Talk:Ted Kennedy/Archive 7

message: Ted Kennedy/Draft 1 seems to be the same or very identical article.  Why does the Draft 1 article exist? Manufracture 20:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has now been merged with this one. Manufracture 22:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate article?

message: I staffed the Senate in various positions between March 1974 and November 1985, and I think there are several places that this article could be improved.
For example, prior to the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment granting the vote to 18-year-olds, Kennedy had proposed federal legislation that made that possible, and he personally argued the case at the Supreme Court when the law was challenged.  He was successful in his arguments.  There are not many sitting senators who argue cases at the Supreme Court, which deserves mention.  There is no mention at all of his advocacy of getting the vote to kids of draft age now (4-29-2006).  
Also, Kennedy is generally considered the best defender of civil rights issues in the Senate.  When debate turns to civil rights, Kennedy is generally at his best, arguing without notes and with great specificity to expand rights (see his completely ex temporaneous debate with Sen. Gurney in 1974, over Gurney's proposal to end school busing for integration; Kennedy's arguments won the day).  
Kennedy's chairmanship of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee before 1981 generally won him recognition as the top health legislator; his chairmanship of Judiciary, later, was marked by several historic pieces of legislation and a lot of federal judge nomination hearings -- from the current article one would not know that he chaired either committee, ever.  
There should also be a link to his speech at the 1980 Democratic Convention, a speech which should be in the top 100 of the century.  
Anybody got time and resources to fix it?
Ed Darrell
*Where can we find more about his arguing before the supreme court? I'm a bit puzzled; I thought that the sequence was that Congress passed (and Nixon signed) an 18-year-old vote law, but Oregon v. Mitchell knocked down parts of it, thus making the 26th Amendment necessay. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for greater detail and accuracy 

message: This section, from the title down is replete with POV phrasing.  What exactly has he been "resurrected" from?  He's been a senior member of the Senate forever.  In fact, I'm not really sure what the point of the section is at all. It's a disjointed mess with very little connecting thread. I suggest removing it entirely, and merging any non-redundant facts into the appropriate section. Derex 23:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agreed.  I'll start by removing it and copying it here.  There are several valuable elements in that section that should be repurposed.  I do not believe, however, that the weasel-word-shielded allegation of "drug use" is appropriate here. --AStanhope 12:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political resurrection 

message: Ted Kennedy was totally instrumental in bringing in the pork to fund that disaster yet there's no mention of it on his bio or the Wikipedia article for the Big Dig???  Impartiality, my ass.
:Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. Gamaliel 17:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why no mention of the Big Dig in his bio???

message: I've removed the entire "Alternative energy" section. It read, in total (refs removed), Ted Kennedy once maintained a record in favor of alternative energy sources as seen in his voting record as a senator although he opposed Cape Wind, a proposed wind farm, within sight of his home. As it stood, it was just a statement without any context -- except to imply some sort of hypocrisy on Kennedy's part; but it only takes a small bit of reading the actual supplied reference to see that there is no contradiction whatsoever; what's more, opposing one particular alternative energy project says nothing whatsoever about his support of alternative energy in general. And so on. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section removed 

message: Or whether you want any credibility if anyone from another state reads your article. Two different situations. Too whom are you trying to be believable?  LemonIce 00:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depends whether you are only writing for people in Massachusetts 

message: Changed "liberalism" to "progressive politics" in the first paragraph. Word was used incorrectly. See Liberalism Cameron 15:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted, and slightly edited. The very fact that there is no article on progressive politics, as you put it. Liberalism is a term every politically literate person can understand. To clarify between European Liberalism and American Liberalism, I had the link specifically redirect to Contemporary Liberalism. (USMA2010 01:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberalism

message: There's a new section, currently entitled "The KGB Letter and Allegations of Treason". It outlines an allegation that Paul Kengor, a professor at Grove City College makes in his book The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.
According to Cybercast New Service, Kengor states that he discovered a KGB memo that analyzes an offer by Sen Kennedy to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a PR strategy to hamper Reagan's foreign policy and his reelection efforts.
This is an extremely serious charge, and if true, it certainly merits inclusion in Kennedy's biography. 
However: 
1. IS it true? Cybercast News Services is an organization I've rarely heard of. The first time I encountered them was the breaking of the Dan Rather forged documents scandal. This is about the third time I've run into them in the last 2 years... so not often. That said, while they clearly slant to the right, on the rare occasions I've encountered them before they have been accurate. (Not intended as an ad-hominem, simply to note that there's a difference between the Wall Street Journal news page saying something and the National Enquirer.).
2. Even if CNS' report is accurate, is Kengor's book? While I don't want to engage in ad-hominem arguments, it's unusual to see leading edge historical research from someone from Grove City College. Publisher's Weekly (perhaps unkindly) describes Kengor's book as a "hagiographic account" (in the Amazon reviews).
On point 2, in the end, I find it quite believable that an archivist -- even a very obscure one -- could have uncovered something like this. Please note that I say "could".
3. I don't think the 'treason' heading is appropriate at this time. I don't mind a discussion of it in the sub-section, but the CNS article does mention a desire on Kennedy's part to discuss and negotiate (as a prelude to forming this strategy) in conjunction with Senator Hatfield (R-Ore). Some element of bipartisanship suggests that this would not be entirely hidden. It certainly suggests, if true, monstrously bad judgment on Kennedy's part. I am not convinced it suggests treason.
Much of my analysis above is going to be rendered null once we see whether or not this book is for real, and see what the author's sources are. The 'treason' argument, I think, will remain valid. 
I intend to edit this later today and remove treason from the heading, but keep most of the section intact. (It needs cleanup, though). I'd ask that any that feel it should be deleted outright post here with their reasons for doing so, rather than simply doing so. Holmwood 08:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the cited reference. It is extremely vague about actual facts. All I can discern is that Kennedy wrote Andropov (not the KGB) offering public relations advice. The specific contents are not mentioned at all. This makes me extremely suspicious. No sourcing for the "treason" language was provided, it appears that possibly some blog used the term. If you care to re-write it, please focus very carefully on the actual _facts_ presented in the source, and not their spin or interpretation (CNS is quite partisan). All I could find was one fact satisfying both WP:RS and WP:V — That a poli sci prof said Kennedy offered public relations advice to Andropov, and said professor felt that the (unknown) details were very shocking. I think we should wait until the major press have had a go at it, and some actual facts (memo contents for example) are available before spending a lot of energy on it. We're not wikinews; we should follow the coverage, not lead it. And if this is of any note, there will be some mainstream coverage in the next day or two.Derex 08:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As of now, almost a day later, google news shows 5 hits. These consisting of 4 blogs and the Christian News Service article, which contains no straightforward facts at all about the memo. So, at this point, what we have is some unknown guy trying to sell a book saying he as "shocking" findings, but they aren't made clear in the only reference we have. No one is running with it at all. At this point, the issue is to preliminary to be included as a notable item in this article. Removing. Of course, if mainstream coverage meriting inclusion follows, this should be revisited in Talk. Derex 22:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a recent Op Ed in the Washington Times about this since the discussion.  It's certainly newsworthy, and I'm not sure why we'd question the reliability of the author right now.  This is definitely worth a mention. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, if it's newsworthy, that it still (2 weeks on) hasn't actually made the "news" part of any mainstream media source. You know, the reality-based fact-checking part of a paper. The part we use as references. Derex 20:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Clearly. The problem here is determining what rises to the level of a reliable source. So far, there is not much sign that anything does. - Jmabel | Talk 17:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: KGB Letter

message: /Blaxthos 00:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly. The problem here is determining what rises to the level of a reliable source. So far, there is not much sign that anything does. - Jmabel | Talk 17:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moot point

message: Yeah...nice to see how THAT piece of information is not listed in this article.  Definitely an intentional "ommission" of an incident that bears noting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.240.78.20 (talk • contribs) 
:If you can find a reliable source for that information, feel free to add it yourself. Gamaliel 16:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you (anon - non Gamaliel) confusing Ted Kennedy with his son, the congressman from Rhode Island who got into an accident in DC while drunk driving earlier this year?  If so, the action of the son doesn't belong in this article.  --AStanhope 19:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Patrick J. Kennedy.  It is mentioned there. Ufwuct 18:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the drunk-driving incident in DC? 

message: There is some very obvious sockpuppetry going on from three IP's that all aim to include negative information from unreliable sources.
*24.34.49.160
*72.72.125.114
*71.243.121.73 
I move that we get the page partially locked.  /Blaxthos 23:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi-protected. Investigating action for socketpuppetry.  Also, anyone know if there is a template similar to { {lu} } but for IP's? /Blaxthos 00:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppetry & Partial Lock 

message: Whether you agree or disagree, the article is comprehensive, well-documented, hits the high points and generally does a good job of representing both Mr. Kennedy and the best of Wikipedia. I'm too much of a newbie to nominate it for Featured status, but its seems that if this isn't a good article by the criteria given, what can make the grade?
Let the revision and discussion continue, but let there be no doubt... good job, Wikipedians. Good article on Mr. Kennedy. Kghusker 15:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article 

message: Is "Grounded by terror watch list" really worth a section. It might be a bulletpoint in a trivia section, but I have a hard time seeing it as more than that. Derex 09:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree -- given the broad scope of the other sections, it seems pretty trivial.  Where should we put it?  It would be kinda silly to make a trivia section for one point. I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but I've seen trivial sections turn into a hodgepodge of less-than-worthy info in other articles.  Of course, that doesn't mean I'm against them completely... thoughts/suggestions? /Blaxthos 09:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm against them actually; didn't mean to suggest adding one. I'd say we should simply cut it here, as it's not so much about Kennedy as about the list. It's already mentioned on the appropriate page, No Fly List. Derex 09:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: cut a section?

message: There is at least one citation of nndb.com. This is a very weak source in terms of reliability. Just like we don't consider other Wikipedia articles citable, nndb raises pretty much the same issues. - Jmabel | Talk 07:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor citation 

message: This was cut recently: "Kennedy has since argued that the No Child Left Behind is an unfunded mandate because the President and Congress have mandated obligations upon the states without providing equivalent funds, forcing the states to spend money to comply with the federal law." I believe it is accurate; I don't have citation though, and will not restore without citation; someone may want to follow this up. - Jmabel | Talk 07:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be inclined to agree.  Pardon my laziness in not checking myself, but was it sourced originally?  /Blaxthos 22:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not that I can tell. If it had been, I would simply have restored it. - Jmabel | Talk 07:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NCLB