Talk:Ted Kennedy/Archive 7

fatboy.cc

I removed the link to www.fatboy.cc (linked as Ted Kennedy photos, audio, & political satire); it was restored. I consider it an attack site. We are talking about a site that calls itself "The Official Fatboy Ted Website", features a large picture of the car being hauled out of the water at Chappaquiddick as its most prominent graphic on the home page, and has sections like "Kennedy Girls R Rated". I am not going to unilaterally keep removing it, but would welcome its removal by someone else. I urge others to comment on whether the think this is an appropriate link or not. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:19, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

An "attack" site, if it has substantive information, might augment the reader's understanding of the subject. Therefore, I wouldn't apply a blanket rule of never linking to a site that's intended primarily to convey negative material about the article subject. That particular site, however, is just adolescent mudthrowing. There's no reason to link to it. JamesMLane 07:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entering this debate on either side, but I wanted to clarify in case people can't tell from what you wrote: that site is run by Howie Carr who is an adult, not an adolescent. He is actually a public figure/radio personality in Massachusetts.

My comment was not about Howie Carr's chronological age, but about the content of that particular site. People who are long past their teens can generate "adolescent" content. I use that word in the sense of the second definition in Merriam-Webster Online: "emotionally or intellectually immature". (By contrast, there are high school students who've made significant substantive contributions to Wikipedia.) JamesMLane 17:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane Howie Carr has worked as a TV reporter in Boston, is on staff at the Boston Herald as a bi-weekly writer and for specials, has acted in a major film, (A Civil Action) and hosts a syndicated radio show five time each week. Howie Carr has been televised on CNN many times as well as other networks. Could your argument be slighly biased? I noticed that as you state on your profile "hostile to the right wing"? *Click here to view website in question *fatboy.cc

I said above, "My comment was not about Howie Carr's chronological age, but about the content of that particular site." Let me now expand that: My comment was not about Howie Carr personally in any respect. For all I know he's won the Nobel Prize. My comment was about the content of that particular site. JamesMLane 21:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no other place on the www to find the material I see at fatboy.cc. I don's see any profanity there. Just because you don't agree with the site does not prove it to be hateful or not appropriate. The R rated page has a warning and a G rated page is provied for those who wish to view it. Where else can you find such a complete collection of the Kennedy girlfriends? As to the photo of the car being pulled out of the pond, it's history and was published in many newspapers and magazines.. Who are you trying to protect from this image? (anon 10 July 2005)

I'm not trying to "protect" anyone from the image, I'm trying to protect Wikipedia from an accumulation of crap. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:58, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to delete this link. If you want to save the world pull down the triacetone triperoxide link http://www.totse.com/en/bad_ideas/ka_fucking_boom/162660.html Before you go protecting the public from Ted Kennedy and other Kennedys record of bad behavior, "protect Wikipedia from an accumulation of crap" by taking down the link for how to make the explosive used at Leeds UK and a favorite of the PLO. Instead of pulling down POVs which differ from yours why don't you either take done a dangerous link or write something yourself?

The Wikipedia article on Acetone peroxide doesn't include detailed instructions about how to make the explosive, although the link you've now provided to the PLO et al. does. The accusation of protecting Kennedy is ludicrous in light of the inclusion of unfavorable links. We don't try to include every link that has something (even something unique) about the subject of an article. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Try to get your site listed on Dmoz instead. JamesMLane 05:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: Removing other editors' comments from the talk page (except in extreme cases of personal attacks) is considered a serious breach of Wikiquette. I set forth the reasons for not including this link. If you disagree with my reasons, you're invited to give your argument in response, but please don't delete my comments. JamesMLane 04:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I just want to say: the accusations that this is politically motivated are just silly. We've are handling this article exactly the way we would handle the article on Pat Robertson (see for example [1], [2], [3], [4]), and I doubt there is a person in the world who considers him- or herself a supporter of both Kennedy and Robertson. It is a pretty general policy not to link sites of politicians to juvenile attack sites directed at them. There are already appropriate anti-Kennedy links in the list of links. End of story, as far as I'm concerned, and insulting me is certainly not going to change my mind. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think the link shows the hateful nature of conservatives. Leave the link, let the world see conservatives for the hate-mongers that they are. This is the most dispicible kind of bile, and reasonable people will immediately recognize it as such. They are doing their cause more harm than good by behaving this way. Let's not protect them from the consequences of their own small minded hatefullness. -asx- 05:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's informative as to the nature of conservatives, or at least of its author, Howie Carr. Because it's informative about Carr, it's linked from his article. That's not a reason to link it here, though. It doesn't have much to offer the reader who's looking for information about Kennedy rather than Carr. JamesMLane 06:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Request that an admin edit protected article

I realize, of course, that custom calls for an admin to protect an article in the wrong version. In this case, however, there's a clear distinction in how the two sides have observed Wikipedia policy. The editors opposed to including the "fatboy" link -- Jmabel, Coneslayer, Texture, and myself -- provided informative edit summaries and/or explanations on the talk page. The lone anon who wanted the link included simply kept reverting to it, and did not even comment until evidently convinced that sheer stubbornness would not carry the day. Even then, the anon sidestepped the real issues and engaged in personal attacks (and even removed one of my rebuttals from the talk page, [5]). It would be appropriate for an admin to remove the "[http://www.fatboy.cc/: Ted Kennedy photos, audio, info]" link from external links, because otherwise its anonymous proponent will have no reason to engage in any discussion aimed at lifting the protection. JamesMLane 10:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I second this. I'm an admin, but as a party to the dispute, I can't do this. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Request that an admin edit protected article

JamesMLane, though you refer to me as anonymous I have added much content to the Wikipeida Ted Kennedy page and corrected many mistakes. The fact that you are part of a vocal group of four in no way validates your argument. This small sample of editors in no way represents a democracy. As to an claiming that I have engaged in personal attacks this is not true. I have seen the acts of others, you should not accuse me without proof. I have tried to reason with your group but you all have your set agenda's to protect Ted from the facts. I get comments like: "I removed the link to www.fatboy.cc (linked as Ted Kennedy photos, audio, & political satire); it was restored. I consider it an attack site." fatboy.cc is not an attack site. There is much valid content there and political satire. There is no profanity, are no hate messages, threats, misinformation, or other atrtributes of a hate site. You and you pals may not like the site, but it is based on truth like most humor.

This is a lie told in absolute bad faith. The fatboy site calls Kennedy a murderer, when there are no "facts" to support that -- as you yourself are aware. That is hate, pure and simple, and a lie, too. Spread your hate -- I won't stop you -- but don't expect people to confuse it with reality. -asx- 05:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what the controversy is. He is a big, fat, alcoholic liar that killed a woman. Why do you wnat to protect him???-----Keetoowah 18:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Keetoowah. I can't seem to get these guys to negociate on the link. PS I stayed in Chinle AZ for a couple of weeks when I was 18. It was on Navajo land. Every night was an awesome sunset, like being at the beach out there, the horizon is so far away! As to Ted Kennedy, you are right on the money. Check out the diver's audio interview at [6] If you don't mind I'll add you to the list of pro link. 24.147.97.230 03:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello-asx-, Please visit this link and see that manslaughter is considered murder. [[7]] Murder, For murder (except in the case of “constructive murder”), the prosecution must prove that the accused killed with: an intention to kill or an intention to inflict grievous bodily harm, being bodily harm of a really serious kind or "a reckless indifference to human life, meaning that the accused foresaw the probability that death would result from his or her act or failure to act." In any other case the charge would have been manslaughter. There would have been an autopsy and a trial in any other case. There are plenty of facts to support a charge of murder. The diver John Farar has stated in public many times that if he was called that night Mary Jo would have survived. There was a phone at the "party house" they never used to call the police. If you went off a bridge with a girl in your car, walked back to your pals and there was a phone there....wouldn't you call the police / fire dept for help right away? This is exactly why a link to fatboy is needed, to present an alternate pov and information. The fact that you didn't know there are others who consider Ted Kennedy a murderer show how a link to fatboy is useful. There are others who don't think he could have saved her life, both sides need to be told. My question has always been, there was a phone right at the Lawrence Cottage. Ted testified he went there and sat in the back of the rented White Valiant while he waited for his cousin Joe Gargan to come out, and then back to the Dyke Bridge. Why didn't anyone call the police??? Thanks 24.147.97.230 14:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

For your group to constantly change my edits is to push your POV upon others. There is a place for discussion and you chose to just kill my edits instead. I had to request protection from you and your group twice. Please show me any other website with photos of the girl crippled by Joe Kennedy, Pam Kelley and I'll begin to see your view. Show me any other website with high resolution photos of Rosemary Kennedy. The much of the content that Howie Carr has provided exists in no other place. What you are doing is censureship. Please understand that others have views that differ from yours and stop pushing your POV on others by brute force. The public has a right to know all of the facts and you should not be shielding others from this site. Instead of destroying others work, please write your own and post your own links. I have not removed any of your links, please don't remove mine as they are on topic and not hateful.

First, some of the less important points:

I referred to you as anonymous because, well, you choose to edit anonymously. We often refer to the position or action taken by a particular editor ("Thryduulf protected the page" or some such). In your case, "anon" is the reference I choose. If you want a different one, create an account and I'll use your user name.
You accused your fellow editors of trying to "protect" people from information and you said that we were in a "conspiracy". To my mind, those were personal attacks.

Now, as to the serious question of article content: You've said several times that there is content on the site that isn't available anywhere else. I responded by explaining to you what that's not the issue. Here it is again:

We don't try to include every link that has something (even something unique) about the subject of an article. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Try to get your site listed on Dmoz instead.

If we linked to every site that has something unique about a prominent person like Kennedy, we could probably find dozens. For George W. Bush, we could find hundreds. We just don't have such bloated "External links" sections. The "fatboy" site is significantly less informative than the anti-Kennedy sites we do link to, so we should go with them instead. JamesMLane 01:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Request that an admin edit protected article, redux

What is so important about removing this link that you MUST remove it daily? Exactly what is it that makes this link worse than *Chappaquiddick: A Profile in Cowardice ? And again you call it my site. Please stop this mis information immediately. Exactly what evidence do you have in any form that I have a connection to fatboy.cc? Please stop your accusations and write only with facts. Why is it not an attack when you accuse me of promotion of a site that I have no connection to? You set the premise that I am lying. Let's get this clear right now. How am I related to this site you call mine????? Lets get your facts out right now. Enough of your accusations, what is your proof that I have the even the slightest connection to this site? Why would you accuse me without absolute proof? Why do you constantly make this claim which is a lie??? Do you not know the importance of each word you write? As to the site, it is relevant. That is why I post the link. You began by calling it a hate site and claim to have removed it for that reason. You have now changed your story and reason. Let's get the to the truth. (20 July 2005, presumably the same anon user)

I don't think I ever suggested that the site was yours. (Actually, until now the possibility never crossed my mind. Do you have a connection to the site?) Nor did I accuse you of lying. I never called it a "hate site", I called it an "attack site". There is a strong presumption against such sites. I do not see enough merit in the site to overcome that presumption. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I believe the anon is talking about both of us indiscriminately. You used the phrase "attack site". For me, that consideration was less important, but I used the phrase "your site". I meant it in the sense of "your favored site" or "the site you keep trying to link to", but I can see how it could be interpreted as "the site you created". I wasn't saying that, because it doesn't matter who created the site. The point I was making was that it's Dmoz, not Wikipedia, that tries to link to every site about each subject. The site that attacks Kennedy about Chappaquiddick seems to me to have some solid information (albeit told from a particular POV). It's the sort of thing that could properly be included in a Wikipedia article about the accident if we were to get into that level of detail. The "fatboy" site gives the reader much less help, if any. We have to exercise our judgment, and that's mine. JamesMLane 06:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Request that an admin edit protected article, redux

I quote, " We don't try to include every link that has something (even something unique) about the subject of an article. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Try to get your site listed on Dmoz instead. JamesMLane 05:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)"

As to YOU never making the accusation, I am under attack by a group of you who claim to be editors. The statement above by JamesMLane does in fact claim that it is my site, which it is not. Shocked? You think I am making this up?

As to your views, exactly what makes this site an attack site, which you claim it is. As to presumption, You presume? Your argument is that your presumption is your supporting strenght? What happened to facts and research? That you assume is now a good basis for an analytical determination? Though you do not, I do see enough merit to include this site. Perhaps you should view it before you make presumptions and write based upon facts instead of a guess.

Finally, to all, please state your own argument. Who has given anyone the authority to state "we"? It may feel more powerful to represent a group, but you must first be appointed. Please speak only for yourself.

I have been appointed. Like everyone else on Wikipedia, I am self-appointed. When I discuss external links, I'm presenting my personal understanding of what the Wikipedia community's accepted standards are. Do you think the standard is, or should be, that we link to every external site that can be shown to have some content not duplicated elsewhere? JamesMLane 07:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

If you are self-appointed please refer to yourself in the singular. When you write "we" it implies that you are speaking for others. If you speak for others please state who and by what authority.

The site fatboy.cc is on topic and not an attack site. It is proper that a link be established on the Ted Kennedy page.

If you are self-appointed please refer to yourself in the singular. When you write "we" it implies that you are speaking for others. If you speak for others please state who and by what authority.

The site fatboy.cc is on topic and not an attack site. It is proper that a link be established on the Ted Kennedy page.

Your request that I change what I say is denied, for the reason I stated immediately above your comment. If you trouble to read what I wrote, you'll notice that:

The Wikipedia community, which has been in existence for quite some time before you came along, has developed policies, guidelines, practices, and standards for writing the encyclopedia.
Among the aspects of the project that these cover is the use of external links.
I wrote to present my understanding of what we, the community, have decided with regard to external links.
In particular, in Wikipedia, we are quite selective about including external links; we don't link to every relevant site on the Web, or even to most of them.

If you disagree with one or more of those numbered statements, I would greatly appreciate it if you would tell us which one(s) -- by number -- you dispute, and what your view on that point is.

Your only participation in this "discussion" has been to keep reiterating the same thing over and over and over. The implication of your incessantly repeated position is that the general standard, applicable to all websites about Ted Kennedy and to all websites about any other article subject, is that every Wikipedia article should include an external link to every site that "is on topic and not an attack site". You never state expressly whether you believe that is the general standard now, or whether you agree that it isn't but believe that we should change to adopt that general standard, or whether you don't care about the idea of a general standard at all but instead care only about pressing your dislike of Ted Kennedy. I have pointed out to you that, especially in articles about controversial public figures, promiscuous external linking would lead to "External links" sections that were absurdly long. You have not addressed that consideration, content instead to just keep repeating your view over and over and over.

This is precisely what I thought would happen when I saw that the page had been protected with your version in place. Protection is supposed to be for the purpose of allowing the participants to discuss their differences on the talk page to try to arrive at a resolution. Your idea of "discussion" is that you know The Truth, and that if you patiently restate The Truth for us often enough, perhaps we'll eventually get it. As long as your favored version is securely in place, you have no reason to do anything else, because you aren't interested in the process of collaborative editing that we employ.

So, here are my predictions:

There will be no progress on this talk page toward any resolution. Eventually the protection will be lifted and we'll be right back where we were.
In the longer term, because you are temperamentally unsuited to participating in a collaborative project, you won't last here. Either you'll get disgusted and leave, or you'll be banned.

I reluctantly conclude that there's nothing useful to be done now but to wait. At some point this page will be unprotected. Then the process can resume. JamesMLane 15:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is circular. You dodge the issues and cloud the facts with nonsense. You pretend that you are objective but clearly state in your profile, and I quote, "Hostile to the right wing". For this to be so important that you include it as a definition of yourself proves your bias. Perhaps you should edit pages which are not politically related. Your boasting of hostility is a sad self descriptive, but true. If you wish to be hostile perhaps you should find another hobby. Where do you find hostility as a founding principle of Wikipedia? You are involved in this for the wrong reasons.

Speculating on the motives of other editors is not a productive way to guide this discussion to a satisfactory conclusion. Please try to keep your comments relevant to the topic of the article and not personal. Gamaliel 15:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not speculation that JamesMLane has clearly stated in his profile "Hostile to the right wing". As to your advise, I hope you are referring to JamesMLane who just stated (of me) " because you are temperamentally unsuited to participating in a collaborative project, you won't last here. Either you'll get disgusted and leave, or you'll be banned." Is that not a "personal attack"?

I suggest you focus on the matter of the article and not get wrapped up in tangents like this, or the argument could drag on for weeks. Gamaliel 17:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, why do you not address the personal attack I am under? This is the cause of the dispute. Do you feel it is ok for JamesMLane to state " because you are temperamentally unsuited to participating in a collaborative project, you won't last here. Either you'll get disgusted and leave, or you'll be banned." Why are you not setting this right? Do you agree with JamesMLane in this personal attack?

Conflicts with other users should be addressed using the steps outlined at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, not by endlessly complaining on the talk page of an article. The matter that should be under discussion is what mutually satisfactory resolution will end an edit war and allow the article to be unprotected. Gamaliel 18:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I have already requested AMA assistance.

My comment wasn't intended as a personal attack. It was advice to you based on my experience with this project. Because you evidently don't want advice of that sort, I retract the comment. I did not realize that you would be so upset by my attempt to tell you something you didn't already know.

I agree with Gamaliel that this page should be about resolving the substantive differences about the article, with other issues left to the dispute resolution process. So, can we return to the subject of the article content? and would you find a moment to address the numbered points I set forth above? JamesMLane 19:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Request for AMA help

I request JamesMLane cease editing the Ted Kennedy section of Wikipedia. JamesMLane has shown no real effort to resolve this dispute. JamesMLane has engaged in personal attacks of which a "left handed" admission is stated above. To attack and then retract is still an attack. In addition all efforts to reason with this group of editors has failed. Their argument has morphed from the original reason stated by Jmabel who stated, " I consider it an attack site." The next argument by Jmabel stated, "I'm not trying to "protect" anyone from the image, I'm trying to protect Wikipedia from an accumulation of crap" The next version of his reason was, " It is a pretty general policy not to link sites of politicians to juvenile attack sites directed at them." At this point JamesMLane acts as the spokesperson of the group and states, "The editors opposed to including the "fatboy" link -- Jmabel, Coneslayer, Texture, and myself" JamesMLane has written, "I used the phrase "your site"." In an implied accusation that I was promoting as site of my own, something that is not true. When questioned about this accusations JamesMLane stated, "I meant it in the sense of "your favored site" The words chosen by an editor have great importance. JamesMLane has shown much trouble in choosing the correct words to express his thoughts. This is twice now that JamesMLane has made statements which he later tried to give new meaning to, or retracted. It's clear these are attacks and the constant removal of my edits and likes are malicious, as are the threats, ..."or you'll be banned" by JamesMLane . I have requested that the editors involved act as individuals in order that each may present his or her own views but some still claim "we" as an indication that a consensus has been made.

I request that due to the malice, the threats, the mis information, the proclamation on his profile, "Hostile to the right wing", the expressed hostility, that JamesMLane voluntarily or by higher authority end his involvement with this page.

I further request that the neutrality of this page be put into dispute. It is clear that a group of editors act in concert to control this content. To deny others the ability to edit and post links which oppose thier point of view is censureship.

Thank you

I don't think you quite understand how Wikipedia works. Article content is driven by consensus, and thus the fact that four other editors want the link out is not censorship, but a decision made by the mutual agreement of most of the people editing this article. The link does not go in by default or because of "free speech"; it is your responsibility to make a positive case for the link's inclusion. Even if JML, voluntarily or not, ceased editing the article there is still a majority against inclusion that you have failed to convince. I suggest you forget about trying to "disqualify" certain editors and focus on providing a reasonable argument for your side of the issue. Gamaliel 06:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Counterproposal

The anon has suggested that should unilaterally stop editing the article. I suggest to him or her this approach instead:

You and I will join in requesting mediation from the Mediation Committee. (The AMA is a different entity. One of its activities is to help people who are involved in a mediation, but it does not itself mediate.)
The Mediation Committee requires that a mediation have only two parties. The two parties to this one will be you and I.
The Mediation Committee generally asks the parties about their preferences for a mediator. Any current member of the Mediation Committee is acceptable to me. I am perfectly happy for the Mediation Committee to make sure not to designate any mediator you reject, or even to designate a particular mediator selected by you.
The Mediation Committee normally asks the parties to the mediation to refrain from editing the contested article while the mediation is proceeding. You and I will both agree in advance to honor this request. Naturally, that applies to us as users, not just to one user name or IP number.
The page will be unprotected.
I think the mediation would go more smoothly if you would create an account, but I won't insist on that as a precondition.

How does that sound? JamesMLane 07:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Counterproposal Reply

Hello JamesMLane , very happpy to see you write in the spirit of cooperation. I would be willing to participate in mediation if the AMA is not successful. Perhaps we could just agree to the fatboy.cc link and get this all behind us and work as a team to make this a meaningful, neutral, and informative page? I am willing to forget and forgive all the past abuse for such an agreement. I would agree to some disclaimer text to be posted with the link which we could write together. Thank you.

You still don't understand the role of the AMA. You say "if the AMA is not successful" but there is absolutely nothing the AMA can do on its own. It doesn't conduct mediations. Instead, the idea is that you and I would agree to enter mediation with Mediation Committee. At that point, because you're new here, you might feel that you don't have a grasp of the procedures yet. Enter the AMA. An advocate from the AMA will be much more familiar with the procedures and can advise you on how to participate. Actually, the AMA can probably help you out even earlier, in explaining mediation to you to help you decide whether it makes sense for you to agree to it in the first place. (I've never been directly involved with the AMA but that's my understanding of it. Sam Spade has edited this page, so I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.)

Your specific suggestion for an amicable resolution is that you get your way about including the link, but that, in addition to cluttering the article with the link, we then clutter it further with a "disclaimer statement". To my mind that doesn't accomplish anything. I'll refrain from making the obvious counterproposal that we just agree to omit the link. Instead, I'll repeat the offer I made above: I'm willing to proceed before the Mediation Committee if you are. JamesMLane 23:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Counterproposal Reply 2

To JamesMLane, Angela is my choice for a mediator. If you agree then I will contact her and ask for her assistance.

Angela is eminently qualified to mediate. The problem is that she's also eminently qualified to do about a zillion other things that are more important to the project. Mediating this petty dispute wouldn't be a good use of her time. If you look at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee#Members of the mediation committee, you'll see that she's currently listed as "Inactive" on that committee. I don't think our dispute would qualify for the exception she made for short-term mediations on IRC. In light of her decision to list herself as "Inactive", it would be rude to bother her about this case.

Would any of the active members of the Mediation Committee be acceptable to you? JamesMLane 06:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Angela is my choice. You clearly stated: " I am perfectly happy for the Mediation Committee to make sure not to designate any mediator you reject, or even to designate a particular mediator selected by you. " Why not let her decide if she can take this? If she agrees to mediate I would expect that you will honor your word and proceed with this. I'm sure this can be resolved according to her guidelines for "short-term mediations on IRC." My guess is that being in Germany she will be less likely to be biased on this case. She also appears to be very qualified. I have had no contact with her as I write this. I take the same chance of loosing my cause as you do. I have just now requested her assistance.

I have to say what I hope a lot of people are thinking: This is the most retarted edit war I've seen in a long time. It's one single external link. There is absolutely no reason to take this absurdly insignificant matter to mediation at this early stage. Has anyone posted at WP:RfC? Have you tried to fully discuss this issue and forge a consensus on this talk page? Most of the discussion here has revolved around policy rather than content. If the parties here are unwilling to do the work of taking the pre-mediation steps, I don't see why a third party should do the work of mediating this minor dispute. Gamaliel 16:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not the most retarded edit war I've ever seen, but it's certainly up there. What I said was, "Mediating this petty dispute wouldn't be a good use of [Angela's] time." In reflecting on Gamaliel's comment, I realize that my statement was too limited; I should've said that it wouldn't be a good use of anyone's time. Nevertheless, the anon seemed to think that the AMA would conduct a mediation, so I explained the actual structure and said that I'd be willing to go through mediation. A mediation would waste my time and the mediator's, but possibly less overall time than an RfC. Of course, I don't think that the page should've been protected in the first place, which was the initial step toward overinflating this dispute.

To the anon: You have a tendency to post comments that appear not to take account of whatever you're responding to. You ask why we shouldn't let Angela decide whether to get involved. My answer, as I stated immediately above your question, was that it would be rude even to ask her. So, while I don't object to Angela as a mediator, I don't want my position communicated in such a way as to give the impression that I think it's a good idea. She shouldn't be asked. If she's asked she should decline. JamesMLane 18:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It might be better to seek an active member of the Mediation Committee, but briefly, does the link meet the policy at Wikipedia:External links#What to link to and have you read When should I link externally? If the issue isn't serious enough for the Mediation Committee, which at this stage (pre-RfC) I think it isn't, how about trying the new Mediation "Cabal", which would seem ideal for this sort of issue? Angela . 21:44, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Angela. Question JamesMLane, what part of Wikipedia:External links#What to link to states that sites like fatboy.cc should not be posted? It looks like it is well in accordance with policy. In fact, I have no problem with putting up some quotes taken from fatboy.cc and using the site as a source. I would think that you would value the opinion of Angela. Is this over now?

Excuse me? All that Angela did here was to point to exactly the policy under which we are objecting to the link. Of the five categories under "What should be linked to", I assume we can all agree that it does not meet criteria 1 or 3 (it is not Kennedy's official site, and the site itself is not the topic of the article), and I hope that we can all agree that it does not meet criterion 5 (it is clearly not neutral, I would hope even you will concede that). That leaves two possibilities.

2. Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of a text. Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. To fail to do so is plagiarism.

4. On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is.

As for criterion 4, (a) the article is not short on sites that are critical of Kennedy and that we seem to have "consensus minus one" are more appropriate than this one and (b) your previous efforts to insert the link into the article certainly did not contain a "detailed explanation... informing the reader of... their POV." Rather the contrary. You've given bland descriptions that tend to hide the nature of the site.

I gather that you are now proposing to use it as a source, so that it will fall under criterion 2? That seems absolutely ass backwards: one usually does not seek to find information in a source so that the source may be cited. One cites sources because they have been useful in one's research. In any event, if you are pulling this line, the burden is then on you to identify what material from the site is of sufficient notability that it actually belongs in an encyclopedia article on Ted Kennedy. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:02, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Jmabel, thanks for the note. Are you speaking for yourself, JamesMLane, or an undefined group of editors? I'm not sure why you appear to give a reply on behalf of JamesMLane. My last edit was clearly intended for JamesMLane. It began, "Question JamesMLane," Did you think I was directing my attempt at resolution to you Jmabel ? If so, I was not.

I'm speaking for me. As far as I can tell, no one has appointed anyone else to speak for them here. As long as you continue the conversation in this very public forum, I feel quite entitled to contribute. My remark was intended as constructive. I was objecting--strenuously--to your "Is this over now?". It strains my credulity to believe you asked that in good faith, but I was trying to respond to it with an actual explanation of how we move forward.-- Jmabel | Talk 06:17, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jmabel I just couldn't figure out why you would reply to a message I addressed to JamesMLane. Glad that a solution between myself and JamesMLane will also be ok with you.

Frankly, anon, I find your comments less and less comprehensible as this goes on.

Jmabel is one of the editors of this page. In fact, he removed this silly link before I did. Anyone can comment on a subject that's raised; you can't shut him out by addressing a question to me.
Jmabel said nothing remotely resembling your interpretation that anything you and I agreed to would ipso facto be OK with him.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links. We don't try to link to every site under the sun that might conceivably be relevant. You've never answered my question as to whether you think that is, or should be, the general policy. You've never responded to my argument that such indiscriminate linking would produced absurdly long "External links" sections in manya articles.

I have no experience with the Mediation Cabal (obligatory disclaimer: TINMC!). If you want to pursue that, please note that WGFinley's user page says he's currently on Wiki-vacation. Such statements, like Angela's statement that she's not active on the Mediation Committee, should be respected, so please don't try to involve him. JamesMLane 10:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

An anonymous user has requested that I consider acting as a mediator in this matter, apparently in the stead of Angela, who is reportedly not available for that purpose at this time. I am honored to be considered as a possible substitute for Angela. That said, I don't see what there is to mediate in this dispute. The main issue in question appears to be whether or not to include a specific external link. I don't see a middle ground here, which means that my role would come down to that of arbitrator, to determine whether or not that link is appropriate for inclusion, rather than that of mediator. While I'm willing to serve that role as well, I want it made clear that that would be the role I would be playing, and not one of mediation, and I won't take that role without clear agreement by all parties to abide by the result of such arbitration. (I will categorically refuse to determine whether any particular user's conduct was appropriate, as we already have the ArbCom for that. I am willing to arbitrate the question of appropriateness because Wikipedia currently has no mechanism for that.)

I don't believe I know, other than in passing, any of the editors involved in this dispute, except that I think Joy Stovall has reverted vandalism to my user page once or twice, and it's possible that one or more of them voted on my my RfA (but a lot of people voted on my RfA that I didn't know very well).

To all the editors involved in this dispute, from "the anon"... I have no previous contact with Kelly Martin . (as above) I have no idea of how she will rule on the issue of whether or not to include the specific external link fatboy.cc. In following the advise of Angela I have requested her assistance. I am willing to abide by her decision and become involved in any process that she designs for fact finding. I also understand that she will not determine whether any particular user's conduct was appropriate. Her initial summary seems right on the money, there is no middle ground on this issue. I had offered to include the link with a disclaimer which was refused. That was the best effort I had for finding a solution which suited all of us. At this point I will agree with any decision she makes, I have no idea if she will choose to include the link. Since there is a group of editors who are involved in this dispute please reply if you are willing to commit to any decision Kelly Martin makes on this matter. Thank you.

No, I am not willing to make such a ccmmitment. As Kelly Martin correctly states, that would convert the process from mediation into binding arbitration. It's not an effective solution. Some other editor could come along tomorrow and disagree with the outcome, which wouldn't be binding on him or her. Binding arbitration of article content is, in my experience, rare to nonexistent on Wikipedia. JamesMLane 19:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Contrary to Angela and to what has just been said, there most certainly is a middle ground: if the link is to be added to the article, its nature should be clear. If it is to be added -- and I still think it should not be -- it should be captioned clearly and its name should be overtly given, because the name suggests the tone: something like "fatboy.cc, a satiric site strongly opposed to Ted Kennedy". There should also be some kind of a notice/warning that the site includes things like like a photo of the Chappaquiddick death car and nude paparazzi photos of some of Kennedy's female relatives. One does not normally expect a link from a site about a politician to lead to this sort of thing. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:47, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's a start. Is anyone so strongly opposed to including this link with an appropriate warning (to be determined later) that they won't accept this as an outcome? Kelly Martin 19:29, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

(Raising hand) It's generally a good idea to include a brief informative description of any external link, if it's not self-evident from its title. Including such a description here, however, wouldn't address the reasons I've already given for saying that this link shouldn't be included. JamesMLane 22:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello Jmabel, as the anon, I agree to your proposal that a warning be posted with identical or similar content to your description as above. Thank you.

I'm not sure this is a good idea. The consensus on this page was clearly against inclusion, and I don't think we should dismiss that consensus so easily, especially with no real compelling reason given for inclusion. Gamaliel 19:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel, are you willing to abide by a decision by Kelly Martin ?

Hello Kelly Martin , perhaps we have hear the last of Gamaliel , he has made 10 other edits on other pages since his post above but has not replied to my question of if he will honor a decision by you. Any ideas on what direction to go next? Thanks. (presumably the same anon 24 July 2004)

I didn't say I wished to compromise. We seem to have consensus-minus-one to omit the link and that remains my view. I was simply pointing out that the statement that no compromise was possible is false.
Gamaliel is perfectly entitled not to be focused on this discussion for several hours without losing his voice in the matter.
Would you please sign and date your posts, if only with an IP address? Not to do so often makes it hard to tell where your post ends and another begins, or when you left your post. All you have to do is type ~~~~ (without putting a "nowiki" element around it, of course) and you IP address (or account name, if you establish one) plus the date and time will be automatically substituted. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, I will seek advise from Angela again. Perhaps she can reason with your group. 24.147.97.230 04:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It is my conclusion from the above discussion that a compromise is extremely unlikely. Since right now there's four or five editors opposed to the link and, apparently, one in favor (possibly two, see comment below), I've posted this article's talk page on WP:RFC to get a wider opinion. Hopefully a larger collection of eyes on the article will make consensus more clear, althought in my opinion it seems likely that consensus opposes including the link. I remind all editors that violating established consensus may lead to sanctions, including blocks and, eventually, bans. Kelly Martin 12:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Are attack sites not allowed?

I agree that Ted Kennedy photos, audio, & political satire is an attack site, but is there a rule against that? Most controvercial pages have sites critical to the subject matter, but is there some sort of line drawn about going to far. I agree that including this page here is a bit like linking to http://dumbya.com/ at George Bush, but is there a rule against that? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 16:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Attack sites aren't a problem per se, this however appears to be an entirely puerile site that amounts to a gallery of embarrassing pictures. There are plenty of anti-Kennedy sites that are intellectually serious that can be included. Having a link to this would be absurd. (This is my first edit on this page; I arrived via RFC.) Christopher Parham (talk) 04:30, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

I agree with Christopher Parham, there appears to be quite a collection of embarrassing picures. I don't however agree that this link should be removed. All of the material is Ted Kennedy related and there is no Wikipedia policy which prohibits links to sites with embarrassing photos. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. There is nothing pornographic there and I did learn quite a bit about Rosemary Kennedy. I think the link is embarrassing but is on topic and should be alllowed. 65.241.12.7 04:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Sam. As the "anon" in this dispute I would have no problem with http://dumbya.com/ being posted at the George Bush site. I appreciate you willing to help resolve this dispute and keep Wkikpedia neutral.

Ted kennedy and Chris Dodd's "waitress sandwich"

Why no mention in the article of Kenendy and Dodd’s famous, or infamous, “waitress sandwich” at La Brasserie in 1985? If I recall correctly, they settled with her on condition that she not speak of it.

Can this, or more appropriately, should this be presented in the article in a fair and NPOV manner (as is my way)? TDC 17:21, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

TK& CD's "waitress sandwich

There actually is a story about this at fatboy.cc check this link. Again this is another feature of the site which provides obscure and valuable information about Edward M. Kennedy. http://fatboy.cc/fatboyscrapbook.htm

Request for comments

There is an ongoing dispute over the appropriateness of the inclusion of a specific external link fatboy.cc, leading to an edit war and page protection.

Running tally

Some of these users are categorized based on pre-RfC comments and edits.

Include the link (total 13): 24.147.97.230, 65.241.12.7, 62.245.167.6, 64.95.78.122, 193.136.157.2, 209.161.5.194, 24.147.231.218, 204.186.238.30, 216.13.18.3, 216.239.175.244, 69.17.65.27,209.172.97.76 Keetoowah (Note comments below about some of these users.)

Omit the link (total 11): Mrtrey99, Jmabel, JamesMLane, Coneslayer, Tεx τ urε, Christopher Parham, FuelWagon, Paul August, Rhobite, jpgordon ∇∆∇∆, Robert McClenon (Interseting comment of Kelly Martin " Registered users are actually capable of being more anonymous than anonymous users as their IP addresses are hidden" Please read Kelly's advise below. Thank you 24.147.97.230 04:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this a vote?

If so, it looks like 10 for omitting the link and 1 for keeping it. We know that someone using anonymous IP addresses is in favor of the link, but we have no proof that there is more than one person using 8 addresses. Robert McClenon 21:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not a vote. It is a discussion. Kelly Martin 00:35, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

from the "anon", Even though the tally is in favor of keeping the link I hesitate to claim numerical support. I still think a better way to solve this is agreement. It should not have to be all or nothing. There is also a lack of rules about how long to collect data. I'm still willing to negociate a disclaimer. Thanks 24.147.97.230 01:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Kelly Martin that this is a discussion, which ordinarily wouldn't call for a tally. In this instance, however, I wanted to note a point that emerges only if you step back from individual responses and look at the discussion as a whole: namely, that registered users are all against the link, and support for its inclusion comes solely from anons, some of whom have virtually no edits other than participating in favor of including the link. 24.147.97.230 is well advised to "hesitate to claim numerical support." JamesMLane 01:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Which means what, they are not part of your biased club? That they don't have profiles like you that proudly claims hostility? I would advise everyone with an interest in the matter to view JamesMLane where this "editor" self describes himself, " Hostile to the right wing". What clear thinking objective person would put this in his/her profile? After view his claim to hostility remember that this link is to a political site he does not agree with. Consider the EXTREME bias of this guy. Do you state hostility in your profile? JamesMLane Don't take shots at those who have not registered. I'd rather deal with an anon than a person who loves to be hostile. Who else do you hate? 24.147.97.230 02:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

These sort of comments are inappropriate. You have spent more time complaining about the user page of User:JamesMLane than you have attempting to make a case for inclusion of your link, and he isn't even the only user who is against the link. Please restrict your comments to content and not personalities. Gamaliel 02:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel I've noticed that you have consistantly supported the view of [User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] I would like to point out that all of the editors involved may be the same person. A single person may have multiple profiles and appear to be seperate entities. I would ask you to restrict your comments to that of the issue. 24.147.97.230 02:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel I would also point out that this discussion was close to being resolved until your post as follows, " I'm not sure this is a good idea. The consensus on this page was clearly against inclusion, and I don't think we should dismiss that consensus so easily, especially with no real compelling reason given for inclusion. Gamaliel 19:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)" As a person with strong views attached to the issue I'm not so sure it's a good idea for you to be acting as a policeman or woman. 24.147.97.230 03:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence for your sockpuppet accusation. All of the registered accounts involved in this discussion are from respected Wikipedians of good and long standing. Such a bad faith argument adds no credit to your case for inclusion of the link. There was no impending resolution suddenly dashed by my comment, and I have no strong views on the issue of this link, but strong views on the issue of respecting consensus, which is a fundamental part of how Wikipedia works. I merely pointed out that such a proposition - which was in no way an impending resoltion - would ignore that consensus. It would be a "good idea" for you to make your case using established Wikipedia rules and policies instead of attempting to "disqualify" JML or myself or anyone else, trying to knock everyone out of the discussion but yourself. Gamaliel 03:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Gee, and all this from a guy or gal who just advised a few hours ago, "Please restrict your comments to content and not personalities. Gamaliel 02:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)" How's it feel? Perhaps you should take your own advise? 24.147.97.230 03:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I made no comments about your personality, your politicial views, or anything except your comments on this page. Gamaliel 03:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not Gamaliel; I have never edited under that name, nor have I ever given anyone else my password to enable him or her to edit under my name. The anon's assertion that "this discussion was close to being resolved" does not comport with my reading of the talk page and the edit summaries. JamesMLane 03:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

None of this matters. There's no vote; there's a discussion and an attempt to gain consensus. In this case, the consensus is clearly something you disagree with; it's consensus, nevertheless. Time to find something else to do -- you can't win this one, and to continue it for the sake of argument is bordering on trolling. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It's very obvious that the may of "the editors" do not wish to cooperate. It seems that they walk away from every proposal. My vote goes to keep the link. 209.172.97.76 14:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

This is this IP's only edit (other than modifying the vote count). --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 14:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment from FuelWagon

You're kidding me, right? A quick scan through the page shows the point of the site to be little more than showing how fat Kennedy is and closeups of his face with roadmaps overlaid on it. Only a lame attempt to make the site look "legitimate" was made by listing the sort of stuff I would expect to read in the National Enquirer. This is embarrasing to wikipedia. Drop the link. FuelWagon 14:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Paul August ☎ 16:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this link doesn't belong here. Rhobite 17:07, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

The link does not add to the article. It should be dropped. - Tεx τ urε 18:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The link doesn't belong. Even if the site weren't a crap site, attack sites are not encyclopedic references (except in discussions of attack sites). --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 18:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The site provides no factual information about Ted Kennedy that is not contained elsewhere in the article. It does illustrate that some people dislike him intensely, but that could be inferred because he is a politician. Much of the site is devoted to ridiculing other members of his family, which is not even relevant to him. Robert McClenon 14:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

comments from anon editors

This politics issue. Link is ok, politics not decide issue. 62.245.167.6 17:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The above is this user's only edit. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 18:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It's a feee country. No reason to protect Ted Kennedy from his past. The page is accurate. 204.186.238.30 18:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

All edits from 204.186.238.30 (talk · contribs) other than this one and the very first are nasty vandalism. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 18:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The link has no encyclopedic value. Deleting it hardly "protects Ted Kennedy from his past", because Chappaquidick is mentioned in detail in the article. Robert McClenon 14:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Why RFC it if you refuse to count the anon votes? Count mine as for keeping the link and warning your yellow dog dems that you can not force your views on others. 69.17.65.27 23:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This is this user's only edit. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 23:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Counting the anon votes would be ridiculous. We have no idea how many of them there were. Robert McClenon 14:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep the link to fatboy.cc How does it hurt Wikipedia? It might not be what these editors what to see, but I think it fits ok. It would be one thing if it was a link to selling stuff, or about how to make plastics. It's all about Ted Kennedy. This page is all about Ted Kennedy. Case closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.175.244 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This is this user's only edit. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 23:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the email on this Cookie. No doubt this should be on Wikipedia (fatboy.cc). Count my vote as one to keep. Hope it's ok to vote on US issues in Canada! 216.13.18.3 23:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This is this user's only edit. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 23:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Cookie should know that it's bad form to recruit people to come invade Wikipedia over a single issue. The opinions of these "hit-and-run" anonymous users should count for very little - they are recruits with no interest in a high-quality encyclopedia article. Rhobite 01:37, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Question for an admin

Is it possible for an article to be permanently protected against anonymous edits? If so, I think that that would resolve the issue. Anyone who is willing to sign in and discuss the merits of the link should be allowed to try to change the consensus as long as they are civil and do not get into a revert war. Completely protecting the article has to be a short-term solution. Can an article be permanently protected only from anonymous edits? Robert McClenon 21:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Nope. And wikireligionists would explain that doing so would be the unwiki way. Anyone is welcome to edit, until they demonstrate that they are jerks. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- And, sadly, often long after they have so demonstrated. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  - You're proof of that. 216.13.18.3 05:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    - A remark about as useful as "I am rubber, you are glue..." Are we trying to work out what to do with the article, or is this just a pissing match? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:03, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

- - - - You're right. I should not have responded to your comment on jerks. It's just that I am contantly accused of everything under the sun ie; "These sort of comments are inappropriate." by Gamaliel and was wondering he's ok with your rude comments. I'd love to work this out and get the page back unprotected. I tried everything I could think of. Can you think of any middle ground on this where the link is up but you guys are happy too? I've tried and failed. One other thing, there is a new page on the site with actual audio from the Chappaquiddick diver, John Farrar. Howie interviewed John during a broadcast from the Lawrence Cottage in 1994. The site promises more photos and audio. I mention this as evidence again that fatboy.cc has content found no where else and is a valuable source. I know there are photos of his nose and others that are not kind to Ted. Check out the audio and see that a link helps Wikipedia present the best accounts possible. [Diver John Farrar Interview] 24.147.97.230 04:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Selectively Blocking Anonymous Edits

Maybe my previous thought was not clear. I was not suggesting that anonymous edits should not be permitted in general. There is a proposed policy to allow selective Wikipedia:Per-article blocking to protect articles that are being attacked by particular disruptive editors. I was suggesting that certain articles need to be blocked from anonymous edits when the article has been persistently disrupted by anonymous edits. This article has been disrupted by anonymous edits, as have some philosophy-related articles, such as Truth, by an anonymous editor known as Dot-Six. This article has had to be protected, which is a drastic remedy, and is more contrary to the "Wiki way" than what I am suggesting. This article cannot be edited at all except by admins. I am suggesting that this article be protected only from anonymous edits.

I do not understand the reference to Wikireligionists. Can someone explain it? Is it meant to be a positive or negative reference to them?

Protecting an article from anonymous edits seems to be to be a less extreme and more appropriate remedy than permanently protecting it. The current mediation or discussion should be allowed to continue for a while. However, mediation or discussion does not always resolve a dispute. If the anonymous editor cannot be persuaded to omit the link (or the majority cannot be persuaded that the link is necessary), then what should be done? Should this article be allowed to be vandalized? Should this article be permanently protected, which would be very "unwiki"? Or should some intermediate remedy, such as blocking anonymous edits for a specific article, be used? Robert McClenon 12:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

When I read "Wikireligionists", I took it to mean people who believe in the principle of open editing, and believe it as devoutly as some people believe religious teachings. There's a favorable connotation of holding to beliefs faithfully and an unfavorable connotation of holding to beliefs not justified by reason. Perhaps your reaction to the metaphor depends on how you feel about other religions. JamesMLane 13:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Open editing, if you mean editing by the whole Wiki community, is one of the basic principles of Wikipedia. It is essential to the concept of a Wiki and should only be restricted when necessary. That is, any restrictions on open editing have to be based on necessary trade-offs. At the same time, Wikipedia is not an anarchy, and there do have to be a few restrictions in certain situations. I was never proposing to disable anonymous edits, except for articles that are repeatedly disrupted or vandalized by disruptive anonymous editors. If you know of a way to protect articles such as this one from disruption that is less disruptive than marking the article as protected from anonymous edits, please let us know what it is. The current article protection, which turns all open editing off on this article, seems to be to be more contrary to the nature of a wiki than blocking anonymous edits for this article. Is anonymous editing considered to be "sacred" or "non-negotiable"? I think that would cause Wikipedia to become an anarchy. Maybe there is something that I do not understand, but is anonymous editing really more important than allowing open editing by signed-in editors? Robert McClenon 19:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your criticism of the current status of this page. It should never have been protected to begin with. My understanding is that, at present, the software doesn't provide the semi-protection option you're referring to. Our current choice is between full protection and no protection, and I favor the latter. JamesMLane 22:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You agree with all the criticism, no surprise here. BTW, since you feel you are somehow not anonymous, please post your full name, telephone number and address. JamesMLane Oh wait, I guess we are all anonymous aren't we? So what's really different? That some choose to take the time to make a profile and some don't want to? New Wiki rule, if you don't post your real name and address you are an anonymous user just like an IP address. Of course you realize any IP address can create any number of user accounts. You are both hypocrites. Admit you are anonymous or post your name and address. Enough of this anonymous vs user id nonsense. 216.13.18.3 03:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

My user name is my real name, and my user page discloses my race, gender, occupation, city of residence, and approximate age. With that for a start, my address and phone number aren't hard to find. Here's a hint: If you run a Yahoo! People Search on "James Lane" in my city, you get five hits, one of which you can eliminate as having a different middle initial. I'm one of the remaining four. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if someone skilled in more sophisticated online searching could find out a whole lot more about me, right down to whether it's briefs or boxers.

Now let's put that little irrelevancy behind. The issue isn't whether you disclose your real name. It seems like at least half of the registered users who've participated here have user names that don't reflect their real names. (I don't think anybody would name their kid "FuelWagon".) The point is that, regardless of whether we know their names outside Wikipedia, we know that these users are genuine members of the Wikipedia community. Each of them has made a substantial number of edits on a range of articles over a period of time. By contrast, Mr. or Ms. 216.13.18.3, you have five edits, all in the last few days, four of them being to this talk page -- and your record is above average for those favoring the link, considering how many of the others have engaged in vandalism. Certainly you, as a new user, are welcome, whether or not you decide to register. I hope you'll help us improve the Serena Williams article and any others that interest you. The context here, though, is the discussion of a particular question of article content in light of the standards of the project. People who were recruited by Cookie (who's Cookie?) to stop by and comment based instead on ideological preferences just don't have the same familiarity with those standards. JamesMLane 03:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane says that he does not think that the software currently provides the semi-protection to which I was referring. That is correct. There is an open policy discussion to provide a feature, first suggested by Jimbo Wales, to enable protection of particular articles from particular editors. I am proposing that another variant of that be that an article can be protected from all anonymous editors. I was arguing in favor of a feature that is being discussed. Robert McClenon 11:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Registered users are actually capable of being more anonymous than anonymous users as their IP addresses are hidden (while it is possible to correlate IP addresses to registered users, the ability to do so is restricted to developers and one member of the ArbCom). Registering for an account doesn't require disclosing any information about yourself (even your email address is optional) and you choose what information to disclose on your user page (it can be nothing at all; you're not even required to have a user page). The reason we give registered users more weight in discussions is that registration demonstrates a level of commitment to the community, an indication to wish credit for one's own work, a willingness to take responsibility for one's own edits, and a willingless to facilitate communication between editors. Anyone who argues that they won't register on Wikipedia to "protect their anonymity", at best, does not know what they're talking about. Kelly Martin 13:13, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane , have you noticed that a page you edit almost daily has external links to provide both POV's? The Ralph Nader page has many outside links. Why is it ok there but not here??

One great thing about Wikipedia is that, when somebody says something like this that relies on one of the common logical fallacies, you don't have to try to explain the point yourself; you can just give a wikilink to the explanation. If you look over this talk page and read what people are actually saying, you'll note that Jmabel and I both pointed out that there are anti-Kennedy links included. The difference is the quality of the sites. It's OK to include a reasonable number of anti-Kennedy sites that offer serious, substantive information. It's not OK to include crap. As for the Ralph Nader article, it might be improved if the link section were trimmed (removing some favorable and some unfavorable), but the section isn't hugely bloated. If you think a particular site linked to from that article, whether it supports or opposes Nader, isn't worth referring readers to, bring it up on Talk:Ralph Nader, not here. JamesMLane 03:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess your idea of "crap" and mine differ. This link at Ralph Nader *The Unity Campaign seems to be a redirect with nothing to do with Ralph Nader at all. I'd call THAT a poor external link. At least fatboy.cc is on topic. I also notice that there are no pro-kennedy and anti-kennedy sections here at Ted Kennedy. A quick tally shows only four of the thirteen external links would be classified as anti-kennedy. The balance at Ralph Nader is far more even with 6 pro nader and 5 anti nader. An actual check of the links will find that only 3 of the anti nader links work or are even related to Ralph Nader. Perhaps breaking the Ted Kennedy links into two equal sections would solve this deadlock? The pro kennedy folks could post all the pro kennedy links they want, the anti kennedy folks could post all the anti kennedy links they want. Maybe you could agree on a set number of links to include say 5 or 10 per side. Hope this helps.

Like the man said, if you think a particular site linked to from the Ralph Nader article, whether it supports or opposes Nader, isn't worth referring readers to, bring it up on Talk:Ralph Nader, not here. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:43, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

A couple points that you'll come to understand if you stay long enough to gain more than a minimal experience with Wikipedia: (1) We don't try to assemble a complete bibliography of every relevant external link. That's what Dmoz is for. (2) There is no central editorial board that has final say over the content of each article and can thus enforce a certain consistency. It generally doesn't get you very far, in discussing how a particular article should read, to find one of the 600,000+ others that looks the way you like, and cite it as if it were a binding precedent. JamesMLane 07:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It's obvious that this RfC is being publicized outside Wikipedia somehow, through emails and/or a listing on a right-wing site. It also appears that it's being described, incorrectly, as a vote, rather than an RfC. Just out of curiosity: Is Cookie the same as 24.147.97.230, who's been most assiduously pushing the link? And how is the recruiting being done -- specifically, has our humble RfC been deemed worthy of mention on Free Republic or some such place? JamesMLane 14:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments on running tally

The following comment has been moved from the "runnning tally": (Interseting comment of Kelly Martin " Registered users are actually capable of being more anonymous than anonymous users as their IP addresses are hidden" Please read Kelly's advise below. Thank you 24.147.97.230 04:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not clear to me why an anonymous editor would make that comment, which very much undermines the claim that the count is 13-11 in favor of the link. As far as I can tell, the count is 11-2 or at most 11-3 in terms of actual human beings. If the 11 of us who voted using either true names or established handles had voted with IP addresses, there could be many more votes against the link, because each of us can and does access Wikipedia from various IP addresses. Each of us who have signed in and voted could also cast multiple anonymous votes from various addresses in the different pools. (Each time that I restart my computer, I get a different IP address from within Verizon's pool of DSL IP addresses.) However, that would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. The anonymous linker, on the other hand, has been disrupting Wikipedia to present a non-encyclopedic POV.

The idea of a running tally in which anonymous votes are counted on the same basis as signed-in votes is silly. I think that the proper running tally is 11 to 1. Robert McClenon 16:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Conclusion of opinion survey

I feel that the anonymous opinions should not be given much weight, either, but not for the reasons given by Robert McClenon. We have no real evidence that all of the anonymous opiners are the same individual, and in fact I suspect they all represent different individuals. However, these individuals are, by and large, not part of the Wikipedia community. Their IP addresses, in most cases, have no history of constructively editing Wikipedia. Their opinions do not represent the opinion of the Wikipedia community. They are free to join that community if they wish, but it appears that they do not so wish. Giving less weight to their opinion seems reasonable under the circumstances. With only one or two members of the community (Keetoowah and perhaps the one anon with a real edit history) in favor of including the link, and several people opposed, it is my considered opinion that the consensus of the Wikipedia community opposes the inclusion of this link. It is therefore my recommendation that the page be unprotected and that any attempt to reintroduce the link in question be considered vandalism and treated as such. Kelly Martin 16:32, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Kelly Martin, I have been watching this debate with amusement. I'm not entirely sure that I like the link either. However, I am NOT the anon user as the above comment implies. That is just silly. I live in Texas and I use Time Warner Cable. The Anon user lives in the Northeast, somewhere in the Boston area and uses Comcast. --Keetoowah 08:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think any such suggestion was meant -- I think the point was that you were the only non-anonymous user who wasn't unambiguously against the link, that's all -- and you never did say you were for it, you just wondered why we were protecting Kennedy. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 08:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I think that the Wikipedia community owes Kelly Martin thanks for the difficult and tedious job of conducting this survey for consensus.

I would also like to thank Keetoowah for having the courage to express a minority view signed with a known handle. Robert McClenon 17:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting

So, shall I unprotect the article? Note that part of Kelly's conclusion is counter to Wikipedia policy; stubborness is not vandalism. However, it should be expected that attempts to insert the link against consensus can and most likely will be reverted on sight. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 18:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the page should be unprotected. Because you responded to the RfC, though, it would probably be better if another admin did the unprotecting. I've listed a request at WP:RFP. JamesMLane 18:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I have unprotected the article. --Dmcdevit·t 08:12, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Stubbornness

However, stubbornness can be a violation of the 3RR rule, which is also grounds for blocking an IP address. I notice that the most persistent anonymous IP address is also in a revert war about inserting an "interesting comment" in the "running tally", and has violated 3RR there. I suggest that the article be unprotected, with the understanding that if the link is reinserted, it can be reverted any number of times, and that insertion 4 times by the same user is a 3RR violation. Robert McClenon 18:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Failure to negotiate

It is clear that many of the named editors here are in violation of the most basic of the wiki concept, the concept of an open platform for all to contribute. Robert McClenon makes the argument of a violatoin of 3RR. This argument occurs when JamesMLane and jpgordonattempt to control this discussion of a link to fatboy.cc by the removal of input from an anon. Not only do they demand to control the page, they demand to control the discussion about the page. I am still waiting for the "editors" to put forth a real effort to resolve this issue. I have offered many ways to come "halfway" on this, they are all discarded. There is no question that this page requires protection until the "editors" realize that the Wiki concept that of inclusion, not exclusion. 19:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Please explain what your "halfway" solutions are. I think that tried to reach a consensus and have reached a consensus. The consensus, decided by a supermajority, is that the link is not encyclopedic. Please explain what your "halfway" solutions are.

The statement that there is a failure to negotiate is true, but it is not true on the part of the majority. Robert McClenon 19:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Just how did you offer to negociate this? What halfway point were you willing to agree to? 24.147.97.230 20:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I was not offering to negotiate. I was asking how 24.147.97.230 was willing to negotiate. As Jpgordon says, at this point we have consensus. Robert McClenon 21:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It's irrelevant. This discussion has had a clear result; regardless of how or why you think the conclusion was reached, that's the conclusion (with the excellent assistance of Kelly). One very important thing that Kelly pointed out above: I remind all editors that violating established consensus may lead to sanctions, including blocks and, eventually, bans. Consensus has been established: the fatboy link has been held to not be an encyclopedic source, and hence not appropriate for inclusion on this page. That should be pretty clear to all parties concerned, even those who are dissatisfied with the result. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 20:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It's relevant. It shows how you all operate in a self serving community. As to your note, I'll honor Kelly's determination. Now if you could only win a national election.... (anon, 31 July 2005)

I find it weirdly fascinating that people keep presuming that the objection to the link is based on political identification with Kennedy. As I remarked above, I have removed similar links from the article on Pat Robertson. Do you really think I agree with both of their politics? How could I? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:37, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

It's not all THAT fascinating. People who don't understand the concepts of NPOV and encyclopedic vs. unencyclopedic aren't going to be able to understand that one can object to a bad information source independent of the nature of the information being provided. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

White, male, middle-aged, attorney, New York City resident. Hostile to the right wing and the parapsychology/quackery mindset. Anyone who wants to bother wikilinking any more of that stuff, feel free — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.97.230 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

When I put that on my user page, I thought it was just a matter-of-fact statement. I never expected the hours of entertainment I'd get as a result. The most blatantly biased right-wingers on Wikipedia are the ones most likely to quote it. Some of them seem to believe that, because I disclose my opinions, I should be barred from editing, while they, who pose as disinterested seekers of the truth, should be given free rein.

What your crowd never understands is that the bias of the editor doesn't matter. What matters is bias in the edits. This is, of course, another aspect of the valid point that jpgordon makes above.

Giving credit where credit is due, though, I must say that none of the other conservatives around here have ever approached this anon's fixation on my casual comment. Four references on one talk page! I have the honor to advise you, sir or madam, that, while you are not the first to engage in this particular bit of foolishness, you are by far the most persistent. JamesMLane 07:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

As you pat yourself on the back, consider this. What if the "anon" was just jerking you around for fun? What if he/she was laughing the whole time, and continues to laugh at you? What if the "anon" figured that protecting the page and creating a huge talk page about fatboy.cc would only induce more folks to visit that site? Before you accuse others of foolishness, consider what the real motive may have been. If the "anon" wished to bring attenion to fatboy.cc he/she sure has. 69.159.212.161 18:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

That's unlikely, but certainly not impossible. If your point is that, with the benefit of hindsight, we can now say that the page shouldn't have been protected in the first place, then I agree. JamesMLane 22:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually, it's quite likely -- this anon is describing trolling, and the whole point of trolling is being so much of an ashmole that well-intentioned people are distracted and the troll gets attention. Kinda like the stuff I did in kindergarten, but less mature. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Mr Anon has now started putting the link to the attack site on other articles such as Mary Jo Kopechne. Just FYI. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with people visiting fatboy.cc, and no problem with it having been mentioned a lot of times on the talk page. (There, I did it again myself.) My problem, as I've been clear all along, was with adding it inappropriately to an encyclopedia article. Period. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:11, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

External links

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

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

Palm Beach Rape Trial

Here we go again. After we thought that the issue about the fatboy link had been resolved, we have another attempt to add material of dubious relevance. Do we need another Request for Comments on this article again? Robert McClenon 21:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

There's almost no relevance. So he took the stand in his nephew's trial, and he parties sometimes. Big deal. The entry itself is utterly POV. Gee, so Ted Kennedy appeared in his family compound wearing only a long-tailed shirt. How is it even remotely encyclopedic that his nephew was charged with sexual harassment? Note that this is the same editor who doggedly wanted to remove the actually interesting and important fact that Ted Kennedy acted as surrogate father for the 13 children of his murdered brothers. Ptui. This is the "fatboy" editor continuing to disrupt since he didn't get his way. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- If his partying is not a big deal why oppose it and why should he himself be embarrassed by it. Does he publicly defend his behavior? We should let the reader decide if the information is inoccuous or not. I've no opinion on the fatboy stuff, although I tend to be particularly liberal on external links.--Silverback 22:21, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

To say we should let the reader decide whether the "information" is innocuous misses the point. (The paragraph that's now protected contains misinformation, but let's put that aside for the moment.) The question is not whether the incident reflects badly on Kennedy, but whether it's important enough to include in this article. We have to make judgments about that. There's a discussion going on right now at the George W. Bush article about including a reference to the calls for impeaching Bush. You could write a factually accurate sentence or paragraph about it, but most of us think it should be omitted anyway, because it's just not important. No one has even suggested (as far as I remember) that the Bush article include a paragraph about his brother and the Silverado scandal. Neil Bush was actually fined and restricted from future banking activity, whereas Smith was acquitted of the rape charge, but getting into accusations against an article subject's relatives is too peripheral except in rare situations. JamesMLane 23:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

How important are any of Bush's pecadillo's before he gave his life to the Lord and was born again? Arguably those are more remote in the past and less relevant than Ted's more recent and persistently repeated pecadillos. You're right, it is a difficult decision, but it is different than, and should not be dismissed as vandalism. Furthermore, it doesn't justify, an admin romantically defending his ideal version of the article and knowingly sacrificing himself upon the altar of the 3RR rule. It also doesn't justify blocking an anon IP address for violations of the 3RR rule when that IP only has made two edits total.--Silverback 00:06, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, you pass over completely the distinction I emphasized, between actions of an article's subject and actions of the article's subject's relatives. The hard facts here about Ted Kennedy are that he spent an evening socializing with his son and nephew, both of legal drinking age, and that, in his own home, he was walking around in undershorts and a long-tailed shirt. I vaguely remember that even William F. Buckley, Jr. wrote that a man should be able to walk around his own house in his undershorts. If you're trying to draw an analogy to Bush's DUI conviction and his having been suspended from flying for failing to perform his National Guard obligations, well, I think there's just a wee bit of difference in scale. And Bush's wearing of a device so that his handlers could help him in the debate came after his alleged religious conversion, but I persist in my belief that Bulgegate doesn't belong in the Bush article. JamesMLane 00:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been asked to intervene in this article again. Unfortunately, I am not going to do so. The first time, it was over a website that, while questionable in content, at least was directly on topic. Now the dispute is over whether to include a paragraph on someone else entirely. For me to intervene into this article and attempt to broker consensus would grant legitimacy to the insertion of a paragraph that no reasonable person would believe belongs here. I see no reason why I, or anyone else, should try to force reasonable editors to negotiate with unreasonable ones. The ongoing efforts by the anonymous editors in this article to introduce prejudicial and irrelevant content to this article does not even border on trolling, it almost defines it. We're writing an encyclopedia, not crucifying Ted Kennedy. Let the Kennedy crucifixion fetishists do it on their own websites. It's not encyclopedic, and it doesn't belong here. Kelly Martin 08:04, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Edit war 6 August 2005

There appears to be an edit war going on here. Following a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection I have locked this for a while so that tempers may calm and - hopefully - discussion here will result and some agreement found on how to proceed. FYI I locked it without checking whichever state it was in - no favouritism is intended. just sort it! --Vamp:Willow 22:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I am reverting to the pre-edit war version, I'm not trying to get involved but it is Wikipedia policy to do so and it appears that there has already been a great debate on the fatboy links and it seems most people are against it so I will respect that consensus. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 22:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Can you please cite the wikipedia policy? I didn't know there was a "right" version, except where vandalism was involved. The revert war was not about the fat boy link, if you check it was about the well documented behavior at the time of the rape incident, you appear to be taking a POV position.--Silverback 22:13, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think that an editor was to revert before the protection. I would like to see the last saved version protected as per policy. Thank you. "Do not edit or revert a temporarily protected page except to add a protected page notice, a link to Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute or Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, or a similar disclaimer about the current state of an article, unless there is widespread agreement that the page was protected in violation of these policies."

See m:The Wrong Version. But the fatboy editor is maybe right. There is a clear consensus that every one of his edits is undesired; do we have to hash all this out again to let him have the honor of being a Wikivictim? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I will restores the information but there has been a CLEAR consensus above (IMO) to keep out the fatboy.cc link, that's what all the other reverts were about. I simply assumed this was just a continuation of that war, again, info will be restored but the link is gone. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 22:24, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Y'all shouldn't be adding and removing so rampantly while the page is protected. If editors are still changing this article according to debate on this Talk page, it should be unprotected immediately. Shem^(talk) 22:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I think he has achieved neutrality. The page is restored to its content before the protection, except for the fatboy link, on which the consensus had spoken.--Silverback 22:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

The current situation is by no means neutral. There's a trashy paragraph that's supported only by you and a pack of anons, with every other registered user having opposed it. There's strong reason to believe that the anons are all one dedicated Kennedy-hating user, who's creating sock puppets to avoid the 3RR. Under these circumstances, if the page is to be protected at all, it should be protected in the version before the edit war, which means before 24.147.97.230's latest attempt to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. JamesMLane 00:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

What gives you editors the right to keep such an important part of the history of Ted Kennedy in the closet? He was directly involved in the Palm Beach rape trial of his nephew and the incidents leading up to the trial. He was on the stand in front of a judge, the nation, and the world. In your lust for the democratic party and the Kennedy's you have pushed your POV way too far. To remove my paragraph on the Palm Beach trial is pure censorship. Last time the link was in your estimation, "crap". Now a paragraph I wrote is completely deleted with no talk remarks, this is vandalism. Just because a group of you agree on pulling it in no way justifies the vandalism. The paragraph belongs. It was national and international news. Ted was involved, it's part of his political career. Would you like to help write it? 24.147.97.230 06:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Chappaquiddick had a significant effect on Kennedy's career. This incident did not. And would you please stop slinging around the word "vandalism" as a shorthand for "any edit with which I disagree". If you can put your anti-Kennedy vendetta on hold for a moment or two, you should read Wikipedia:Vandalism. You might also look at the kinds of attacks on Wikipedia that are actually dealt with in Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress to see why your request that I be blocked was completely frivolous. JamesMLane 08:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

3RR notice

We've let this one anon vandal hold this article hostage long enough. Now we have to spend another undeterminate amount of time debating an irrelevant passage which almost every registered user agrees does not belong. Page locks are great for cooling down edit wars between groups of established Wikipedians, but do nothing to deter a vandal who has no respect for NPOV, concensus, civility, or anything else and will only use our own rules and procedures against us.

When this article gets unblocked, I'm going to treat every anonymous editor as the same person for the purposes of the 3RR. It's obvious that the anon knows about this rule; note the edit summary of this anon's second ever edit. I've already blocked at least 2 or 3 IP addresses today for insults and vandalism, so I have no problem playing whack a mole with our anonymous Ted hater when this article gets unlocked. Gamaliel 22:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, it was a sock puppet, if an anon can be such, or perhaps the anon is a regular whose ISP changed his IP. But where is the vandalism and uncivility? These terms should not be thrown around lightly. If you are going to treat every anon that way, you should probably be willing to argue for a change in the rules to match your position. Lets have only registered users be allowed to edit. But if you are unwilling to attempt to change the rules you should abide by them. I assume JPGordon will be turning himself in for the 3RR violation.--Silverback 23:15, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I am not throwing these terms around lightly, thank you. Look at the edit summary of this article for the anons calling other users "assholes". Look at the edit history of my user talk page for the same anons calling me a "pedophile". Please don't assume I'm just talking out of my ass here if you're not even willing to look at the edit history of these anons.

I'm not changing the rules here, I'm just going to work by the obvious assumption that when a group of anons from the same service provider attempts to insert the same material in the same article and makes the same insults against the same people, hey, call me crazy, maybe they're the same person. If they don't want to be treated as the same person, then they can escape my terrifying tyranny by signing up for an account. Gamaliel 06:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you are prejudiced against anons, I didn't see that kind of language from the anons that inspired JPGordon's indiscretions, a couple had only edited twice. If we are going to allow anon editing, you should approach them as individuals, despite your past history. If you can't, step aside for some other admin. We all get overwrought, sometimes.--Silverback 06:40, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I am not prejudiced against anons, I'm just sick of this anon. You should be more concerned about him wasting the time of productive editors who respect consensus and civility instead of worrying about poor misunderstood souls who call other people pedophiles and assholes. Gamaliel 06:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel I would guess that your reverting of paragraph to the entire deletion with this quote of yours offended the intelligence of another anon, "this barely has anything to do with Ted Kennedy and can be covered in the William Kennedy Smith article) What you did was vandalism. Your act deleted my work. No discussion, just an entire deletion. "barely has anything to do with Ted Kennedy???" The trial was broadcast around the world. Ted took the stand. It was front page news. A US Senator, Ted Kennedy pulled his nephews out of bed to go drinking the night of the rape, they went to about 10 bars. You know this is all true. Why is this so wrong to have here? It's everywhere else. You may not like that side of Ted Kennedy, but it exists and is on topic. To exclude this part of his career can only be viewed as pure censorship. As to who vandalized your page, I have no idea who, but I can understand why. I just looked at it and it strikes me odd that you are proud of a death threat to you. Apparently you've had other problems with users. To be proud of this is not healthy, perhaps you should seek counseling. unsigned comment from our old friend 24.147.97.230

You aren't the first troll to express mock concern about my mental health. Come up with some original material. Gamaliel 06:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

What we saw in the RfC was that a large number of anonymous new accounts showed up to echo the positions of 24.147.97.230. They might be his/her sock puppets, or they might be actual human beings who were recruited solely to come by and assist in the anti-Kennedy crusade. (I know, of course, that Silverback is a separate person. I'm referring to the latest platoon of anons.) Now, the exact same thing is happening as occurred over the "fatboy" link: 24.147.97.230 inserts some anti-Kennedy garbage in this article. Longtime registered users remove it. A bunch of anons suddenly show up to keep re-inserting it. 24.147.97.230 and his sock puppets and/or recruited allies have collectively demonstrated virtually no interest in Wikipedia other than using it to throw mud at the Kennedys, but in that pursuit they are tireless, with the result that the page gets protected.

If we look at some of the accounts that caused this latest protection, we see that 81.115.31.217 has a lifetime total of two edits to Wikipedia, both consisting of reversions of this article to 24.147.97.230's favored version. 213.239.193.166 has also made only two edits, the second of which mentioned "3rr rule" in the edit summary. That's a level of familiarity with Wikipedia that would be, shall we say, unusual for a genuine newcomer. I haven't bothered to check the rest of the anons, but it's pretty clear that we're being gamed again.

An admin should either unprotect this article or restore it to this version. The linked version doesn't have the contested paragraph that the anons kept re-inserting. It's modified slightly from how the article stood at the beginning of the edit war, in that it includes a citation for the "surrogate father" comment. Given that 24.147.97.230 had earlier deleted that well-known fact, on the grounds that there was no evidence for it, s/he can hardly complain about that change. JamesMLane 00:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been involved in many situations where the wrong version was protected. Patience, it will only be a few days. I think you are incorrect to judge text by who or how many support it, judge it on its merits. I think you over estimate how negative the Ted Kennedy partying text is. This society is seems far more tolerant of womanizing and partying, than it is of far more responsible behavior, such as polygamy. Ted's behavior was not quite as circumspect and private as you characterize it, he had guests in the house that evidently were not there to engage in debauchery, a little more modesty and less crudity was in order. But then in this society, alcohol excuses a lot. Hmmm, Bush's alcohol use seems to have been fair game.--Silverback 05:27, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

The article was protected from July 19 to August 1, in a version that was overwhelmingly rejected by the registered users who commented on the dispute. Now, less than a week later, it's again protected, and again because of 24.147.97.230's insertion of anti-Kennedy material that almost everyone else considers inappropriate. So my patience is wearing more than a little thin. As to the substance, I took care to note an important distinction: "The question is not whether the incident reflects badly on Kennedy, but whether it's important enough to include in this article." After I make as clear as possible that I'm not concerned about whether this text is "negative", you dive right in to respond to the argument that I've said I'm not making. Yes, Bush's alcohol use was notable -- it involved a DUI and, by his own admission, serious adverse effects on his life. Kennedy went bar-hopping with two other adults. That's not "behavior" that needs to be excused or even mentioned. JamesMLane 08:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone sum up the problem for me

alright, so far as i can tell this is mainly over a dispute about the Palm Spring rape trial concerning William Kennedy. A couple of questions: a) did it happen? b) did the waitress truly allege the stuff stated and c) Wikipedia:Cite sources. Otheriwise, I am more inclined to restore the other version without this. Remember NPOV and you cannot ignore all bad things in his past but if they are false and unfactual, they do not have a place in Wikipedia. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 07:32, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the substance of the text is in dispute, just the relevance, and that is a legitimate dispute, although there is ample precedent for both including and excluding such material on other pages. But historically, there has been a strong tendency to give the Kennedy's a pass on this sort of behavior. I not sure such a pass is really defensible. I beleive JamesMcLane and I discussed this above.--Silverback 07:52, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't wasted a whole lot of time researching this trivia, but I think the facts are these: First, there was no rape trial "concerning William Kennedy". The trial concerned William Kennedy Smith, the nephew of Ted Kennedy. On the evening in question, Kennedy, his son, and his nephew were out for a night on the town. The two younger men each hooked up with someone they met, and both brought their new lady friends back to the house. Cassone (who was hanging out with Patrick Kennedy) did make the allegation about what Kennedy was wearing in his own house. The Kennedy haters would probably want a criminal proceeding just about that, but, in fact, the criminal proceeding arose from an allegation by the other woman, Patricia Bowman, who said that she and William Kennedy Smith had gone out for a walk along the beach and in the course of the walk he had raped her. Smith was tried on that charge and acquitted.

Some points that I'm pretty sure are true and that I think are relevant to this "controversy":

The single most important point is the extremely slight nature of Kennedy's involvement. He was not accused of committing any criminal acts. He was not accused of facilitating any criminal acts by anyone else. In many cases where a defendant is accused of rape, the circumstances of the acquaintance between the defendant and the complaining witness are relevant (as they usually aren't in, for example, a trial for burglary). Kennedy had been present when the two met, so you'd expect him to be called to testify.
The anon makes a big whoop-de-do over the fact that the trial was highly publicized. Of course it was. The media always go way overboard on crap like that. Anything that can be connected to a celebrity is played up because it will attract viewers or readers. It's a telling commentary on the superficiality of the corporate media but it conveys nothing of importance about the subject of this article.
It's POV to call a section "Rape Incident" when Smith was acquitted of the charge of rape. "False rape allegation" would be more justifiable. I'm not going to get into trying to find the perfect title, though, because there's no reason that this incident merits even a mention here, let alone its own section.
To say that Kennedy "was involved" in the trial is an example of how a statement can be technically true yet grossly misleading. He "was involved" in this "rape incident" -- ooooh, how shocking. This presentation of the subject just screams POV.
If you want to see more evidence of the POV, check out the last two sentences. This article is about Ted Kennedy. Yet the anon author makes sure to tell us something about Ted Kennedy's nephew's lawyer's wife, presumably to foster an insinuation that there was something shady about Smith's lawyer's conduct, therefore something shady about the acquittal, therefore something shady about Smith, therefore something shady about Kennedy. And we know Smith is shady because the last sentence asserts another accusation against him, without even a fig leaf of claiming that Ted Kennedy was involved.
Omitting this trash does not in any way, shape, or form mean that "the Kennedy's" (generically) are being given "a pass on this sort of behavior". The behavior in question was that of Smith. I have no problem with a suitably NPOV description of the incident in Smith's article. It was certainly notable in his life. There's nothing significant here about Ted Kennedy, though, and he is (at least nominally) the subject of this article.

What it comes down to is: This is an article about somebody who's been a prominent U.S. Senator for more than forty years. He's been a presidential candidate, who launched a credible challenge to an incumbent President of his own party. He's considered a leading liberal both by those who honor him for it and by the Republicans who still delight in using his name to rile up their yahoo constituency. In the biography of such a person, how important is it that at one point he happened to give testimony about some aspect of somebody else's criminal trial? The article about Henry Kissinger doesn't mention that he testified in Carol Burnett's lawsuit against the National Enquirer, even though his testimony, unlike Kennedy's, went directly to the key issue in that case. The insertion of this rubbish, the subsequent edit war, the protection, and the resulting discussion here, mean that this anon's hatred of all things Kennedy has, yet again, wasted a huge amount of time of editors who, unlike the anon, could actually be improving this or other articles. If my tone seems harsh to you, it's because I'm one of those whose time has been wasted. Stick around long enough to see more of this anon's antics before you condemn me. JamesMLane 08:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I believer the Cassone "allegation" was actually made in sworn testimony. There was a lot of lurid testimony associated with this incident, which although Kennedy was not involved in the rape, was one of those views into his lifestyle of excessive alcohol and partying. Yes, his state of undress was in a private home, not in a hotel room (like Clinton). Yes, poor judgement is less important in the legislative than in the executive branch. But it is still not automatically clear that this incident and insight into the excesses of Ted Kennedy's life style, won't make it into the article in some form. The current version is as good a starting point for the editing, as a version with no mention would be. The deciding point should be that fair application of the protection provision should not favor changing to an earlier version. Except for the fatboy reference, this is the last version before the protection was imposed.--Silverback 08:42, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

The only way you can view this incident as remotely encyclopedic is if you start out with the opinion that Kennedy's lifestyle involved "excessive alcohol and partying", and then take this as confirming evidence. Can you explain to me, a nondrinker, how a group going from one bar to another on one evening shows "excessive" alcohol? My impression is that lots of people do it. Did he miss an important vote the next day because he was so hung over? The real smoking gun against Kennedy here is that Cassone happened to see him in his undershorts. As I said, I don't drink, and I've been in one or two similar accidental situations, so it doesn't say much about anyone's "lifestyle". As for the protected version, you're correct that the normal policy is for an admin to slap on a protection without regard to which version is in effect, thus protecting whichever version happens to be in place at that moment. The argument for departing from the normal practice in this instance is stated above by Gamaliel and me. JamesMLane 09:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I probably am biased by earlier reports that his technique was to share illegal drugs, including poppers with women, and then they were unlikely to report his sexual advances, even if they were unwelcome, which they usually weren't. It is my understanding, that Cassone's testimony was not that he was in undershorts, but just a shirt. And his lifestyle was a public issue at the time of the Clinton impeachment, because he was forced to take a lesser role, because of his vulnerability on similar issues. Alcohol lowers inhibitions and probably contributed to the permissive atmosphere. Don't get the impression that any of this bothers me, what bothers me is that such people turn around and presume to run my life, make drugs and polygamy illegal, etc.--Silverback 09:17, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

What bothers me is that you're editing from the basis of advancing your libertarian POV rather than producing a sound encyclopedia article about a public figure with whom you happent o disagree. I don't know the details of Cassone's testimony, and you may well be right about Kennedy's sartorial selection on this particular evening. You'll notice, however, that the disputed text contains zero information about Kennedy's or anyone else's use of poppers, zero information about Kennedy's or anyone else's use of any illegal drugs, zero information about any sexual advances by Kennedy, zero information about any woman's reaction to any such advances, and zero information about whether Kennedy, like all or virtually all other U.S. Senators, favors making polygamy and certain drugs illegal. Thus, I still see zero basis for including this paragraph. JamesMLane 09:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I hope you wouldn't prefer that I edit from a coercive POV! 8-) However, I think my editing on this article was more from my interest in wikipedia's integrity, fairness and NPOV. It just didn't seem like the kind of text that should be rejected out-of-hand, especially considering how conservative political figures are treated on wikipedia (recall your own pushing of the dry drunk attack). Frankly, the text involved, is not one I'd go to the mat for, I suspect we will end up with something far more moderate and buttressed by evidence from other periods in his life, but the Kennedys and other liberal figures are not sacrosanct. You should know by now, that hypocrisy in those who presume to rule, or in the case of wikipedia, administer or collude, is one of my pet peeves. --Silverback 10:33, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems that, as so often happens, you and I are talking completely past one another. You keep saying Bush, Bush, Bush, without addressing the specific points here. One man goes to a bar one evening, another man is arrested for DUI and pleads guilty, and you imply that these two facts must be treated identically because they both involve the use of alcohol by a public figure. Your phrase "buttressed by evidence from other periods in his life" is misleading. There is nothing here to be buttressed. Ted Kennedy is not a teetotaler. So what? I'll take a wild guess that the majority of elected officials in the U.S. aren't teetotalers. I'll take a wild guess that a majority of them have been in a bar some evening. Try to put aside your preconceptions about Kennedy's alleged excesses and lifestyle. Try to put aside your dislike for his politics. If you were reading an article about Joe Blow, the new Majority Leader of some state senate somewhere, and it said that one night he and a couple of his adult relatives went to a bar, would you hesitate for one moment in deleting it? I could see it being arguably relevant if the article subject were claiming to be a teetotaler, but Kennedy's never made such a claim. JamesMLane 12:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Rapes happen at bacchanalias, even the law in the US is holding hosts and bartenders responsible for the consequences of serving alcohol to excess, do we know who paid for the drinks?, was it Ted? Did they change bars to deceive bartenders about how much they had to drink? yes it should be noted, that the state did not manage to meet its burdon of proof, but that does not mean that the rape didn't happen. There is a difference between social use of alcohol, and using it as a drug and to lay women. DUI is a mere violation of the law, if you look at transportation department statistics, at one driving influenced trip per night, it would take more than 20 years before someone probably is killed, even longer before the person probably killed is someone other than oneself, and longer still if multiple death accidents are considered. Certainly DUI enforcement has gone too far or is misdirected, and lowering blood levels to zero tolerance is way out of line. There are other reports of the senators drug and alcohol abuse, and youth is no excuse on this one.--Silverback 21:28, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious? This reads like a satire of an argument for inclusion. Let me make sure I understand it: If Florida had a law about serving alcohol in excess (which you don't know), and if it applied not just to bartenders and hosts of private parties but to people paying for others' drinks in bars (which you don't know; I think most such laws don't), and if Kennedy was paying (which you don't know), and if this hypothetical Florida law followed the pattern of at least some others in applying only to sales to someone who's visibly intoxicated (which you don't know), and if Kennedy's nephew was in fact visibly intoxicated (which you don't know), and if there actually was a rape (which you don't know), and if these hypothetically illegal sales of alcohol were a cause of the hypothetical rape (which you don't know and which seems highly unlikely in view of the length of time that passed), then the conduct of Smith (a 30-year-old man) was partly Kennedy's fault.

OK, I respond that if Patricia Bowman was paid by the Republican National Committee to make false allegations against a Kennedy relative for political purposes, a plot that was foiled only because the jury saw through her lies, then the whole incident really reflects badly on the RNC, and this hypothesis should be discussed in the Republican National Committee article. Why not? All that's needed to reach that conclusion is one bit of totally unfounded speculation, while you needed half a dozen.

You also say, "There is a difference between social use of alcohol, and using it as a drug and to lay women." True. Something else is true: that in this instance there is no allegation and not one bit of evidence of use of alcohol as a drug as opposed to social use, and there is no allegation and not one bit of evidence that alcohol was used to lay anyone. Your image of "bacchanalia" is striking but irrelevant. Bowman and Smith left the bar, went to the house, and then went for a walk along the beach. Bowman alleged that Smith raped her when the two of them were off by themselves some distance from the house where the others were. If you're picturing Uncle Ted laughing and hoisting a wine glass to cheer his nephew on, while other drunken celebrants couple all around them, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed when you go to cite your sources. It didn't happen. JamesMLane 23:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

"The editors" have complained that "anons" should not be taken as valid. Now that user[User:Silverback|Silverback]] has joined the discussion the argument changes again. No mention from "the editors" that [User:Silverback|Silverback]] should have his opinion valued as a respectable wiki member. "The editors" are showing their true colors. This page has been controlled by left wing fanatics. When anyone tries to add or delete content "the editors" suddenly appear. How do they all seem to show up at the same time? Not only was Ted Kennedy on the stand and gave sworn tesitmony in this trial, it was a relative who was accused of rape. How many other senators have gone through this? It speaks volumes that Ted chose to pull his son and nephew out of bed for a night of drinking. As to family ties, one of the first lawyers Ted called from Chappy had the last name Smith. Yes, it was William Kennedy Smith's father. I again request that this page have a disclaimer similar to Bill Clinton's, "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Would "the editors" please put forth a plan for compromise? I have offered to work as a team on this and had on takers. My thanks to Silverback, and the anons who are involved. 24.147.97.230 16:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

- Thanking yourself! That's very sweet. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 17:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

We all show up because we all have this article on our watchlist. You are free to attempt to solicit the opinions of other users, as you have done with your recent spate of talk page messages. Let me suggest that if you are sincere in your offer to "work as a team" that you not accuse others you will have to work with of vandalism, mental illness, or being "left wing fanatics". Gamaliel 18:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Gamaliel. I'll add these points:

You've been told, repeatedly, that the issue is not, as you claim, that "anons should not be taken as valid". The real issues, which you prefer to ignore, are that (1) with a bunch of anons showing up, we have no way of knowing that they aren't all just one user, especially when we see a "new" user invoking the 3RR (by its abbreviation, no less) on his/her purportedly second edit; and (2) even aside from the question whether all these anons are different people, these accounts collectively have little history of editing Wikipedia. There's certainly no one who's participated in this battle (or the last one) on your side, anonymously, who's familiar with Wikipedia policies. Therefore, your/their views on that subject just aren't worth very much.
You criticize "'the editors'" (apparently your term of disparagement for anyone who does anything in Wikipedia other than smearing Kennedys) on the grounds that these evil left-wing fanatics have made "[n]o mention" that, unlike the anons, Silverback is an established Wikipedia. That statement is false. See my comment above: "I know, of course, that Silverback is a separate person. I'm referring to the latest platoon of anons."
By the way, before you continue to vilify everyone who disagrees with you, you might want to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you do persist in attacking us as "left-wing fanatics", then I'd appreciate it if, between now and the time you're banned, you'd be so kind as to hyphenate the phrase. Misuse of hyphens grates on my nerves.
How did you come to solicit the wise counsel of Rex071404? He's currently serving a six-month ban for his relentless POV warfare, which incidentally was not unlike what you've been doing. He also tried to game our policies by using an anonymous IP for some of his edits, hoping to seem like two different people.
Your request for a "disputed neutrality" tag can't be honored. The reason is that your POV edit warring has led to yet another protection of this article. I assume that, whenever this protection is lifted, the article will be open to editing for only a few days before you and Team Anon are back with more garbage that gets repeatedly reverted, leading to another protection. Therefore, you should be sure to step lively to put that totally unjustified tag on during the brief window when your other misconduct doesn't prevent the addition.
I'm glad you've finally noticed that it was a relative who was accused of rape, not Kennedy. I pointed out the example of Neil Bush. Should the article on George W. Bush mention that one of his relatives was accused of complicity in S&L misconduct that cost U.S. taxpayers $1 billion? Should it mention that another of his relatives (his wife) ran a stop sign and killed a teenager? Should it mention that both of his daughters have been busted for underage drinking? More generally, should we go through all our articles about public officials, Republican and Democratic, and spice up each one with every accusation that's been made against any of the article's subject's relatives? or with every instance in which the subject testified? or with facts about the article's subject's relatives' lawyers' wives?
No one has yet given any remotely plausible argument for claiming that Kennedy's conduct "speaks volumes" about anything. Three adults decided to go socialize and have some drinks, as do many, many adults. If we assume the truth of the factoid that you keep mentioning -- that Kennedy "chose to pull his son and nephew out of bed" -- what it means is that he had a suggestion for doing something and woke them up to ask if they'd be interested in coming along. These two men, both adults, decided to do so. What is the superlative of "so what?"

The fact is that, unless you can come up with something a lot more substantive than what you've produced so far, this is all going to be just a repeat of the fatboy foolishness, in which you accomplish nothing except to waste huge amounts of other people's time and undermine our goal of creating an encyclopedia. JamesMLane 19:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the article, I was surprised that his use of poppers and cocaine to seduce a 17 year old among others is not disclosed. This is all from a reputable source, "The Senator", by Richard Burke, his aid of ten years. I was assuming more context than you apparently had, when suggesting that this spoke volumes. --Silverback 22:03, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Suggested Comprimise

Alright, as far as I can tell, this incident did happen but the discussion is over it's relavence and how it sheds Kennedy in a bad light that is misleading. Therefore, I suggest we SERIOUSLY reword it and place it into one of the other sections of his life where approriate. The rewording needs to: a) establish a neutral point of view b) remove completely irrelevent sections like his lawyer married one of the jurors and c) make note of William Kennedy Smith's acquital of all charges. How does that sound to the parties involved? Again, I know almost nothing about Ted Kennedy as I am not even American, I am more conservative then liberal and people should not be slinging those terms around anyways. Let's just get some productive suggestions on the article rather than pointless squabling over who's right and wrong. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 19:00, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that the anon's wording is clearly POV. The problem is that even a neutral rewording wouldn't deal with the unimportance of this incident in Kennedy's life. The anon has solicited the aid of some editors who tend to be conservative. Let's see what any of them think of a possible compromise in which this item is added to the Ted Kennedy article, and the George W. Bush article is also enhanced by NPOV presentations of the incidents involving his brother, his wife, and his daughters. (Actually, of course, I'd oppose that "compromise". Larding a Democrat's article with irrelevancy wouldn't be cured by repeating the mistake in a Republican's article.) JamesMLane 20:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you, however, willing to use this? I'm going to wait and see how other users think and stuff before I take any further action. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 23:32, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

After more careful thought and review other articles, this does seem completely irrelavent. Until these editors add sections in Bush's article about his alcoholism and his daughter being arrested for underage drinking, we should probably remove these parts due to relavence. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 23:44, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

User:Jpgordon reported for 3RR

Since Jpgordon has not submitted himself for the 3RR violation as I had hoped (but not really expected, although it SHOULD have happened). I have filed it.--Silverback 08:45, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

yes, but techinically we should block all IPs involved as there is more than enough evidence to suggest it is just one person "gaming the system". I will let it go this time but any further use of multiple IPs to revert to the same revision more than 3 times in 24 hours on this page will be considered a 3RR violation on my standards. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 18:45, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comment

I was invited to "help" on this article by 24.147.97.230....not sure why...must think I am interested in combative situations here just because I was so heavily involved in the George W. Bush article. Anywho, just read through the article and it seems to cover the subject matter with more bad news than good...why isn't there a listing of major bills and legislation passed? Perhaps some of the sentence structure could be worked on. However, as a strong supporter of Wikipedia:Accountability, I am not a strong supporter of anon contributions but I am also opposed to locking pages....if they are problems, perform WP:3RR or hope for semi-protection in which only registered users can edit hotly contested articles as this one seems to have been off and on.--MONGO 20:24, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

This is what happens when a single editor fails to understand the nature of consensus and editing on Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Consensus on wikipedia is a complex, non-linear phenomena probably covering several academic disciplines. Not all consensi or components of consensi deserve respect, even when understood.--Silverback 21:13, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Consensus is a fourth-declension Latin noun. Its Latin plural is consensus. Robert McClenon 22:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, and sometimes people call me pedantic. :) JamesMLane 23:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Diverging from Latin to Greek for a moment, shouldn't Silverback have used phenomenon instead of phenomena? JamesMLane 23:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if he uses it with a singular indefinite article (as he did). Robert McClenon 23:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

My bad.--Silverback 01:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I would imagine that 24.147.97.230 turned to you because I refused to intervene after I previously intervened on his behalf (although eventually not in his favor). I suspect that if you refuse to help him accomplish his goals, he'll go looking for yet another friendly Wikipedian to do the same thing. Kelly Martin 00:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Kelly Martin , I contacted you in accordance with wiki policy. I had thought you were inpartial and fair. I am surprised to see you have a bias on this issue. As to contacting any other wiki members, isn't that what helps solves these issues? I am starting to think that Wikipedia is controlled by the left wing folks and will never be respected as impartial, and that's fine as long as everyone knows what is going on here.

I chose to refuse to mediate this conflict on the grounds that I felt that mediation would not benefit the encyclopedia. It's quite evident to me from your conduct that your intention is not the benefit the encyclopedia, but rather to serve your fetish with Ted Kennedy. And I wish no part in that. This has very little to do with my political beliefs (I've never cared for Ted Kennedy all that much, although I certainly don't see him as the spawn of Satan either) and far more to do with my feelings about how I can best benefit Wikipedia. Kelly Martin 06:24, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

As I tried to say, I don't think much of Teddy kennedy myself, but I don't completely disagree with all his efforts. For a Senator that has been in office so long, the article seems to argue and counterargue mostly the controversies of his career...surely there have been other things he has done. I know if I were him, I would want an encyclopedia to tell people about WHAT legislation I have passed, the political fights waged for the voters, were their any serious oppositions for his senate seat....etc. I simply don't see the article as a well written piece...not that I am an expert by any means.--MONGO 06:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Questions as to Encyclopedic Relevance

The William Kennedy Smith trial is a necessary part of any biography of William Kennedy Smith. It is not applicable to Ted Kennedy unless a connection is made that I do not see.

I would suggest that the following questions should be asked:

Has there been any reliable statement that Kennedy's alcohol use in the past twenty years has affected his performance as a Senator?

Slurred speech affects his ability to communicate, most reports of this have been in speeches to constituents, not on the Senate floor. He authority to sit in judgement of Clinton was questioned, and he had to take a background role because of the appearance of hypocrisy. Missed votes during his testimony at the trial can probably be documented.--Silverback 00:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Has there been any reliable statement that Kennedy's alcohol use in the past twenty years created a risk to the safety of other persons? Chappaquidick, in which his alcohol use probably was factor in a death, is addressed adequately in the article.

There is some risk with the poppers and cocaine that introduced a 17 year old girl to. Does it really have to be alcohol related? --Silverback 00:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Has there been any reliable statement that the problems of any other members of the Kennedy family have affected Ted Kennedy's performance as a Senator, either by causing him to use his influence improperly or otherwise?

Damage to his reputation, missed votes, etc. --Silverback 00:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Any such claims published by reputable sources should be addressed.

Unless any of those questions can be answered "Yes", then I question the encyclopedic relevance of the material. Robert McClenon 23:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The questions of course should be extended to other drugs, not just alcohol, and also to whether the damage these behaviors have done to his reputation, not merely effected his performance as Senator, but his viability as a presidential candidate. --Silverback 00:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion above about this exact issue... Sasquatch↔讲↔看 23:40, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you can create a set of questions does not contribute to the validity of your argument. I can create 4 questions and make a statement as to a conclusion also. This means nothing. You can't change history. Ted was involved and was part of the trial. That's part of his career and history. It's not like he wasn't there or didn't prod the others to go drinking and then parade around without pants on. That's what happened. No need to hide it from the public, most people already know. This is for the ones who don't. Why keep it from them> 00:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

This is preposterous. "Ted was involved." You make it sound like he was a conspirator in something. That may be your POV but he was involved in the sense that he gave testimony. I haven't even seen anything to suggest that any other witness contested the accuracy of his testimony. As for all the vague stuff Silverback raises, the things that "can probably be documented", maybe they can and maybe they can't. This particular incident, however, is that Kennedy was with two relatives and a whole bunch of other people having a convivial time in a public bar. That's it. There is nothing in this "material" (if it even rises to that level) that sheds the slightest bit of light on alleged slurred speech, nothing about Kennedy's use of alcohol endangering others, nothing about poppers, nothing about cocaine, and nothing about 17-year-old girls. This amounts to saying, "Other allegations have been made about Kennedy, so we don't need to worry about trivialities like accuracy or documentation or relevance -- he's become a free-fire zone." Yeah, maybe he missed some votes. I'll bet Bob Dole missed a heck of a lot more just in the first few months of the next year, when he was running for President before his resignation from the Senate. Shall we go through every Wikipedia article about a U.S. Senator and include something about all his or her missed votes? or is that datum relevant only when it serves someone's anti-Kennedy POV? This also answers the comments below. Premise, the trial was famous (because the media made it a circus); conclusion, it was a notable event in the career of a major public figure who happened to give testimony. Sorry, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. JamesMLane 01:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

That's like saying we should NOT include information about Clinton's impeachment, because the oral sex and the perjury were "trivial". In Kennedy's case, yes his private behavior in this incident may be trivial, but it is factual, and highly publicized, and confirmed and renewed the damage to this major figures reputation caused by his private life. Are you supporting McLenon's standard of relevance, that if it doesn't effect his performance as Senator then it isn't relevant? I'd like to see you apply that standard in the Bush article, there is a lot there that doesn't impact his performance as president and was just publicized to besmirch his reputation, and not just stuff about his relatives.--Silverback 01:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I may have to stop editing this page, if the arguments continue to get more and more ridiculous. I don't want to have to go back on my blood pressure medication.

I've always made clear the standard I support: notability in the life of the subject of the article, including but not limited to performance of public duties. Clinton's impeachment was a notable event in Clinton's life and so it should be covered in the Clinton article (even though, yes, it was trumped up over trivialities). Bush's DUI was a notable event in Bush's life (and was not trumped up), so it should be covered in the Bush article. By contrast, the activities of Neil Bush, Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, Jenna Bush, and William Kennedy Smith could be covered in their respective articles, but are not notable enough in the lives of their famous relatives to merit coverage in the relatives' articles. Is that so hard to understand?

Among all those episodes, in fact, the strongest case for inclusion is the Bush girls' underage drinking. Bush has been a Governor and President, but he's also a father. That role is an important aspect of his life. He can't be held fully accountable for everything his children do, but if at age 19 they engage in documented misconduct, and receive (low-level) criminal penalties as a result, some readers would consider that worth knowing. Smith, by contrast, was Kennedy's nephew, not child, and was acquitted of the charges against him. Now, I think it would be only fitting if you and the other people who keep campaigning for this rubbish were to answer some straightforward questions: Should the information about Neil Bush's financial malfeasance, Laura Bush's driving record, and the Bush twins' underage drinking be included in the George W. Bush article? Should the article on Henry Kissinger mention that he testified in a highly publicized trial, the suit by Carol Burnett against the National Enquirer? I say no to all this stuff. JamesMLane 02:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

No to Neil Bush's malpheasance. I've never heard of Laura Bush's driving record. Yes, to the twin's drinking under age, reflect on him as a father, and gave him some bad publicity, and to the extent they got light treatment or off because of the financial resources or political pull of the family. It reflects on Kennedy's character as an uncle that he instigated a night of carousing with his son and nephew. Its no suprise that a family that winks at reckless partying has developed members that go to far. What is a surprise, is that someone such a Ted, doesn't have the will or judgement to correct it, even after it has been exposed and cost him several times.--Silverback 02:55, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a person's willingness to go carousing reflects on anyone's character, nor how it relates to the fact that one of the carousers may or may not have been a rapist. I've been carousing many, many times, and I don't think that makes me a lesser person than someone who swears of the firewater, nor does it make me a potential rapist. Gamaliel 03:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

And on it goes. Facts in the real world: The three men were out socializing, they went to some bars, they had some drinks, they came home. Fact as it gets translated by Silverback: The family "winks at reckless partying". Forgive me for sounding like a broken record here, but the trial and acquittal of Smith does not involve the slightest iota of evidence that Ted Kennedy, the subject of this article, was involved in any reckless partying. The leap to "reckless" is pure POV by people who don't like Kennedy -- in Silverback's case, because Kennedy is against legalizing heroin and polygamy (!). Yes, Kennedy has been attacked a lot by Republicans, and, yes, his family's prominence has been exploited for profit by our disreputable media, but I repeat that those facts don't make him a free-fire zone. This is still an encyclopedia. The only thing "reckless" here is the disregard for the standards that would be automatically applied in any other article -- even Bush's. JamesMLane 05:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

How can any neutral person suggest that a description of Ted Kennedy's actions relating to the William Kennedy Smith Rape incident doesn't belong in his own article? The William Kennedy Smith Rape trial is the most highly publicized rape case in United States history and Ted Kennedy was right in the middle of it. To remove references to his connection to the incident -- and his negative behaviour-- is blatant POV. I will revert to put that section back in as soon as I can. It absolutely deserves mention.--Agiantman 00:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Was Ted Kennedy at Palm Beach during the rape? Did Ted Kennedy walk around the house with guests present with no pants on? Was Ted Kennedy put on the stand in this trial of William Kennedy Smith? If you can find any of these true than you must include the rape incident on this page. Logic provided by Robert McClenon 24.147.97.230 00:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

user Agiantman makes a very valid point, this was one the most famous rape trials in US history. A search for famous rape trials in Google returns a referance to this trial as the 3rd hit. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=famous+rape+trials&btnG=Search 24.147.97.230 01:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

So one sentence should suffice. "For details of the William French Smith rape trial, see William French Smith." Because, given Kennedy's almost half century in the Senate, this is very low on the list of important events. Or is there some sort of theory I'm missing here regarding the culpability of one's uncle when one is accused (falsely, as far as the jury was concerned) of rape? Nope. This is Kennedy-haters attempting to impose a POV. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane, I believe that the trial should be mentioned because of all the attentioned that it generated, some of which focused on Ted Kennedy. I do however believe that it should be VERY brief because this article is about TED KENNEDY, and God knows that a lot of articles could have pages of additional section devouted to what happened to their siblings or parents, nephews, ect...The George Bush examples you gave don't have enough prominence to deserve being mentioned in an article about Bush. But I see where you are coming from, and it is kind of sad that the media decides what is important(Kennedy's brother's trial) and what's not(Bush family issues/corruption). Unfortunetely, the "prominence test" is the best thing we've got when it comes to things that don't really have to do with the person the article is about, but that he/she just got sucked into by the media.Voice of All(MTG) 02:41, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Pretty much irrelevant to Ted Kennedy. Drop it. Gzuckier 02:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Solution

For those who support the inclusion of this as it is NPOV in your opinion, you would also therefore support ths inclusion of information about George W. Bush's alcoholism and his Jenna's repeated arrests in the George W. Bush aritcle right? Afterall, it is only fair. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 03:24, August 8, 2005 (UTC) That was more or less irrelevant to the discussion at hand, see below for the good stuff. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 04:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

yup, someone's definatly missing the point, this is wiki, npov is generally accepted as pro-bush, and anti-people-who-aren't-bush.. therefore by the generally accepted definition of npov, only comments insulting to democrats, and praising republicans, can be considered neutral, anything else and they'll consider you part of the liberal media, which exists, somewhere, or so I'm told by all the republicans on my TV on a nightly basis--172.142.111.56 12:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have no problem with notes of George Bush's past drug abuse. It's commonly known that he used at least cocaine. Jenna's arrest? I'm ok with that too. If it is true,..and it is, why not post it? I happen to think George is a great president, but he has a background that includes drug abuse. I'm all for posting anything that is true. 24.147.97.230 04:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

No, there is no proof that Bush used cocaine...there is strong evidence, but not proof, that he did use grass...there is strong evidence and such things as a DUI conviction that Bush drank a lot...he even said so...but no evidence that he was an alcoholic...just a person who drank a lot (for those that don't know, alcoholism and drinking a lot are not the same thing)....As far as Kennedy goes, is there proof he was or is an alcoholic? Drinking a lot, partying with friends, etc.....does not mean alcoholism.--MONGO 07:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

See my post to JamesMLane above. I want a brief and fair inclusion. I think that the old section was POV and made no sense(I was thinking "huuuuuuuh?") so you were right to delete it. You SHOULD NOT however have locked the page to get in the "last word" ESPECIALLY when a poll is going on. Isn't wikipedia about consensus, about people chosing what they want. I could understand if you were locking out vandalism but that is just not the case. Please add in:

The Senator was involved in the rape trial of William Kennedy Smith in 1991, having took the stand during the trial.[8]

This is an NPOV, fair inclusion of the incident.Voice of All(MTG) 03:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

That seems like a fair compromise to me. I don't think anyone can truly object to that. If this seems fair to everyone else I will unprotect the page and let people start editing again. I am not going to edit the page again as User:Silverback has raised quite a ruckus about doing so even though it was to delete what most people considered blatant POV. Again, is this compromise acceptable to all parties involved? I honestly don't really know enough about the issue at hand to care but I respect WP:NPOV as part of WP:TRI more so than than any other rules on Wikipedia. I am not trying to get the last word in as I said before: I am a Canadian and not attached to this issue at all so all my judgement are much less biased then that of the people arguing on this page and I started the "poll" to see where we are at. The discussions are just getting too long to follow closely. But anyways, lets just agree on this and get this whole thing over with. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 04:21, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

(Should it be "took" or "taken"?) Yeah, this seems just right. A brief mention, and a pointer to where a more complete discussion might ensue (and I imagine the William Kennedy Smith page would be most appropriate). --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 04:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The Senator was involved in the rape trial of William Kennedy Smith in 1991, having taken the stand during the trial.[9]

How does that look now? Sasquatch↔讲↔看 04:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

How about, The Senator took the stand in the rape trial of his nephew William Kennedy Smith in 1991. Any details can go in the William Kennedy Smith article (should someone care to write it.) --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 04:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Finalized Proposal

The Senator took the stand in the rape trial of his nephew William Kennedy Smith in 1991, where scandalous allegations were made about his lifestyle.

What do you guys think?Voice of All(MTG) 05:06, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't need the "accused of no wrongdoing"; people taking the stand in other people's trials rarely are accused of wrongdoing. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 05:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think it explains the scandal that surrounded the incident. Needs something, like "After a night of barhopping and partying with his son and William Kennedy Smith, his nephew, was accused of rape and later acquitted. Ted Kennedy testified at the trial, and details of his scandlous private life were made public." How, much is needed depends on how the writing of the context goes. If more of the scandals of his private life are discussed earlier like I have proposed, then this section would mainly serve to indicate that it became public that his life style was still continuing. It might all finish up with reports of how he has turned his private life and career around, perhaps per Jmabel's citation.--Silverback 05:32, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Saying that he was barhopping and partying is in itself a tad POV along with saying that his private life was scandolous. Remember, the rape trial concerned William Kennedy Smith more than Ted Kennedy. I have to agree it is irrelevant in this article though William Kennedy Smith has yet to have an article. Again, remember we are trying to remove ALL POV and keeping it neutral. I have editted a tad above to include "allegation were made about his lifestyle" no need to comment on what it is as that would push this more POV. How does it look now? It doesn't shed him into a bad light and presents the clear fact that he was involved. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:37, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I added a comma and the word "scandalous" to summarize the allegations. How is it now?Voice of All(MTG) 05:49, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think there can be this type of criticism of any attempt at summary. Although, I don't think my summary is unfair, others can argue that not only is it POV, but it also violates NOR, because the summarizing conclusion "barhopping" (from the two bars) and "partying" (from the drinking and women) is original research. This would indicated the impossibility of getting the relvant facts in without actually taking more lines to relay the facts. Note that the Jmabel citation, also characterizes his general behavior as partying, which his critics would probably consider an understatement.--Silverback 05:52, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well let's just link to the article he provides somewhere in External links. I think it is a fair article and users looking for such information will be able to find it. It seems that we have all cooled down, there are no loud objections to it and it seems fair to me. Let's all just agree to a) respect 3rr on all sides b) reword rather than delete and c) if any new dispute arises, take it to the talk page first before you start an edit war. If we all agree on those principles I will have more than enough faith to unprotect this article and let you guys work on the rest. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 06:08, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the original section because it was too heavily POVed, in my opinion, to be included on this encyclopedia. Again, this event happened and therefore can deserve mention in this article in a NPOV manner without tilting the article. Just try to work with us here. I'm trying to appease both the critics and supporters, which is more than difficult, and I believe that this is the best solution for all involved. I'm trying to be like Wilfrid Laurier and conciliate both parties to some sort of agreement and reach an eventual compromise which should be the right thing to do. I apologize to anyone offended by my actions but I think I have helped somewhat. Just try to make suggestions on the compromise as there is no clear consensus to remove it but a clear consensus to make it as NPOV possible. Anyways, I'm off to bed for now. If this is solved, you can leave a note on my talk page and I will unprotect this page in the morning. If not, I'll check back here to see how the discussions are going. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 06:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly how does one "reword rather than delete" if one's sincere opinion is that the entire subject is inappropriate and pure POV? Rewording to something like "Kennedy spent part of 1991 in Florida" seems a trifle disingenuous. JamesMLane 06:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that "The Senator took the stand in the rape trial of his nephew William Kennedy Smith in 1991, where scandalous allegations were made about his lifestyle." is the best. But where will it go? It can't be its own section. I guess it goes in Family and youth.Voice of All(MTG) 06:22, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Your wording, taken literally, means that the allegations themselves were scandalous -- for example, that allegations were made with no basis in fact, simply to smear Kennedy or to exploit his celebrity status to sell magazines. That's probably true, but it would be POV for us to point out that the conduct of the media was despicable. Of course, regardless of what words you use, seizing on a minor aspect of the Smith trial would be POV.

With regard to Sasquatch's comment above, it's true that, if we were to take the "poll" results so far, reflecting in part the anon's attempt to recruit supporters, as definitive, then there would be no consensus to remove the reference to the trial. There would also, however, be no consensus to include it. On VfD, absence of consensus means that the article stays, but I've never heard of any such principle being applied to the question of including particular material within an article. JamesMLane 10:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Quickpoll

See the proposed solution above first

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

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

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

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

Include

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

Exclude

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

He's stopped partying not drinking

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

Question on material

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

Archive

fatboy.cc

Request that an admin edit protected article

Request that an admin edit protected article

Request that an admin edit protected article, redux

Request that an admin edit protected article, redux

Request for AMA help

Counterproposal

Counterproposal Reply

Counterproposal Reply 2

Are attack sites not allowed?

Ted kennedy and Chris Dodd's "waitress sandwich"

Request for comments

Running tally

Is this a vote?

Comment from FuelWagon

comments from anon editors

Question for an admin

Selectively Blocking Anonymous Edits

Question for "Cookie"

Comments on running tally

Conclusion of opinion survey

Thanks

Unprotecting

Stubbornness

Failure to negotiate

External links

Palm Beach Rape Trial

Edit war 6 August 2005

3RR notice

Someone sum up the problem for me

Suggested Comprimise

User:Jpgordon reported for 3RR

Comment

Questions as to Encyclopedic Relevance

Proposed Solution

Finalized Proposal

Quickpoll

Include

Exclude

Comments

He's stopped partying not drinking

Question on material