Talk:Ted Kennedy/Archive 5

message: #Include. Though, the trial should be mentioned in a VERY brief and NPOV manner, probably a sentence or two. Though, the section on the trial seemed to be written by a 2 year old monkey POVer.Voice of All(MTG) 02:51, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
#Include, perhaps two or three sentences in a longer section that includes in the cocaine and popper use, and other self-defeating character flaws.--Silverback 03:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
#Strong Include. Ted Kennedy's bio should be complete, warts and all. The paragraph in dispute is noteworthy, accurate, and should be included as written.  Ted Kennedy was at the center of the most widely publicized rape trial in US history and his role should not be whitewashed.--Agiantman 03:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Include

message: # Unless someone provides a persuasive & NPOV way to mention this, perhaps as part of a larger para. on his family or whatever, I'm inclined to say exclude.  At best this deserves a sentence. Gamaliel 02:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Exclude

message: In comments on the George W. Bush page, on the subject of incidents in relatives’ lives, it was pointed out that the various Bush family follies were chronicled where they should be, in the articles about the people directly involved.  That isn’t done here because there’s no article on Smith.  I’ll volunteer to create one – mentioning the accusation, the trial, the acquittal, and, golly gee, maybe even something about what he’s done on the issue of land mines.  Then, as a compromise, we could have a “See also” in this article to that one.  This is the basic treatment given to Bush – his article refers to the articles about the family members involved, but doesn’t tell the reader anything about the fines or convictions or whatever imposed on those relatives.  Given that Smith was acquitted, treating the charges against him the same way as the charges against Neil, Jenna and Barbara Bush is arguably unfair to Smith and to his uncle, but maybe it’s a way for us to move on. JamesMLane 01:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created the stub on William Kennedy Smith.  It certainly needs work.  I didn't yet happen to come across Smith's date and place of birth, and there should be more information about his work on the landmine issue.  (The first sources I found were in conflict about the relationship between Smith, the Physicians Against Land Mines, and the Center for International Rehabilitation, so that particular point needs to be clarified.)  If we follow the compromise I've suggested for the Ted Kennedy article, then it would free a lot of time for people to help Wikipedia by improving the Smith article, and to develop more substantive material about Ted Kennedy's long career, as MONGO and others have suggested above. JamesMLane 02:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't just about William Kennedy Smith, it's about Ted Kennedy and his involvement in the trial and the events leading up to the trial.  There needs to be content which explains that Ted was drinking with William Kennedy Smith, and his son Patrick at Au Bar prior to the rape.  He was with the defendant just hours before the rape, and the defendant was his relative.  That Ted instigated the trip to the bar, that Ted took the stand during the trial.  Ted was at the center of this trial right next to William Kennedy Smith.  A quick line about William Kennedy Smith will not do.  There needs to be text which explains the above.  Sorry it happened, but it  did.  I'm reminded of those who seek to prove the Holocaust in Germany did not occur.  This happened, the Holocaust happened.  Ted was extrememly involved. 24.147.97.230 03:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As to "Dr. Smith", don't forget to include his latest settlement in a sexual abuse case.  You can get all the details here, []   "Hamilton, who worked at CIR for nearly seven years, said that Smith frequently entered her office and gave unwanted massages, explaining that pregnant women "glowed" and he found them "irresistible."  How did you miss that?? 24.147.97.230 03:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article I created has a "stub" tag on it.  How did you miss that?  As I mentioned above, there's lots of important stuff omitted from it. JamesMLane 03:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed compromise about Smith trial and acquittal in this article

message: The sources for any incident, including the "waitress sandwich", should be mentioned in the article page, not merely in this talk page.  Material whose sources are not contained in the article may be deleted.  Such deletion is not an attempt to protect Kennedy from his past, or censorship.  It is simply keeping the Wikipedia verifiable.  Robert McClenon 15:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the disputed material was properly sourced, and some was not.  In the case of the "waitress sandwich", the source reference was listed at so much length that it appeared to be part of the article.  Robert McClenon 15:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restatement on Where to Mention Sources

message: You have been reported for your repeated vandalism.  Please stop removing entire paragraphs.  If you do not agree use the dispute resolution process.  Use the sandbox if you want to play.
:Please don't frivolously accuse other users of vandalism. If you're unfamiliar with the definition of vandalism, see Wikipedia:Vandalism. Thanks. Rhobite 02:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
::  This is not frivolous, it's vandalism to remove and entire paragraph of someone's work.  The discussion page is here for this, stop wholesale removal of content.  PS  Thanks for speaking on behalf of JamesMLane
*Above unsigned comments are from . Check his contributions carefully; they're interesting. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The anonymous editor obviously thinks that User:JamesMLane is making overly bold edits.  Overly bold edits are not vandalism.  He may think that User:JamesMLane is POV pushing.  POV pushing is not vandalism.  He may think that User:JamesMLane is being a stubborn bully.  Stubbornness and bullying are not vandalism.  Removal of content is not vandalism if it is removal of content that is disputed.  I suggest that the anonymous editor post an NPOV banner on the article.  If that is removed without discussion, that will be bad faith.  Robert McClenon 17:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you berry much. JamesMLane 22:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] Vandel

message: I find it humorous that some editors want to smear anyone who wants balanced NPOV in this article as "POV warriors" and anti-Kennedy."  In fact, a review of Robert McClenon and JamesMLane's contributions show that they have only introduced pro-Kennedy info to the article and, more often, reverted any info that may imply anything negative about their favorite politician.  Their love for all things Kennedy has blinded their ability to edit in a neutral way.--66.176.129.11 12:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to try to exercise some self-discipline and waste less of my time trying to reason with one anti-Kennedy POV warrior, and his/her army of sockpuppets, who does not engage in reasonable discussion and who has demonstrated zero interest in improving Wikipedia. JamesMLane 12:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

text: If a comment like the above, implying the Ted Kennedy is one of my favorite politicians, which he is not, was posted on my user talk page, I would move it to an archive subpage called Personal Attacks and Other Deleted Nonsense.  If any anonymous or signed-in editor thinks that any Kennedy articles are being edited to introduce bias, they are welcome to post an article RfC.  If you can find a historian who supports your view that Joseph Kennedy Sr. was a monster, and I will agree that he was a complex flawed man, then I will support including a summary of his work in Joseph Kennedy Sr.'s biography.  Robert McClenon 14:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro-Kennedy Obsession of Some Editors

message: I have posted an article Request for Comments concerning two incidents, the "waitress sandwich" and the Palm Beach trial. Robert McClenon 18:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comments

message: We have a wiki administrator here deleting whole paragraphs and designating it as a "minor edit."  Not too ethical if you ask me.  Aren't admins held to a higher standard?  Isn't it deceptive to remove a substantial amount of text and label it as a minor edit?  And why is an admin engaging is a revert war anyway?  And why is he not enforcing the 3RR rule, which JamesMLane admits to breaking: "I've reverted the anon's various IP's three times in the last 24 hours."  As I am sure you know, admins who abuse their authority can lose their admin rights.--Agiantman 20:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand the 3RR rule. "More than three", not "three or more." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethical Editing

message: ====In favor====
Those who favor including the description of the "waitress sandwich" incident as often inserted and often deleted can sign with four tildes.
# Of course it should be included as written. How silly!  An encyclopedia should show all aspects of a public figure, including his negative character traits.  --Agiantman 22:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Waitress Sandwich

message: Those who favor including the description of the "waitress sandwich" incident as often inserted and often deleted can sign with four tildes.
# Of course it should be included as written. How silly!  An encyclopedia should show all aspects of a public figure, including his negative character traits.  --Agiantman 22:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: In favor

message: Those who oppose including the description of the "waitress sandwich" incident can sign with four tildes.
# Robert McClenon 20:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Against

message: Those who oppose including the longer description of events related to the trial can sign with four tildes.
#Robert McClenon 20:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Against

message: ::My current position is that the part that was relevant has been included, Ted's penchant and well deserved/documented reputation for "partying", with that included the mere old news that he testified at a trial, and that his testimony did not touch upon any of the elements of the alleged crime, is unimportant. The article now acknowledges the pattern of behavior that went on.  The "sandwich" which highlights, what is hopefully one of the extremas of this behavior (short of the fatal accident) is relevant for that reason, it goes beyond acceptable limits of "partying", however, even it doesn't need more than mention, since despite the impact if could have and probably should have had, it didn't have much impact.--Silverback 06:57,
====Consensus process====
The previous poll was on whether there should be at least a one sentence mention of the trial.  The consensus was that there should, but there was no consensus on whether the long partly irrelevant account should be included, or only one sentence, or something in between.  This poll should have been on whether to keep the long account as repeatedly added and removed in the article.  The inclusion of the previous signatures to the poll, by an anonymous editor, is not helping determine what consensus is. Robert McClenon 11:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The previous poll was on whether there should be at least a one sentence mention of the trial.  The consensus was that there should, but there was no consensus on whether the long partly irrelevant account should be included, or only one sentence, or something in between.  This poll should have been on whether to keep the long account as repeatedly added and removed in the article.  The inclusion of the previous signatures to the poll, by an anonymous editor, is not helping determine what consensus is. Robert McClenon 11:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus process

message: I don't think the subject of Mormonism in the 1994 campaign is particularly important.  It should probably be omitted.  Nevertheless, since the anti-Kennedy anons kept putting it in, I tried, in the interest of compromise, to frame a suitably NPOV presentation of it.  My version is in this edit.  We are not going to report a campaign dispute in a way that parrots right-wing charges against Kennedy as if they were facts.  In response to my work, Agiantman and the latest vulgarity-spewing anon have reverted to the POV version.
If the compromise is unacceptable, then the issue will be whether to include a blatantly POV slam at Kennedy about a subject so minor it probably doesn't deserve mention at all, or to omit the subject entirely.  If that's the choice, I'll be in favor of omitting the POV language. JamesMLane 00:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that we see the whole story, it seems pretty clear that this has nothing to do with Kennedy at all. I suggest we merge it with the Romney article. Gamaliel 01:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea.  Romney's interest in running for President has sparked some discussion of the question of anti-Mormon prejudice.  There was one poll that, surprisingly (to me, anyway), showed anti-Mormonism to be stronger than anti-Semitism, at least in terms of affecting people's votes for President.  (Of course, both of those prejudices combined didn't come close to matching the prejudice against those of us who aren't religious.)  The discussion in the Mitt Romney article about his Presidential ambitions could include a subheading about what role, if any, religion would play. JamesMLane 01:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The anti-Mormon comments about Romney have everything to do with the Kennedy campaign.  The Ted Kennedy campaign (first joe kennedy, then ted) smeared Romney in the effort to defeat him.  I am convinced that there are editors here on the Kennedy payroll.--Agiantman 11:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF. Hipocrite 14:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1994 campaign 

message: Toshiba has reworked the introduction paragraph to provide a summary of the positions (points of view) of Kennedy's supporters and critics.  I think that the new introductory paragraph is a reasonable neutral encyclopedic summary.  I think that thanks are in order for this revision.  (As a minor criticism, Toshiba forgot to provide an edit summary.)  Robert McClenon 17:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Presenting a summary of opinions is fine, but I think the lead section should begin with undisputed basic facts.  Although the assassinations are an unpleasant subject, Kennedy's status as the survivor of his two assassinated brothers is part of his significance in U.S. politics, as is his longevity in the Senate.  I've put those facts in the first paragraph, with the pro-and-con discussion in the second paragraph.  With regard to that discussion, is there really a serious contention that Kennedy is further to the left than his "moderate" brother Robert?  In the 1968 campaign, Robert Kennedy was certainly regarded as being to the left of Johnson and then of Humphrey.  I've left that in for now, to see if someone can provide a source, but it should be removed from the lead section unless there's a notable body of criticism of Kennedy on this score. JamesMLane 19:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction Rework

message: Editors here should be aware of this rfc, started this morning. Gamaliel 20:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agiantman]] 

message: I think that the anonymous editors of this page have been out of control and behaving badly too long.  However, allowing them to put material of dubious value on this page, which can be easily reverted, is the lesser of two evils compared with page-protecting it.  Protecting this page creates the appearance that there is a conspiracy to suppress the truth.  
There is a proposed policy to permit Wikipedia:Per-article blocking.  This article is a case for that policy.  This article should be protected indefinitely from editing by specific anonymous IP addresses, or even by all anonymous editors.  That would be far less drastic than the current state of protecting it from editing by all non-admin editors, which amounts to transferring it from a Wiki community to an elite.   
If any of the anonymous editors have committed vandalism, or violated 3RR, or engaged in personal attacks, they should be blocked.  I disagree with the page protection and think that the Wikipedia community should not be blocked from editing the article due to a few anonymous misdeeds.  Robert McClenon 11:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 3RR violations by vandalizing sockpuppets all day, every minute, require locking down the article. This is a matter of policy, not whethor or not conspiracy theorist have something to work on. If only android79 was here.Voice of All(MTG) 13:24, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
This page would be a good candidate for what you might call "dynamic protection."  Whenever it is under attack by changable anon IPs, protect the page.  After an hour or two, remove the protection, and wait until the next attack before protecting again.  Eventually the vandal will get frustrated with the speedy protections, but the editors can edit when the vandal is not active.  If you look at the article history, you will see that the vandalism is not constant, and a lot of the vandals are not changable anon IPs (so blocks could effective). NoSeptember 13:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Request for Unprotection

message: Perhaps we could work as a team and all work to author the paragraphs.  Each side could write 4 lines, each side can not remove the other's contribution.  This would force a balanced view of each incident.24.147.97.230 02:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for Agreement

message: The statement that there is a group of left-wing editors who delete anything that is not pro-Kennedy misrepresents the situation.  Silverback is one of the editors who revert to a consensus version.  There is a consensus of the editors of this article against the inclusion of the "waitress sandwich".  There is a consensus for a brief mention of the rape trial but against the longer description of irrelevant events.  I am criticizing the protection of the page because the rewritten introductory paragraph, which summarizes criticisms of Kennedy, is not included.  Robert McClenon 11:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus as to encyclopedic content is the issue

message: There are lotsa pols and media talking heads that are on both sides of the fence that everyone disagrees with.  That in itself does not make them in-articulate.  When Kennedy speaks he very definitely is articulating a position, especially as evidenced by the mailings sent out by the opposition quoting his statements and positions as articulations to be fought against.  When a person articulates a position that does not imply that it is either correct or clear.
Without looking at your link, I'm guessing it is video of Kennedy swerving and swaying his speech.  Yep, he's often painful to watch.  But inability to be coherent, or at least to be ridiculed for it, does not mean he is not articulate as a Senator and a vocal and responsible representative of his party.
The direction I'm pointing towards is that the balance in an encylopedia can indeed point to an individual's foibles.  
But enclyclopedias that are successful do so by the  editorial craft that characterizes an enclyclopedia:  The writing presents facts without being inflammatory to a lucid reader.  
The facts of Kennedy's transgressions are legitimate for an article, yet how they are presented should in MHO meet the standard of the editorial craft that characterizes an enclyclopedia rather than a the standards of a partisan website.Kyle Andrew Brown 04:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial Craft 

message: Editors here should also be aware of this [] concerning this abusive editors of this page. Please visit and add your input to cross the 2 users needed to validate.24.147.97.230 15:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[RFC Robert McClenon]]

message: Editors here should also be aware of this [] concerning this abusive editors of this page.  Please visit and add your input to cross the 2 users needed to validate24.147.97.230 15:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I note with amusement that you have again solicited support from Rex071404.  The last time you did so, I told you on this talk page that Rex is serving a six-month ban for his relentless POV warring, use of an IP account to try to pretend to be more than one person, and general disruptiveness.  The lesson is here is that it would frequently be beneficial all around if you would actually read what other people write, instead of just assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is part of a "wolf pack".  By the way, your "contribution" list shows that your latest activity is to try to solicit comments from several established Wikipedians, presumably those whom you believe have shown sufficient right-wing bias in their editing.  The next time you go prospecting for friends in this fashion, you can skip 216.153.214.94; that account was Rex's sockpuppet and has also been blocked. JamesMLane 21:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: JamesMLane, you seem bothered by this.  Are you afraid of a fair fight? 24.147.97.230 16:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Call him a "chicken" and make some clucking noises next. Gamaliel 16:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the anon's comment.  Am I bothered by the fact that Rex was banned?  Obviously not.  Our goal here is to write an encyclopedia; when we get rid of a user who doesn't share a commitment to that goal, and who is here solely to push a particular POV, and who does so in a disruptive and inflammatory manner, that ouster helps us achieve our goal.  That's why we have an ArbCom that can ban people like Rex.  Am I bothered by your demonstration that you don't read my comments?  Of course I am.  It's part of the general style you've displayed since the beginning of your participation in Wikipedia.  It makes it harder for us to get anywhere, and it means that such progress as we do make consumes much more time and energy than it ought to.  Most Wikipedians who've been around a while have a long "to-do" list, full of ways they could help the project.  They (we) get deflected from that work when users like you come along and cause many people to spend inordinate amounts of time dealing with your disruptions.  I'm bothered by it because it's an impediment to our goal. JamesMLane 17:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: But your complaint is, "By the way, your "contribution" list shows that your latest activity is to try to solicit comments from several established Wikipedians, presumably those whom you believe have shown sufficient right-wing bias in their editing." You constantly change your story24.147.97.230 18:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]]