senator Kennedy. While riding with Senator Kennedy, Kopechne died when the Senator drove the car off of Dike bridge and into a channel after a party at Chappaquiddick Island, Martha's Vineyard. Kennedy entered a plea of guilty to a charge of leaving the scene of an accident and received a suspended sentence of two months in jail.

My edit would leave out the fact that the car belonged to Kennedy's mother, not Kennedy himself, but I assume it's more important to keep the passage short. We can include the vehicle's ownership if it's significant for some reason. Pirate Dan 16:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Not seeing any response, I've gone ahead to edit the article. Pirate Dan 14:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: "drove off Dike Bridge into the channel between Chappaquiddick Island and Martha's Vineyard." ... it is my understanding that the incident happened at the east beach bridge on Chappy. The channel between Chappy and MV is, strictly speaking, Edgartown harbor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.130.5 (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As it currently stands, there is no mention of the fact that this happened after a party late at night. I think this is valuable context, and should be included even in this short blurb.38.104.128.38 (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Gun control

You cannot state in this artcle that kennedy favors gun control when his bodyguard was caught with a gun in the capital building and kennedy tried to get the charges dropped. kennedy doesnt favor anything that affects him personally. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keltik31 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Please, see our original research policy and our neutral point of view policy. Reverted. /Blaxthos 22:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit stays as it is true. Keltik31 22:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is true, then you will have no problem finding a reliable source for the information. Until then editors will keep removing this material as per Wikipedia rules. Gamaliel 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I am removing this again. The cited article does not mention the National Rifle Association. It has a different title, mentions a different number of guns, and does not specify the ammount of ammo. I suspect the info and citation were both taken from Schweizer's unreliable book. But this is easily corrected now that we have a copy of the actual article, which I will email to anyone who requests it. The major problem is its inclusion in the "gun control" section. Placing it there is pushing the POV that his support of particular gun control measures is contradicted by his getting a bodyguard. I do not object to replacing this incident provided the context is also added (he hired Stein to protect his sisters on a South American trip) and it is not placed in the gun control section. Gamaliel 23:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy hiring a bodyguard, an armed one at that, is like a pro-life republican taking his mistress for an abortion. Ted Kennedy and his clan advocate gun control for everyone but themselves. It is relevant. It is documented. And it is going back in. Keltik31 00:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

and how is the book unreliable. the arrest is part of public record. Keltik31 00:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The book is unreliable because it is a tabloid hit piece. The book's inacurracies regarding Nancy Pelosi have already been debunked by ABC news and the author replied that it was "not my responsibility" to research his claims. Some reliable source there.

You haven't addressed the concerns I outlined above regarding the neutrality and accuracy of the material, and you have inserted the material without any source. I have no choice but to remove it again. Please, see Wikipedia:Three revert rule before you persist in reinserting the material. Gamaliel 00:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Became disorientated?

Gee, you people are easy on this guy. He was drunk when he went off that bridge and killed that girl. He is the only person to date that has driven off that bridge. Keltik31 13:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Judging by your past history, as well as your willingness to violate WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:3RR, I'm going to forego the WP:AGF, and let you know that POV-pushing original research/commentary isn't going to make it into the article. /Blaxthos 17:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

POV-pushing? Facts are facts: he did have an armed guard, he was arrested, and he was drunk when he drove off that bridge. POV doesn't void the truth. Keltik31 18:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Blah blah WP:RS, blah blah WP:V, blah blah WP:NPOV. But you've heard this before. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Alcoholism

No mention at all in this article. I'm fairly sure that he admitted to being an alcoholic, and sought treatment. Can someone back this up? I vaguely remember it making a great deal of news (the treatment and admission). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.235.25 (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

I believe you're thinking of his son, who got in an auto accident a while back and went into some sort of rehab. /Blaxthos 09:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have proof that he was drunk, present it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.20.181 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is from the Jan 16, 1984 issue of Time magazine. It would seem to point to alcohol poisoning or a drug overdose: "RECOVERING. Edward M. Kennedy, 51, Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, after hospitalization in Washington, D.C.; from a bleeding duodenal ulcer, anemia, viral hepatitis and dehydration." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.244.115 (talk • contribs)

I submitted documented information about alcoholism in the Health section. It was removed because alcoholism supposedly is only tangentially related to health! How absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgmax (talk • contribs) 22:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternative energy

I've noticed the insertion and deletion of lengthy text in the alternative energy section. I've come to question its appropriateness -- I think that mentioning a single incident in a section dedicated to political views (especially the way it's worded) borders on violating WP:NPOV and definitely elevates the perceived importance of that one incident (undue weight). I am seeking other opinions before removing it entirely. Thanks. /Blaxthos 19:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep it - it was an issue in the last Mass Gov race, and Kennedy received quite a bit of press for it. As it is written, it's very balanced, even quite respectful towards him. 148.63.236.141 03:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I raise WP:NPOV/WP:Recentism objection, especially regarding undue weight. /Blaxthos 05:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Recentism is not a policy or guideline, it is an opinion piece. Regardless, his stance on alternative energy is part of his political views. The solution to a npov section is not to delete it but to make it so it isn't npov. 141.211.172.248 17:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're trying to use a single incident to characterize a complex political position, which definitely assigns it undue weight and probably with a particular spin. I was using WP:RECENT to try and help you put the edits in context, espeically within the scope of a political icon who has served for over forty years. Ironically, I think you're confused about what NPOV is (a Neutral Point Of View)... /18:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to use a single incident to characterize a complex political position. I put the npov tag in that section for the exact reason you just stated. The "npov" in my first reply should have been negated: "the solution to a non-npov section is not to delete it but to make it so it is neutral." Also, I am not 148.63.236.141 that replied before.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.172.248 (talk)

Let's just trim it down to the record, then. A single incident doesn't merit inclusion, especially when used to try and present an entire political position. I'll just leave the sentence you added with the reference to his record. /Blaxthos 18:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The cite in the section regarding alternative energy clearly states his opposition to a project near his home in Mass. Many other cites also demonstrate his opposition to Cape Wind. This is a current and important issue in Mass and the Senator is very much a part of it. However, a few editors do not wish this in the article and want the text to only read the Kennedy supports alternative energy, making it sound like he always does so. As it stands, the text is POV because of its omissions. 148.65.24.76 00:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My (possible) bad -- I just amended the statement a bit, in order to soften it a smidge. I only now see that this has been a topic on the Talk page, but I hope that my amendment is both factually accurate and in keeping with our duties to NPOV and accuracy. DagnyB 02:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To the anonymous editor: Once again, raising a single issue when referring to a general stance is assigning it undue weight (any single issue, especially this one, is simply not significant enough when compared to 40 years of voting record). To DagnyB: I think your edit is appropriate. /Blaxthos 02:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we can't try to cover everything he's done in his career, but in this particular dispute he's been prominent among the leaders of the opposition to the project. It's more important to his bio than how he voted on some alternative-energy bill. I think Cape Wind should be included, although not necessarily in the "alternative energy" section; it relates more to his representation of that geographical area than to his overall approach to all sources of alternative energy everywhere. JamesMLane t c 10:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Became disoriented

Why does someone continue to remove the words "became disoriented" from the Chappaquiddick section? It is the EXACT same wording as is in the main article. "the Senator became disoriented and drove his vehicle off of a bridge" 24.124.70.5 17:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Make that "disorientated", dear friend. Extremely sexy 21:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, produce a reliable source that says that Kennedy was disoriented (or disorientated). In the meantime, I am removing that phrase from both articles. Sunray 07:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

How does one drive off a bridge without some sort of disorientation? I was unaware that people who are quite aware of everything around them drive off bridges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.122.97 (talk • contribs)

I have to say you have a point. Extremely sexy 17:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussion of the subject. By restoring and replying, you're only feeding the issue. At least we know where the POV is coming from. See also: WP:OR. /Blaxthos 22:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

But I agree with the anonymous user's question. Extremely sexy 12:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you guys should take it to a website to pontificate... just because "you agree with the question" doesn't mean Wikipedia talk pages will suddenly become a message board to discuss the subject. /Blaxthos 23:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact he drove off a bridge logically needs an explanation though. Extremely sexy 23:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

However, if you've looked at the accounts, you will see that there are few, if any, reliable sources we might cite to explain what happened. On something of this nature, statements without reliable sources to back them constitute original research, as Blaxthos, has made clear. Sunray 20:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, it's not Wikipedia's job to speculate about such things. As someone pointed out, common sense dictates that one necessarily must be disoriented to drive off a bridge -- no need to add unnecessary words that seem to cause more contention than is necessary. /Blaxthos 00:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay: that's correct. Extremely sexy 00:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Alabama?

The information beneath the title of the article on search results indicates a "hyperlinked profile of the senator from Alabama". I don't know how to change this, but it obviously needs to be changed to Massachusetts. --Gloriamarie 18:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just checked again, and it hasn't been changed. Gloriamarie 03:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how this might occur, let alone how it can be fixed: I suppose it's an error in search engines, Marie? Extremely sexy 17:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does this itself-- it's a description of the content on Wikipedia's site in metatags. I have no idea who is capable of doing it, maybe administrators or maybe just workers from Wikipedia. Anyway, it still says "senator from Alabama" which is still quite incorrect... does need to be fixed.--Gloriamarie 16:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

US Army Service

An article at PBS.com says that Ted Kennedy served for 16 months in the Army [14]. This article says that he served for 2 years. I was just wondering whether anyone has more details or can account for this discrepancy. Jlerms08 20:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I am going to take an educated guess and say that the discrepancy is due to the method of measure. Kennedy served from 1951 to 1953 -- I'm guessing that the wiki article is counting years (53 - 51 = 2), and the PBS article is counting months. I have no objection to changing the article to be more specific, as long as it's standard practice to list months instead of years in military service (dunno if it is or not). /Blaxthos 22:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I will change this accordingly, dear friends. Extremely sexy 15:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

So how did he get out of the Army after only 16 months? I am unaware of a 16 month term of service. Sduplessie 17:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Could be the Army decided it didn't need more troops for Korea after all? Andyvphil 22:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade

I kind of hesitate to mention anything so trivial after all the exciting stuff above; but in the "Right to Abortion" section, why does "Roe v. Wade" not show up as a link? The syntax looks correct to me... Paul Magnussen 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Kennedy Minimum Wage

The article states $2.10 to $7.25. It's incorrect.((unsigned edit by 24.56.140.76, undone by Bart V., restored by Andyvphil))

What the article says is "As chairman, he raised the minimum wage by $2.10 to $7.25 on February 1, 2007" which certainly implies plenipotentiary powers the Senator does not actually posess, and therefor needs to be corrected. The relevant Wiki article, List_of_minimum_wages_by_country, says: "the federal minimum wage is US$5.15 per hour now, although workers under age 20 can be paid US$4.25 an hour for their first 90 days. On May 23 2007, Congress passed a bill increasing to $7.25 over the next two years". Andyvphil 00:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

So far as I can tell from the article Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, the increased minimum wage bill was never even sent to Kennedy's committee. It was a House bill that passed the House, went to the Senate, got amended to include some tax breaks, and then passed the Senate. All Kennedy did was speak in its favor and vote for it. Somebody prove me wrong. Pirate Dan 21:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

While your tone is a little adversarial, I think you have a point. I did a little bit of digging around on govwatch and the .gov sites, and I could find little relating to the FMWA and the particular committee referenced in the article. I don't know all the specifics about the inner workings of the Senate, but I believe that the committee has jurisdiction over such. However, given the lack of direct evidence that the committee had anything to do with the bill, the sentence certainly seems misleading. What is verifiable and clear is that Kennedy pushed hard to get the legislation passed. I would suggest rewording as such: "He helped pass the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, which incrementally raises the minimum wage by $2.10 to $7.25 over a two year period." /Blaxthos 23:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Rereading my comment, I see how it could appear adversarial. That wasn't my intention, sorry.

I'm not an expert political scientist either, but the way I think it works is that if the minimum wage bill had been first proposed in the Senate, it would have gone to Kennedy's Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions for hearing and markup. But since it was first proposed in the House, it went to the House Committee on Education and Labor instead. Once the bill passed the House, it got calendared for consideration by the full Senate without going through a Senate committee. The legislative history at THOMAS shows that the bill was never sent to any Senate committee.

Your proposed change looks about right to me. By your leave, I'll implement it. Pirate Dan 01:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

windmills in his back yard

I think there should be more mention of his position on this in the article. Xavier cougat 16:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Given Kennedy's Involvement in Immigration Legislation Dating Back to 1965, Why Not More on This Topic Which Has Transformed America?

Since the immigration legislation of 1965, everything that legislation promised would not happen has indeed happened. Immigrants today are less educated than they were a century ago. Today, new immigrants tend to be Hispanic, uneducated, unskilled, unable to speak English, and uninterested in learning English. These immigrants tend to be uninterested in assimilation. Just as Quebec became a problem for Canada, having a large group in America which doesn't even want to speak English could become a long-term problem for America. And, whatever one thinks of the current legal immigration mess and the current illegal immigration mess, Ted Kennedy has been knee-deep in involvement in the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.144.129 (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Cape Wind Thing

Would anyone object to having a request for comment on the issue? Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 19:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Already in the works... I don't care which of us issues the RFC. FTR, I think we had one a few months ago. If not, we had a pretty serious discussion about it. My major concern is that we don't have any strawmen arguments here... don't go characterizing the other side's position or try to comment on editors instead of content -- both of which you did here. Thanks. /Blaxthos 20:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I just looked through the last few archives, and couldn't find an RfC on this subject (though I found others). I'm not sure how to start the process, though I think that it might be helpful to list reasons for and reasons against including that section. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 20:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's make the RfC useful. Before it's posted, we should have each of the proposed alternatives set out on this page, with a brief statement of each side's rationale (from each side, to avoid the problem Blaxthos mentioned). Then the people who respond to the RfC but who don't have prior background in the issue can comment intelligently. JamesMLane t c 01:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats kind of the idea I was going for. And since the idea of an RfC is to bring in users who haven't worked on this issue here before, perhaps we could try to keep people who already expressed opinions on this from commenting, outside the initial arguments. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 03:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've initiated several request for comments in the past and have no problem initiating one this time. I agree with your positions that each side should state their own position. However, it is always a bad idea to try and keep editors from expressing the opinions. Wikipedia is a community based project and we should not try to keep anyone's view from being counted. Everyone is welcome to participate in an RFC -- their opinions are as valid as anyone else's (and should be considered when reaching a consensus). /Blaxthos 07:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow up -- go ahead and prepare your position, and I'll see about initiating an RFC later tonight. /Blaxthos 15:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Singular incidents in overview section

Under the general "Political views" section, some editors wish to include a granular issue regarding the Cape Wind project (under the Alternative energy subheading). The included text is as follows (contested text is italicized, references exist in article but have been removed here):

Ted Kennedy has generally maintained a record in favor of alternative energy sources and against additional Alaska oil drilling, as seen in his voting record on energy policy. However, he and fellow Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, opposes the Cape Wind energy project which would be visible from his family's home on the shore of Cape Cod.

The following reasoning has been used for excluding the contested portion:

1. A single issue is inappropriate when attempting to give an overview of a forty year tenure in the Senate. Cherry-picking a particular vote in an overview violates undue weight.
2. While other subsections within the Political views section have accompanying examples, they are all examples of the Senator's views chosen to illustrate his positions. This single issue does not reflect the Senator's general position (and voting record) regarding alternative energy.
3. Rather, this particular situation seems to have been selected with no purpose other than to characterize the Senator as a hypocrite (in possible violation of WP:BLP and surely in violation of WP:NPOV). The sections exist to give a general overview of his positions (over a long tenure), not to serve as a forum for character assassination.

Other editors may have additional justification for exclusion. I have not attempted to explain (nor do I even fully understand :-) ) the arguments for inclusion. /Blaxthos 00:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The clearly intentional implication that he opposes the project because it will spoil his view is a violation of WP:NOR. If there were a source that claims that, we could discuss undue weight. As it stands, it should be deleted as OR. --Marvin Diode 02:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is, see my comment below, after edit conflict, but we need to add one word to bring the statement in line with the source. - Crockspot 03:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• The Washington Post source starts out "For years now...", and it does use "h" word in a non-opinion way (ie., reporting on the characterizations of hypocrisy made by others). I get the sense that the reporter is even sympathetic to Kennedy. This implies some longevity and notability to the situation. (I certainly have been hearing about if for a long time, but then, I listen to a lot of talk radio.) So this sounds more like an ongoing controversy than a singular incident. (Chappaquiddick was a singular incident BTW, but it has significant coverage on Wikipedia.) But the Post piece is ultimately not even about Kennedy. Are there other reliable secondary sources that have reported on this in a critical way or have reported on criticism or charges of hypocrisy, or characterized it as a controversy? I would think that there probably are, and I would like to see at least another one cited to establish that this is a real controversy, as reported by multiple reliable sources. If it's a real notable phenomenon, and we can source it well, then it's in compliance with WP:BLP. Did Kennedy present a legitimate reason (other than his view) for opposing the project? And can that be sourced? Perhaps that should be mentioned as well, to be fair. Look at it this way. If the President vetoed a bill that would have authorized the construction of a TANG airbase near Crawford, Texas, to support border security, because the jets would rattle his windows and irritate his pigs, and multiple reliable secondary sources reported on the hoopla over it, we would expect that it would be mentioned in his wiki article. But if he says he did it because it would have affected an endangered salamander or burrowing owl, and that was reported on, I would also expect that to be mentioned. So bottom line, it should be sourced a little better, and balanced out if there is some other factor involved. I do wonder a little if it is appropriate to mention Kerry there, unless he holds the same record on alternative energy, and has a similar homesite that would be affected, and that is all sourced in his wiki article. Is it a relevant lumping-together of the two Senators? On a strictly grammar note, as worded above, opposes is incorrect. It should either be oppose or opposed. I think the wording is neutral enough, and concise. I would not support actually using the "h" word in the article. If readers are interested in the issue, they can check out the sources cited for further reading. If there was a criticism section, it would probably be more appropriate there, but there isn't. Which begs the question: Why is there a Criticism of George W. Bush article, but there isn't even a criticism section in Ted Kennedy? Edit conflict - I will also point out to the editor claiming OR that the WaPo article states "denounced the project, in part on the grounds that it would spoil the views "from 16 historic sites and lighthouses on the cape and nearby islands" and presumably from their own summer house as well", so at the very least, we should change the wording to "which would presumably be visible from his family's home" to bring it more in line with the source. That would prevent it from being OR, since that observation has been reported by reliable sources. That quote seems to answer my previous question about Kennedy's stated reason for opposing the project. - Crockspot 03:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I forgot to address the undue weight, and I know Blaxthos likes it all laid out up front. But I think that if we have another source or two on this, that would show significant enough coverage of the issue, and it really isn't taking up a lot of real estate in the article, so I do not see an undue weight problem. - Crockspot 03:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to actually address the argument instead of posting a rambling paragraph that avoids the specific arguments against inclusion (namely undue weight, NPOV, and BLP (OR mentioned by a subsequent editor)). Why should we include this singular incident that is not indicative of his alternative enery position when (1) the purpose of the section is to give an overview of his political positions generally; and (2) this incident does not reflect his position generally? /Blaxthos 04:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe I did. This is not a singular incident, it is an ongoing controversy, with mainstream media coverage. Perhaps it would be best when calling an RfC to allow editors to express their opinions without badgering them. - Crockspot 12:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You're forgetting other Senators articles mention this sort of "hypocrisy". For instance, Olympia Snowe's page mentions that "Both Snowe and fellow Maine Senator Susan Collins were reluctant converts to limited gun control following the Columbine High School shooting in 1999. Although she is pro-choice, she has expressed opposition to partial-birth abortion; however, she voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act because she felt it did not include the necessary exemptions" and Chris Dodd's page mentions this "Dodd was one of 16 senators who voted against the Vitter Amendment to prohibit federal funding of the confiscation of legally owned firearms during a disaster."

I'm also not sure that his opposition is a single incident. He didn't just oppose the proposal in one speech, but has instead opposed the plan since its inception.

Furthermore, you list undue weight as a reason for not including this. I'm not sure where you're from, but in Massachusetts, Cape Wind has become a major. Because of this, the opposition to it from both our so-called green friendly senators, has gained alot of intention.

Also, why does original research apply? Manny sources could be found which mentions Kennedy's opposition to the plan. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 17:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Generally, we judge issues based on the merit of the arguments themselves, instead of the "look at what they're doing on page foo" approach. There is no reason to assume that foo is right, and I'm sure we could find examples of articles on both sides of the issue. The "but they're doing it this way over there" argument sidesteps the issue.
2. I'm speaking for the other editor here, but the original research refers to the direct insinuation that his opposition is because it will spoil his view.
3. Undue weight does not refer to "what's a big deal in Massachusetts", but rather by including this issue in the article (while ignoring the rest of his 40 year voting history) gives it undue weight within the article itself.
4. In all the other examples within this article, issues were chosen to exemplify the Senator's positions. Why are you insisting inclusion of a singular issue that does not reflect his voting record as a whole? If it's to characterize him as hypocritical, I again state that it's a violation of NPOV and probably BLP.

Hope this helps clarify. /Blaxthos 17:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the part about it being visible from his house should be removed, or a source found to show he opposes it because of that. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 18:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad we find some common ground, but I still assert it should be removed entirely (per points above).  ;-) /Blaxthos 18:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I would suggest taking the statement out of the summary of general views and adding a section on criticism to the article. Senator Kennedy has been around long enough that there is likely plenty of sourcable, fairly NPOV discussion that is critical of his positions, or actions on some issues. And it would seem to be a valid section on someone as periodically lighting rod-ish as the Senator sometimes is. --Rocksanddirt 23:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd support that idea. However i'm no expert on WP:BLP, so I don't know if a criticism section would be allowed. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 00:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm completely uninvolved, but from reading this, and seeing that it has been featured in major news sources such as the Washington Post, I believe it should be included. Has Kennedy given any other reason why he would usually support alternative sources but does not support this one? I think it's notable if people are charging that principles that he has followed during a 40-year career no longer stand up if they affect his life personally (in this case, possibly affecting his view). Voters are sometimes sensitive to this in politicians and it happens often. Also-- keep in mind that even if a politician does not think the government should subsidize something does not mean they're automatically "opposed" to it-- they might just think it's not worth the taxpayers getting involved and they want the free market and private industry to deal with it, or they want states to handle it rather than the federal government. Doubt that's the case here, but sometimes that kind of strong wording misrepresents the politician's actual views.--Gloriamarie 16:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Some articles I've found on this from Massachusetts newspapers:

• Boston Globe
• Boston Globe editorial specifically mentioning what they term as Kennedy's interest in keeping his scenic views

Every child knows that you don't change the rules in the middle of the game," Kennedy says. Grown senators are supposed to know it too.'

• Cape Cod Today editorial saying that JFK once had courage when it came to Cape Cod, his younger brother should too

"Not exactly a profile in courage, and so out of character with all his great work in 4 decades in the Senate."

• Block Island Times

"Threatening and cajoling his colleagues in Congress, business contacts and fellow Massachusetts Democrats, Kennedy's efforts to deep-six the project are truly Herculean."

It is apparently a big topic of discussion in Massachusetts and I believe it should be included.--Gloriamarie 17:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to inclusion in a policy-compliant criticism section, however I am opposed to including it in the manner/place it now resides. Can anyone in favor of inclusion please address the points I've raised above (most particularly cherry picking issues (especially ones that do not reflect his general positions), NPOV and undue weight)? Does the "it's a big deal in Massachussetts" argument outweigh our policies? /Blaxthos 23:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The heading says Energy Policy... not Criticism of Energy Policy. If it spoke of national issues kennedy has supported or been against then the heading would make more sense. I'm not opposed to the sentence being in the article. But puting it in the section it is currently in does not seem apropriate. Especially considering it is the only specific item mentoned. Where is a list of the other alternative enrgy initiatives that he did support? Surely they have a more improtant weight in this section. It looks like the only reason the section was created was to outline Kennedy's opposition to this one project.--Dr who1975 16:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, where is that list of energy policies he backed? Perhaps we should include it, because saying he "supports alternative energy" without anything to back it up, is a violation of WP:POV. New England 17:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, an unsourced statement is possibly in violation of WP:V, if it can't be easily verified. How exactly does that have to do with violating WP:NPOV? I think you're confused on what the policies say & mean. /Blaxthos 21:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I assumed that making unverified claims (and excluding his opposition to Cape Weind) could potentially violate POV policy. But if it doesn't, it would violate WP:V as you said. New England 18:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One, all the links provided are editorials. Two, have you read the policies you're trying to invoke? /Blaxthos 16:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Just re-read WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. First off, no policy makes any difference between information found in editorials or in articles in major newspapers (so the sources on Kennedy's opposition are allowed). Second, statements that are challenged, or are likely to be challenged (ie Kennedy favors alternative energy) need to be verified. Third, criticism of well-known public figures is allowed, as long as its sourced. New England 02:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record this article from the Globe is not an editorial, and the Washington Post piece currently used as the reference for both the Cape Wind opposition and support for environmentalism seems to try and shine Kennedy in a positive light. Of course, if the opposition to Cape Wind is dropped from the energy policy section, you would lose the source stating he supports environmentalism (using it to source his support of environmentalism without mentioning goes against NPOV since you would discarding criticism) . New England 02:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

First, the content of this section indicates it ought to be renamed "Political Record" rather than "Political Views". And the entire "Energy Policy" (not "Alternative energy", despite Blaxthos) subheading is out of policy. Something like "generally maintained a record in favor of alternative energy sources" is the sort of thing that should never be said in Wikipedia's voice. One of the cites gives a partial list of his positions, but that characterization is strictly OR... As it stands the Cape Wind sentence is also unacceptable. The cite doesn't say the project is visible from the Kennedy residence and Kennedy says it probably wouldn't be But this is exactly the section where the controversy over Kennedy's alleged NIMBYism ought to be mentioned because "Energy Policy" is exactly the part of his record that it is relevant to. By all means be more specific about what he is for (instead of characterizing it in dubious fashion) but quarantining immediately relevant material in a separate Crit section is a disservice to the article. Andyvphil 10:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and I have no problem with dropping the phrase about the project being visible from his house, since that seems to be in question. New England 13:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, FTR, I didn't pick the name of the section. Secondly, how are you going to decide what events/votes/issues are part of his "Political Record"? Are you going to cherry pick some issues/votes (POV/UNDUE problems)? Are you going to try and summarize them yourself (which, as you pointed out, is original research)? Are you going to list every issue/vote (exhaustive/overkill)? The whole point of this RFC was to clarify that singular incidents, especially ones that are contrary to the Senator's political philosophy and record, should not be cherry picked and placed in an overview section. NIMBY is a criticism, not a reflection of Kennedy's record regarding energy policy, and isn't a justification for mentioning it. Also, be careful of the accusations of "dubious" actions and the like... a little good faith goes a long way. Thanks. /Blaxthos 17:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

FTR, the fact that the characterization of his voting record is dubious is not an accusation of bad faith, merely a criticism of what's on the page. I don't even know who wrote what. Yes, the subsection needs to be expanded if it is convey useful information, but an exhaustive listing of Kennedy's votes on energy policy will not be necessary -- it will not be difficult to find and quote charaterizations, and ratings, from well known sources. And I understand the result you wish this RFC to produce, but I happen to be disagreeing with you. I think it ordinary editorial judgement to notice that accusations of NIMBYism are a significant part of the Senator's record in the area of energy policy. And I started out rejecting the notion that this section ought to be a "summary" of his political "views". If you want pablum like "The Senator is in favor of alternative energy", go to his website. Andyvphil 07:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Up until quite recently, the article read as little more than a hero worship page. Kennedy has been in the national spotlight for nearly a 40 years. To say that in all that time he has not been involved in his fair share of "notable" controversies (this is after all the 40th anniversary of the “accidental death” of Mary Jo) is just plain horse patooey. There is room in here for the more vocal ones, regardless of what the gatekeepers think. I think the biggies are gun control, immigration, and the cape wind project. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The section added is under the heading.. "Energy Policy" not "Criticism" and even if we change the heading to "critcism", statements such as he "supports energy policy" need to be backed up just as much as his opposition to the local project. Many politicians have criticism sections on wikipedia (George W Bush has one) and this page could too if we were allowed to edit it. You are changing the initial subject of debate. Why don't we get the page off edit lock so that so some studious person can work on a criticism section?--Dr who1975 22:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because the section isn't titled "Criticism" doesn't mean it should be criticism-free. The Senator's position on the Cape Wind project is a well-known part of his political record on energy issues and there's no convincing reason to quarantine mention of it elsewhere... BTW, here's the RFPP. Andyvphil 00:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never been comfortable with criticism sections as such (unless there was something BIG) but most of this seems to be somethign that can be floded into his career or life. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Alma Maters include University of Virginia Law School

Under "Alma Mater," I would respectfully suggest adding: "University of Virginia," as the Senator is a proud alumnus of the UVa Law School. /s/ Richard [unsigned edit by 69.143.164.201, 16:48, 10 August 2007]

Confirmed "Sen. Edward M. “Ted” Kennedy, a 1959 graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law..." [15]

Turns out infobox has a line for law school, but after adding the info it doesn't show -- will someone who knows how please fix this? Andyvphil 21:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Chappaquiddick again

I modified the latest edits for the following reasons.

1. I retained the "circumstances surrounding" language because the incident refers to the party before the wreck and the subsequent behavior of Kennedy and the investigation, not just the accident itself.

2. There is no evidence that Kennedy was intoxicated, so I removed that part.

3. It remains unknown whether Kennedy lost control of the car or just didn't see the bridge, so I removed the "lost control" and "careened" parts.

4. There is some slight controversy as to whether or not drowning was the actual cause of Kopechne's death, what with the blood that was found on her. Although I personally would consider drowning to be by far the likeliest cause of death, I thought it best to just say that she died.

Pirate Dan (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with all of your assessments except number four. Drowning was the official cause of death, and although a single individual (Dinis, the prosecutor) asserted that there was foul play because of some blood on her shirt there was no mention of the blood until his exhumation inquest, and there was no evidence to support his claim. See Chappaquiddick incident for a more detailed explaination (although that article may need some cleanup as well). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

opposition to wind farms?

Shouldn't the article mention senator's oposition to wind farm (renewable energy) as it distructed his house's view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farmanesh (talk • contribs) 19:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That's Cape Wind, q.v., and you need a RS for the assertion that he can see it. I don't know one. Andyvphil (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know this whole story, but if he opposed a Wind energy construction because it obstructed the view from his house, that's hardly "opposition to wind farm" and least of all "renewable energy". I'm not a defender or a detractor of Kennedy's and am generally pro renewable energy, but this sounds like an interesting personal tidbit, but would need to include his senatorial record on renewable energy. Wouldn't it?--Ftord1960 (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Page Title?

Why on Earth is this page under "Ted Kennedy" with "Edward Moore Kennedy" redirected here instead of vice-versa? Surely the nickname ought to be the redirect? Khaighle (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• People are generally listed under the name they're best known as. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Excommunication

He really once was asked if he would change his views on abortion of the Catholic Church threatened to excommunicate him, and said no. I´m sure he´s by now in Hell, according to them.85.242.236.48 (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Icon"?

I haven't reverted the change of a heading from "Democratic Party icon" to "Democratic Party influence", because the latter seems more appropriate as a heading -- but the term "icon" is a reasonable part of the description. I've added it to the text of the section, with a citation. My Google search (Kennedy "Democratic icon" -wikipedia) produced more than 2500 hits. Some refer to one of his brothers, but, just on the first page of hits, both Reuters and the Christian Science Monitor used the word about him. I cited the Monitor. JamesMLane t c 21:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Assumed office" date is wrong

In the info box under ASSUMED OFFICE, the date of November 6, 1962 is given. That might be the date Kennedy was elected, but he would have assumed office when he was sworn in as a senator in the first few days of January, 1963. Does anybody know what that date was? --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That date is correct, and comes from the official Congressional Bioguide. Since it was a special election to fill out the balance of JFK's term, and not a regular election, he would have been sworn-in shortly after being elected in the special election, rather than having to wait until January to be sworn-in. I don't know the exact date of the swearing in, but we use November 6, 1962 since that is the date the Bioguide uses for the start of his service.Dcmacnut (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sudden Illness

Can we get a source for the "source" that said Sen. Kennedy was exhibiting signs of a stroke?  Maijstral  15:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a news site imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by STA654 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

While we're on it, can we get a temporary freeze or something? He's not dead yet, and it's been added in five times in five minutes or so. Kate (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

ABC has repoted that he has a milignant giloma (sp), or a cancerous brain tumor that is inoperable. Sorry I didnt have time to log in to right this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.33.177 (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

protection?

Should we put protection on this page, because of the recent news on Ted Kennedy? We don't want people declaring him dead, without proper citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laugh-O-Gram (talk • contribs) 17:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've requested it. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for protection DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Another person killed with car by famous political figure isn't relevant?

Why was a See also section with a link to Michael Dutton Douglas (who was killed with car by First Lady Laura Bush) reverted? --Mrelativity2 (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Because this is an article about Ted Kennedy, not an article about people killed by famous people. Michael Dutton Douglas is not relevant to a biography of Ted Kennedy. - auburnpilot talk 18:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

senate seat succession

I have added a reference to the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, clarifying why the Massachusetts Governor was asked to appoint a fill-in for JFK before a special election had been held. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.212.82 (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And I have supplemented that. It is state law that actually authorizes the Governor to appoint. Mitt Romney had this authority taken away from him in 2004, when John Kerry ran for president. The legislature, under the 17th amendment may choose to delegate appointing authority to the Governor. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Image of him

Does anyone else think that the image of him is a bit old and that he looks nothing like that today and as such it should be replaced with a more recent photo? 212.150.97.162 (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone were looking at this article a hundred years from now, they'd expect to see him pictured in his prime, as the current image does. I, for one, see no problem with using a picture now that will still be appropriate a hundred years from now; the only difference now is that there's a part of his life we can't write about because it hasn't happened yet. Pi zero (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• There are probably a number of U.S. government (thus public domain) photos available that reflect his more recent appearance, rather than the 20+ year old photo appearing at the moment. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Congressional Pictorial Directory should have a photo of him for every session of Congress. this is the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation for the 110th Congress, in 2007. here he is from the 105th Congress. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Brain tumor

It was announced on 20-May-2008 that the Senator has been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.193.220.29 (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's called a malignant glioma.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert Bork

There are references to Kennedy's opposition to Robert Bork in several different places. We should probably collect them all together into a single section. (I don't have time right now, but I thought I'd make this suggestion for some enterprising editor.) --MiguelMunoz (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

name

isn't it "Teddy Kennedy" more than "Ted Kennedy" ? 70.55.88.45 (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Both. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

type of brain cancer

I don't think its confirmed to glioma. and when i tried to changed it i couldnt. Electrical Experiment (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

One reference said this is a "starting diagnosis" - i.e. it's an official diagnosis but it may be made more specific or changed outright after further tests. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the doctors have confirmed already the brain tumor, but NBC is diagnosing glioma. miranda 22:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was there is more than one final diagnosis that this can turn into. One kills you in a year, one kills you in 3. We'll know which it is when further tests are done. It's like an immediate diagnosis of "you have HIV" vs. a refined diagnosis next week of "You have the super HIV that kills you fast" vs. "You have normal HIV and if you are lucky you'll live another 10 or 20 years and by that time we'll have a cure." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Dates

According to User:Brewcrewer, "exact dates don't have long-term significance", so he is removing the date for Kennedy being taken to the hospital and the date for the announcement of his condition. He even includes interwiki text demanding that others not reinsert these dates. I consider this a bizarrely extreme deletionist viewpoint and have restored the dates. If the section on his current health crisis becomes too long, it can be split into a separate article, with the finer details going there and the summarized version staying here. Everyking (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with both of you. True, the exact dates will likely not have long term significance. But at the moment, since this is an unfolding news event, they do. I therefore agree that the dates should be left in for now. In a year or two or three, some or all of the dates may no longer be relevant, and a conscientious wiki-editor can remove them then. But for now, they certainly seem relevant to me. Boxter1977 (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's notable now, it will always be notable. Wikipedia isn't a news site. The dates will always have significance in connection with the topic we are describing, which is Kennedy's health condition. Everyking (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

How about inserting the exact minute and second of each turn of events? In the long run the exact minute is as insignificant as the exact day. The date of the announcment or the diagnosis is obviously needed, but all others should go. Wikilinked dates plastered throughout the article make for a rough read. They should be removed just like the exact time of the day and the weather of that day. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Dates matter. When does a term in office end and start? The day matters. We writing for consumption for the next year; it will be edited later for the ages. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course certain dates matter. The date of start and end of a term matters, the date of birth/death matters, the date of diagnosis might matter. But it isn't necessary to have a the exact date of when he was initally rushed to the hospital, and then the exact date of the official diagnosis. One of them will suffice.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the name of the hospital he was taken to? Is that significant? Or even the diagnosis, really? If you look at things from a broad enough perspective, none of these details matter. That's why we write not in an attempt to judge what people at whatever point in the future will care about, but merely in an attempt to comprehensively cover the subject at hand. If we're writing about Kennedy's health situation, these dates are necessary for comprehensive coverage of that topic. Wikipedia is both a general and a specialized encyclopedia: we should have, as an intro, a summary of Kennedy's life that is a few paragraphs long and might briefly mention this condition (presuming it is fatal); that's the real "long-term significance" stuff. Then we have further details, organized by section, for those interested in deeper coverage, and if the amount of information in any of those sections gets too long, we break the content off into subarticles. Everyking (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

When reading a story there are certain details that are normal and are expected to come with the story, because it is the details that make up a story. Without details you have no story. What hospital he went to and what the initial diagnosis was are two such details. The same cannot be said about exact dates. Not only doesn't exact dates add anything of significance to the story, it takes away form it. Wikilinked dates plastered throghout a story kill the prose and the readiability of the story. The article is a far easier read and just as informative when it goes:

In May 2008, Kennedy was rushed to the hospital........On May 20, he was dianogsed with a tumor...........The next day he went home.......

Instead of:

On May 17, 2008, Kennedy was rushed to the hospital..... On May 20, he was was diagnosed with a tumor......On May 21, he went home.......

--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not as informative as the version with the dates, because it doesn't include the dates (well, your new version actually includes two out of the three days; apparently you just have some particular aversion to reporting the date he was hospitalized). How long was he in the hospital? How much time passed between hospitalization and the announcement of his condition? Your version doesn't tell us these things; a person could easily think it was two weeks instead of 3–4 days. Everyking (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we are repeating ourselves here, and going around circles. Apparently I have failed to form a concensus that prose and readability outweigh wikiliked dates at every turn of events. I rest my case. Thank you. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Again I find myself agreeing with both of you. The dates may well be relevant, and the information should be left in for now. AND, the excerpt quoted above does not make for pleasant reading. Style matters -- it is not a distinct creature from substance. So, couldn't we do something to achieve a smooth style and also include the relevant information? "On May 17, Kennedy was rushed to hospital... three days later he was diagnosed with a brain tumor; however he was well enough to go home the day after receiving the news." Anyone can cram in information; and anyone who tries can make a story flow. I think the challenge for us as Wiki editors is to thread the needle by having an article that is both robust with information, and at once accessible (i.e. readable) to the general public. Personally, I find that far more of my edits are stylistic than substantive changes to content. As long as wiki articles are written by a wide range of people, a (stylistic) editor's hand will always be necessary. But we must be careful not to cut out content that other might want to retain in the process. Them's be my two cents worth, anyway. Boxter1977 (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's fine with me to use a formula like "three days later" or "the next day". That isn't losing the information, just putting it in a different form. Everyking (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. One thing however - the exact date of the diagnosis might be important because of the talk surrounding the survivability of such a tumor. Some say two years, some say three years, etc. This is why in my first quote above I inserted the exact date of being dignosed, but not being rushed to the hospital. If we have the exact date of being rushed to the hospital and then a "day later", "a few days later", etc. the person looking for the exact diagnosis date will have some figuring out to do. I'm not sure about the solution to this, but my first quote was an attempt to remove this problem while keeping the article stylistic. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment: 'Energy Policy' and 'Environmental Record', sub-sections of 'Policy' contradict each other - as currently worded

Originally posted by keitel66 - 21 May 08.

The "Energy Policy" section is strangely worded; confusing, in fact. While it says:

"Ted Kennedy has generally favored alternative energy sources"

that same section says he opposes the Cape Wind turbine project, AND the 'Environmental Record' section also states

"He has voted in favor of disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR, removing oil and gas exploration subsidies, including oil and gas smokestacks in mercury regulations and reducing funds to road building in forest. He has voted against reducing funding to renewable and solar energy projects, requiring ethanol in gasoline, Bush Administration Energy Policy and approving a nuclear waste repository."

So the "Environmental Record" section states that he is against expansion of current energy, against expansion of nuclear energy, AND he's against expansion of 'renewable and solar energy projects.' So IF, according to the "Energy Policy" section, he is for 'alternative energy sources'... which ones is he for?

I believe these two sections should be flagged for editing, and the Energy Policy section should be fleshed out and rewritten entirely as it is wholly inadequate.

Small Correction to Chappaquiddick incident

"In 1969, Edward Kennedy drove a car off a bridge into the channel between Chappaquiddick Island and Martha's Vineyard."

Should be:

"In 1969, Edward Kennedy drove a car off a bridge into Poucha Pond on Chappaquiddick Island."

(See the article about Mary Jo Kopechne)

Small change, but more accurate. There is no bridge between Chappaquiddick and Martha's Vineyard, and had he driven off into that channel, neither would have survived because the current is VERY strong in that area. - Helios76 (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Five grandchildren or four?

The article says that Ted Kennedy has five grandchildren. But the same article says his daughter has two children, and under separate articles, one of his sons has two children and the other has none. Is there an extra grandchild somewhere? Did Kara or Edward Jr. have another child that hasn't been added yet? Or did someone add two plus two and get five? Eclair613 (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Prognosis?

When I heard about Kennedy's illness, naturally I was curious to learn what I could about the prognosis. So naturally I turned to wikipedia. Why is that there is nothing in this article about that? I see that I can find the information by clicking on the links provided in the footnotes (ie, credible media sources), but when I put that information in the wikipedia article, it was edited out without comment. Am I the only person who would like to know more about his likely prognosis without having to go to an external site (or even a second article)? Boxter1977 (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a few reasons for this:

• This is an encyclopedia, not a news source or a tabloid.
• So far, his doctors have not announced a prognosis, so it would not be possible to have one in this article with a proper citation from a reliable source.
• It would almost certainly run counter to WP:CRYSTAL and I think there would be some question as to it being appropriate under WP:BLP.
• The facts that are relevant to Kennedy are that he has a disease. It's already being reported in this article that it's in his brain, it's a glioma, it's cancerous, it's malignant, and he was hospitalized for it. It seems to me that pretty much anything beyond that moves into the realm of medicine in a way which is inappropriate for this article. There are appropriate links to articles which are more in-depth.

I don't think it's possible to write an article that would contain everything every reader would want in a single article. The standard generally is to keep information together that is on one subject, and provide links to other subjects which are related. Obviously there is not 100% agreement all the time, but it seems to work pretty well. On top of all that, the man and his family do have a right to some amount of privacy, even if we are talking about one of the most storied and well-known families in the country.  Frank  |  talk  12:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If the news about the tumor is included it only make sense to include the prognosis. This is the first question that comes to person's mind when hearing this news. There are a multitude of reliable sources that discuss Senator Kennedy's prognosis. If his doctors haven't announced any prognosis, that fact obviously had to be included in the article. But if there are reliabe sources that discuss this issue, and it's a something of importance and interest, it trumps any WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BLP concerns. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am skeptical about this multitude of sources about his prognosis, but I am certainly willing to be shown. Everything I've read in a reliable source has quoted individuals familiar with the disease, and they say that the medical professional who is being quoted is not involved with Senator Kennedy's treatment. To me, that specifically means that any prognosis is about the disease in general, and not about his case in particular, and therefore doesn't belong in this article. I would also point out that all sources I've read in the context of this disease have said that the prognosis depends on many factors, so once again we are at least into WP:CRYSTAL territory. Such speculation belongs (if anywhere) in the article about the disease, not in one about a person who was just diagnosed with it and for whom a prognosis hasn't been publicly released.  Frank  |  talk  16:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The reliable sources only discuss the general dianosisprognosis for a person his age. However, the general diagnosisprognosis was given in response to questions about his diagnosisprognosis. His diagnosisprognosis is important to readers, and we have to give them what they want to the best of our abilities. Just like God, nobody knows forsure, but we do out best with reliable sources. The application of WP:CRYSTAL to this situation is, with all due respect, wrong. Crystal concerns unverfiable information. There's nothing unverfiable here. His diagnosisprognosis - albeit not that convincing - is still verified in a multitude of realiable sources. The fact that is depends on other factors is something that obviously has to be included in the article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Diagnosis (which is verifiable and already reported in this article) is not the same as prognosis, which has not (as far as I know, at this point) been given for Kennedy and should not be included in this article. The definition of "prognosis" included in WP's article on the word specifically uses the word "prediction," which seems to me to fall squarely within WP:CRYSTAL.  Frank  |  talk  19:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me on the diagnosis/prognosis distinction. I wasn't carefuel. But that doesn't effect the Crystal issue, because the prognosis - albeit not strongly supported - is verifiable in multiple reliable sources. This is a quote taken directly out of WP:CRYSTAL: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." (emphasis added). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sure Senator Kennedy wishes that his prognosis were a proposal, project, or some development that may or may not occur. However, it is none of those things. Regardless of whether or not we agree that WP:CRYSTAL applies here, surely we can agree that WP:RS and WP:VER do apply. I encourage any editor to provide citations that specifically mention Senator Kennedy's prognosis. If they meet those policies, and WP:BLP, then they clearly belong in the article. However, without such cites, it is not appropriate to put a prognosis for Senator Kennedy in this article. People who are interested in knowing what the general prognosis for this disease is can look at the article page for the disease. Also, I'd like to point out that my view on this is based solely on the lack of a diagnosis for him since he is what this article is about. I expect at some point (but I don't know when), we will get some prognosis. At that point, it would be appropriate to add it to this article.  Frank  |  talk  21:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion - prognosis

The general prognosis should be included, although of course it should be qualified by noting that the prognosis is from experts not involved in Kennedy's specific case. In any case, this grim prognosis has been so widely reported that it's certainly a notable detail. Even if they came out right now and announced that they expect him to survive, it would still be notable that for a few days America believed the man was going to die soon. Everyking (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I came here from Wikipedia:Third opinion and I see one has been provided, and I agree with it. I put a subheading above Everyking's response. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

After it was pointed out to me that the response above has a timestamp halfway through the discussion, I'll expand on my own opinion.

I still agree with Everyking's comments. There is nothing wrong with articles reporting on recent developments or current events; see for example the articles about the 2008 presidential campaigns. The issue here is whether reporting a prognosis (rather than a diagnosis) violates WP:CRYSTAL. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. You have to evaluate on a case by case basis. In this case, I think a widely reported prognosis qualifies as a notable fact about Ted Kennedy, so it should be reported if a reliable source is cited. Even if Kennedy survives and lives another 30 years, it would still be notable that he was expected to die over this incident. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Senator Kennedy will be living for a while. He's not dying anytime soon, at least not for the next few months. This is an estimate, not a guarantee. I'm more worried about Patrick Swayze, whom I think will not see Christmas 2009. Chergles (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

American Liberal

Would someone add him in as an American liberal? 76.77.225.169 (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

A request for comments germane to this topic may be found here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Should article point to Wikinews for surgery?

Wikinews has an article on Kennedy's ongoing brain surgery at http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Senator_Edward_Kennedy_undergoing_brain_surgery . Shouldn't Wikipedia use it sister projects whenever possible, so long as they meet quality standards? MalaclypsetheYounger (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I've done it now. In the future, you can use {{Wikinews}}. Thanks, DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Misleading: Successful, it is not; he is dying IN TIME, so I added prognosis of experts

I have to add this sub-section, since many journalists who did not put in the medical aspect of this lethal disease, asserted that Kenedy's surgery was successful. It was not really, since his time is counted, and it is a matter of time, and there is no exit from this:

Prognosis

Experts said that "the aggressive and risky surgery can extend survival time beyond the expected year, but only by 3 to 6 extra months." The Lion of the Senate responded: "I am humbled by the outpouring and am strengthened by your prayers and kindness."nydailynews.com/news, Sen. Edward Kennedy undergoes surgery for brain tumor However, John H. Sampson, a neurosurgeon who worked with Friedman, stated: "It almost certainly won't be curative, but it should enhance the chances that additional treatment will be effective." Vivek Deshmukh, director of cerebrovascular and endovascular neurosurgery at George Washington University Medical Center, added that:"If you are going to operate, you have to get 90 or 95%; otherwise you haven't made a difference in terms of survival. If you didn't do the surgery, you're looking at a much shorter survival period – on the order of a matter of months; If you can go from 3 to 6 months of survival to a year or a year and a half, I think that's making a difference, particularly if he's not injured from it." Medical experts said that "even after successful surgery and follow-up radiation and chemotherapy, Kennedy's prognosis on a malignant glioma - glioblastoma multiforme (— an especially deadly and tough-to-remove lethal type of brain tumor discovered in about 9,000 Americans per year), remains fairly grim, since most patients with his type of tumor do not survive more than a year or 2 after diagnosis." Others noted that some people with similar tumors have survived for years.spokesmanreview.com, Kennedy undergoes brain surgery Brain tumor expert of University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston noted that "median survival for glioblastomas is 12 to 15 months, but the range is wide; the outlook for patients with malignant gliomas is poor, and depends on what type of glioma a patient has; median survival for patients with moderately severe ones is 3 to 5 years, and less than a year for those with the most severe type." Temodar and maybe Avastin drugs will be used on him.ap.google.com, Next up for Sen. Kennedy: Chemo, radiation treatmentsDr. Eric T. Wong, codirector of the Brain Tumor Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, stated that "successful resection, or surgical removal, of a brain tumor before radiation or chemotherapy can significantly improve a patient's outlook, and ideally, 90% of the tumor is removed, but still, the tumor usually grows back eventually, and it's not clear how much surgery extends a patient's life."boston.com, Rapport with pioneer surgeon leads to the senator's choicesun-sentinel.com, Kennedy's surgery might just be beginning--Florentino floro (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Kennedy Referred to as "The Lion of the Senate" in Prognosis section, which doesn't seem appropriate

Kennedy is to as "The Lion of the Senate" in Prognosis section, which doesn't seem appropriate. It's not his name, and probably should be replace by "Kennedy" to sound more encyclopedic. I can't make the edit.

It's taken from the news article that's used as a source; I'll change it. Someone might also want to make the paragraph flow a bit better by paraphrasing some of the extensive use of quotes. Everyking (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

While I realize it's not sourced, I've never heard that term, and a quick survey on my forum came up blank. No current news stories use the term. It may be an inside term in the Senate, he's not publicly known as "the lion of the senate" that I can find. If it can't be sourced as a PUBLIC nickname, it needs to be specified as an in-name.Mzmadmike (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Office holder infobox

Relative to another senator, the discussion came up about the correct name in the infobox. This should follow the name as listed on the ballot by which they were elected, and by the official documents associated with the office. In this case: http://kennedy.senate.gov/ and http://senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/one_item_and_teasers/massachusetts.htm list Kennedy's "Senate name" as "Edward M. Kennedy".

The name of the article title should follow most commonly used name (as it does), and the name in the lead should be full and complete name (as it is). The infobox should follow the official documents of the office associated (as it does with my recent edit). LotLE×talk 18:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Categorization as sex scandal

The Chappaquiddick incident has been categorized in this article as a 'sex scandal'. Has Kennedy's relationship with Mary Jo Kopechne been established as sexual? If not, this would be POV. If the categorization refers to other affairs, they would need to be noted and sourced in the article. JNW (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Category removed from Ted Kennedy, though I didn't see it applied to the Chappaquiddick incident article. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion?

For some reason, this talk page is currently listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, although I'm obviously not going to delete it. Anyone have an idea why? Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

24.8.169.113 (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC) I'm reading the article as Sen. Kennedy is speaking to the DNC Convention and found vandalism in the Chappaquidick section. Should the article be locked while the campaign is on?

Three months? Get real. Maybe you mean while the CONVENTION is on. 99.163.50.12 (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

split political positions

I think the political positions should be split into a new article. The section currently has 13 subsections. I believe it would be better as Political positions of Ted Kennedy. --William Saturn (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good, and I would support such an action. Nancy Pelosi's article may be well served by a similar split. Happyme22 (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, maybe give a general description of the views of Teddy in the primary article and then link to a more complete article of his views. Also his contribution to the Northern Ireland peace process seems to be really lacking in this article. Maybe this is because of the lack of media attention, but he was a major champion of the process in which 700 years of division was partially (with the current situation, hopefully) was overcome. It would be interesting to include some information with people like Gerry Adams if available. --76.19.222.40 (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Approve the split. Just go ahead and do it. No body is objecting. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A bit of expansion required

On reading this article, I note that the very brief comment on Kennedy's positions on health care is sourced to a Youtube video. Surely there is more to it than this brief comment, and surely there are other more traditional reference sources available to confirm. This applies regardless of whether the section on political positions is split to its own article.

As well, the section at the end of the article with respect to Kennedy's electoral record should have at least a brief summary paragraph. Risker (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've removed the video. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Irish Kennedy

I wanted to throw this idea out there before I start working on it. I'm curious to see if there are any editors out there that would be willing to participate in establishing a section regarding the Senator's Irish heritage. I know we have a brief entry regarding his involvement in the peace process pertaining to the area north of the Republic, but I think the article could use a bit more. Wikiport (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Health Care

This phrase: "Kennedy has continuously advocated that the health care of individuals should be a fundamental right, and not a privilege," is inaccurate and biased. While there are various ways of paying or acquiring health care in the US, there is nothing in law preventing anyone from having any care they wish. It is, in fact, a right. It is not a right to have it provided at taxpayer expense, which seems to be the gist of the statement's implied argument. I'm going to attempt to rephrase it more NPOV, and welcome adjustments.Mzmadmike (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've returned it to the original (accidentally used the rollback tab, sorry.). "Ted Kennedy has advocated" is the same as "Ted Kennedy has said." I don't much care for the source, so I'll replace it; but Kennedy said, "This is the cause of my life, new hope, that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American, north, south, east, west, young, old, will have decent quality health care as a fundamental right". "Not a privilege" can go, though. I'll fix the ref and remove the "not a privilege" part; if someone can find a source for that, great too. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

basic factual error

It says Kennedy took office in November 1962. I suspect he won his first senatorial election in that month and took office in January, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.66.39 (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, per http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/chronlist.pdf, it was November 7, 1962. It was a special election. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee

The section at the bottom says Kennedy chaired this committee from Jan 3-Jan 2, 2001. That's nonsensical. The Jim Jeffords page, however, says that he chaired until Jan. 3, 2001 and again after Jan 20, 2001. We seem to be missing a digit here. Sermesara (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

False Death Date

I apologize for informally posting here but Ted Kennedy isn't dead. Why dose it say that he is dead when he isn't?

HE'S NOT DEAD. CHECK YOUR INFO. WOW.. You, my friend, are a pure mor*n. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.143.168 (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Editors, please lock this page for further edits until something definite is known about Senator Kennedy. The ghouls are already descending on this page to celebrate Kennedy's collapse and prematurely declaring him dead. It's not only childishly hateful, but horrendously inaccurate. 98.67.91.242 (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Black Max

Thank you for removing the Jan. 20th Date of Death. You beat me to it. Rick081677 (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. (I also changed "was" to "is".)BAM ("tripodics") (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

shouldn't the collapse be in the lead, since its a "current event" people are going to be running to this page for information on it, least we can do is put it up at the top.--Tznkai (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What happened

Since this is becoming justification for policy changes, let's see how the present system did.

• 19:44UTC Jan 20. anon adds statement of collapse; needs copyedit, but is correct; FR would have delayed this. During the next minute, another mention, with source (CNN), and allegedly added.
• 19:50 Death date added to first line by anon.
• 19:51 reverted by anon.
• 19:54 two mentions of fact of collapse consolidated.
• 19:54 {{current event}}.
• 19:55, 19:57 duplicate collapse restored and removed as uncited.
• 19:57 Wheelchair added.
• 19:59 died added to text by newbie but registered account.
• 20:00 "January 20, 2009" added, as a paragraph on its own without context. Immediately rolled back to edit which had died in text. The rollback, which might have sighted the falsehood, is one of the first edits by an established account, an admin.
• 20:01 died removed by anon.
• 20:01 same new account vandal adds death date to first line.
• 20:02 anon restores death claim to text.
  • removed 20:03 by different anon.
• 20:02 establish account added died shortly thereafter to account of wheelchair, but notes no confirmation in edit summary.
• 20:03 article semi-protected).
• 20:04 death date removed from first line by established account
• 20:05 Last mention of death removed from text by established account.
• 20:06 Wheelchair rem as failed verification.
• 20:06 Named account of three years' standing restored death date to first line; edit summary rvv.
• 20:07 Admin restores wheelchair; edit summary describes as removing unsourced, so this is slip-up, as the last one may be.
• 20:08 death removed from first line.
• 20:12 comments not to add death date until confirmed by reliable source.
• 20:14 Wheelchair made reclining chair, with source.
• 20:17, 20:19. Observation that he was conscious leaving the Senate added to comment and immediately removed.

After this, we got into an edit war after Chappaquiddick, which I don't want to wade through. But we said Kennedy was dead during three periods.

1. 19:50-19:51 This was added and removed by anons. If this article had been under FR when Kennedy collapsed, it would have been added only to the unsighted text, but it would have taken longer to remove; the second anon wouldn't have seen it.
2. 19:59-20:05. Five mentions at different places, most removed quickly. Under Flagged Revisions, this would have been sighted: the admin who removed the second mention would have sighted the first.
3. 20:06-20:08. Added by long-established editor (possibly in error). Would have been added and sighted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Later, many reliable sources noted how WP changes were proposed because of the Kennedy death report. This fake death report then became quite notable. I wish people wouldn't play tricks like this. That's what the sandbox is for. Chergles (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Magnet for kooks

Ted Kenneday has always been a magnet for wingnuts, conspiracy theorists, Kennedy haters and other assorted kooks, and this article is no exception. Wikipedia is NOT for marshalling facts to support your opinions. Nor are sources valid which merely refer to another opinion. The footnotes on Chappaquiddick are a perfect example; just look at the reading list they refer back to. This is the kind of garbage that makes Wikipedia such a joke. Jimmy Wales shouldn't brag about this as a place where anybody can contribute -- he ought to be ashamed! J M Rice (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia is not a news forum

As I understand, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news forum for last minute events. It should not be the first media to write about something that happened to someone. Hospitalizations are not things you mention in an encyclopedia, for G's sake. Moreover, if NN is dating MM, you write about it on Us Weekly, for instance, but such things should be ignored in a serious encyclopedia. Pop-trivia, gossip, rumors, albums/books not yet released...such matters should not be included in Wikipedia. Drefer (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps current events could be posted in a different Wiki (with special rules) and lets get on with adding reference articles. PeterClarke 22:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-vandalism

I realise that Ted Kennedy's entry is a target for frequent vandalism (as are many others), but the false death entry for Kennedy and others over the weekend seem to validate my own opinion that only registered users should be able to edit. Most other sites require registration just to participate in 'blogs - to prevent obscenities and other trash off their websites. This is supposed to be an educational and informative website and will never be taken seriously if false death notices and other garbage by anonymous users - who almost never get blocked because someone with authority has to be made aware of it in such a short amount of time - continues to appear. It also discourages those who work hard to put valid information on Wikipedia to know that some idiot with nothing better to do can come along a destroy it. I believe requiring registration will cut down vandalism immensely and also allow new users to be guided on how to contribute to Wikipedia within guidelines. Nobody has ever given me (or pointed out) an explanation on why registration is not required, since a screen name gives a pretty good amount of anonymity anyway. Alright, I will hop off my soapbox now. Thank you for your time. And if you disagree, I will be happy to listen to your explanation. Perhaps there is a reason I have not thought of. Cheers, Bloo Bloo (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I can see your point, but at the same time - editing the Ted Kennedy page is pretty innocuous, but what about editors that require anonymity to edit more controversial pages? There's a possibility that some editors could face serious consequences if they were to become associated with editing Wikipedia by more than an IP; unfortunately, the whole world doesn't value freedom of thought and information. It's a big picture thing that we have to consider. IP editors also contribute really good edits to the encyclopedia, as well as really dumb ones. Given how many people watch controversial articles and how easy it is to revert efforts, stuff like this gets caught pretty quickly these days. I don't mind reverting stupid edits now and then to allow other people freedom of expression they might otherwise not have. I can see both sides, here. Kate (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• It's simple: Block the IP addresses when vandalism such as this occurs. I have edited english wikipedia myself many times, in anonymity, without any evil purpose. When changing the names of articles on wikipedia in my native language, for example, I have sometimes also changed english interwikis to articles in my native language. And thus removed dead links. And I have done it unregistered, without doing any harm. I feel this suggestion of blocking unregistered users, is to punish all and every honest contributor, just because a few idiots violates the trust given to them. Adamasakai 18:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamaisaka (talk • contribs)
  • Thank you both for your replies. Admittedly, I still do not fully understand why users should not register to use Wikipedia. But then again, I also have a tendency to want to believe that people who are mostly honest and decent users should not really want to use an IP address for most editing. I may be wrong here, but I also thought having a second name was not against rules if you were not using it to agree with yourself, starting edit wars or other malicious purposes. I DO understand that there are many anonymous (IP) users, who contribute valid and informative items to Wikipedia. Unforunately there are too many turkeys (holding Irish temper here) who do just the opposite. I must politely disagree that listing Senators Kennedy and Byrd dead before they have actually expired is "innocuous". I do not see that as free speech, I only see it as mean and deliberately disruptive. It is also very difficult to get IP vandals/users blocked (and even registered vandals), as it must be brought to the attention of an administrator in a very short amount of time. I am simply appalled about the false death notices and increasing amounts of deliberately false information being entered. But the entire situation comes back to what I see is the deterioration and ultimate destruction of Wikipedia by people who know they will be able to get away with it, and do. Again, I will step down - as I know my Irish temper could soon blow. Thank you both again for your replies. Cheers. BlooPenguins Bloo (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think blocking unregistered users from editing would create more problems than it solves. At the moment by far the most vandalism is done by unregistered users but because of that IP edits are monitored more and are less trusted. Vandalism by registered users is less likely to be spotted within a minute of the edit and often gets missed. If you stop unregistered users from editing you will just end up with 1000s more vandals signing up for accounts and doing even more damage. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain my reasons for changing english articles «in anonymity». As a registered user, I could in the theory make such changes with my registered name. When creating several new articles very fast in my native language, with links to english wikipedia, and especially when combined with moving articles in my native language (causing interwikis on enwi to be out of date), I have sometimes changed english interwikis, without being logged in. «In the hurry correction» have been done with the intension to correct errors, not to introduce errors.

That said, vandalism are allways done in anonymity, and I'm allways a bit suspicious when observing just the IP-address, instead of a user name. I'm suspicious because anonymous idiots have made attempts to destroy the reputation of wikipedia in my own language. I allways takes a closer look at such anonymous changes, «just in case» ... On the other hand, when changing english interwikis in anonymity myself, in order to correct errors ASAP, I also know that english administrators would see my changes and be able verify for themselves, immediately, that the change was a real contribution, and not an evil sabotage.

An idea (if such a policy is legal) could be to automatically block editing, based on a register of IP addresses from whence vandalism appears. The problem with such an approach (and even user names) is that it may introduce yet another «cat and mouse play» magnet for hackers «identifying themselves» falsely as registered users. Just like I suspect some data viruses to be creations from «Riding the Gravy Train». I'm not going to give such persons more ideas; the problem is that some persons have nothing more constructive work to do, and obviously nothing else to do, than destroying what others have spent months, weeks, days and hours to build up. -- Adamaisaka 00:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much all of this. Now and then I make an IP edit because I'm in a hurry and editing the German Wikipedia, or I just don't notice I'm not logged in. At the same time, I check all the IP edits on my watchlist every day because I know there's a good chance they're vandalism. That's the kind of self-policing that keeps Wikipedia mostly problem-free, and it's really surprising how well it works - sometimes I go to revert vandalism and get edit-conflicted because someone else noticed it too, even on obscure articles. I think the way we have works pretty well, actually. Kate (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is a great newspaper article featured here on page 10 regarding the vandalism. Mrmcdonnell (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A hole in this article

I see that the split-out of the political positions section into Political positions of Ted Kennedy was discussed and endorsed in #split political positions above. However, it left a gigantic hole in this article, such that there's almost no description left of Kennedy's legislative goals and accomplishments, which at the end of the day will be the thing he is remembered for. The real problem, I think, is that the political positions material combines two types of stuff: major legislative aspirations and accomplishments of Kennedy (education, health care, immigration, judicial policy, to name some), and also positions Kennedy had on a host of other issues that he isn't especially known for (abortion, war in Afghanistan, energy policy, to name some). The first class of material really needs to go back into the main article, not as political positions, but as the biographically important history of his time in the Senate. The second category of material can stay where it is. Perhaps the Joe Biden articles can serve as a model: Joe Biden#United States Senator discusses his history in the Senate and his major hearings, accomplishments, and important other aspects, while Political positions of Joe Biden collects his votes and views on a lot of other, not so biographically important matters. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If I don't get any objections, I'll at some point do the partial move back to the main article as outlined above. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, Wasted, if nobody agrees with you it stays. I don't think your a one-man jury.--Levineps (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to eliminate the Political positions of Ted Kennedy article. It will still exist and still have just as many sections in it as it does now. What I'm proposing is to copy/move some of the biographically important material back into the main article, but include it as Senate history rather than "political positions". Right now the main article has no mention of No Child Left Behind, no mention of opposition to Robert Bork, and no mention of efforts at legislation for immigration reform, just to pick three examples. These are all things Ted Kennedy is very well known for. WP:Summary style says that all important topics have to be covered in the main article, even if they are explored in greater depth in a subarticle. WP:Undue weight also applies here: currently the main article has more material on his brain cancer than it does on his legislative career. That isn't right either. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not stating an opinion for or against keeping the section. I will say that a politician who has been around as long as Ted Kennedy cannot have their political positions summarized in 2 paragraphs. There are just too many issues over the years. If you are Ted Kennedy's re-election campaign, you can certainly pick a few issues that you want but an overall summary is extremely difficult to impossible. For example, Supreme Court nominee Bork and the Reagan tax cuts were very important issues in their times, issues that Kennedy took a stand. Is Afganistan more important than Bork? If this is the Wikipedia Daily News, it is. For Wikipedia, the encyclopedia, it's a difficult question. Again, no opinion is stated for or against, just an analysis of the potential problems in deciding. Chergles (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The solution is to distinguish between things that Kennedy was very influential in, and things that he just expressed a view on. Was Kennedy's role very important in defeating the Bork nomination? Yes, so it belongs in the main article. Did Kennedy's opposition to the Reagan tax cuts make a difference? No, they passed anyway, so leave it for the political positions article. Was Kennedy a major factor in writing and passing the No Child Left Behind Act and SCHIP, to name just two? Yes, so descriptions of those legislative accomplishments belong in the main article. Was Kennedy influential in launching the war on Afghanistan? No, it had broad bi-partisan support, so this only needs to be discussed in the political positions article. And so forth. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I'm not proposing to add a summary to the "Political positions" section. I'm proposing to add material to the "Senate career" section, which right now doesn't describe a single thing that Kennedy has done in his 46 years in the Senate, other than what committees he's served on. That's the hole in the article I'm talking about. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Suzie Chapstick

I can't find any mention in the article about Olympic skier Suzie Chapstick, who was rumored to be Ted Kennedy's girlfriend. I can see why someone might want to keep her off the article. From the reader's standpoint, it was something that I was look for and found that it's not in the article. Chergles (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There's also no mention of a woman staffer who objected because Ted Kennedy would do things like change his trousers in the middle of his office while his office staff was in the room. I can see why it wouldn't be in the article and agree with not having it. It's just not dignified. I did read it in the newspaper quite a few years ago so a source does exist. Chergles (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

2008 endorsements

I think Blaxthos' edit to the Presidential endorsements section has removed the more-important information: that Kennedy supported one Democrat over another in the primary), and replaced it with something that is less-notable (i.e. that Democrat Kennedy supported the eventual Democrat nominee, in November).

OLD: In the 2008 Democratic presidential primary contests, Kennedy supported the successful bid of Illinois Senator Barack Obama against New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. ...

NEW: In the 2008 election, Kennedy supported the successful bid of Illinois Senator Barack Obama who defeated Republican nominee, John McCain in the election.

Kennedy's endorsement of his party's nominee is not particularly notable (and Obama's November win is not particularly relevant, here). Kennedy's primary endorsement is both notable and relevant. (Blaxthos cites "unnecessary adversarial language" as the reason for the change. Perhaps this refers to the specific mention of Clinton, which I'd agree is not essential; I'm neutral regarding the inclusion of Clinton.) Tripodics (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

One, I didn't remove any information, I reverted a change that I felt added unnecessary language that seems to insert an adversarial point of view. Two, your concern could easily be addressed by adding something akin to "Kennedy endorsed Obama during the 2008 Democratic primary" (or juggling the wording such that it can be easily incorporated into the original text. How about:

During the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary, Kennedy supported the successful bid of Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who defeated Republican nominee John McCain during the general election.

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with that, tho I'd prefer a shorter sentence such as

During the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary, Kennedy supported the successful bid of Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

I don't see any reason to mention McCain or the November results, since the point is to say who Kennedy endorsed during the primaries. The word "successful" seems to cover it all. Tripodics (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with not mentioning McCain or November, but the article should briefly mention that Kennedy's endorsement of Obama was a key development in the days leading up to the big Obama-Clinton Super Tuesday battle. It wasn't just "any" endorsement. See Hillary Clinton caucuses and primaries, 2008#Kennedy family endorsements if you want some cites from the time. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If we're not going to include that Obama won the general election (and I agree that it seems unnecessary) then should the information about Kerry's and Tsongas' failed bids remain? Likewise, if a mention of Hillary Clinton is considered adversarial language, should we remove the language "against former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley"? The title/focus of the section probably needs changed to "Democratic Presidential Primary Endorsements." I have a suggested edit below. Thoughts? Ificouldyouknowiwould (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggested edit: ====Democratic Presidential primary endorsements====

While Kennedy himself did not run for President again, he has endorsed and campaigned for other candidates in the Democratic presidential primary contests. In 1988, he supported the successful bid of Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis to win the nomination. Four years later, in 1992, he backed former fellow Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas. In 2000, Kennedy endorsed Vice President Al Gore. In 2004, he endorsed and campaigned for fellow Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. In 2008, Kennedy supported the bid of Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Ificouldyouknowiwould (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)