Talk:Ted Kennedy/Archive 7

Archive

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2

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.[1]

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.[2]

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)

Proposed working Proposal

"The Senator took the stand in the rape trial of his nephew,
William Kennedy Smith in 1991."

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)

I was afraid it would be interpreted that way. How is this:

"The Senator took the stand in the rape trial of his nephew,
William Kennedy Smith in 1991."

OK, back to how I had it origionally, NOBODY can argue with THAT. Voice of All(MTG) 06:22, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

So, in the course of Smith's trial, person or persons unnamed made statements about Kennedy's level of drinking and partying. Those levels were characterized as "excessive" by person or persons unnamed (maybe the same one(s), maybe not; either way, we don't know whose POV is being presented in the word "excessive"). Whether there was any relationship between these alleged allegations and the actual issues at the trial is not stated. Whether the person or persons unnamed had any factual basis for their allegations is not stated.

And, uh, all this is encyclopedic how?

For comparison, let's consider that allegations about George W. Bush's fundamental personality (not his partying habits), appearing in published works by named sources with relevant professional credentials, specifically setting forth the facts on which they relied to support their conclusions, have been censored out of the George W. Bush article on the stated basis that it "would make us look tabloidish to include it." JamesMLane 15:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

See my above post(modified)Voice of All(MTG) 15:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

It's generally better not to make a substantial change in a previously proposed version after someone's commented on it. The problem is that the comments (mine, in this case) can then look completely off the wall to a reader who doesn't dive into the page history. Nobody needs to bother trying to untangle this particular instance, because I'm so totally disgusted by this whole episode that fixing this point doesn't matter to me. In the future, though, if you want to change something you've proposed, just add the new version after the comments on the old one.

As to the substance, your new version makes it abundantly clear that the sentence doesn't belong. Kennedy testified in a trial. There were a lot of cameras and microphones at the trial, but that doesn't mean that this testimony was important in his life. He's faced cameras and microphones before. JamesMLane 16:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Work with us here. It appears quite a few users want the trial to be mentioned and we should respect that. It is a fact that he testified at the trial, therefore making it relavent to his life, and his critics used the trial to crticize his lifestyle etc. I don't think you can argue with those facts. Remember, NPOV means we include both crticism and support for Ted Kennedy. The incident happened in his life and therefore is relavent. The sentence has a NPOV without making judgements on what his lifestyle was or making any note of any allegations. The overall consensus from what I can gather is to include it but tone it down so that it has a NPOV. Can you just work with it instead of stating your opposition over and over? Like its getting obvious this is descending into a big great Republican vs. Democrat debate so everybody just be bi-partisan for a second and work on the compromise, suggest improvements and stay focused. Thanks. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 20:52, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I am a hardcore independant by the way:). But anyway, lets just use the one that I have above, since it is NPOV and we can work from that. There at least won't be accussations of POV.Voice of All(MTG) 23:29, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

It also appears that quite a few users don't want the trial to be mentioned. Is anyone supposed to respect that? Or is there some Wikipedia policy that, if there's substantial disagreement about whether a particular item is worth including in an article, the dispute must always be resolved in favor of inclusion? It's rather surprising that you're suddenly able to discern an "overall consensus" when you yourself said "this is not official" about a poll in which one side had been heavily recruiting voters, and even so there was substantial support for the other view. If you want to proclaim a consensus perhaps we should do an RfC.

I'm not just stating my opposition over and over. I'm trying to make people see the broader consequences of the position they're advocating. We just went through a huge battle on the George W. Bush page about whether material that was far more significant should be included in that article. It is important to NPOV that we be consistent. As for stating things over and over, simply asserting twice that the trial happened, therefore it's relevant, doesn't advance the argument. You could say that about any truthful statement about any subject's life, such as one of the examples I gave above, the incident about the bulge in Bush's jacket. It happened, so it's relevant, and it was on national TV no less, so it should be added to his article? Along with the pretzel incident? When we talk about major public figures like Bush and Kennedy, there's a mountain of truthful information we could put in the article, so we have to make judgments about the importance. JamesMLane 01:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Facts versus opinions by third parties with dubious credentials do not make for a fair comparison. Fact: Ted Kennedy was out drinking with his nephew..Fact: Ted Kennedy and his nephew were both at the Kennedy complex later that evening when the allegations of rape were lodged by a third party aginst Teddy's nephew...Fact: Teddy testified for the defense on behalf of his nephew...Fact: The nephew was cleared of all charges.....as comparison...Opinion: Bush may be a dry drunk due to previous drinking...Opinion: Bush is a dry drunk as he never joined AA and went through their oftentimes questioned quasi religious approach to recover from alcoholism...Opinion: Bush was/is an alcoholic...Opinion: Bush used cocaine...the facts as we best know them about Bush ARE in the article...he was convicted of DUI, he may have avoided his military obligations due to alcohol or drugs, he admitted to Billy Graham that he drank too much in his youth, finally, Bush admitted to his friend in a taped conversation that he may have engaged in drug use...the double standard you are saying is false....the facts are the facts and the opinions are POV...where is there an opinion as to the events of the WKSmith rape trial...a trial that Teddy DID testify in, was with the defendent immediately prior to the alledged incident, and admitted they were all out drinking (the last point is not a big deal, but it was all given under oath. I fail to see that what you say is a double standard exists with the comparative issues presented.--MONGO 01:40, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I won't bore the editors of this article with a full rehash of 100+ kb of wrangling about Bush, but, MONGO, you should know that the disputes in both articles are similar in that they they involve some facts, and opinions drawn from those facts. It's a fact that Ted Kennedy was in a bar at 11:00 p.m. It's a fact that George Bush uses phrases like "either you are with us or against us." One difference is that, in the Bush case, we weren't dealing with a second-hand report of someone's anonymous allegations. We knew who had formed and published an opinion based on the stated facts. Another difference is that the allegations about Bush were relevant to assessing his character. The allegatons against Smith are relevant to assessing his character. The allegations against Smith are not relevant to assessing Kennedy's character, nor is the fact that Kennedy happened to be in the same general area (though indoors) at the time of the disputed incident. I can tell you why a reader of the Bush article might want to know whether Bush has a "worldview [that] traps people in a pattern of destructive behavior." [3] I still haven't heard any good reason why a reader of this article would want to know whether Kennedy testified at a particular trial. JamesMLane 03:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Because it happened, and there was controversy. Again, not helping. I am respecting the people who don't want it included by toning it down a whole lot from the original. Honestly, its not from the poll that I think we should include it, its from the following discussion. Have you noticed yet you are the only one against including this passage? Even jpgordon is working on it. Again, try to help rather than prolong an argument that is going absolutely nowhere. If you still feel this way, I suggest you take a break from editing this article. Again, compromise, since we already shot down the idea of including a whole POVed section, which is good, this NPOV statement is more than fair. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 04:03, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Some specific points:

• "I am respecting the people who don't want it included by toning it down a whole lot from the original." So, if someone wants to add an irrelevancy to an article, the method is to write a laughably POV presentation of it. Then the "compromise" will be to leave in a toned-down version of the irrelevant material. You act as if the other side has made some significant concession by not "including a whole POVed section". That approach would reward bad behavior. Another editor could write something like "The hypocrisy of George Bush's self-righteous invocations of 'family values' is shown by how he raised his own daughters, who between them have multiple arrests for illegal activities related to alcohol." I'm not planning to do that -- I've read WP:POINT -- but we shouldn't deal with disputes in a way that encourages people to violate that guideline.
• "Have you noticed yet you are the only one against including this passage?" I don't understand, Sasquatch, how you of all people could say this. You were the one who set up the poll. Now you're saying that, even though some editors responded to your solicitation of their opinions by saying that this junk should be excluded, their opinions don't count unless they follow up by participating in this discussion. I can understand why they haven't -- I've been in disputes on Wikipedia before, but the discussion on this subject has been one of the least enlightening I've ever seen.
• "Again, try to help rather than prolong an argument that is going absolutely nowhere." I've tried to help by proposing a compromise. I've tried to help by creating the article where this subject actually belongs. Unlike the blather here (by which I mean your comments, my comments, and everyone else's comments), that step had the additional virtue of actually improving Wikipedia. Also, I don't see how you can see the argument is going nowhere. To me, it looks like it's going to an RfC.
• I just took a break from editing the article. We all did.  :)

I'll now try inserting the unnecessary link to William Kennedy Smith and see whether the compromise of including that much irrelevancy is enough to produce stability. If it isn't, do you see any realistic alternative to an RfC? JamesMLane 04:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

To any who don't understand where JamesMLane is coming from, read his profile where he states "Hostile to the right wing". We are seeing this here. He has no desire to negociate and only want's his POV presented. The majority of the folk here want an inclusion. When it was time to vote on the fatboy.cc link and he was in the majority that was just fine. Now that he is in the minority he refuses to agree on a compromise. This is a joke. 24.147.97.230 01:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to see how completely off-base this comment is will find ample evidence in the first half of this talk page (although it probably ought to be archived soon). JamesMLane 03:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we could start a drinking game and all do a shot each time he brings up those five words on your profile. We could celebrate excess in the proudest Kennedy tradition. ;) Gamaliel 05:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Since this proposal seems okay with most users, I will unprotect the page to let you guys edit it again. 1) I will monitor the page and if any evidence of a revert war starts AGAIN I will protect it. 2) It seems clear that a short NPOV statement about the trial is okay. 3) I will block any user violating 3RR on this page for 24 hours per Wikipedia policy and 4) smile and be nice. If you really really still want a RfC after this is all done, go ahead. Again, I based this off the discussion on the proposal not any stupid evil poll I may have set up below. You also have to realize this is the farthest the discussion has gone. Before it was just include vs. exclude. Now we have a viable compromise that does not violate Wikipedia policy on any degree. Again: jpgordon, Silverback, Voice of All and the anon IP seem to support this compromise while JamesMLane's objections are duly noted. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 04:03, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Here is another long winded comment by me....the anon IP, solicited "help" and this brought in new comments such as mine which may have tilted the "concensus". My comment carries no weight for several reasons: firstly, I have no intention of editing this article as I see myself biased against the subject and therefore, do not want to fill the page with my bias...secondly, as a new contributor to this article's talk page my major conplaint about the article is that in my eyes, there is more negative here than positive...tell me please, in written form, that Teddy Kennedy has achieved something of substance during his tenure as Senator and put it in the article. Lastly, I am amazed at the polarizations politically charged articles such as this one generate...I see that the testimony of Ted Kennedy on behalf of his nephew who was exonerated of the rape charge to be a positive...not a negative...it tells me that ted Kennedy's word carried weight and...had the jury found WKSmith to be guilty, then that would be the negative...but that is not what happened. As far as the comparisons made to the GWB article...GWB wasn't directly involved in those events cited...they have only the slightest thing to do with him. Oh well.--MONGO 07:38, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Quickpoll

See the proposed solution above first

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

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

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

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

Include

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

Exclude

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kennedy testified at the trial: So what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK.... "Kennedy was widely attacked as a hypocrite - his own personal life less than sterling - for taking a leading role as a defender of Anita Thomas against accused sexual harasser Clarence Thomas."[4] "During the day, Sen. Kennedy was ranting against Thomas's confirmation." [5] Gzuckier 20:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

He's stopped partying not drinking

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

Question on material

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

Proposed compromise about Smith trial and acquittal in this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As to "Dr. Smith", don't forget to include his latest settlement in a sexual abuse case. You can get all the details here, [[6]] "Hamilton, who worked at CIR for nearly seven years, said that Smith frequently entered her office and gave unwanted massages, explaining that pregnant women "glowed" and he found them "irresistible." How did you miss that?? 24.147.97.230 03:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Unprotecting

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

there needs to be more on his later biography

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

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

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

James, I would say that if The Nation, quite sympathetic to his politics, ran an article saying (among other things) that in the 1980s he was hurting his health and effectiveness by his drinking, that's a pretty credible source. [7] -- Jmabel | Talk 05:47, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources for Waitress Sandwich (its whats for dinner)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi TDC, There is a description of this event at [[8]] These guys don't want this link here because of the kind of true reporting at fatboy.cc. Forget logic with these guys, they don't negociate or respond like normal folks, they are so pro Kennnedy that it blinds them. Good luck and keep up your efforts. 24.147.97.230 02:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I concur with Gamaliel. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:14, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is probably more significant in Chris Dodd's career since people weren't as publically aware of his private character. A whole section in the Ted Kennedy article is overkill.--Silverback 14:51, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Sources

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

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

Restatement on Where to Mention Sources

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

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

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

I've done tracert's on all the anons

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

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

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

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

1994 race

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

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

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

JamesMLane Vandel

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

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

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

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

The anti-Kennedy obsession

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

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

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

Pro-Kennedy Obsession of Some Editors

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