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.

Please include photos of the kennedy compound on that page. include multiple photos, as many people are curious about the estate.

About "Ted Kennedy's Driving Record", the source cited is possibly biased, and I detect a hint of POV from that segment. Does anyone object to removing it (or at least, cleaning it up so it looks more encyclopedic)? -- Kukuman 02:44, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There has to be a better source for that information than a book titled "Senatorial Privelege" (for example, almost any semi-NPOV biography of Ted Kennedy). As far as length, I think it's fine, but that the "Chappaquiddick" section along with "Ted Kennedy's Driving Record" is longer than the rest of the article is somewhat POV in itself. If someone just wanted to flesh out the rest of the article so the Chappaquiddick was a much smaller portion of the article, I think that would take care of any POV issues. Yeah Ted Kennedy is rather notorious for his driving record, but that's hardly all he's done in his entire life. -- AsianAstronaut 19:11, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

I just fleshed it out. I didn't remove anything I couldn't verify was wrong; I added details that mitigate the bias somewhat. The driving-record stuff seems like unnecessary detail, but it does inform the conjecture being made, so I left it in because I couldn't delete the conjecture without knowing that someone was just going to plug it back in again. The whole Chappaquiddick section seems over-long, but as it's a major portion of what forms Kennedy's public image, and it's a complicated story, it deserves treatment proportional to those factors rather than on its dominance of the article's word count. Blair P. Houghton 21:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've moved in a bunch of duplicated material from the Chappaquiddick Island page and left that as a node describing the Island, with a reference to the Ted-Kennedy specific data here. I have also moved Jmabel's additions that prefaced the facts of the accident with "according to Kennedy" etc. primarily because they were stilted, secondarily because most of the facts throughout the accident, rescue attempts, the night following, and the trial and grand jury investigation, is a suspect claim, and we'd have to put such parentheticals all over the section. And really, all over most of the Wikipedia, for that matter. I've added the fact that people believe Kennedy may have lied about his actions in a spot where it makes more sense, literarily. I hope this is okay with you, Jmabel. We'll NPOV this yet. Blair P. Houghton 03:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's not OK with me. I think there needs to be a distinction between the generally unquestioned facts (he drove off the bridge, Kopechne was with him, she drowned, he made a lot of phone calls, etc.) and the very two important things for which we have only his word: that heading toward the beach was unintentional and that he dived repeatedly trying to save her. Understand, I have no partisan agenda here -- I generally like his politics -- but I think we need to give the same scrutiny to this as we would to any criminal matter where the defendant was the only living witness and the court made no determination of facts. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:25, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Kicked it up a notch. It's now explicit what is disputed because it is Kennedy's sole word, and the rest is presumed factual because it's implicit that more than one person knew about it. I also knocked out that driving-record stuff: I found a web link (a conspiracy site) admitting that while the first license search turned up the expiration of his license in Feb '69, a subsequent investigation discovered documents that had been lost (sorry, "lost"), that showed his license had been properly renewed. The conjecture about "negligent homicide" and the inclusion of the rest of the DMV dross depended from that, so it's just one more allegation to be mentioned here and left to those who might search for detail elsewhere. Blair P. Houghton 06:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Aha! Found it: [1] near the bottom is the description of the license dance. That was bugging me. Blair P. Houghton 06:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, this is fine. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:24, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Why is this at Edward Kennedy instead of at Teddy or Ted Kennedy? Wikipedia policy is most common name. Rick K 06:10, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Will wait a couple more days -- if nobody gives us an argument why it should stay here, I'm going to move it to Ted Kennedy. Rick K 00:18, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Most encyclopedias and news sources (in first cite), including The Almanac of American Politics, use Edward Kennedy. I know that Wikipedia is not "most encyclopedias," but I thought I would put that out there. However, I have no objection to the article being at Ted Kennedy, especially since that is the lingua franca for referring to him, and it's how he refers to himself. ffirehorse 04:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since the word "liberal" is sometimes seen as a negative, should it remain? Not only should it remain, it should be be augmented with extreme leftwing liberal whacko. You do a consistent disservice to conservatives by consistently painting them as extremists, if only to foster your left-leaning agendae, so why not be consistent and quit painting these neo-socialists with an undeserving degree of moderation.

Also, since there is an external link to Kennedy's driving record, I feel that whole section can be deleted in this article.

The word "liberal" is NOT a negative. Let's not delete it just because some people like to use it that way. Rick K 00:18, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Kennedy is a liberal; I doubt Kennedy himself would disagree with that designation, and in fact would probably consider it a badge of honor. I agree that it should remain. ffirehorse 04:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• No, he's not. Barry Goldwater, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, Harry Browne, Friedrich von Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and David Friedman are liberals. Kennedy is a socialist, which is indeed a VERY bad thing to be. [unsigned, posted February 25, 2004 by Kmweber]
  • Thank you for the reminder that your edits should all be checked very closely for POV and Humpty Dumptyism. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:35, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

He became notorious for running red lights while in law school? Is this true? People around the country were aware of some rich law student who was always running red lights? Acsenray 19:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"After his brothers John and Robert were murdered (in 1963 and 1968, respectively), he took on the role of surrogate father for 13 more children."

I always thought heads of state could get "assassinated," not murdered. Correct me if I'm wrong. - (unsigned)

All assasinations are murders. Sirhan Sirhan was convicted of murder in the first-degree, not assassination. - Nunh-huh 04:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the legal charge is indeed "murder," but typically when you refer to the murder of a head of state, a politician, or even of an individual of notable fame, "assassinated" is the more accepted terminology

I am not too familiar with Ted Kennedy, but would suspect that he is neither gay nor a communist. - (unsigned)

And you would be correct on both counts. Neither is he a tortoise nor a household appliance. The article doesn't say he is any of these things, so why the remark? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:43, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't after you edited it. Much better now...

I agree that it's not a top-line item; but my bigger problem is, is it alcoholism? Yeah, he's a big drinker, but there's a difference between partying and being dependent (I've tried both, and discovered I'm not alcohol-dependent, I'm just an alcohol- savant). He probably has an alcohol abuse problem, but unless someone can point to an alcohol dependency the word alcoholism is probably inappropriate. His drinking is mentioned in other contexts, but not necessarily as a lifelong character point, so we'll probably revisit this one again. I'm also probably going to go fix-up the alcoholism page, because it doesn't distinguish between abuse and dependency properly, and it's a significant distinction. Blair P. Houghton 22:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I gather that Kennedy no longer drinks heavily, and I don't think he had to go through treatment to stop, so "alcoholism" seems an odd choice of word. But let's face it, it probably wasn't a good faith edit, putting material like that in the lead paragraph. I think mention of his drinking somewhere in the article would be OK (including mention that it seems to be in the past). I remember hearing a story that some Republican senator (maybe Bill Frist, who is a doctor?) was actually quite influential on his stopping drinking heavily, basically on a health basis. If that anecdote can be substantiated, it probably belongs in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:24, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

if the drowned/suffocated controversy added anything of substance to the story in this context, I'd surely have included it myself. It's a detail for another forum. A bio page just isn't appropriate to become a case-file. I say the cleo o'donnell quote stays, though it'd be really cool if there was a cogent attribution of it; it seems it's coming from someone's book, and there might be info on its provenance somewhere. Blair P. Houghton 05:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is website YTedK which has a photo of a man sitting on top of Kennedy's car with his body out of the water from the waist up.That would seem to reconfirm the six feet deep opinion. However the body of water there, although referred to as a "pond," is salt water and therefore would be subject to tidal fluctuations. A person would need to have the tidal charts for that period, know the time the photo was taken(easy), and know when the car entered the water. There is a dispute as to the time frame of the accident and Senator Kennedy was not exactly forthcoming about the whole episode.

I had to add the "six feet of water" to the article again. Besides the Time magazine article from November 1979, I can cite other sources that all agree that it was six feet of water. The FBI report entitled "The Perjury of Edward Kennedy" states that the car was six feet underwater. John Farrer, the scuba diver, guessed that the car was six to seven feet underwater. And from Ted Kennedy in his testimony he states that he waded to the car and that he could stand next to the car. Additionally, he stated that while holding onto the car when trying to save Mary Jo, the water reached up to some point on his body (the exact point is not detailed in the report). Since he is slightly taller than six feet tall, all his descriptions of the depth of water would indicate about six feet of water. Lokifer 00:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A car six feet under water would be in more than six feet of water, but I suspect somewhere there's a linguistic problem and it was in six feet of water. I also find it odd that there's an FBI report called "The Perjury of Edward Kennedy." Google doesn't mention it anywhere; is there a link? Blair P. Houghton 00:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. You're correct that it's a linguistic problem, because the water was six feet deep where the car was. As for the FBI report, it can be found here [2]. Lokifer 02:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to that link, it is not entitled "The Perjury of Edward Kennedy". Is there some other site you are getting all of this stuff off of? If so, scholarly honesty means you should acknowledge your actual sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:51, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

The link brings you to a page that has the FBI files. It's split into two parts. If one has enough common sense to read what the site says and click on the links, one would find that the testimony is included in the PDFs. The testimony is part of a bigger file (not a computer file but a report, since I have to baby talk you through the steps) called "The Perjury of Edward Kennedy". This report is split between the two links. Now do I need to find an audio version of it to help you? Lokifer 02:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• It's not called that. The PDFs are a collection of FBI documents. Among them is one crackpot's disingenuous manipulation of Kennedy's testimony. One section of which is about perjury, but the depth estimate is in the "anomalies" section. A page number would have been a hell of a lot more helpful, here. Patterson makes a point of screwing up the operation of the Earth's tides, and then repeats that error when citing Farrar's "6 to 7 feet" testimony. The tide was running out, according to everyone but Patterson, and the water would have been deeper than at a low tide. I don't think we have any idea how deep it was. It was at the very least 6 feet, but only using Patterson's illogic. It could have been quite a bit deeper. I think Hoover's agents were shaking their heads as they punched holes in this junk and added it to the file. Blair P. Houghton 05:41, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No. I'll stick to calling you "condescendingcondescending" because the word that first came to mind would probably get me banned. You said it was the title < and this PDF loads very slowly. >. Once I looked and found a different title, I didn't go further. I don't usually bother eating a whole egg when the first bite tastes bad. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:31, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to agree or disagree with you on whether I am "consescending", but unforunately I have no idea what that word means. I'd hate to see the problems that some people would have if I used a source that would involve a trip to the library and the use of the Dewey decimal system. Lokifer 03:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unlike many wikipedians, I do that a lot. But it's not like this article is a high priority for me, or an area of research. (& A title buried 20 pages into a document usually means a reference should indicate a page number.) -- Jmabel | Talk 03:54, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

PDF loads slow. Title buried 20 pages into a group of documents. Sounds like excuses to me. Besides, my excuse for not listing the pages is the burden of the number of pages in the document and the slow PDF file. Lokifer 04:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Boy, for a person who made fun of me for a typo, that's a pretty incomprehensible paragraph. Can we get back to the facts of the matter? The document doesn't seem to have been generated by the FBI, just filed by them someplace. Do you agree? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:11, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Since you got lost finding the files, I shouldn't be surprised that you don't understand sarcasm. Are you denying that the testimony is from Kennedy? Are you denying that he said both things I stated above? Are you in fact denying that Farrer's opinion about the depth of the water? How about the Time magazine article that places it at 6 feet also? Have you produced an impeccable source that cites a deeper depth where the car was located? Lokifer 06:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello! Like I said, this is not my area of research. Also, I have no particular views of any sort on Ted Kennedy's behavior at Chappaquiddick other than the fact that he wasn't very forthcoming and sure took his time about calling the police. I'm not looking for sources. I was here trying to be cooperative and help sort out a sticky topic, until you started insulting me. Frankly, at this point I have no interest in cooperating with you on this (or any other article). -- Jmabel | Talk 07:04, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

What sticky topic? People keep removing or changing the depth of the water. I have supplied a few sources about the depth of the pond where the car was located--something no one else has done. I then get criticized for supplying a link to Time Magazine because it's part of their archive that is for premium members and the FIOA FBI files because I didn't give the exact links to the two files. I can add more sources, but I'm pretty sure it will be criticized. Let the criticism begin: Edgartown Police Chief Dominick Arena, the man who arrested Ted Kennedy, has in his report that the water was only six feet deep. Lokifer 07:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BTW, my count so far has five sources stating that it was six feet of water. 1) Ted Kennedy states in his testimony that when he tried to save Mary Jo, he could stand next to the car...making it about six feet deep. 2) Ted Kennedy states that he had to hold on to the car because of the current and indicates (the source doesn't show where exactly he indictates) where the water level is at...making it around six feet, with a liberal area of about one foot above or below his height. 3) The scuba diver that removed Mary Jo from the car then the car from the pond states that the water was about six or seven feet deep. 4) Edgartown Police Chief Dominick Arena's police report and a diagram of the accident has it stated that the water was six feet deep. 5) An article in Time Magazine from 1979, ten years after the incident, has it stated that the water level was six feet deep. By my count, that's four sources from 1969, including two from Kennedy himself. Lokifer 07:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not picking on you, Loki. All those criticisms are valid. You did imply it was an FBI report when it was a crackpot rant the FBI kept because it keeps everything (did you also see the letter from Mary Jo Kopechne, return-addressed from her grave? I can't imagine the whole disk drives of flamage the FBI has to have around for Clinton and Bush... I can imagine they have a few dozen of my own letters to the White House...). Part of their job is investigating the crackpots. They probably have a a file on Patterson with a duplicate and a cross-reference. (N.B.: the FBI can claim prior art if anyone tries to patent the Wikipedia; they just did it by hand for a hundred years). At any rate, if you don't agree that I've shown that the water was almost certainly more than six feet deep, that six feet is a minimum that was almost certainly not reached when Kennedy crashed the car or was in the water himself, then maybe we can add a para. about the estimation. Although I'm thinking of creating a whole new article for the incident and just templating the official story into both the Mary Jo and Ted articles, and giving it a couple of sandboxes, one for pro-Ted POV rants, and one for anti-Ted POV rants. I really think their bio pages are no place for a case file. Blair P. Houghton 18:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about my revision earlier, then -- there was no depth listed, and I gave four feet the benefit of the doubt as being accurate since a) I've heard the value before in media and b) previous values were omitted -- though I should've known better... EggplantWizard 23:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see why anyone would defend Senator Kennedy. saltforkgunman

Ollie, the original was POV, but I recast it long ago as an NPOV quotation and explanation of the statement. Occasionally an anon poster change it to "is used correctly" in there, and POV it up again, but we revert those. It's typical of the gun-nut rhetoric, and the rhetoric against Kennedy. He's actually proud that goons like these target him. I don't mind illustrating their ignorance. Blair P. Houghton 21:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There needs to be a balanced ,factual account of this piece of craps efforts to subvert the Constitution and infringe on our freedom to own and use guns.The page needs to be edited to reflect that Kennedy is a gun control fanatic.How can this article be complete ,and balanced when there is no mention of the fact that this person has worked tirelessly to destroy out Constitutionally protected rights? Saltforkgunman 03:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ollieplatt wants to remove the following section of the article because he/she claims it is redundant and POV.

Since his presidential bid, Kennedy has become the dean of the liberal wing of the Democratic party. He is very proud of the fact that the right wing of American politics continue to warn their supporters about his new policies. He is one of the most recognizable and influential members of the party. In 2004 he supported the failed presidential bid of his fellow Massachussets Senator, John Kerry, speaking for Kerry multiple times.

I disagree: I don't think it is redundant. I've reverted the article but if Ollieplatt reverts the article again, I won't revert it back. Aoi

However, do you think this section of the article should be kept? 15:19, 18 Jan 2005 Aoi

• • Keep. We've been through all this. Negative facts can be presented in an NPOV way. Oh, and Ollie? Look up infer. Blair P. Houghton 03:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article has all the structural integrity of Bart's treehouse. The most important and current things should be at the top. As for that paragraph, it has many problems:

1. the "dean of the liberal wing" - what is that exactly?
2. "he is very proud" - hello? how would we know what he's proud about? is it encyclopedic anyway?
3. "speaking for Kerry multiple times", my understanding is that he was very involved, including in strategy, staffing, fundraising not just speeches.

Ted Kennedy's article is riddled with liberal POV, I have tried to change it for the better but am outnumbered by partisans. Blair, can I suggest a calmer more polite tone, it will get you further, as I have discovered. Ollieplatt 06:41, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. "The dean of the liberal wing" is a figure of speech indicating he leads the bloc. 2. He's stated he's very proud. 3. If you have more info on his involvement with Kerry's campaign, by all means add it to that section. The previous versions had the same facts as the current one, but were cast to pretend that he buried Kerry.

This article was far more POV-infected after you edited it. He's a liberal, so there will be facts indicating such, including--horrors--things he's done that are good. How scandalous.

I've seen several examples of your tone tonight, Ollie, both in your edits and your comments to other people. Your questioning mine is pure sophistry. Blair P. Houghton 06:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ollieplatt, could you please explain how Ted Kennedy being a democratic icon and his views on abortion are explained in the first paragraph when all the first paragraph really says is that he is a "leading liberal politician?" Aoi 08:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone recently, anonymously, and without citation changed this from Brookline to Boston. I have no idea which is accurate; does someone have a citation? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:02, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Is the question "Was Brookline part of Boston in 1932?" or is it "Was Ted Kennedy born in Brookline or Boston?" or Boise, for that matter. I don't know. Blair P. Houghton 21:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would like to make this move for a few reasons:

1. His name is Edward Kennedy.
2. There are more articles linking to Edward Kennedy than there are linking to Ted Kennedy.
3. I would like to make Ted Kennedy into a disambiguation that would point to both Edward Kennedy and Ted Kennedy (hockey player).
4. Ted Kennedy (hockey player) was a hall of fame professional hockey player.
5. The article originally was at Edward Kennedy and was moved to Ted Kennedy September 8, 2004.

• I oppose for the following reasons:
  1. He is almost universally known as "Ted" or "Teddy". I've rarely heard him called "Edward Kennedy"; in fact, I have more often heard the formal "Edward M. Kennedy".
  2. If, indeed, there are more articles linking to Edward Kennedy, I can only call that bizarre, and I suspect it is the result of some one editor going through and making them so.
  3. Ted Kennedy (hockey player) is not a figure of comparable importance. We can easily implement a page Ted Kennedy (disambiguation).

Vote closed, see below

Add #'''Support''' or #'''Oppose''' to the appropriate section followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~. To comment, use #: to avoid messing up the numbering.

Support

1. Support Kevin Rector ( talk) 03:39, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
2. Support for the reasons stated. Remes 05:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote closed, see below

Oppose

1. Oppose Jmabel | Talk 07:14, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
2. Usually we attempt to have some conversation on talk and reach and consensus before resorting to a poll, but I nevertheless don't think renaming the page is a necessary or a good idea. Our general practice is to use the most common version of a person's name -- and Sen. Kennedy is far more often referred to as Ted than Edward. RadicalSubversiv E 07:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. "Ted" is the most common version of his name. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose This is an encyclopedia, not a county recorder's office. We're not bound by law to use his proper name. Blair P. Houghton 00:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose: We don't have Jimmy Carter at James, or Dick Cheney at Richard. We use the name most commonly known and used. Ted (or even Teddy) Kennedy is more used than Edward. Jonathunder 18:08, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

Vote closed, see below

Comments

• On Google, "Ted Kennedy" gets about twice as many hits as "Edward Kennedy"; on Google News, however, the ratios are swapped. Meelar (talk) 07:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

A Lexis-News news search for the last six months turns up many times more Ted Kennedys. RadicalSubversiv E 07:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How many of those are for the hockey player though? -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Three, out of more than a thousand. RadicalSubversiv E 04:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Here's my fundamental point. For those who say that "Ted Kennedy (hockey player) is not a figure of comparable importance" I would have to ask, to whom? For Americans, "rich people" watchers, and political junkies no doubt the Senator is far more notable. For Canadians and hockey fans the hockey player may be of more note. The point is they are both extremely notable people. I want to point out again, that the hockey player is not some scrub who played a few games in the NHL, this is one of the all time greats, a hall of famer, a legend. Furthermore, my suggestion is a compromise. By making this page into a disambiguation page regardless of which Ted Kennedy you're looking for you can find him through here. Plus, if you're looking for the senator you might just say, "well gee whiz, I didn't know there was also a hall of fame hockey player by that name, I guess you learn something everyday". Finally, I say again, the Senator was originally at Edward Kennedy and was moved to Ted Kennedy without any discussion with very little discussion. Kevin Rector ( talk) 13:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Senator Kennedy is from a leading political family, senior senator from Massachusetts, brother of an assassinated president and an assassinated presidential hopeful, onetime presidential contender in his own right, and de facto spokesperson for a wing of his party? If he were named Wayne Gretzke or Bobby Hull, you'd still have a point. But he isn't. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:03, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• I propose another option whereas this page is moved to Ted Kennedy (politician) and a disambiguation page will be at Ted Kennedy. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can live with that too... my main goal is to have Ted Kennedy as a disambiguation. Kevin Rector ( talk) 15:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

This is unnecessary -- readers are much more likely to be looking for this Ted Kennedy, so a simple disambiguation notice at the top of the article will suffice. RadicalSubversiv E 04:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a county recorder's office. Blair P. Houghton 00:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What does that mean? (sorry logged out when I asked that) Kevin Rector ( talk) 00:58, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

It means we can use the name Ted Kennedy uses; we're not bound by law to use his proper name. Blair P. Houghton 01:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, ok. But that's not the main reason I want to change it, the main reason I want to change it is to make this into a disambiguation that points to both the senator and the hall of fame hockey player. Kevin Rector ( talk) 01:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 18:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That picture barely looks like Senator Kennedy--on the biographical directory there's a very recent picture I think should be used.