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 closely 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 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