Talk:Ted Kennedy/Archive 1

message: "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)
thread_title:  Murdered? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Diver down 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Depth of water

message: 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)
thread_title: Gun crack

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Democratic Icon

message: 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)
thread_title:  Birthplace 

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

message: #Oppose Jmabel | Talk 07:14, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
#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)
thread_title: Oppose