Jump to content

Talk:Ted Kennedy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.103.96.80 (talk) at 05:44, 26 August 2009 (→‎Dead Again?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleTed Kennedy has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 30, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 21, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

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

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

Inauguration Day seizure

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

False Death Date

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happened

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

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

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

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

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

And to put this in perspective - it may have been for only a few minutes at a time, but we should remember that on January 20 there were over 96,000 views of this page see here. Who knows how many of them saw the false information. Tvoz/talk 22:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magnet for kooks

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

Encyclopedia is not a news forum

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

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

Wiki-vandalism

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

  • I can see your point, but at the same time - editing the Ted Kennedy page is pretty innocuous, but what about editors that require anonymity to edit more controversial pages? There's a possibility that some editors could face serious consequences if they were to become associated with editing Wikipedia by more than an IP; unfortunately, the whole world doesn't value freedom of thought and information. It's a big picture thing that we have to consider. IP editors also contribute really good edits to the encyclopedia, as well as really dumb ones. Given how many people watch controversial articles and how easy it is to revert efforts, stuff like this gets caught pretty quickly these days. I don't mind reverting stupid edits now and then to allow other people freedom of expression they might otherwise not have. I can see both sides, here. Kate (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's simple: Block the IP addresses when vandalism such as this occurs. I have edited english wikipedia myself many times, in anonymity, without any evil purpose. When changing the names of articles on wikipedia in my native language, for example, I have sometimes also changed english interwikis to articles in my native language. And thus removed dead links. And I have done it unregistered, without doing any harm. I feel this suggestion of blocking unregistered users, is to punish all and every honest contributor, just because a few idiots violates the trust given to them. Adamasakai 18:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamaisaka (talk • contribs) [reply]
    • Thank you both for your replies. Admittedly, I still do not fully understand why users should not register to use Wikipedia. But then again, I also have a tendency to want to believe that people who are mostly honest and decent users should not really want to use an IP address for most editing. I may be wrong here, but I also thought having a second name was not against rules if you were not using it to agree with yourself, starting edit wars or other malicious purposes. I DO understand that there are many anonymous (IP) users, who contribute valid and informative items to Wikipedia. Unforunately there are too many turkeys (holding Irish temper here) who do just the opposite. I must politely disagree that listing Senators Kennedy and Byrd dead before they have actually expired is "innocuous". I do not see that as free speech, I only see it as mean and deliberately disruptive. It is also very difficult to get IP vandals/users blocked (and even registered vandals), as it must be brought to the attention of an administrator in a very short amount of time. I am simply appalled about the false death notices and increasing amounts of deliberately false information being entered. But the entire situation comes back to what I see is the deterioration and ultimate destruction of Wikipedia by people who know they will be able to get away with it, and do. Again, I will step down - as I know my Irish temper could soon blow. Thank you both again for your replies. Cheers. BlooPenguins Bloo (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think blocking unregistered users from editing would create more problems than it solves. At the moment by far the most vandalism is done by unregistered users but because of that IP edits are monitored more and are less trusted. Vandalism by registered users is less likely to be spotted within a minute of the edit and often gets missed. If you stop unregistered users from editing you will just end up with 1000s more vandals signing up for accounts and doing even more damage. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain my reasons for changing english articles «in anonymity». As a registered user, I could in the theory make such changes with my registered name. When creating several new articles very fast in my native language, with links to english wikipedia, and especially when combined with moving articles in my native language (causing interwikis on enwi to be out of date), I have sometimes changed english interwikis, without being logged in. «In the hurry correction» have been done with the intension to correct errors, not to introduce errors.
That said, vandalism are allways done in anonymity, and I'm allways a bit suspicious when observing just the IP-address, instead of a user name. I'm suspicious because anonymous idiots have made attempts to destroy the reputation of wikipedia in my own language. I allways takes a closer look at such anonymous changes, «just in case» ... On the other hand, when changing english interwikis in anonymity myself, in order to correct errors ASAP, I also know that english administrators would see my changes and be able verify for themselves, immediately, that the change was a real contribution, and not an evil sabotage.
An idea (if such a policy is legal) could be to automatically block editing, based on a register of IP addresses from whence vandalism appears. The problem with such an approach (and even user names) is that it may introduce yet another «cat and mouse play» magnet for hackers «identifying themselves» falsely as registered users. Just like I suspect some data viruses to be creations from «Riding the Gravy Train». I'm not going to give such persons more ideas; the problem is that some persons have nothing more constructive work to do, and obviously nothing else to do, than destroying what others have spent months, weeks, days and hours to build up. -- Adamaisaka 00:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with pretty much all of this. Now and then I make an IP edit because I'm in a hurry and editing the German Wikipedia, or I just don't notice I'm not logged in. At the same time, I check all the IP edits on my watchlist every day because I know there's a good chance they're vandalism. That's the kind of self-policing that keeps Wikipedia mostly problem-free, and it's really surprising how well it works - sometimes I go to revert vandalism and get edit-conflicted because someone else noticed it too, even on obscure articles. I think the way we have works pretty well, actually. Kate (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A hole in this article

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

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

Likewise, Wasted, if nobody agrees with you it stays. I don't think your a one-man jury.--Levineps (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing to eliminate the Political positions of Ted Kennedy article. It will still exist and still have just as many sections in it as it does now. What I'm proposing is to copy/move some of the biographically important material back into the main article, but include it as Senate history rather than "political positions". Right now the main article has no mention of No Child Left Behind, no mention of opposition to Robert Bork, and no mention of efforts at legislation for immigration reform, just to pick three examples. These are all things Ted Kennedy is very well known for. WP:Summary style says that all important topics have to be covered in the main article, even if they are explored in greater depth in a subarticle. WP:Undue weight also applies here: currently the main article has more material on his brain cancer than it does on his legislative career. That isn't right either. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The solution is to distinguish between things that Kennedy was very influential in, and things that he just expressed a view on. Was Kennedy's role very important in defeating the Bork nomination? Yes, so it belongs in the main article. Did Kennedy's opposition to the Reagan tax cuts make a difference? No, they passed anyway, so leave it for the political positions article. Was Kennedy a major factor in writing and passing the No Child Left Behind Act and SCHIP, to name just two? Yes, so descriptions of those legislative accomplishments belong in the main article. Was Kennedy influential in launching the war on Afghanistan? No, it had broad bi-partisan support, so this only needs to be discussed in the political positions article. And so forth. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And just to be clear, I'm not proposing to add a summary to the "Political positions" section. I'm proposing to add material to the "Senate career" section, which right now doesn't describe a single thing that Kennedy has done in his 46 years in the Senate, other than what committees he's served on. That's the hole in the article I'm talking about. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suzie Chapstick

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

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

2008 endorsements

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

OLD: In the 2008 Democratic presidential primary contests, Kennedy supported the successful bid of Illinois Senator Barack Obama against New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. ...
NEW: In the 2008 election, Kennedy supported the successful bid of Illinois Senator Barack Obama who defeated Republican nominee, John McCain in the election.

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

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

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

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with that, tho I'd prefer a shorter sentence such as

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

I don't see any reason to mention McCain or the November results, since the point is to say who Kennedy endorsed during the primaries. The word "successful" seems to cover it all. Tripodics (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with not mentioning McCain or November, but the article should briefly mention that Kennedy's endorsement of Obama was a key development in the days leading up to the big Obama-Clinton Super Tuesday battle. It wasn't just "any" endorsement. See Hillary Clinton caucuses and primaries, 2008#Kennedy family endorsements if you want some cites from the time. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Suggested edit: ====Democratic Presidential primary endorsements====
While Kennedy himself did not run for President again, he has endorsed and campaigned for other candidates in the Democratic presidential primary contests. In 1988, he supported the successful bid of Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis to win the nomination.[1] Four years later, in 1992, he backed former fellow Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas.[1] In 2000, Kennedy endorsed Vice President Al Gore.[1] In 2004, he endorsed and campaigned for fellow Massachusetts Senator John Kerry.[1] In 2008, Kennedy supported the bid of Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Ificouldyouknowiwould (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up, with the overall expansion of the article the significant endorsements have been moved into the appropriate chronological places in the narrative. The coverage of the Obama endorsement focuses on it taking place in the Democratic primaries. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absence from the Senate?

I don't see any mention in the current text of the article about Kennedy's frequent absences from votes after his brain cancer diagnosis. This page from the Washington Post has him missing all but four votes since mid-July. (I'm not entirely certain if that's a comprehensive list of all Senate votes since that time, but it at least purports to be.) I don't know if any RS has written specifically about these frequent absences, or if we're just assuming readers will know that he's had to miss votes since his diagnosis, but given that there is a RS cataloging how frequently he is missing votes, it seems arguably notable and verifiable enough to include, if given due weight. Thoughts? SS451 (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The narrative that's now in the "Illness and a new president" section makes it clear that he's rarely been in the Senate since his diagnosis. And indeed, the lead section now says "Since 2008, Kennedy has been battling a malignant brain tumor, which has greatly limited his appearances in the Senate." Wasted Time R (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knighthood

I read earlier that Ted was going to be given an honorary knighthood by the Queen, but not a great many details were divulged in BBC's report. Anyone have further information that can be pooled and then added? Octane [improve me?] 04.03.09 1320 (UTC)

It would help to have a link to whatever you read, as a start.  Frank  |  talk  13:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This story must be what is being referred to. Best approach is to wait until it is announced. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that, should this happen, he does not become "Sir Edward". The Constitution prohibits foreign titles. PhGustaf (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is acceptable for an American to receive a title. However, said title may not be used for identity, profit, or honor, in the United States, or under said government. Traditionally, these titles are reserved for use within the United Kingdom and her commonwealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.14.3 (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While there is clearly some formal rules against this (http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jJsCAKAxS0DfbQorH008q29h6krw ) there are not likely to be laws which will put you in prison if you do. That would be stupid, clearly one should be allowed to call oneself "Sir" if one got the title. Not that the title matters much anymore with the decline of the ruling classes from breed to greed. --IceHunter (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Brown just announced it to Congress; I don't know if anything still has to happen for it to become official, but the way he announced it implied that it's already valid: something like "I can announce, bestowed by Her Majesty, an honorary knighthood for Sir Edward Kennedy." Of course, the "Sir" isn't technically correct, but is this announcement enough to put a KCVO after his name? Vbdrummer0 (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I've been kindly corrected __ the Constitution doesn't say what I said it did. Second, I believe the honor should be mentioned, but not on the first line. PhGustaf (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does in fact say what you said. Article 1, Section 9: "...no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State." Even if the nature of the title itself prevents him from being called "Sir", the Constitution includes even post nominals when it says "of any kind whatever". Joshua Bennett (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a Knight bachelor which has no post-nominals. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reiterate, he is not "Sir" Edward Kennedy by virtue of the nature of honorary knighthoods themselves and not because of any American law. -MichiganCharms (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of London reported it thus "Unlike British citizens honoured by knighthoods, Senator Kennedy will not be given the title 'Sir Ted', which is not permitted for foreign recipients. Instead, he will simply be allocated the initials KBE - Knight of the British Empire - after his name."[2] --Natwebb (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think mention of this belongs in the lead; it seems more suited for the section on Kennedy's career. Qqqqqq (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This does not belong in the lead. See for example John Warner.--Natwebb (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mention of the proceedings may not belong in the lead, however the title itself should be included as follows:

Edward Moore "Ted" Kennedy, KBE (born February 22, 1932) is the senior United States Senator from Massachusetts and a member of the Democratic Party. --Analogue Kid (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, that is not done for other honorary knights. --MichiganCharms (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took it out of the lede and made a new section. Remember that this is an honor he shares with Bob Hope and Bill gates -- it's not a really major part o his life. PhGustaf (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through this a zillion times in the Rudy Giuliani article. As the comment at the top there says: "KBE Per MOS:BIO#Post-nominal initials, 'Postnominal letters should be included when they are from a country or organization with which the subject has been closely associated. Honors issued by other entities may be mentioned in the article but generally should be omitted from the lead.'" Wasted Time R (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, MOS is clear. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Wasted. I put that comment in this article. PhGustaf (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should anyone need an example... Bob Geldof has an honorary knighthood, but gets the KBE in the lead because he lives in the UK is primarily famous there. Bill Gates doesn't because he, well, doesn't. --MichiganCharms (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about we email Senator Kennedy's office and get an official statement as to whether or not he wants KBE affixed to his lead? Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 04:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, that would be original research. Don't worry: If he decides to use the postnomial, it'll be in all the papers. It's not bloody likely, though. (And at least I learned a new word today.) PhGustaf (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

♠With all due respect to Kittybrewster, I don't think a Time editorial statement is appropriate. I think we should just stick to facts. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 19:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. The Times. It is a widely held sourced view. I don't think it fails WP:UNDUE. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, editorials usually don't fly as reliable sources. Got anything from the "news section" in sourcces that say Kennedy's knighthood has received wide criticism?--Tznkai (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: *http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1159094/MPs-fury-U-S-Senator-Ted-Kennedy-gets-honorary-knighthood-Northern-Ireland-role.html
I'm not an expert on Brittish publications but this seems to establish notable Tory backlash, not widespread backlash. and ARRSE forums are not adequate. Can't comment on daily mail or news letter, but I do point out that the quoted official is from UUP - how relevant is the deputy head of UUP to the UK's political scene as a whole?--Tznkai (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, IP? Are you Kittybrewster?
Every newspaper in Britain reports some outrage. Of course not everyone is against this, but the fact is that there is a significant ammount of backlash. The fact that the Tory backlash is louder merely reflects the fact that the Conservatives were in power at the height of Irish terrorism. There is, however, certainly widespread outrage over here. There have been articles in The Guardian (which is left wing), The Sun (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2295465.ece), which has supported Labour since 1994, The Telegraph, The Times, The Mirror et al berating the decision. Northern Ireland is a part of the UK, and the UUP is now in an electoral pact with the Conservatives. Trust me, there is no doubt that there is a great deal of opposition to the move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.25.20 (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is "THE granting of an honorary knighthood to US senator Ted Kennedy has caused controversy across the UK." [1]. Reducing this to "Tory" outrage is original research. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no the ip isnt me. You cannot ígnore this. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sense a bit of anger here. Why, I only pointed out that editorials should not be used, I didn't say the Times was worthless. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 12:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Some irritation when multi-referenced criticism was removed. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KBE

We are still not sure weather or not Senator Kennedy will now go as Senator Edward Kennedy, KBE. But some notable americans have added the KBE to the end of their names, General Wesley Clark has added the KBE to his name, Secretary Colin Powell added both KCB and MSC to the end of his name, there are more cases out there and i'll try to put them here, but the possibility of KBE being added to Sen. Kennedy's name is decent..--Duffy2032 (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. If he does, it goes into the lede. My guess, however, is that an active American politician with a largely Irish constituency is not bloody likely to tack a British postnomimal onto his name. PhGustaf (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good Point, but his constituency is highly Democratic and would rather elect an out of state Democrat than a Republican, he really doesnt have to worry about losing in 2012 over a postnominal.--Duffy2032 (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


He is entitlted to place the letters KBE at the end of his name as it is a post-nominal knight hood (Post Name) which means that he should declear his knighthood after his name, otherwise he will not be acknowleged as being a knight of the british empire. --Thomassampson (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2009 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.190.125 (talk)
  • The constitutional issue, while not often discussed, is a pretty significant bar to accepting a title of nobility, which is what would be required under the Manual of Style in order for it to be included in the lead. If you find a RS that says otherwise then post it here, but there'd be some pretty sturdy skepticism applied.

And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Shadowjams (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Kennedy is entitled to accept the knighthood under the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966, in which Congress pretty well gives a standing consent to knighthoods and similar decorations for meritorious performance. The Queen has previously knighted Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Alan Greenspan, and Norman Schwarzkopf, who were entitled to keep their knighthoods under that law. Pirate Dan (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That act generally allows exceptions for tangible gifts of minimal value. A knighthood is not a tangible gift, and generally any knighthoods conveyed on an elected U.S. official or employee have occurred after he or she ceased to be an elected official or employee. Since Kennedy is a sitting senator, and a covered "employee" under the act, the FGDA exceptions may not apply. Really, it's all speculation on our part until Congress 1) passes a law allowing Kennedy to accept the knighthood, or 2) someone in authority says approval isn't necessary under the FGDA.DCmacnut<> 14:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it is an honorific? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy KAL 007 letter to Gorbachev

Dear people, I had edited in this - "In 1991 [date should be Nov. 1990, Senator Kennedy, along with Senators Bill Bradley, Carl Levin, and Sam Nunn sent letters to President Gorbachev requesting more information concerning the shooting down of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 by the Soviets on Sept. 1, 1983. KAL 007 had been carrying 269 passengers and crew including a sitting member of Congress, Demcratic representative Larry McDonald from Georgia" - which edit was deleted. JNW suggested I bring the edit here for discussion. I think it may be fitting elsewhere than "overview" section of Kennedy article. If you follow the "Interim Events" section reference to Kennedy's letter, along with three other senators, and see the progression in the Yeltsin's admission and handing over the black box, I think you can see that Ted Kennedy's contribution was a significant one. The edit above does show Kennedy's concern and something of the man, little known but positive and significant. Can this be reinstated, and perhaps at a more appropriate location in the article?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, what is your source for the 1991 letters? There was none in what you added to the article. And what is your source that if these letters were sent, that they had any effect on Yeltsin or other Russian leaders? Or that it was biographically significant to Kennedy? I've looked in Adam Clymer's Edward M. Kennedy: A Biography and I don't see anything about KAL 007 mentioned anywhere. It's not mentioned in the recent multi-part Boston Globe series about Kennedy either. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a number of mentions concerning the letter that Kennedy had written with senators Bradley, Levin, and Nunn. Here is the one from Izvestia 1991 6th paragraph, [2] from the lead article on the series on KAL007 by Andrej ILLESH and Alexandr Shalnev. The quote in point - "An aide to Senator Kennedy, referring to this article, noted, "If it is true, that the wreckage has been found, then this is startling news. If it is true (that the wreckage has been found. author), then there is no reason why the Soviet Union should not immediately agree to the senators' request (four American senators, including Kennedy, sent a letter to President Gorbachev with a request to clear up the mystery surrounding the tragedy. author) and present the full results of the Soviet investigation." The significance for KAL 007 lies int he fact that his letter, in the same month that Senator Helms of the Committee on Foreign Relations sent his started the chain of events leading to the release by Boris Yeltsin of KAL 007's Black Box the Soviets had denied having recovered. Not proof but good probalitiy. The significance for Kennedy - it shows his concern and caring in the matter.

New York Times, January 7, 1991:

"...Last year, four United States Senators sought to capitalize on the changing Soviet-American political climate and wrote to President Mikhail S. Gorbachev requesting on humanitarian grounds that Moscow help clear up the mysteries.

A first letter was written in August by Senator Bill Bradley, Democrat of New Jersey. Another letter was sent in November by three other Democrats, Senators Sam Nunn of Georgia, Carl Levin of Michigan, and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts. No reply has been received to either letter.

An aide to Senator Kennedy, discussing the Izvestia report of the purported location of the wreckage, said: "If this is true, it is stunning news. If true, there should be no reason why the Soviet Union should not immediately respond favorably to the request of the Senators and make available the complete results of the Soviet investigation."

An aide to Senator Levin said the Izvestia article and the official apology to South Korea provided new hope "that Mr. Gorbachev would be more inclined to answer our letter."

Sixty-three Americans were among the 269 people killed when a missile-firing Soviet fighter downed the airliner on Sept. 1, 1983.

"I am now more hopeful that the truth is coming out," said Hans Ephraimson-Abt of Saddle River, N.J., the chairman of the American Association for Families of KAL 007 Victims. He lost a daughter in the crash.""Bert Schlossberg (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see two mentions of this in the NYT archive, this one from 16 Dec 1990 and this one from 7 Jan 1991 which you quote above. They do establish that Kennedy was interested in the issue. But Kennedy has been interested in a thousand issues during his 46 years in the Senate, and we can't include them all here. I'm going to the library today for other reasons, and I'll try to look in some additional biographies and see if this gets any mentions. Until then, I think it's best to include it in Political positions of Ted Kennedy (which can cover virtually any position or action he's taken) rather than the main article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it should go in the Main article, probably under "Democratic party icon". That section has some entries that are of the nature showing the mettle of the man, his character and concern, such as his concern for the circumstances of the shootdown of a civilian plane with 269 people in it. It is not really a "political position", but humanitarion and heart felt impulse of Kennedy that has foreign relations ramifications. Bert Schlossberg (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it were to go into the main article, it should go in the chronological section that deals with 1990-91 ... which doesn't exist yet. (I'm in the middle of a major upgrade of the article, but have only gotten to 1981 so far.) The "Democratic party icon" section will eventually become a "Cultural and political image" section, and this item won't be appropriate for that. And even if you had a section specifically devoted to Kennedy's concern for people, the KAL 007 matter wouldn't necessarily rank high enough for inclusion there. Since my last post I've looked in the Boston Globe and Washington Post archives, and I don't see any mention of Kennedy and KAL 007 in either of them. WP:WEIGHT has to be a primary concern here. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through several Kennedy books in the library, including Burton Hersh's The Shadow President which emphasizes Kennedy's later senatorial career, but didn't see any mentions of this. This Google Books search doesn't turn up much either. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Wasted Time. Following the above discussion, I see that a passage regarding this has been re-inserted, and it does read as a WP:WEIGHT issue. It is, as I noted after previously reverting this, peripheral to the senator's career. Considering the numerous local, national, and international issues with which the senator has been involved, the mention of this particular one raises questions, and opens the door for any and all topics of particular personal interest to be added. JNW (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As there clearly isn't a consensus that this material has enough weight to be included, I've removed it. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Senate career in 90s and 00s

The section about Kennedy's senate career doesn't have a section about what he did in the 90s and 00s but the Political positions of Ted Kennedy does list his positions on some issues of those decades. Is it important to cover those decades in this article?--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite important. I'm working on it. When I started my expansion work a few weeks ago, the article looked like this — no coverage of his Senate career at all! I've gotten up to 1989 and will finish it in due course. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm stumped as to how this got to good article status with so little such coverage. This was promoted around late October 2006; a version from November 2006 has little about his career but a lot about his positions and has only 12 footnotes (compared to the very many now). --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GA was a lot looser then, in the era before it became FA-light. When I saw this article a couple of months ago, it was in a state where it would have been quick-failed for GA if someone tried bringing it now for the first time. I was going to file a GAR against it, then I decided I would try to bring it to the modern GA quality level instead. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better to do something about a problem on Wikipedia than to waste time complaining and creating a platform for unproductivity later. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up ... the 1990s and 2000s are finally in now, but there's still a lot of work to be done (on better integrating the 2008-9 Obama/illness material, on expanding and reorienting the political image material, on the lead, etc). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up again ... pretty much everything I've planned for the article, including what I listed above, is now in. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Adams

Controversy being in the Provisional IRA?There is no proof he is in this organisation,he is politician with Sinn Fein.I'am changing this statement,it is insulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.70.129 (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are those who believe otherwise, see Gerry Adams#Allegations of IRA membership and the citations given there. But for the purposes of this article, yes it is best to stick with Sinn Féin. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cite formatting

User:Blaxthos made a bunch of changes to the cite formatting, some of which I've undone. First, certain newspapers have 'The' at the beginning of their name — The New York Times, The Boston Globe — while certain others don't — Los Angeles Times, Star Tribune. We have to use the 'The' in our cites for those that do. Second, newspapers have to be italicised in our cites. The way the wacky {{cite news}} template is set up, this can be done either with work=[[Star Tribune]] or publisher=''[[Star Tribune]]'', but it can't be done with publisher=[[Star Tribune]].

Third is the issue of linking the publisher, be it newspaper, broadcast network, whatever. There are generally three approaches: always, never, first use. I've found that first use is totally impractical, as cites move around or are deleted as work is done on an article, and what use to be first use becomes later use or disappears entirely. Among the first two choices, I prefer always, because that makes it easiest on any reader who is suspicious or wants to know more about a given source. And since the primary mission of BLPs is WP:V, I think linking all sources everywhere is the optimal approach. Accordingly, I've restored the links that Blaxthos took out. There are other opinions on this, and if consensus goes for no links, so be it. But the first two points I think are requirements, and I've seen them upheld as such at FACs. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Edward M. Kennedy?

His brothers articles are at Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., John F. Kennedy & Robert F. Kennedy (not Joe, Jack & Bobby). So why isn't this article Edward M. Kennedy? GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed originally with a poll at Talk:Ted_Kennedy/Archive_1#Move_to_Edward_Kennedy_Vote_Please and then subsequently more briefly in archives 6 and 8. People in favor of the current title reference the "most common name" guideline and the examples of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. I'm not sure those are exact parallels, though; both of them really avoided their more formal name, while if you look at Kennedy's Senate website here and here, it uses the "Edward M." formulation everywhere. After working on this article as much as I have, the informality of the current title does bother me a bit, as does the lack of parallelism with the articles on his brothers. So I would be okay with moving it, although I suspect that will be a minority position. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather flabbergasted, that the majority ignore the brothers articles, Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can always put it up at WP:Requested moves and see what happens ... Wasted Time R (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most mainstream media sources I've seen recently prefer "Ted". One Washington Post article from August 2004 uses Edward M. "Ted" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17073-2004Aug19?language=printer). And now I see a New York Times article from 1961 that uses the same noting (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00B13F934551B728DDDAD0894DA405B818AF1D3&scp=6&sq=%22Ted+kennedy%22&st=p). On Wednesday and Friday I watched the episode of American Experience, "The Kennedys", on DVD. That was from 1992. It used "Sen. Edward M. Kennedy" when it showed short interview clips of him.
The thing is, do we follow the Senate's official line (Edward M. Kennedy) or just "whatever you've heard"? Think about this: Why does wikipedia include Rodham in the title of the article about our current Secretary of State? (Both her Senate website (archived) and Sec of State website use her full name). Will the Hillary case be precedent for naming conventions? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, The New York Times always uses "Edward M. Kennedy", at least on first reference (usually "Mr. Kennedy" after that). See these NYT search hits for examples. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except on the sports pages, the NYT always uses "Mr." or "Ms." or whatever after first identifying a person by a first name. It's about the only time Willie gets called "Mr. Nelson" outside a courtroom. But they usually called Carter "Jimmy" and Clinton "Bill" unless extra formality was needed for emphasis. PhGustaf (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I would support a move to "Edward M." PhGustaf (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

integrated separate article

The article on Kennedy's honors and awards was too short to keep separate. 67.101.6.17 (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

If this was the full list, yes. But it isn't; it only includes ones from 2008 and 2009. Kennedy has received many more awards and honors over the years than just this. This main article is definitely on the long side already, and so the awards and honors material should be developed as a separate article rather than including it here. I've restored the separation; feel free to research and add to Ted Kennedy awards and honors. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To wit, I've now added 13 new entries to Ted Kennedy awards and honors after some cursory searches. There's many more out there. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

seperate article- Senate career of Ted Kennedy

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

This section covers more like 4/5 of the article; Kennedy's biography largely is his senate career. Splitting it out would be pointless, just as it was for Joseph McCarthy when you tried to do it there and were quickly reverted. And "Senate career of ..." subarticles have some of the lowest readership rates in all of Wikipedia. Doing this here wouldn't benefit anybody. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Length of Chappaquiddick summary section

User:Ylee recently made substantial cuts to the "Chappaquiddick" section, with the edit summary "Abridged section to point people to main article while retaining all essential facts". I agree that the existing section had some problems with an inconsistent level of detail and an inappropriate bullet list. But, the size of the section was quite appropriate. WP:Summary style does not mean that when there is a main article elsewhere, the summary section in another article should be short as possible. Rather, the summary section must be the proper length for the subject at hand, relative to all the other content in the subject's article.

In this case, Chappaquiddick is a major episode in Kennedy's life, one that resulted in the death of a person, one for which even sympathetic biographers don't believe all aspects of Kennedy's story, and one that eventually prevented Kennedy from ever running an effective candidacy for president. It is by far the biggest blemish on Kennedy's career and life (which is, as this article conveys, filled with many great accomplishments). This article must be written assuming the reader never looks at any of the other articles xref'd to or linked to, and still have proper weighting; that's the essence of summary style. Most biographies of Kennedy deal extensively with Chappaquiddick, such as Clymer's (otherwise generally very favorable) one. The Boston Globe seven-part bio series on Kennedy, which this article draws heavily upon for citation, devotes almost all of one part to Chappaquiddick. Thus Ylee's abridgement goes way too far, and there are many "essential facts" that it left out. I've restored much of the previous content, while trying to fix some of the problems with inconsistent levels of detail. As restored, this material is still an abridgement, as it leaves out many of the well-known details of that night, and arguably the section should be still longer to achieve proper weighting with how WP:RS deal with Chappaquiddick. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree on Chappaquiddick's paramount importance to Kennedy's life (rightfully more so than the discussion of either of his marriages, for example). Regarding the section's length, though, I'd pose the question this way: Was there any crucial fact missing from my abridged version? Some point that would force the reader to jump to the (very, very detailed) main article to have a complete understanding of the incident? I think not, with one exception: A sentence with more-explicit discussion of how the incident permanently crippled his chances for higher office. (I'd thought the further mentions of the incident later in the article fulfilled this role, but I agree the sentence saying so in your restored version is needed.)
In any case, I think your longer version can still be abridged. I don't think it needs a link to or discussion of the Boiler Room Girls, for example, or a mention that Kennedy's lawyers requested the inquest be conducted in secret (if desired, just say "secret inquest"). Again, the main article exists for a reason. YLee (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Boiler Room Girls reference is meaningful because it shows this whole incident sprung from the tight loyalties that the Kennedy family inspires, and the nature of the Kennedy family is one of the thematic threads of this article. That Kennedy wanted a secret inquest is highly relevant, because the Kennedy family is quite powerful in those parts and there are many who believe aspects of the investigation and other inquiries were done in excessive deference to the Kennedys. And the fact that the inquest judge found several aspects of Kennedy's story to be untrue, beyond just his negligent driving, is quite important. Also, Kennedy asking the Massachusetts electorate whether he should stay in office is important. And the name of his 1970 GOP opponent should be included, since it is for his other elections in the rest of the article. And again, abridging this further does not give it the proper weighting in terms of a Kennedy biography. This article is attempting to be a comprehensive, GA/FA-level treatment of Kennedy's life; if a reader just wants "essential facts", they can read the lead section and stop there. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose there are Wikiphilosophical differences operating here. I agree on the name of his 1970 opponent (for consistency's sake, if nothing else) and the veracity of Kennedy's story, but I don't see the Boiler Room Girls or the inquest-secrecy request or Kennedy's appealing to the Massachusetts electorate to be so pertinent here. Are they important? Absolutely, but not in a summary section with a comprehensive main article. I'll leave the section as it is, though; we are both working off of good faith in the other. YLee (talk) 03:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we're both working in good faith. As I see summary style, the existence of a main article elsewhere never changes the article you're in. For example, someday somebody may write a Ted Kennedy presidential campaign, 1980 article, similar in nature and size to, say, the John McCain presidential campaign, 2000 article, which is GA. But I would claim that the current "1980 presidential campaign" section in this article would not change at all once that other article came into being, other than doing a {{main}} xref to it. That's because the current 1980 campaign section has the right length and right level of content and right weighting for this article, regardless of whether a more detailed article on it exists elsewhere. It sounds like you would shorten the campaign section in this article, if a separate campaign article were written. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely would shorten the campaign section here, yes; otherwise, why have a separate article at all? Also, having a summary section that's longer than "just the facts, ma'am" increases the risk that some well-intentioned editor will add something to the summary but not the main article; before you know it, the two are horribly out of sync and the section's size is about to exceed the main article's.
I don't know if this makes me a "deletionist" as opposed to an "inclusionist"; my understanding of that debate is that it has more to do with whether Wikipedia should be the kind of entity that contains articles on every Pokemon ever made or not. My vision, however, of the ideal Wikipedia article on a vitally important topic (on an American President, let's say) is one in which every single section is a brief, one or two-paragraph summary of a longer main article. WP:SUMMARY doesn't quite explicitly advocate that yet, but I expect it will someday. YLee (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for having the separate article would be that it goes into much more detail than the existing section in the main article, not to shorten the section in the main article. For example, if you look at the McCain 2000 article I mentioned (another insurgency campaign that ended up losing with bad blood resulting with the winner, so similar in nature), it's much longer than the campaign section in this article, and thus adds value for the interested reader. Yes, maintaining long summaries vis a vis the detail article can be a pain, but if the article is watchlisted by a faithful editor, it's tractable. The main problem with your model is that the readership stats (see site mentioned in section below) show that no one ever reads the subarticles. Look at the stats for the bio subarticles on Obama, McCain, Palin, anyone, compared to their main articles. It's always a 100:1 difference or worse. That's because search engines don't find the subarticles and because readers don't click through the fairly obscure main xref links. If this problem could be fixed I would be more tempted to believe in your model. But I put a lot of work into these articles and I want them to be found. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know about the difference in readership between the subarticles and main articles. I don't believe that the stats should affect this discussion, though, any more than editors should worry about Wikipedia's performance (two sides of the same coin, really).
I'd think of it this way: If a fact is important enough it'll appear in the main article. If it's not important enough, it'll be in the subarticle. By the same token, if a fact is necessary for a reader to gain an accurate and overall (as opposed to "comprehensive" or "detailed") understanding of a topic, it should be in the main article; otherwise, it shouldn't. Again, a difference in Wikiphilosophy. (That said, note that my stated intention to shorten the section after a subarticle is created is the Wikipedia guideline.) YLee (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(od) I think the guideline you're referring to is when one section becomes too long relative to everything else (like if I had written a subarticle-length treatise on the Kennedy 1980 campaign and stuck it in the main article), not when a main article section has an appropriate length but then someone wants to explore it further. As for readership stats, here's a sample for April 2009:

For the McCain articles, I took summary style very, very seriously. I wrote them all and got one subarticle to FA and two to GA (including the one shown above), which is more than any editor I know of has done. The reward has been virtually no readership of the subarticles and I'm the only editor who ever bothers to keep them up to date. Summary style for biographies is good in theory, but doesn't work in practice at this time. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article size tag

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

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

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

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

The article states:

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

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

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

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

I've changed the article to make it clear that the current governor of Massachusetts is a Democrat. However, Kennedy did not "create" the current law, since it's a state law, not federal. The Boston Globe article you point to says that Kennedy's people say he never liked the 5-month vacancy in the law, and doesn't mention any role for Kennedy in the 2004 law change. The WSJ piece you point to is an opinion piece and thus not a WP:RS. It in turn points to a 2004 Globe story that says Kennedy urged the change at the time, to prevent Romney appointing Kerry's successor if he won the presidency. But it's still possible that Kennedy wanted an early special election (rather than waiting until the next even-yeared November, as most states do) but also wanted a temporary appointment by the governor as well to fill in the 5-month gap (such an interim appointee wouldn't have much of an advantage in a special election). You'd have to find that 2004 piece, and others, to get the full story on this. But at such a level of detail this becomes a topic for some article on Massachusetts election law, not this article. It's obvious that the reason Kennedy wants the law change now is not some selfless desire to see Massachusetts always have two senators, but because he wants the vote to always be there for health care reform if he doesn't make it. I included it in the article because it's the best indication yet of Kennedy acknowledging his mortality and because it perfectly fits one of the section's themes, which is the effect that Kennedy's physical absence has had on the debate over his long-time top legislative priority. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Here is just one article which points to the fact that Kennedy pushed to have the law changed to prevent Romney from appointing a senator had Kerry been elected. It is an important piece of context to point out the Kennedy pushed to have the original law put into place. Arzel (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, in the edit you made immediately before this one, you wrote "Yes, but it is not up to US to provide the context." Gamaliel (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That article is the same WSJ opinion piece pointed to earlier; as opinion it can't be used as a source. Furthermore, we need clarification on what Kennedy supported in 2004. The pre-2004 situation was the one most states use: upon a vacancy, the governor appoints an interim senator until the next regularly scheduled congressional election. For vacancies occurring soon after an election, this means the appointed senator gets almost two years of incumbency before they have to face election, which may give them a big leg up (consider how Gillibrand has muscled out all her major potential primary foes after being appointed to replace Hillary). The 2004 Massachusetts law changed this to call for a special election about five months after the vacancy, which Kennedy clearly supported then and now. But should the senate seat be vacant during those five months, or should a really-short-period interim senator be appointed? Such an interim wouldn't have much of an incumbency advantage in the special election (and could be formally or informally required not to run in it), but would ensure that the state is still fully represented in D.C. during that time. That's what Kennedy is calling for now, and per the 2009 Boston Globe article, Kennedy's aides say he was never happy with the vacancy aspect of the 2004 law. So Kennedy's stances are not necessarily inconsistent, depending upon what can be further found out about his position in 2004. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for all the references. While there need be no vacancy in the event of a resignation, there would always be one in the case of death. The American Prospect reference states that Romney tried to add a very-short-interim-senator-appointed-by-governor provision, as I was discussing above, but there's no indication of whether Kennedy was favorable towards that notion or not. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In order to avoid edit war a simple referenced sentenced that the law was changed in 2004 to prevent Romney from appointing a successor is sufficient for now. There seems to be no debate about this aspect. Arzel (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW this article seems to imply that Kennedy did support the original change. [3] Arzel (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Again?

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

ABC ([3]) more than fulfills WP:RS guidelines. 71.103.96.80 (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Edit conflicts.....

1926 (or whenever) – 2009.

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

OK, it finally worked.

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

  1. ^ a b c d Our Campaigns - Candidate - Edward "Ted" Kennedy
  2. ^ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5842904.ece
  3. ^ http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/08/23/pure_power_politics/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ted_Kennedy&oldid=310108076"