This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
"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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
It is inappropriate to repeatedly refer to a honest disagreement about content as vandalism in edit summaries and even more inappropriate to clog up the normal anti-vandalism channels like Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress with frivolous reports. Deal with your disagreements on the talk page and stop the namecalling and false accusations or else I'll stop them for you by blocking you if you persist in this behavior. Gamaliel 17:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
In any event, JamesMLane's edits are clearly not more POV-pushing or bullying than the complainant's. I personally think they are less so: this is not the pot calling the kettle black, this is the pot calling the strawberry black. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
So it's not a joke, it is supposed to be intuitively obvious that anyone who does not believe that the information that Ted Kennedy's nephew's lawyer married one of the jurors in the nephew's rape case, in which Ted Kennedy testified, describes one of the more important events in Ted Kennedy's life is operating from a clear pro-Kennedy bias? And what about the depiction (apparently from People magazine, though uncited) of Kennedy as "sporting a long-tailed shirt"? Isn't it possible that he was not "sporting" it? Perhaps he was "dolled up in" it? Or maybe he could have been "decked out"? I find this pro-"sporting" bias to be POV and needs removal. Gzuckier 19:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I have posted an article Request for Comments concerning two incidents, the "waitress sandwich" and the Palm Beach trial. Robert McClenon 18:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Do we need two quickpolls on whether to mention the Palm Beach trial, and on whether to mention the "waitress sandwich" incident? An anonymous editor claims that there was a consensus that they were encylopedic. It was my understanding that the consensus on the Palm Beach trial is that it was relevant to William Kennedy Smith rather than to Ted Kennedy. Robert McClenon 19:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
We have a wiki administrator here deleting whole paragraphs and designating it as a "minor edit." Not too ethical if you ask me. Aren't admins held to a higher standard? Isn't it deceptive to remove a substantial amount of text and label it as a minor edit? And why is an admin engaging is a revert war anyway? And why is he not enforcing the 3RR rule, which JamesMLane admits to breaking: "I've reverted the anon's various IP's three times in the last 24 hours." As I am sure you know, admins who abuse their authority can lose their admin rights.-- Agiantman 20:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Interesting then, that you just restored the waitress and palm beach sections with the edit summary "added cite for the use of Romney's religion as an issue by the Kennedy campaign". Agiantman, would you decribe this as "ethical editing"? Gamaliel 00:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I only edit the main article we are working with. I automatically revert the pro-Kennedy POV warrior attempts to remove relevant paragraphs. I am sorry if that wasn't clear. Please assume that my future edits will restore those paragraphs. Other additions will be noted in the summary. -- Agiantman 01:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
We already did this, but you ignored the results. Why do it again? So you can discard consensus when you loose? Are you just running this until folk get tired of voting then declare victroy? This means nothing. 24.147.97.230 21:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
See the proposed solution above first
Addenum: Since James brought it up before: do not use this poll as a way to push POV on any side of this issue, I am just trying to see where we are so we can work to find a solution, not to promote more hostility. Thanks everyone, I appreciate all your cooperation and everything. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 06:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
This is no by no means meant to be official but I just want to see where people stand on this issue, I think we all agree the original version was heavily POVed against Ted Kennedy but we can deal with wording etc. later.
Basically, I want to see we who supports the inclusion of the information about The Palm Beach rape trial. Please write comments elsewhere, this is just so I know where we are at right now. Please sign your vote and do not try to alter it by voting more than once, one person, one vote, simple as that. Again, this is not official but I just want to know where this is at right now. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 02:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
This is fun. Now we have editors messaging other editors trying to hustle up votes. Voting is evil. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
o Eviler than I intended... Do they not understand this is not official and purely for my benefit to see how far we need to go on this thing? Anyways, the good news is now we have a summary of everybody's stance on the issue and can now begin to work on a solution without pointless mudslinging which, I am ashamed to say, I may have participated in, but I guess we're all guilty of something ;-) Sasquatch↔讲↔看 04:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Include
1. Include. Though, the trial should be mentioned in a VERY brief and NPOV manner, probably a sentence or two. Though, the section on the trial seemed to be written by a 2 year old monkey POVer.Voice of All(MTG) 02:51, August 8, 2005 (UTC) 2. Include, perhaps two or three sentences in a longer section that includes in the cocaine and popper use, and other self-defeating character flaws.--Silverback 03:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC) 3. Strong Include. Ted Kennedy's bio should be complete, warts and all. The paragraph in dispute is noteworthy, accurate, and should be included as written. Ted Kennedy was at the center of the most widely publicized rape trial in US history and his role should not be whitewashed.--Agiantman 03:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC) 4. Include. Redwolf24 03:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC) 5. Include. Perhaps the left could write 4 lines and the right could right 4, neither could argue the content of the other Thank you 24.147.97.230 03:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC) 6. Include, but no more than a sentence or two, with a link to the appropriate article where the trial is actually discussed. And, yes, (1) I would certainly think the article on G.W. Bush should discuss his drinking and alleged drug use when young and (2) this article should, similarly, mention both Kennedy's drinking in the past and the fact that he stopped. This article from The Nation, hardly unsympathetic to Kennedy, talks about his heavy drinking in the 1980s and the fact that, of all people, Orrin Hatch was apparently instrumental in him getting sober. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:26, August 8, 2005 (UTC) 7. Include. Ted Kennedy testified at the trial. Be careful it is not worded to sound anti-Ted Kennedy. though. Banes 13:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC) 8. Include. Kennedy's involvement in that trial had an impact on his effectiveness in the Thomas confirmation (he was quite quiet) and on his reelection in 1994. This was well noted in the media at the time. That is why it is relevant. NoSeptember 15:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
(the reinclusion of the above is unsigned, but occurred in sequence Aug 15.)
In order for these quickpolls to find a consensus, they must both have two options only. Compromise proposals can be discussed, but the vote is for or against inclusion of the paragraphs as often inserted and deleted in the revert wars. Robert McClenon 20:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Those who favor including the description of the "waitress sandwich" incident as often inserted and often deleted can sign with four tildes.
Those who oppose including the description of the "waitress sandwich" incident can sign with four tildes.
There was consensus that the fact that Kennedy testified at the trial is relevant. The quickpoll here is on whether to include the one paragraph account of incidents related to the trial or something shorter.
Those who oppose including the longer description of events related to the trial can sign with four tildes.
Those who favor including the one paragraph description of events related to the trial can sign with four tildes.
Are you going to just ignore this vote if you loose? I have yet to see you dems play fair. You lost the US election and you lost on posting an accurate account of Teddy's past. Why another vote? So if you win you can say so and if you loose you can ignore it again? 24.147.97.230 02:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
From previous poll:
The previous poll was on whether there should be at least a one sentence mention of the trial. The consensus was that there should, but there was no consensus on whether the long partly irrelevant account should be included, or only one sentence, or something in between. This poll should have been on whether to keep the long account as repeatedly added and removed in the article. The inclusion of the previous signatures to the poll, by an anonymous editor, is not helping determine what consensus is. Robert McClenon 11:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the subject of Mormonism in the 1994 campaign is particularly important. It should probably be omitted. Nevertheless, since the anti-Kennedy anons kept putting it in, I tried, in the interest of compromise, to frame a suitably NPOV presentation of it. My version is in this edit. We are not going to report a campaign dispute in a way that parrots right-wing charges against Kennedy as if they were facts. In response to my work, Agiantman and the latest vulgarity-spewing anon have reverted to the POV version.
If the compromise is unacceptable, then the issue will be whether to include a blatantly POV slam at Kennedy about a subject so minor it probably doesn't deserve mention at all, or to omit the subject entirely. If that's the choice, I'll be in favor of omitting the POV language. JamesMLane 00:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Toshiba has reworked the introduction paragraph to provide a summary of the positions (points of view) of Kennedy's supporters and critics. I think that the new introductory paragraph is a reasonable neutral encyclopedic summary. I think that thanks are in order for this revision. (As a minor criticism, Toshiba forgot to provide an edit summary.) Robert McClenon 17:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Editors here should be aware of this rfc, started this morning. Gamaliel 20:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
This is just more harrassment from the pro-Kennedy POV warriors here ( Robert McClenon, Gamaliel, Jpgordon, JamesMLane, etc.). If an editor refuses to give in to their bullying they try to stifle the editor in any wiki way they can find. Look at their comment histories and you will see this is their m.o. And everything they accuse me of doing, they engage in themselves. -- Agiantman 20:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
They are biased and negative. To remove an entire paragraph is vandalism. Stick to you guns Agiantman you are doing the right thing. 24.147.97.230 22:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
A witch hunt be the self proclaimed guardians of "NPOV", which needs to be defined what it is here at WikiKosAtriosPedia: Democrats must look good at all costs and Republicans must look bad and evil.
JamesMLane admits as much on his user page! How can you take the supposed "neutrality" of a person who is "hostile to the right wing" seriously? This "project" is a sham circle jerk site for left wingers.
I've protected the page until the edit warring stops. As someone with no personal political interst in the subject, I think that the scandals should be discussed, but perhaps without the same level of prominence they are being given in the current version.-- nixie 02:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
"nixie, even on Aussie radio Teddy gets heavy blows from commentators, so it's no secret that there are deep feelings about this guy. But just the same any additional text needs to be crafted if it is to be accepted to a statement of facts, which I feel was very well done in the protected article describing the Chappaquidick episode. It demonstrates clearly his tarnished image, the reasons for it, and why it survives. Kyle Andrew Brown 02:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
nixie has now locked the page on JamesMLane's last edit. JamesMLane, of course, is the editor who writes on his user page that he is "Hostile to the right wing" so we can be sure that his version is a neutral version. LOL. The locked version does not include any mention of the William Kennedy Smith rape trial, the waitress sandwich incident, or the use of Romney's mormon religion during the 1994 campaign. The protection of JamesMLane's version speaks volumes about what is wrong with wikipedia. On the bright side, at least the NPOV tag appears on this version.-- Agiantman 03:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Agiantman, instead of complaining and being deliberatly provocative why don't you suggest a NPOV rewrite on the scandals on the talk page, I will gladly add it to the article if there is concensus to do so.-- nixie 03:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Lay off the personal attacks. If you actually read my first comment on this page I said that I thought the information being disputed should be included but not in the form it was presented.-- nixie 04:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
You guys can make your points without personally attacking those who disagree with you. Really, it's not hard. -- kizzle 04:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
I think that the anonymous editors of this page have been out of control and behaving badly too long. However, allowing them to put material of dubious value on this page, which can be easily reverted, is the lesser of two evils compared with page-protecting it. Protecting this page creates the appearance that there is a conspiracy to suppress the truth.
There is a proposed policy to permit Wikipedia:Per-article blocking. This article is a case for that policy. This article should be protected indefinitely from editing by specific anonymous IP addresses, or even by all anonymous editors. That would be far less drastic than the current state of protecting it from editing by all non-admin editors, which amounts to transferring it from a Wiki community to an elite.
If any of the anonymous editors have committed vandalism, or violated 3RR, or engaged in personal attacks, they should be blocked. I disagree with the page protection and think that the Wikipedia community should not be blocked from editing the article due to a few anonymous misdeeds. Robert McClenon 11:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
This page would be a good candidate for what you might call "dynamic protection." Whenever it is under attack by changable anon IPs, protect the page. After an hour or two, remove the protection, and wait until the next attack before protecting again. Eventually the vandal will get frustrated with the speedy protections, but the editors can edit when the vandal is not active. If you look at the article history, you will see that the vandalism is not constant, and a lot of the vandals are not changable anon IPs (so blocks could effective). NoSeptember 13:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
A group of "editors" with extreme POV is working very hard to have total control of this page. They include Voice of All(MTG), Robert McClenon , Talk, jpgordon, JamesMLane, kizzle, Robert McClenon, Silverback, Gamaliel. Some of these editors are now engaged in an RFC to censure user Agiantman. Each one of these "editors" only presents views favorable to the left wing. The fact that they have organized into a group and monitor this page constantly give them no additional credibility. If this is to be a work of encylcpedic quality all POV's need to be presented. Past protection has not resolved this issue as they still refuse to include a paragraph on The Palm Beach Rape Incident and the sexual misconduct illustrated in "the waitress sandwich" incident. The past argument presented mainly focused upon anons like myself. This changed when registered editors began to be reverted. At this point the campagne to discredit and remove Agiantman began. One of the reasons stated in the RFC is that he is said to have accused an editor of being a sock puppet. How petty! History repeats itself, especially when whitewashed. There is a need for accurate and complete reporting of Ted Kennedy's past misconduct. These issues will not fade away without a new plan that includes all the participants, not just the left wing editors. Their begging for the lifting of protection is only to allow their badgering to begin again. 24.147.97.230 14:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
hmmmmmmmm....Voice of All(MTG), Robert McClenon ,Talk, jpgordon,JamesMLane,kizzle,Robert McClenon,Silverback,Gamaliel...I'm sure that all of us are extreme POVers vying for control over the Ted Kennedy article...it really is a conspiracy. Logic, reason, and civility are just our secret weapons...:). Voice of All(MTG) 02:14, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps we could work as a team and all work to author the paragraphs. Each side could write 4 lines, each side can not remove the other's contribution. This would force a balanced view of each incident. 24.147.97.230 02:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
First the article was page-protected, and the anonymous editors said that this was censorship. I then disagreed with the admins, and said that the most recent page-protection should be removed. The anonymous editors are now claiming that the moderate editors only want unprotection so that the "badgering" can begin again. I would like to see the article unprotected, in spite of the problem of the anonymous editors, because I am in favor of the Wikipedia concept of open editing. However, if there is a consensus for protection, I will agree to protection. Do the anonymous editors want the page protected, and kept in a left-wing version, or unprotected, to allow it to be made NPOV? The current protected version omits much of the neutral criticism of Kennedy, such as the mention that his critics think that his personal faults have made him ineffective. I think that they will get a version that is less flattering to Kennedy if they ask to have the page unprotected. What do they (the anonymous editors) really want? Robert McClenon 02:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
The statement that there is a group of left-wing editors who delete anything that is not pro-Kennedy misrepresents the situation. Silverback is one of the editors who revert to a consensus version. There is a consensus of the editors of this article against the inclusion of the "waitress sandwich". There is a consensus for a brief mention of the rape trial but against the longer description of irrelevant events. I am criticizing the protection of the page because the rewritten introductory paragraph, which summarizes criticisms of Kennedy, is not included. Robert McClenon 11:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
NOTE!! THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE, I'm not sure why this is being discussed here, it has nothing to do with why this page was protected. 24.147.97.230 00:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
In the reversion from JamesMLane's version to Robert McClenon's version, the following was removed from the lead:
replaced by
Also removed:
I would have thought 2 was acutually more to the liking of those who seem to have insisted on the reversion, since it gets their issues into the lead. Who is objecting to that paragraph, and why?
As for 1a. vs.1a. 1b.: what (if anything) is the argument against mentioning his two assassinated brothers in the lead? And if the problem is with the specific wording, can someone propose an alternative?
Jmabel | Talk 05:45, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Without weighing in on any changes, I would say that if I were to read No. 2. as:
I would say it is balanced as I have rewritten it, with the exception of saying that both supporters and detractors could agree with both statements. That would be rewritten as "Supporters and detractors alike regard..." Kyle Andrew Brown 20:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Articulate? I don't agree with that. Do you consider this to be articulate:[ http://www.moviesoundclips.net/misc/americanpolitics/kennedy1.wav]? A "seasoned parliamentary performer"? Are you kidding?-- Agiantman 00:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Please change the category Category:United States Senators to Category:U.S. Senators from Massachusetts. Thanks. -- tomf688< TALK> 00:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
There are lotsa pols and media talking heads that are on both sides of the fence that everyone disagrees with. That in itself does not make them in-articulate. When Kennedy speaks he very definitely is articulating a position, especially as evidenced by the mailings sent out by the opposition quoting his statements and positions as articulations to be fought against. When a person articulates a position that does not imply that it is either correct or clear.
Without looking at your link, I'm guessing it is video of Kennedy swerving and swaying his speech. Yep, he's often painful to watch. But inability to be coherent, or at least to be ridiculed for it, does not mean he is not articulate as a Senator and a vocal and responsible representative of his party.
The direction I'm pointing towards is that the balance in an encylopedia can indeed point to an individual's foibles.
But enclyclopedias that are successful do so by the editorial craft that characterizes an enclyclopedia: The writing presents facts without being inflammatory to a lucid reader.
The facts of Kennedy's transgressions are legitimate for an article, yet how they are presented should in MHO meet the standard of the editorial craft that characterizes an enclyclopedia rather than a the standards of a partisan website. Kyle Andrew Brown 04:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
the link to Caroline Raclin is Caroline see the ) by mistake -- Fabhcún 13:23, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Editors here should also be aware of this [ [6]] concerning this abusive editors of this page. Please visit and add your input to cross the 2 users needed to validate. 24.147.97.230 15:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Editors here should also be aware of this [ [7]] concerning this abusive editors of this page. Please visit and add your input to cross the 2 users needed to validate 24.147.97.230 15:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Editors here should also be aware of this request for comments concerning the anonymous editors of this page. Robert McClenon 18:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
No Problem, You lynching will not stop all the new members I helped sign up tonight to help keep this page neutral. I assume they can contribute freely? 24.147.97.230 02:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I understand your viewpoint on just how much "negative" to put down about someone. All I have to say about that is that everything is relevant. The percentage of bad to good isn't controlled by the people who are posting it. The only one in charge of how much negative press he gets is Ted Kennedy himself. Whatever your feelings for him, he has been involved in an awefully suspect number of events that could be construed as negative (trying to put it nicely). Don't confuse NPOV with the need to post an equal amount of good and bad. It means reporting incidents for what they are without bias. I would say if you want there to be an equal amount of good and bad about the man, you should write a letter to him and let him know that the fact scales are tipping toward the naughty side. If he wants something for Christmas this year, he's gonna need to do an aweful lot of nice! I know this will all be construed as my taking a side against Ted, but honestly, I could care less. I don't like any politician on any party these days. No one is doing the job we pay/elect them to do. Why should Ted Kennedy be singled out. Point is, I would say the same thing about any politician. If they want good press, make them earn it. Don't give them cover under the the name of NPOV. Hold your politicians accountable for their actions by making all of their good and bad available for research. - Sleepnomore 05:52, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
When this page is again not protected, I propose a new paragraph to highlight the Senator's violent act of smashing a phototographer in the face with his camera. The story is now at fatboy.cc Here is some of it. We can get a copy of the article from the Burlington VT Public Library. This did happen.
Kirsch 02-02-2005, 04:37 PM Let me share my personal experience with Teddy, something I saw with my own eyes...January of 1963 in Stowe VT at a ski slope. A news photographer was taking pictures of His Highness, and the royal Self took umbrage at that "invasion" of His privacy. Himself grabbed the camera, and taking it by its strap, swung it and smashed it into the photographer's head causing the photographer to suffer a concussion. The potographer was (in the hospital) arrested and charged with something, I truly don't remember what, but no charges were ever filed against Teddy for that assault. I may not have the date right, I was a kid in High School, and it was a long time ago before Teddy Kennedy really became some "National Icon", but I remember it vividly because I knew at the time that this man was the brother of our President. And I knew at the time that what I was watching was some Rich Asshole walking away from what I or anyone else would have gone to jail for. Susanrd 01:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Ted Kennedy killed my dog and I don't think that's fair. Gamaliel 14:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] Please use the sandbox for playing. 24.147.97.230 18:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
This page has gotten long, but the recent deletions by User:Sleepnomore are not the solution. The article is currently protected because of, in part, the anon's revert war over discussing Smith's trial, so the talk page material on that subject from two weeks ago should stay a while longer. Furthermore, I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy against using an article talk page as an efficient way of providing notice of a user-conduct RfC. JamesMLane 07:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Since we can't seem to get anyone interested in removing personal attacks and moving RfC announcements to where they belong, I'd like to at least move all of the RfC pages to the end of the article and try to highlight the bulk of the article discussion to the top of the page, while leaving the personal digs and RfC's to the bottom of the page. My proposal for the RfC's would be to move them to the bottom of the page in their own section entitled "User RFCs" , leave the announcement, move the "discussion" of the announcement to a user page, and provide a link to that discussion under the RfC announcement. In this way, anyone researching the RfCs can still easily find the information, but we can try to move on with the article editing discussions in spite of those who refuse to drop these ridiculous arguments and attacks. - Sleepnomore 16:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Sleepnomore, you are getting just a little of the abuse we have endured here by this group. Welcome. 24.147.97.230 19:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
"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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
It is inappropriate to repeatedly refer to a honest disagreement about content as vandalism in edit summaries and even more inappropriate to clog up the normal anti-vandalism channels like Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress with frivolous reports. Deal with your disagreements on the talk page and stop the namecalling and false accusations or else I'll stop them for you by blocking you if you persist in this behavior. Gamaliel 17:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
In any event, JamesMLane's edits are clearly not more POV-pushing or bullying than the complainant's. I personally think they are less so: this is not the pot calling the kettle black, this is the pot calling the strawberry black. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
So it's not a joke, it is supposed to be intuitively obvious that anyone who does not believe that the information that Ted Kennedy's nephew's lawyer married one of the jurors in the nephew's rape case, in which Ted Kennedy testified, describes one of the more important events in Ted Kennedy's life is operating from a clear pro-Kennedy bias? And what about the depiction (apparently from People magazine, though uncited) of Kennedy as "sporting a long-tailed shirt"? Isn't it possible that he was not "sporting" it? Perhaps he was "dolled up in" it? Or maybe he could have been "decked out"? I find this pro-"sporting" bias to be POV and needs removal. Gzuckier 19:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I have posted an article Request for Comments concerning two incidents, the "waitress sandwich" and the Palm Beach trial. Robert McClenon 18:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Do we need two quickpolls on whether to mention the Palm Beach trial, and on whether to mention the "waitress sandwich" incident? An anonymous editor claims that there was a consensus that they were encylopedic. It was my understanding that the consensus on the Palm Beach trial is that it was relevant to William Kennedy Smith rather than to Ted Kennedy. Robert McClenon 19:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
We have a wiki administrator here deleting whole paragraphs and designating it as a "minor edit." Not too ethical if you ask me. Aren't admins held to a higher standard? Isn't it deceptive to remove a substantial amount of text and label it as a minor edit? And why is an admin engaging is a revert war anyway? And why is he not enforcing the 3RR rule, which JamesMLane admits to breaking: "I've reverted the anon's various IP's three times in the last 24 hours." As I am sure you know, admins who abuse their authority can lose their admin rights.-- Agiantman 20:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Interesting then, that you just restored the waitress and palm beach sections with the edit summary "added cite for the use of Romney's religion as an issue by the Kennedy campaign". Agiantman, would you decribe this as "ethical editing"? Gamaliel 00:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I only edit the main article we are working with. I automatically revert the pro-Kennedy POV warrior attempts to remove relevant paragraphs. I am sorry if that wasn't clear. Please assume that my future edits will restore those paragraphs. Other additions will be noted in the summary. -- Agiantman 01:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
We already did this, but you ignored the results. Why do it again? So you can discard consensus when you loose? Are you just running this until folk get tired of voting then declare victroy? This means nothing. 24.147.97.230 21:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
See the proposed solution above first
Addenum: Since James brought it up before: do not use this poll as a way to push POV on any side of this issue, I am just trying to see where we are so we can work to find a solution, not to promote more hostility. Thanks everyone, I appreciate all your cooperation and everything. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 06:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
This is no by no means meant to be official but I just want to see where people stand on this issue, I think we all agree the original version was heavily POVed against Ted Kennedy but we can deal with wording etc. later.
Basically, I want to see we who supports the inclusion of the information about The Palm Beach rape trial. Please write comments elsewhere, this is just so I know where we are at right now. Please sign your vote and do not try to alter it by voting more than once, one person, one vote, simple as that. Again, this is not official but I just want to know where this is at right now. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 02:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
This is fun. Now we have editors messaging other editors trying to hustle up votes. Voting is evil. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
o Eviler than I intended... Do they not understand this is not official and purely for my benefit to see how far we need to go on this thing? Anyways, the good news is now we have a summary of everybody's stance on the issue and can now begin to work on a solution without pointless mudslinging which, I am ashamed to say, I may have participated in, but I guess we're all guilty of something ;-) Sasquatch↔讲↔看 04:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Include
1. Include. Though, the trial should be mentioned in a VERY brief and NPOV manner, probably a sentence or two. Though, the section on the trial seemed to be written by a 2 year old monkey POVer.Voice of All(MTG) 02:51, August 8, 2005 (UTC) 2. Include, perhaps two or three sentences in a longer section that includes in the cocaine and popper use, and other self-defeating character flaws.--Silverback 03:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC) 3. Strong Include. Ted Kennedy's bio should be complete, warts and all. The paragraph in dispute is noteworthy, accurate, and should be included as written. Ted Kennedy was at the center of the most widely publicized rape trial in US history and his role should not be whitewashed.--Agiantman 03:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC) 4. Include. Redwolf24 03:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC) 5. Include. Perhaps the left could write 4 lines and the right could right 4, neither could argue the content of the other Thank you 24.147.97.230 03:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC) 6. Include, but no more than a sentence or two, with a link to the appropriate article where the trial is actually discussed. And, yes, (1) I would certainly think the article on G.W. Bush should discuss his drinking and alleged drug use when young and (2) this article should, similarly, mention both Kennedy's drinking in the past and the fact that he stopped. This article from The Nation, hardly unsympathetic to Kennedy, talks about his heavy drinking in the 1980s and the fact that, of all people, Orrin Hatch was apparently instrumental in him getting sober. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:26, August 8, 2005 (UTC) 7. Include. Ted Kennedy testified at the trial. Be careful it is not worded to sound anti-Ted Kennedy. though. Banes 13:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC) 8. Include. Kennedy's involvement in that trial had an impact on his effectiveness in the Thomas confirmation (he was quite quiet) and on his reelection in 1994. This was well noted in the media at the time. That is why it is relevant. NoSeptember 15:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
(the reinclusion of the above is unsigned, but occurred in sequence Aug 15.)
In order for these quickpolls to find a consensus, they must both have two options only. Compromise proposals can be discussed, but the vote is for or against inclusion of the paragraphs as often inserted and deleted in the revert wars. Robert McClenon 20:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Those who favor including the description of the "waitress sandwich" incident as often inserted and often deleted can sign with four tildes.
Those who oppose including the description of the "waitress sandwich" incident can sign with four tildes.
There was consensus that the fact that Kennedy testified at the trial is relevant. The quickpoll here is on whether to include the one paragraph account of incidents related to the trial or something shorter.
Those who oppose including the longer description of events related to the trial can sign with four tildes.
Those who favor including the one paragraph description of events related to the trial can sign with four tildes.
Are you going to just ignore this vote if you loose? I have yet to see you dems play fair. You lost the US election and you lost on posting an accurate account of Teddy's past. Why another vote? So if you win you can say so and if you loose you can ignore it again? 24.147.97.230 02:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
From previous poll:
The previous poll was on whether there should be at least a one sentence mention of the trial. The consensus was that there should, but there was no consensus on whether the long partly irrelevant account should be included, or only one sentence, or something in between. This poll should have been on whether to keep the long account as repeatedly added and removed in the article. The inclusion of the previous signatures to the poll, by an anonymous editor, is not helping determine what consensus is. Robert McClenon 11:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the subject of Mormonism in the 1994 campaign is particularly important. It should probably be omitted. Nevertheless, since the anti-Kennedy anons kept putting it in, I tried, in the interest of compromise, to frame a suitably NPOV presentation of it. My version is in this edit. We are not going to report a campaign dispute in a way that parrots right-wing charges against Kennedy as if they were facts. In response to my work, Agiantman and the latest vulgarity-spewing anon have reverted to the POV version.
If the compromise is unacceptable, then the issue will be whether to include a blatantly POV slam at Kennedy about a subject so minor it probably doesn't deserve mention at all, or to omit the subject entirely. If that's the choice, I'll be in favor of omitting the POV language. JamesMLane 00:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Toshiba has reworked the introduction paragraph to provide a summary of the positions (points of view) of Kennedy's supporters and critics. I think that the new introductory paragraph is a reasonable neutral encyclopedic summary. I think that thanks are in order for this revision. (As a minor criticism, Toshiba forgot to provide an edit summary.) Robert McClenon 17:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Editors here should be aware of this rfc, started this morning. Gamaliel 20:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
This is just more harrassment from the pro-Kennedy POV warriors here ( Robert McClenon, Gamaliel, Jpgordon, JamesMLane, etc.). If an editor refuses to give in to their bullying they try to stifle the editor in any wiki way they can find. Look at their comment histories and you will see this is their m.o. And everything they accuse me of doing, they engage in themselves. -- Agiantman 20:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
They are biased and negative. To remove an entire paragraph is vandalism. Stick to you guns Agiantman you are doing the right thing. 24.147.97.230 22:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
A witch hunt be the self proclaimed guardians of "NPOV", which needs to be defined what it is here at WikiKosAtriosPedia: Democrats must look good at all costs and Republicans must look bad and evil.
JamesMLane admits as much on his user page! How can you take the supposed "neutrality" of a person who is "hostile to the right wing" seriously? This "project" is a sham circle jerk site for left wingers.
I've protected the page until the edit warring stops. As someone with no personal political interst in the subject, I think that the scandals should be discussed, but perhaps without the same level of prominence they are being given in the current version.-- nixie 02:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
"nixie, even on Aussie radio Teddy gets heavy blows from commentators, so it's no secret that there are deep feelings about this guy. But just the same any additional text needs to be crafted if it is to be accepted to a statement of facts, which I feel was very well done in the protected article describing the Chappaquidick episode. It demonstrates clearly his tarnished image, the reasons for it, and why it survives. Kyle Andrew Brown 02:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
nixie has now locked the page on JamesMLane's last edit. JamesMLane, of course, is the editor who writes on his user page that he is "Hostile to the right wing" so we can be sure that his version is a neutral version. LOL. The locked version does not include any mention of the William Kennedy Smith rape trial, the waitress sandwich incident, or the use of Romney's mormon religion during the 1994 campaign. The protection of JamesMLane's version speaks volumes about what is wrong with wikipedia. On the bright side, at least the NPOV tag appears on this version.-- Agiantman 03:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Agiantman, instead of complaining and being deliberatly provocative why don't you suggest a NPOV rewrite on the scandals on the talk page, I will gladly add it to the article if there is concensus to do so.-- nixie 03:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Lay off the personal attacks. If you actually read my first comment on this page I said that I thought the information being disputed should be included but not in the form it was presented.-- nixie 04:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
You guys can make your points without personally attacking those who disagree with you. Really, it's not hard. -- kizzle 04:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
I think that the anonymous editors of this page have been out of control and behaving badly too long. However, allowing them to put material of dubious value on this page, which can be easily reverted, is the lesser of two evils compared with page-protecting it. Protecting this page creates the appearance that there is a conspiracy to suppress the truth.
There is a proposed policy to permit Wikipedia:Per-article blocking. This article is a case for that policy. This article should be protected indefinitely from editing by specific anonymous IP addresses, or even by all anonymous editors. That would be far less drastic than the current state of protecting it from editing by all non-admin editors, which amounts to transferring it from a Wiki community to an elite.
If any of the anonymous editors have committed vandalism, or violated 3RR, or engaged in personal attacks, they should be blocked. I disagree with the page protection and think that the Wikipedia community should not be blocked from editing the article due to a few anonymous misdeeds. Robert McClenon 11:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
This page would be a good candidate for what you might call "dynamic protection." Whenever it is under attack by changable anon IPs, protect the page. After an hour or two, remove the protection, and wait until the next attack before protecting again. Eventually the vandal will get frustrated with the speedy protections, but the editors can edit when the vandal is not active. If you look at the article history, you will see that the vandalism is not constant, and a lot of the vandals are not changable anon IPs (so blocks could effective). NoSeptember 13:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
A group of "editors" with extreme POV is working very hard to have total control of this page. They include Voice of All(MTG), Robert McClenon , Talk, jpgordon, JamesMLane, kizzle, Robert McClenon, Silverback, Gamaliel. Some of these editors are now engaged in an RFC to censure user Agiantman. Each one of these "editors" only presents views favorable to the left wing. The fact that they have organized into a group and monitor this page constantly give them no additional credibility. If this is to be a work of encylcpedic quality all POV's need to be presented. Past protection has not resolved this issue as they still refuse to include a paragraph on The Palm Beach Rape Incident and the sexual misconduct illustrated in "the waitress sandwich" incident. The past argument presented mainly focused upon anons like myself. This changed when registered editors began to be reverted. At this point the campagne to discredit and remove Agiantman began. One of the reasons stated in the RFC is that he is said to have accused an editor of being a sock puppet. How petty! History repeats itself, especially when whitewashed. There is a need for accurate and complete reporting of Ted Kennedy's past misconduct. These issues will not fade away without a new plan that includes all the participants, not just the left wing editors. Their begging for the lifting of protection is only to allow their badgering to begin again. 24.147.97.230 14:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
hmmmmmmmm....Voice of All(MTG), Robert McClenon ,Talk, jpgordon,JamesMLane,kizzle,Robert McClenon,Silverback,Gamaliel...I'm sure that all of us are extreme POVers vying for control over the Ted Kennedy article...it really is a conspiracy. Logic, reason, and civility are just our secret weapons...:). Voice of All(MTG) 02:14, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps we could work as a team and all work to author the paragraphs. Each side could write 4 lines, each side can not remove the other's contribution. This would force a balanced view of each incident. 24.147.97.230 02:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
First the article was page-protected, and the anonymous editors said that this was censorship. I then disagreed with the admins, and said that the most recent page-protection should be removed. The anonymous editors are now claiming that the moderate editors only want unprotection so that the "badgering" can begin again. I would like to see the article unprotected, in spite of the problem of the anonymous editors, because I am in favor of the Wikipedia concept of open editing. However, if there is a consensus for protection, I will agree to protection. Do the anonymous editors want the page protected, and kept in a left-wing version, or unprotected, to allow it to be made NPOV? The current protected version omits much of the neutral criticism of Kennedy, such as the mention that his critics think that his personal faults have made him ineffective. I think that they will get a version that is less flattering to Kennedy if they ask to have the page unprotected. What do they (the anonymous editors) really want? Robert McClenon 02:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
The statement that there is a group of left-wing editors who delete anything that is not pro-Kennedy misrepresents the situation. Silverback is one of the editors who revert to a consensus version. There is a consensus of the editors of this article against the inclusion of the "waitress sandwich". There is a consensus for a brief mention of the rape trial but against the longer description of irrelevant events. I am criticizing the protection of the page because the rewritten introductory paragraph, which summarizes criticisms of Kennedy, is not included. Robert McClenon 11:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
NOTE!! THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE, I'm not sure why this is being discussed here, it has nothing to do with why this page was protected. 24.147.97.230 00:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
In the reversion from JamesMLane's version to Robert McClenon's version, the following was removed from the lead:
replaced by
Also removed:
I would have thought 2 was acutually more to the liking of those who seem to have insisted on the reversion, since it gets their issues into the lead. Who is objecting to that paragraph, and why?
As for 1a. vs.1a. 1b.: what (if anything) is the argument against mentioning his two assassinated brothers in the lead? And if the problem is with the specific wording, can someone propose an alternative?
Jmabel | Talk 05:45, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Without weighing in on any changes, I would say that if I were to read No. 2. as:
I would say it is balanced as I have rewritten it, with the exception of saying that both supporters and detractors could agree with both statements. That would be rewritten as "Supporters and detractors alike regard..." Kyle Andrew Brown 20:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Articulate? I don't agree with that. Do you consider this to be articulate:[ http://www.moviesoundclips.net/misc/americanpolitics/kennedy1.wav]? A "seasoned parliamentary performer"? Are you kidding?-- Agiantman 00:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Please change the category Category:United States Senators to Category:U.S. Senators from Massachusetts. Thanks. -- tomf688< TALK> 00:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
There are lotsa pols and media talking heads that are on both sides of the fence that everyone disagrees with. That in itself does not make them in-articulate. When Kennedy speaks he very definitely is articulating a position, especially as evidenced by the mailings sent out by the opposition quoting his statements and positions as articulations to be fought against. When a person articulates a position that does not imply that it is either correct or clear.
Without looking at your link, I'm guessing it is video of Kennedy swerving and swaying his speech. Yep, he's often painful to watch. But inability to be coherent, or at least to be ridiculed for it, does not mean he is not articulate as a Senator and a vocal and responsible representative of his party.
The direction I'm pointing towards is that the balance in an encylopedia can indeed point to an individual's foibles.
But enclyclopedias that are successful do so by the editorial craft that characterizes an enclyclopedia: The writing presents facts without being inflammatory to a lucid reader.
The facts of Kennedy's transgressions are legitimate for an article, yet how they are presented should in MHO meet the standard of the editorial craft that characterizes an enclyclopedia rather than a the standards of a partisan website. Kyle Andrew Brown 04:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
the link to Caroline Raclin is Caroline see the ) by mistake -- Fabhcún 13:23, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Editors here should also be aware of this [ [6]] concerning this abusive editors of this page. Please visit and add your input to cross the 2 users needed to validate. 24.147.97.230 15:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Editors here should also be aware of this [ [7]] concerning this abusive editors of this page. Please visit and add your input to cross the 2 users needed to validate 24.147.97.230 15:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Editors here should also be aware of this request for comments concerning the anonymous editors of this page. Robert McClenon 18:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
No Problem, You lynching will not stop all the new members I helped sign up tonight to help keep this page neutral. I assume they can contribute freely? 24.147.97.230 02:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I understand your viewpoint on just how much "negative" to put down about someone. All I have to say about that is that everything is relevant. The percentage of bad to good isn't controlled by the people who are posting it. The only one in charge of how much negative press he gets is Ted Kennedy himself. Whatever your feelings for him, he has been involved in an awefully suspect number of events that could be construed as negative (trying to put it nicely). Don't confuse NPOV with the need to post an equal amount of good and bad. It means reporting incidents for what they are without bias. I would say if you want there to be an equal amount of good and bad about the man, you should write a letter to him and let him know that the fact scales are tipping toward the naughty side. If he wants something for Christmas this year, he's gonna need to do an aweful lot of nice! I know this will all be construed as my taking a side against Ted, but honestly, I could care less. I don't like any politician on any party these days. No one is doing the job we pay/elect them to do. Why should Ted Kennedy be singled out. Point is, I would say the same thing about any politician. If they want good press, make them earn it. Don't give them cover under the the name of NPOV. Hold your politicians accountable for their actions by making all of their good and bad available for research. - Sleepnomore 05:52, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
When this page is again not protected, I propose a new paragraph to highlight the Senator's violent act of smashing a phototographer in the face with his camera. The story is now at fatboy.cc Here is some of it. We can get a copy of the article from the Burlington VT Public Library. This did happen.
Kirsch 02-02-2005, 04:37 PM Let me share my personal experience with Teddy, something I saw with my own eyes...January of 1963 in Stowe VT at a ski slope. A news photographer was taking pictures of His Highness, and the royal Self took umbrage at that "invasion" of His privacy. Himself grabbed the camera, and taking it by its strap, swung it and smashed it into the photographer's head causing the photographer to suffer a concussion. The potographer was (in the hospital) arrested and charged with something, I truly don't remember what, but no charges were ever filed against Teddy for that assault. I may not have the date right, I was a kid in High School, and it was a long time ago before Teddy Kennedy really became some "National Icon", but I remember it vividly because I knew at the time that this man was the brother of our President. And I knew at the time that what I was watching was some Rich Asshole walking away from what I or anyone else would have gone to jail for. Susanrd 01:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Ted Kennedy killed my dog and I don't think that's fair. Gamaliel 14:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] Please use the sandbox for playing. 24.147.97.230 18:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
This page has gotten long, but the recent deletions by User:Sleepnomore are not the solution. The article is currently protected because of, in part, the anon's revert war over discussing Smith's trial, so the talk page material on that subject from two weeks ago should stay a while longer. Furthermore, I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy against using an article talk page as an efficient way of providing notice of a user-conduct RfC. JamesMLane 07:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Since we can't seem to get anyone interested in removing personal attacks and moving RfC announcements to where they belong, I'd like to at least move all of the RfC pages to the end of the article and try to highlight the bulk of the article discussion to the top of the page, while leaving the personal digs and RfC's to the bottom of the page. My proposal for the RfC's would be to move them to the bottom of the page in their own section entitled "User RFCs" , leave the announcement, move the "discussion" of the announcement to a user page, and provide a link to that discussion under the RfC announcement. In this way, anyone researching the RfCs can still easily find the information, but we can try to move on with the article editing discussions in spite of those who refuse to drop these ridiculous arguments and attacks. - Sleepnomore 16:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Sleepnomore, you are getting just a little of the abuse we have endured here by this group. Welcome. 24.147.97.230 19:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)