Talk:Ted Kennedy/Archive 6

message: It ought to be possible to make progress by working on a subpage (whether of the article or in someone's user space; I think there's some obscure technical reason to prefer the latter).  In practice, though, I've found that many people simply don't visit the subpage.  For a limited goal like crafting a short lead section, we might have more success using this regular talk page.  Here's a starting point:
Lead section, draft #1:
:Edward Moore Kennedy (born February 22, 1932) is the senior U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, having served since 1963.  Like his assassinated brothers, President John F. Kennedy and Senator Robert F. Kennedy, he is a Democrat. 
:Because of Kennedy's personal prominence and his longtime advocacy of liberal principles, he is widely regarded as a "lion" of the Democratic Party.  Supporters admire him as a forceful and reliable advocate for liberalism, whose personal and political skills enable him to achieve some gains even in an era of conservative ascendancy; however, some Democrats see him as being too ready to compromise with Republican legislators.  His critics on the right charge that he is stuck in a "big-government" ideology from the 1960s, and has not adapted to changing times.  Republicans seeking to rally their supporters often invoke Kennedy as the example of the enemy that must be opposed.  They also criticize his alleged adultery and alcohol abuse.
One purpose of a lead section is to help the reader decide whether to read the full article.  I've tried to focus on why Kennedy is more notable than the average U.S. Senator.  JamesMLane 21:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I felt that I had said just about all that I had to say on the more contentious subjects, at least for now.  Rather than simply repeating myself, I thought about where else we might make progress.  There was some reversion of the lead section, and different people had problems with different aspects of it.  Therefore, I tried to write a version that would meet those concerns.  Also, it may be that making progress on the less contentious issues will make it easier to move forward on the tougher ones. JamesMLane 03:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction is an area on which we might actually make some progress.  If we can make progress on an introductory paragraph that mentions the criticisms of Kennedy, then reasonable conservatives might agree with liberals and moderates that there is no need to introduce the non-encyclopedic minor incidents.  At the same time, I doubt that the contentious issues can be resolved until the Arbcom agrees that the conduct of the anonymous editors is ready for arbitration.  That means that the main article may stay locked for weeks or months longer.  Robert McClenon 12:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section

message: Does anyone else think the introducion sentence: "Like his assassinated brothers, President John F. Kennedy and Senator Robert F. Kennedy, he is a Democrat." is very tacky.  It would be better to just say he is a member of a prominent political family. NoSeptember 19:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gamaliel's change is an improvement. NoSeptember 19:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize it's an unpleasant subject.  The fact is, though, that Kennedy's prominence comes only partly from his long tenure in the Senate and from his willingness to advocate liberal positions.  It's also partly a consequence of the family's history, including the tragic deaths of his brothers.  I do think, though, that "most prominent surviving member" is a little too ghoulish.  It has some connotation of "they haven't gotten him yet".  I've changed that to "most prominent living member". JamesMLane 08:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: assassinated brothers in introduction

message: First, I believe that these substantial content additions should discussed more fully in Talk first for discussion. This is a consensus effort.
To me it reads well.  However, the summary paragraph has a lengthy link to his brothers, when I wonder if in a summary paragraph the focus should be on Ted.
The attribution that the right wing says such and such is going to sit badly with many.
The summary stating that the Republicans use Ted to rally....  Well, Republicans use LOTSA folks and issues to rally folks.  I suspect this is dangerous editorial waters as well. And I don't think many articles on Dems start out the same manner. 
And really, with all we've discussed in TALK, opening up with the broadside about Teds drinking and adultery, well, again, I think this all belongs in TALK.  
I give Robert the benefit of the doubt, but I wonder if it reads like "consensus" but actually fosters a biased anti-Kennedy broadside.  
Broadsides may be appropriate, but in the opening?
I'm not gonna move it to TALK, but just watch this space...Kyle Andrew Brown 19:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert McClenon's Changes 

message: Sorry, timed out on loger, I made the presidential rewrite.   Also, Time has the Kennedy campaign cover for Nov 5, 1979 at http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101791105,00.html.  I'm not so good at inserting them into content.  Any takers to put in the presididential bid section?[[User:Kyle Andrew Brown 21:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "stuck in big government" in summary.  Any idea for a better word than stuck?Kyle Andrew Brown 11:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kennedy Campaign Cover 

message: The short section entitled "alternative energy" seems POV to me. It says, Ted Kennedy has maintained a strong record in favor of alternative energy sources as seen in his voting record as a senator. Some people, however, see Kennedy's opposition to a wind farm within sight of his home as an example of a NIMBY philosophy.. Which people are those? Certainly, the cited article doesn't support any charge of NIMBY-ism; his opposition (at least as described by the article) has to do with the lack of sufficient regulatory oversight. The implication of NIMBYism either needs to be supported, or the "some people" who see his opposition have to be cited explicitly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative energy 

message: There is a revert war in progress about the end of the introductory paragraph.  Can we discuss it here rather than only in edit summaries?  I am putting an NPOV banner up to direct attention to this talk page.  Robert McClenon 11:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kennedy is a left-wing liberal.  His political opponents are right-wing conservatives.  No POV there. What is all the fuss about? That is a fair and even-handed use of terms.  214.13.4.151 12:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with that statement on this talk page.  To characterize Kennedy as a left-wing liberal is POV, at least if he does not refer to himself as left-wing.  On the other hand, the language onin the 214.13.4.151 introductory text in the article itself, which attributes those characterizations to Kennedy's critics, is accurate and neutral.  Robert McClenon 13:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Discuss the Introduction

message: For some reason, I cannot find this section in the archives... anyone know of what became of the IP trace/determination (to which this anon never responded) that he/she is in fact accessing Wikipedia from withing the DoD Network Information Center, in Vienna VA? -- RyanFreisling @ 14:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, the anon is probably not accessing Wikipedia from the DoDNIC in Vienna, VA.  That address in Vienna (Virginia) is simply the business address of registration of the Class A block of 214.*.*.*, which is assigned to the DoDNIC, which is the subregistrar for the block.  DoDNIC either knows where that static address is, or at least knows what agency within the US Department of Defense has a smaller block.  The address might be at the Pentagon, or it might be at Fort Hood.  Robert McClenon 00:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Karl_Rove#Anon_editor_214.13.4.151_.3D_DOD is this what you're looking for? GangofOne 00:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, there you go. The user was defacing another article (albeit an equally political one) entirely. Thanks for that, Gangofone. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 214.13.4.151 = DoD

message: i've changed a few things in this section to reduce its cruftiness a bit.  there were a number of redundancies, several irrelevancies, and somehow the medical examiner's determination of drowning had been elided, giving the impression that the cause of death was never legally determined.  gargan discussed kennedy's drinking at the party and the conclusion is that he was not intoxicated when driving.  i also added back kennedy's claim to have attempted to swim down to kopechne to the narrative, as the controversy is mentioned later in the section with the rest of the controversial claims.  and i clarifiedn that after they went to help, gargan and markham tried to reach kopechne; kennedy was too exhausted to be of help at that point and stayed on the bank; gargan and markham also failed to get to kopechne, lending credence to kennedy's claims of trying and failing.  let's try not to get into a childish edit war over this.  these facts were researched (most of the pro-kennedy facts come as factual admissions from ostensibly anti-kennedy websites) and placed in this article some time ago and have been lost to wikientropy since then.  all i'm doing here is making the section look less like it's been stepped on by biased interlopers. 24.221.121.232 17:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chappaquiddick

message: I find the inclusion in :Category:socialites bizarre. I have almost always heard this term applied only to someone with little or no other claim to fame. Is my usage idiosyncratic? Or is this category wrong for TK? --
:Reverted.  If someone thinks that it is appropriate, they can discuss it on this talk page first.  Robert McClenon 22:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialite? 

message: There seems to be general agreement that there should at least be some mention of the rape case on this page, but only a short one. Please hash out a proper phrasing here and when you've found something you can all live with we can unprotect the page again. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 05:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Well I don't know whether the sound I hear is the sound of people "hashing something out", or simply the chirping of crickets.  Whatever, time to edit again.  Unprotected.  Yes, I know there's a RfC.  Get over it. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The sound was that of crickets.  Thank you for unprotecting.  Robert McClenon 11:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly was Tony Sidaway saying about the RfCs, anyway?  Yes, there is a content dispute.  I do not understand how page protection helps resolve long-term content disputes.  It may work in cases of vandalism.  A 24-hour page protect may work as a cooling-off period.  This is not the sort of dispute that calls for a 24-hour cooling-off period.  Robert McClenon 11:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: A speech by Kennedy has been completely inserted into this article which is longer than the length of this article warrants.  An external link should be inserted in its place.  If this is not done shortly, I will move it to an archive.  Robert McClenon 19:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: War on Terrorism

message: "He withheld any comments concerning the fact that no terrorist attack has taken place on American shores since the decision to go to war."
This seems coincidental and irrelevant.  Stian Oksavik 05:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: War on Terrorism

message: From the current text of the article: "Although Sen. Kennedy's lack of evidence in this case is often criticized for what seems a two-faced political move, he remains staunchly devoted to his opposing view despite the fact there have been no attacks on the U.S. since Bush's decision to go to war." This reads like an ill-researched anti-Kennedy editorial, not part of an encyclopedia writing. Weasel words, as well: "often criticized". At this time, this paragraph has been in the article for over 24 hours. I believe it should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Horribly POV paragraph

message: From the current article:
Kennedy has argued that President and Congress have failed to budget enough funding for the programs mandated by the law. His premise is that the Federal government is obligated to allocate funding up to the the authorization levels found in the legislation for several programs. However, Congress has traditionally treated such authorization levels as spending caps.
I have several problems with this. First, the presumably easiest: the last statement is uncited and sweeping. I would hope we could easily agree to get rid of it. But my bigger point is that I believe this paragraph is misleading. Kennedy's issue isn't that all programs should be funded to the max. It is that, in this case, there is a mandate to the states to take certain actions, but no federal funds for those actions. You would never know that, or even guess that, by reading this. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it is misleading because Kennedy does believe in "Leaving Childred Behind"  Just ask Mary Jo. ---  --Keetoowah 00:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Kizzle & JPGordon:  I hope that you feel better after your outbursts.  I would think that your outbursts gave you a deep sense of sanctimonuous self-satisfaction. And, JPGordon, do you really think that Kennedy killing a 29 year old was ok and proper just because she wasn't a child?  ---  --Keetoowah 15:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Riiight.  Just hold your tongue next time you want to attempt to be clever and then I'll truly feel "sanctimonuous" self-satisfaction. --kizzle 17:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Does the dog have Buddha-nature? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mu.  Robert McClenon 16:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Child Left Behind 

message: Kennedy's conduct at Chappaquiddick is discussed in the article.  His views on NCLB are also discussed.  We do not need to conflate or interrelate them.  I did not see any outbursts.  I did see breaches of civility by both liberals and conservatives.  Incivility does not justify incivility.
I disagree with the edit summary that said that the reference to an unfunded mandate was POV or inaccurate.  It was not.  It was a statement that Kennedy said NCLB created an unfunded mandate.  It is a fact that Kennedy said that.  It is also a fact that GAO stated that NCLB did not create an unfunded mandate.  Can we state both positions in the article?  Robert McClenon 16:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NCLB Again

message: "He has four grown children from his first marriage with Virginia Joan Bennett: Kara, Edward Jr., and Patrick…" So which is it? Three? Or four, one of whom is not named? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children 

message: Can somebody explain why the title of this article is "Ted Kennedy". I know that has been his nickname for all of his life, but, for example, his brothers where nicknamed "Jack Kennedy" and "Bobby Kennedy", and yet, their articles here appear under "John F. Kennedy" and "Robert F. Kennedy". So, the title of this article should be "Edward M. Kennedy", which is his name, not his nickname. Does anyone has any objection to rename this page to the proper name of this senator?<<Coburn_Pharr>> 16:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No one but intimates ever called JFK "Jack" to his face. RFK was about equally often "Robert" or "Bobby". Ted Kennedy has pretty much always been "Ted" or "Teddy". I don't think most Americans even know he's "Edward". -- Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia policy is to use the name by which the person is most commonly known.  For example, Bill Clinton is the article and William J. Clinton is the redirect. JamesMLane 12:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TED??

message: These two links were recently removed; as far as I can tell, this occurred without substantive comment:
*Ted Kennedy's Driving Record - List of Traffic Offenses	
*Chappaquiddick: A Profile in Cowardice
While, politically, I might wish them away, they ended up in the article after extensive discussion and a hammered-out consensus. I believe they should be restored. Was there some rationale that I missed for removing them? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having received no response in just under 24 hours, I will restore these. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They're actually two links to the same site (different pages within the site).  I agree with you about not deleting it, but I think a single link to the site homepage, with a brief note that it's anti-Kennedy site, would be preferable. JamesMLane 09:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: James, feel free to edit; my biggest concern with this one is that our annotation of the link makes it clear that it provides the driving record info, which seems well-researched and which I could imagine a quite neutral party wanting to access. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Multiple paragraphs on the evolution of Kennedy's views on the right to abortion were just deleted without discussion.  They did appear to be of encyclopedic value.  I will restore them unless a reasoned case is made why they should remain deleted.  Robert McClenon 14:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that they were reverted.  I agree.  Robert McClenon 17:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on Abortion 

message: I think it's not important to include Teds former views about abortion. It only matters what he thinks today and what his record is. It's meaningless to include it considering he was a staunch abortionist for the last 30 years. I am in favor of taking it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJstroker (talk • contribs) 18 Dec 2005
: Strongly disagree. This is an encyclopedia, not a voters' guide. (BTW, did you really mean to write "a staunch abortionist"? I am rather certain that Kennedy has never personally performed an abortion.) The evolution of his politics is important, not just what they happen to be now. Yes, something like this can be carried too far (for example, our article no Hugo Black is more thorough in discussing his KKK connections as a young man than what he did on the Supreme Court bench), but here it is not. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to abortion

message: Looking at the way the article has changed in the last few days, it looks to me like it is sliding out of neutrality:
*Once again, we have a long section about Kennedy's driving record, this time under the unencyclopedic title "Further Controversy". Didn't we get clear consensus some time ago that the driving record merited an external link, but not a lengthy discussion? 
*Why is debate over No Child Left Behind finding its way into this article? We have an article on NCLB. Kennedy's own role and views belong here. The rest does not.
* I have literally never before seen a section entitled "Controversial Quotes" in a Wikipedia article. 
Jmabel | Talk 04:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sliding out of neutrality 

message: Does anyone know why he is called Ted and not Ed? His name is Edward, so that confuses me. --Revolución (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ted 

message: I have cut the recently added claim that Kennedy captained the Harvard swimming team, pending citation. Given Chappaquiddick, this would be more than idle trivia, but that makes it all the more important that it be cited from a reliable source. For all I know, it might be true, he was certainly a strong swimmer prior to his back injury, but I have my doubts. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swimming team 

message: The Kopechne article says "Undertaker Eugene Frieh told reporters that death "was due to suffocation rather than drowning."
This article says it was due to drowning.
Which one's right - can somebody clear it up?
---------
News of the accident was hardest on debilitated family patriarch, Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. He refused food and became uninterested in life, because he knew the scandal would kill the political career of his sole surviving son. He died shortly afterwards.
says who? source? Derex 22:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  discrepancies: mary jo kopechne 

message: I shot at my own swiftboat, and gunned down little children, and they don't even call that a scandal! hell I even got a purple heart for it, just leave poor Teddy Alone--John F. Kerry 17:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you got three Purple Hearts, and a Silver Star, and a Bronze Star.  You humble fellow, you.  Babykiller though; that's hippie talk.  Do you spit on vets too, Mr. John? Derex 22:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scandal? What scandal?

message: The anon writes in an ES, "The argument against fatboy.cc was that there was already an alternate pov."  No, the main argument was that the site was worthless in terms of conveying additional information that a reader might find useful but that was more detail than we wanted in the article.  The Y Ted K site, although also viciously partisan, seems to me to have more substance.  I restored it for that reason.  (It still merits only one entry in the Ext links section, though, not two separate entries as it had for a while.) JamesMLane 07:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can the IP address be blocked for violating the ban?  Robert McClenon 12:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack sites 

message: Tried to add " University of Virginia, 1959 " to infobox, but I am restricted from doing so. Someone with editing capacity can add it.  Potatoe 21:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. NoSeptember talk 22:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law school 

message: That section, especially the title, is pov.  As best i can tell, the man has always been a tremendously prominent US Senator, and a Presidential contender for many of those.  What's this about resurrection?  What's with the third sentence, just kind of hanging there, implying to those who aren't already familiar that Kennedy helped rape someone.  The factual material from this section should be included in various parts of the article.  But, that section as it stands really needs to go. Derex 23:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  political resurrection