:To Homefill: 

 What is the “good faith” sense of posting “unconscious in an airplane bathroom with a needle stuck into his arm” Homefill?  What relevance does this offer to an encyclopedia entry?   

 Kennedy doesn’t hide his past struggles; he talks about them openly in books and interviews.  Did it occur to you to post that he has been sober ever since, over 20 years now?  
 I’m not trying to remove the heroin possession fact, so there’s no “whitewashing” going on here.  Explain for us, what is your purpose then, to include sensational, potentially libelous, and unverified claims of unconscious lavatory floor needle-in-arm allegations. 

 Time magazine reported in 1983: “Traveling alone from Minneapolis to Rapid City, S. Dak., aboard a Republic Airlines Convair, Kennedy suddenly grew sick and dazed. Alarmed passengers near him reportedly summoned the flight attendant, who passed the word to the cockpit. The pilot radioed ahead to Rapid City to request that a paramedic and ambulance be on hand to meet the flight. When the plane landed, Kennedy was helped down the steps, but declined medical assistance.” 

 That was reported soon after the incident in 1983 (and is consistent with other news accounts directly concerned with the bust). Now contrast that with the revisionist sensationalism in the Times UK in January 2007 in an article about politics, (not a secondary source in a contemporary report about this specific incident). 

 Look closelyhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1294908.ece at the way the Times correspondent botches the details of the incident: “after he was found unconscious on the floor of a South Dakota airport toilet with a needle stuck in his arm.” 

 Can you find any contemporary account of this incident that claims that Kennedy was “unconscious” or “on the floor” or in an “airport toilet” (he was on the plane, remember? Not in the airport).   

 Your source is clearly not accurate. Do you concur that this Times UK story is not the best reference to rely on here? 

 Why did you remove my citation to the contemporary New York Times coverage then? 

 I suspect others will agree with me that there’s no “good faith” in your efforts here. Is it your intent to use this graphic imagery to slander the man?  If not, then stop riposting this fictitious claim, please.  

  
 Regarding the NRDC, no, they are not a “lobbying firm” in fact.  They hold 501(c)(3) status with the IRS as a non-profit organization. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)  As such, they are quite restricted in the amount of lobbying they can do and it’s not their primary function (which is public education on environmental issues, followed by occasional litigation to ensure enforcement of existing environmental laws).  

 In fact, this encyclopedia's creator holds the same designation, please look at the bottom of this page where it says “Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a US-registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.”  Would you call Wikimedia a “lobbying firm” Homefill? 

 As a 501c3, NRDC is nothing like the groups you list: AARP (a 501c4, donations are not tax-deductible), MPAA (a 501c6 trade association, donations are not tax-deductible), or the Moral Majority (which dissolved in 1989). 

 Agreed?  So then, how about this: 
 “a non-profit organization based in New York which works to strengthen existing environmental laws.” 

 That description is based on facts “easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person,” not on agenda-driven, disparaging mischaracterizations like yours. Remember: “make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.”