Talk:Ted Kennedy/Archive 3

Palm Beach Rape Trial
Here we go again. After we thought that the issue about the fatboy link had been resolved, we have another attempt to add material of dubious relevance. Do we need another Request for Comments on this article again? Robert McClenon 21:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There's almost no relevance. So he took the stand in his nephew's trial, and he parties sometimes. Big deal. The entry itself is utterly POV. Gee, so Ted Kennedy appeared in his family compound wearing only a long-tailed shirt. How is it even remotely encyclopedic that his nephew was charged with sexual harassment? Note that this is the same editor who doggedly wanted to remove the actually interesting and important fact that Ted Kennedy acted as surrogate father for the 13 children of his murdered brothers. Ptui. This is the "fatboy" editor continuing to disrupt since he didn't get his way. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If his partying is not a big deal why oppose it and why should he himself be embarrassed by it. Does he publicly defend his behavior?  We should let the reader decide if the information is inoccuous or not.   I've no opinion on the fatboy stuff, although I tend to be particularly liberal on external links.--Silverback 22:21, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * To say we should let the reader decide whether the "information" is innocuous misses the point. (The paragraph that's now protected contains misinformation, but let's put that aside for the moment.)  The question is not whether the incident reflects badly on Kennedy, but whether it's important enough to include in this article.  We have to make judgments about that.  There's a discussion going on right now at the George W. Bush article about including a reference to the calls for impeaching Bush.  You could write a factually accurate sentence or paragraph about it, but most of us think it should be omitted anyway, because it's just not important.  No one has even suggested (as far as I remember) that the Bush article include a paragraph about his brother and the Silverado scandal.  Neil Bush was actually fined and restricted from future banking activity, whereas Smith was acquitted of the rape charge, but getting into accusations against an article subject's relatives is too peripheral except in rare situations. JamesMLane 23:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * How important are any of Bush's pecadillo's before he gave his life to the Lord and was born again? Arguably those are more remote in the past and less relevant than Ted's more recent and persistently repeated pecadillos.  You're right, it is a difficult decision, but it is different than, and should not be dismissed as vandalism.  Furthermore, it doesn't justify, an admin romantically defending his ideal version of the article and knowingly sacrificing himself upon the altar of the 3RR rule.  It also doesn't justify blocking an anon IP address for violations of the 3RR rule when that IP only has made two edits total.--Silverback 00:06, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Not surprisingly, you pass over completely the distinction I emphasized, between actions of an article's subject and actions of the article's subject's relatives. The hard facts here about Ted Kennedy are that he spent an evening socializing with his son and nephew, both of legal drinking age, and that, in his own home, he was walking around in undershorts and a long-tailed shirt.  I vaguely remember that even William F. Buckley, Jr. wrote that a man should be able to walk around his own house in his undershorts.  If you're trying to draw an analogy to Bush's DUI conviction and his having been suspended from flying for failing to perform his National Guard obligations, well, I think there's just a wee bit of difference in scale.  And Bush's wearing of a device so that his handlers could help him in the debate came after his alleged religious conversion, but I persist in my belief that Bulgegate doesn't belong in the Bush article. JamesMLane 00:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been asked to intervene in this article again. Unfortunately, I am not going to do so.  The first time, it was over a website that, while questionable in content, at least was directly on topic.  Now the dispute is over whether to include a paragraph on someone else entirely.  For me to intervene into this article and attempt to broker consensus would grant legitimacy to the insertion of a paragraph that no reasonable person would believe belongs here.  I see no reason why I, or anyone else, should try to force reasonable editors to negotiate with unreasonable ones.  The ongoing efforts by the anonymous editors in this article to introduce prejudicial and irrelevant content to this article does not even border on trolling, it almost defines it.  We're writing an encyclopedia, not crucifying Ted Kennedy.  Let the Kennedy crucifixion fetishists do it on their own websites.  It's not encyclopedic, and it doesn't belong here. Kelly Martin 08:04, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Edit war 6 August 2005
There appears to be an edit war going on here. Following a request on Requests for page protection I have locked this for a while so that tempers may calm and - hopefully - discussion here will result and some agreement found on how to proceed. FYI I locked it without checking whichever state it was in - no favouritism is intended. just sort it! --Vamp:Willow 22:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I am reverting to the pre-edit war version, I'm not trying to get involved but it is Wikipedia policy to do so and it appears that there has already been a great debate on the fatboy links and it seems most people are against it so I will respect that consensus. Sasquatch &#08596;&#35762;&#08596;&#30475; 22:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you please cite the wikipedia policy? I didn't know there was a "right" version, except where vandalism was involved.  The revert war was not about the fat boy link, if you check it was about the well documented behavior at the time of the rape incident, you appear to be taking a POV position.--Silverback 22:13, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't think that an editor was to revert before the protection. I would like to see the last saved version protected as per policy.  Thank you.  "Do not edit or revert a temporarily protected page except to add a protected page notice, a link to Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute or Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, or a similar disclaimer about the current state of an article, unless there is widespread agreement that the page was protected in violation of these policies."
 * See The Wrong Version. But the fatboy editor is maybe right. There is a clear consensus that every one of his edits is undesired; do we have to hash all this out again to let him have the honor of being a Wikivictim? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I will restores the information but there has been a CLEAR consensus above (IMO) to keep out the fatboy.cc link, that's what all the other reverts were about. I simply assumed this was just a continuation of that war, again, info will be restored but the link is gone. Sasquatch &#08596;&#35762;&#08596;&#30475; 22:24, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Y'all shouldn't be adding and removing so rampantly while the page is protected. If editors are still changing this article according to debate on this Talk page, it should be unprotected immediately. Shem(talk) 22:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think he has achieved neutrality. The page is restored to its content before the protection, except for the fatboy link, on which the consensus had spoken.--Silverback 22:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * The current situation is by no means neutral. There's a trashy paragraph that's supported only by you and a pack of anons, with every other registered user having opposed it.  There's strong reason to believe that the anons are all one dedicated Kennedy-hating user, who's creating sock puppets to avoid the 3RR.  Under these circumstances, if the page is to be protected at all, it should be protected in the version before the edit war, which means before 24.147.97.230's latest attempt to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. JamesMLane 00:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What gives you editors the right to keep such an important part of the history of Ted Kennedy in the closet? He was directly involved in the Palm Beach rape trial of his nephew and the incidents leading up to the trial. He was on the stand in front of a judge, the nation, and the world. In your lust for the democratic party and the Kennedy's you have pushed your POV way too far. To remove my paragraph on the Palm Beach trial is pure censorship. Last time the link was in your estimation, "crap". Now a paragraph I wrote is completely deleted with no talk remarks, this is vandalism. Just because a group of you agree on pulling it in no way justifies the vandalism. The paragraph belongs. It was national and international news. Ted was involved, it's part of his political career. Would you like to help write it? 24.147.97.230 06:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Chappaquiddick had a significant effect on Kennedy's career. This incident did not.  And would you please stop slinging around the word "vandalism" as a shorthand for "any edit with which I disagree".  If you can put your anti-Kennedy vendetta on hold for a moment or two, you should read Vandalism.  You might also look at the kinds of attacks on Wikipedia that are actually dealt with in Vandalism in progress to see why your request that I be blocked was completely frivolous. JamesMLane 08:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

3RR notice
We've let this one anon vandal hold this article hostage long enough. Now we have to spend another undeterminate amount of time debating an irrelevant passage which almost every registered user agrees does not belong. Page locks are great for cooling down edit wars between groups of established Wikipedians, but do nothing to deter a vandal who has no respect for NPOV, concensus, civility, or anything else and will only use our own rules and procedures against us.

When this article gets unblocked, I'm going to treat every anonymous editor as the same person for the purposes of the 3RR. It's obvious that the anon knows about this rule; note the edit summary of this anon's second ever edit. I've already blocked at least 2 or 3 IP addresses today for insults and vandalism, so I have no problem playing whack a mole with our anonymous Ted hater when this article gets unlocked. Gamaliel 22:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, it was a sock puppet, if an anon can be such, or perhaps the anon is a regular whose ISP changed his IP. But where is the vandalism and uncivility?  These terms should not be thrown around lightly.  If you are going to treat every anon that way, you should probably be willing to argue for a change in the rules to match your position.  Lets have only registered users be allowed to edit.  But if you are unwilling to attempt to change the rules you should abide by them.  I assume JPGordon will be turning himself in for the 3RR violation.--Silverback 23:15, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not throwing these terms around lightly, thank you. Look at the edit summary of this article for the anons calling other users "assholes".  Look at the edit history of my user talk page for the same anons calling me a "pedophile".  Please don't assume I'm just talking out of my ass here if you're not even willing to look at the edit history of these anons.


 * I'm not changing the rules here, I'm just going to work by the obvious assumption that when a group of anons from the same service provider attempts to insert the same material in the same article and makes the same insults against the same people, hey, call me crazy, maybe they're the same person. If they don't want to be treated as the same person, then they can escape my terrifying tyranny by signing up for an account. Gamaliel 06:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you are prejudiced against anons, I didn't see that kind of language from the anons that inspired JPGordon's indiscretions, a couple had only edited twice. If we are going to allow anon editing, you should approach them as individuals, despite your past history. If you can't, step aside for some other admin. We all get overwrought, sometimes.--Silverback 06:40, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not prejudiced against anons, I'm just sick of this anon. You should be more concerned about him wasting the time of productive editors who respect consensus and civility instead of worrying about poor misunderstood souls who call other people pedophiles and assholes. Gamaliel 06:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Gamaliel I would guess that your reverting of paragraph to the entire deletion with this quote of yours offended the intelligence of another anon, "this barely has anything to do with Ted Kennedy and can be covered in the William Kennedy Smith article) What you did was vandalism.  Your act deleted my work.  No discussion, just an entire deletion.  "barely has anything to do with Ted Kennedy???"  The trial was broadcast around the world.  Ted took the stand.  It was front page news.  A US Senator, Ted Kennedy pulled his nephews out of bed to go drinking the night of the rape, they went to about 10 bars.  You know this is all true.  Why is this so wrong to have here?  It's everywhere else.   You may not like that side of Ted Kennedy, but it exists and is on topic.  To exclude this part of his career can only be viewed as pure censorship.  As to who vandalized your page, I have no idea who, but I can understand why.  I just looked at it and it strikes me odd that you are proud of a death threat to you.  Apparently you've had other problems with users.  To be proud of this is not healthy, perhaps you should seek counseling. unsigned comment from our old friend 24.147.97.230


 * You aren't the first troll to express mock concern about my mental health. Come up with some original material. Gamaliel 06:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What we saw in the RfC was that a large number of anonymous new accounts showed up to echo the positions of 24.147.97.230. They might be his/her sock puppets, or they might be actual human beings who were recruited solely to come by and assist in the anti-Kennedy crusade.  (I know, of course, that Silverback is a separate person.  I'm referring to the latest platoon of anons.)  Now, the exact same thing is happening as occurred over the "fatboy" link: 24.147.97.230 inserts some anti-Kennedy garbage in this article.  Longtime registered users remove it.  A bunch of anons suddenly show up to keep re-inserting it.  24.147.97.230 and his sock puppets and/or recruited allies have collectively demonstrated virtually no interest in Wikipedia other than using it to throw mud at the Kennedys, but in that pursuit they are tireless, with the result that the page gets protected.


 * If we look at some of the accounts that caused this latest protection, we see that 81.115.31.217 has a lifetime total of two edits to Wikipedia, both consisting of reversions of this article to 24.147.97.230's favored version. 213.239.193.166 has also made only two edits, the second of which mentioned "3rr rule" in the edit summary.  That's a level of familiarity with Wikipedia that would be, shall we say, unusual for a genuine newcomer.  I haven't bothered to check the rest of the anons, but it's pretty clear that we're being gamed again.


 * An admin should either unprotect this article or restore it to this version. The linked version doesn't have the contested paragraph that the anons kept re-inserting. It's modified slightly from how the article stood at the beginning of the edit war, in that it includes a citation for the "surrogate father" comment.  Given that 24.147.97.230 had earlier deleted that well-known fact, on the grounds that there was no evidence for it, s/he can hardly complain about that change.  JamesMLane 00:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been involved in many situations where the wrong version was protected. Patience, it will only be a few days.  I think you are incorrect to judge text by who or how many support it, judge it on its merits.  I think you over estimate how negative the Ted Kennedy partying text is.  This society is seems far more tolerant of womanizing and partying, than it is of far more responsible behavior, such as polygamy.  Ted's behavior was not quite as circumspect and private as you characterize it, he had guests in the house that evidently were not there to engage in debauchery, a little more modesty and less crudity was in order.  But then in this society, alcohol excuses a lot.  Hmmm, Bush's alcohol use seems to have been fair game.--Silverback 05:27, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * The article was protected from July 19 to August 1, in a version that was overwhelmingly rejected by the registered users who commented on the dispute. Now, less than a week later, it's again protected, and again because of  24.147.97.230's insertion of anti-Kennedy material that almost everyone else considers inappropriate.  So my patience is wearing more than a little thin.  As to the substance, I took care to note an important distinction: "The question is not whether the incident reflects badly on Kennedy, but whether it's important enough to include in this article."  After I  make as clear as possible that I'm not concerned about whether this text is "negative", you dive right in to respond to the argument that I've said I'm not making.  Yes, Bush's alcohol use was notable -- it involved a DUI and, by his own admission, serious adverse effects on his life.  Kennedy went bar-hopping with two other adults.  That's not "behavior" that needs to be excused or even mentioned. JamesMLane 08:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone sum up the problem for me
alright, so far as i can tell this is mainly over a dispute about the Palm Spring rape trial concerning William Kennedy. A couple of questions: a) did it happen? b) did the waitress truly allege the stuff stated and c) Cite sources. Otheriwise, I am more inclined to restore the other version without this. Remember NPOV and you cannot ignore all bad things in his past but if they are false and unfactual, they do not have a place in Wikipedia. Sasquatch &#08596;&#35762;&#08596;&#30475; 07:32, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think the substance of the text is in dispute, just the relevance, and that is a legitimate dispute, although there is ample precedent for both including and excluding such material on other pages. But historically, there has been a strong tendency to give the Kennedy's a pass on this sort of behavior.  I not sure such a pass is really defensible.  I beleive JamesMcLane and I discussed this above.--Silverback 07:52, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't wasted a whole lot of time researching this trivia, but I think the facts are these: First, there was no rape trial "concerning William Kennedy". The trial concerned William Kennedy Smith, the nephew of Ted Kennedy.  On the evening in question, Kennedy, his son, and his nephew were out for a night on the town.  The two younger men each hooked up with someone they met, and both brought their new lady friends back to the house.  Cassone (who was hanging out with Patrick Kennedy) did make the allegation about what Kennedy was wearing in his own house.  The Kennedy haters would probably want a criminal proceeding just about that, but, in fact, the criminal proceeding arose from an allegation by the other woman, Patricia Bowman, who said that she and William Kennedy Smith had gone out for a walk along the beach and in the course of the walk he had raped her.  Smith was tried on that charge and acquitted.


 * Some points that I'm pretty sure are true and that I think are relevant to this "controversy":
 * The single most important point is the extremely slight nature of Kennedy's involvement. He was not accused of committing any criminal acts.  He was not accused of facilitating any criminal acts by anyone else.  In many cases where a defendant is accused of rape, the circumstances of the acquaintance between the defendant and the complaining witness are relevant (as they usually aren't in, for example, a trial for burglary).  Kennedy had been present when the two met, so you'd expect him to be called to testify.
 * The anon makes a big whoop-de-do over the fact that the trial was highly publicized. Of course it was.  The media always go way overboard on crap like that.  Anything that can be connected to a celebrity is played up because it will attract viewers or readers.  It's a telling commentary on the superficiality of the corporate media but it conveys nothing of importance about the subject of this article.
 * It's POV to call a section "Rape Incident" when Smith was acquitted of the charge of rape. "False rape allegation" would be more justifiable.  I'm not going to get into trying to find the perfect title, though, because there's no reason that this incident merits even a mention here, let alone its own section.
 * To say that Kennedy "was involved" in the trial is an example of how a statement can be technically true yet grossly misleading. He "was involved" in this "rape incident" -- ooooh, how shocking.  This presentation of the subject just screams POV.
 * If you want to see more evidence of the POV, check out the last two sentences. This article is about Ted Kennedy.  Yet the anon author makes sure to tell us something about Ted Kennedy's nephew's lawyer's wife, presumably to foster an insinuation that there was something shady about Smith's lawyer's conduct, therefore something shady about the acquittal, therefore something shady about Smith, therefore something shady about Kennedy.  And we know Smith is shady because the last sentence asserts another accusation against him, without even a fig leaf of claiming that Ted Kennedy was involved.
 * Omitting this trash does not in any way, shape, or form mean that "the Kennedy's" (generically) are being given "a pass on this sort of behavior". The behavior in question was that of Smith.  I have no problem with a suitably NPOV description of the incident in Smith's article.  It was certainly notable in his life.  There's nothing significant here about Ted Kennedy, though, and he is (at least nominally) the subject of this article.
 * What it comes down to is: This is an article about somebody who's been a prominent U.S. Senator for more than forty years. He's been a presidential candidate, who launched a credible challenge to an incumbent President of his own party.  He's considered a leading liberal both by those who honor him for it and by the Republicans who still delight in using his name to rile up their yahoo constituency.  In the biography of such a person, how important is it that at one point he happened to give testimony about some aspect of somebody else's criminal trial?  The article about Henry Kissinger doesn't mention that he testified in Carol Burnett's lawsuit against the National Enquirer, even though his testimony, unlike Kennedy's, went directly to the key issue in that case.  The insertion of this rubbish, the subsequent edit war, the protection, and the resulting discussion here, mean that this anon's hatred of all things Kennedy has, yet again, wasted a huge amount of time of editors who, unlike the anon, could actually be improving this or other articles.  If my tone seems harsh to you, it's because I'm one of those whose time has been wasted.  Stick around long enough to see more of this anon's antics before you condemn me. JamesMLane 08:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I believer the Cassone "allegation" was actually made in sworn testimony. There was a lot of lurid testimony associated with this incident, which although Kennedy was not involved in the rape, was one of those views into his lifestyle of excessive alcohol and partying.  Yes, his state of undress was in a private home, not in a hotel room (like Clinton). Yes, poor judgement is less important in the legislative than in the executive branch.  But it is still not automatically clear that this incident and insight into the excesses of Ted Kennedy's life style, won't make it into the article in some form.  The current version is as good a starting point for the editing, as a version with no mention would be.  The deciding point should be that fair application of the protection provision should not favor changing to an earlier version.  Except for the fatboy reference, this is the last version before the protection was imposed.--Silverback 08:42, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * The only way you can view this incident as remotely encyclopedic is if you start out with the opinion that Kennedy's lifestyle involved "excessive alcohol and partying", and then take this as confirming evidence. Can you explain to me, a nondrinker, how a group going from one bar to another on one evening shows "excessive" alcohol?  My impression is that lots of people do it.  Did he miss an important vote the next day because he was so hung over?  The real smoking gun against Kennedy here is that Cassone happened to see him in his undershorts.  As I said, I don't drink, and I've been in one or two similar accidental situations, so it doesn't say much about anyone's "lifestyle".  As for the protected version, you're correct that the normal policy is for an admin to slap on a protection without regard to which version is in effect, thus protecting whichever version happens to be in place at that moment.  The argument for departing from the normal practice in this instance is stated above by Gamaliel and me. JamesMLane 09:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I probably am biased by earlier reports that his technique was to share illegal drugs, including poppers with women, and then they were unlikely to report his sexual advances, even if they were unwelcome, which they usually weren't. It is my understanding, that Cassone's testimony was not that he was in undershorts, but just a shirt.  And his lifestyle was a public issue at the time of the Clinton impeachment, because he was forced to take a lesser role, because of his vulnerability on similar issues.  Alcohol lowers inhibitions and probably contributed to the permissive atmosphere.  Don't get the impression that any of this bothers me, what bothers me is that such people turn around and presume to run my life, make drugs and polygamy illegal, etc.--Silverback 09:17, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * What bothers me is that you're editing from the basis of advancing your libertarian POV rather than producing a sound encyclopedia article about a public figure with whom you happent o disagree. I don't know the details of Cassone's testimony, and you may well be right about Kennedy's sartorial selection on this particular evening.  You'll notice, however, that the disputed text contains zero information about Kennedy's or anyone else's use of poppers, zero information about Kennedy's or anyone else's use of any illegal drugs, zero information about any sexual advances by Kennedy, zero information about any woman's reaction to any such advances, and zero information about whether Kennedy, like all or virtually all other U.S. Senators, favors making polygamy and certain drugs illegal.  Thus, I still see zero basis for including this paragraph. JamesMLane 09:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope you wouldn't prefer that I edit from a coercive POV! 8-)   However, I think my editing on this article was more from my interest in wikipedia's integrity, fairness and NPOV.  It just didn't seem like the kind of text that should be rejected out-of-hand, especially considering how conservative political figures are treated on wikipedia (recall your own pushing of the dry drunk attack).  Frankly, the text involved, is not one I'd go to the mat for, I suspect we will end up with something far more moderate and buttressed by evidence from other periods in his life, but the Kennedys and other liberal figures are not sacrosanct.  You should know by now, that hypocrisy in those who presume to rule, or in the case of wikipedia, administer or collude, is one of my pet peeves. --Silverback 10:33, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it seems that, as so often happens, you and I are talking completely past one another. You keep saying Bush, Bush, Bush, without addressing the specific points here.  One man goes to a bar one evening, another man is arrested for DUI and pleads guilty, and you imply that these two facts must be treated identically because they both involve the use of alcohol by a public figure.  Your phrase "buttressed by evidence from other periods in his life" is misleading.  There is nothing here to be buttressed.  Ted Kennedy is not a teetotaler.  So what?  I'll take a wild guess that the majority of elected officials in the U.S. aren't teetotalers.  I'll take a wild guess that a majority of them have been in a bar some evening.  Try to put aside your preconceptions about Kennedy's alleged excesses and lifestyle.  Try to put aside your dislike for his politics.  If you were reading an article about Joe Blow, the new Majority Leader of some state senate somewhere, and it said that one night he and a couple of his adult relatives went to a bar, would you hesitate for one moment in deleting it?  I could see it being arguably relevant if the article subject were claiming to be a teetotaler, but Kennedy's never made such a claim. JamesMLane 12:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Rapes happen at bacchanalias, even the law in the US is holding hosts and bartenders responsible for the consequences of serving alcohol to excess, do we know who paid for the drinks?, was it Ted? Did they change bars to deceive bartenders about how much they had to drink?  yes it should be noted, that the state did not manage to meet its burdon of proof, but that does not mean that the rape didn't happen.  There is a difference between social use of alcohol, and using it as a drug and to lay women.  DUI is a mere violation of the law, if you look at transportation department statistics, at one driving influenced trip per night, it would take more than 20 years before someone probably is killed, even longer before the person probably killed is someone other than oneself, and longer still if multiple death accidents are considered.  Certainly DUI enforcement has gone too far or is misdirected, and lowering blood levels to zero tolerance is way out of line.  There are other reports of the senators drug and alcohol abuse, and youth is no excuse on this one.--Silverback 21:28, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? This reads like a satire of an argument for inclusion.  Let me make sure I understand it: If Florida had a law about serving alcohol in excess (which you don't know), and if it applied not just to bartenders and hosts of private parties but to people paying for others' drinks in bars (which you don't know; I think most such laws don't), and if Kennedy was paying (which you don't know), and if this hypothetical Florida law followed the pattern of at least some others in applying only to sales to someone who's visibly intoxicated (which you don't know), and if Kennedy's nephew was in fact visibly intoxicated (which you don't know), and if there actually was a rape (which you don't know), and if these hypothetically illegal sales of alcohol were a cause of the hypothetical rape (which you don't know and which seems highly unlikely in view of the length of time that passed), then the conduct of Smith (a 30-year-old man) was partly Kennedy's fault.


 * OK, I respond that if Patricia Bowman was paid by the Republican National Committee to make false allegations against a Kennedy relative for political purposes, a plot that was foiled only because the jury saw through her lies, then the whole incident really reflects badly on the RNC, and this hypothesis should be discussed in the Republican National Committee article. Why not?  All that's needed to reach that conclusion is one bit of totally unfounded speculation, while you needed half a dozen.


 * You also say, "There is a difference between social use of alcohol, and using it as a drug and to lay women." True.  Something else is true: that in this instance there is no allegation and not one bit of evidence of use of alcohol as a drug as opposed to social use, and there is no allegation and not one bit of evidence that alcohol was used to lay anyone.  Your image of "bacchanalia" is striking but irrelevant.  Bowman and Smith left the bar, went to the house, and then went for a walk along the beach.  Bowman alleged that Smith raped her when the two of them were off by themselves some distance from the house where the others were.  If you're picturing Uncle Ted laughing and hoisting a wine glass to cheer his nephew on, while other drunken celebrants couple all around them, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed when you go to cite your sources.  It didn't happen.  JamesMLane 23:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "The editors" have complained that "anons" should not be taken as valid. Now that user[User:Silverback|Silverback]] has joined the discussion the argument changes again.  No mention from "the editors" that [User:Silverback|Silverback]] should have his opinion valued as a respectable wiki member.  "The editors" are showing their true colors.  This page has been controlled by left wing fanatics.  When anyone tries to add or delete content "the editors" suddenly appear.  How do they all seem to show up at the same time?  Not only was Ted Kennedy on the stand and gave sworn tesitmony in this trial, it was a relative who was accused of rape.  How many other senators have gone through this?  It speaks volumes that Ted chose to pull his son and nephew out of bed for a night of drinking. As to family ties, one of the first lawyers Ted called from Chappy had the last name Smith.  Yes, it was William Kennedy Smith's father.   I again request that this page have a disclaimer similar to Bill Clinton's, "The neutrality of this article is disputed."  Would "the editors" please put forth a plan for compromise?  I have offered to work as a team on this and had on takers.   My thanks to Silverback, and the anons who are involved.  24.147.97.230 16:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanking yourself! That's very sweet. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

We all show up because we all have this article on our watchlist. You are free to attempt to solicit the opinions of other users, as you have done with your recent spate of talk page messages. Let me suggest that if you are sincere in your offer to "work as a team" that you not accuse others you will have to work with of vandalism, mental illness, or being "left wing fanatics". Gamaliel 18:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gamaliel. I'll add these points:
 * You've been told, repeatedly, that the issue is not, as you claim, that "anons should not be taken as valid". The real issues, which you prefer to ignore, are that (1) with a bunch of anons showing up, we have no way of knowing that they aren't all just one user, especially when we see a "new" user invoking the 3RR (by its abbreviation, no less) on his/her purportedly second edit; and (2) even aside from the question whether all these anons are different people, these accounts collectively have little history of editing Wikipedia.  There's certainly no one who's participated in this battle (or the last one) on your side, anonymously, who's familiar with Wikipedia policies.  Therefore, your/their views on that subject just aren't worth very much.
 * You criticize "'the editors'" (apparently your term of disparagement for anyone who does anything in Wikipedia other than smearing Kennedys) on the grounds that these evil left-wing fanatics have made "[n]o mention" that, unlike the anons, Silverback is an established Wikipedia. That statement is false.  See my comment above: "I know, of course, that Silverback is a separate person. I'm referring to the latest platoon of anons."
 * By the way, before you continue to vilify everyone who disagrees with you, you might want to read No personal attacks. If you do persist in attacking us as "left-wing fanatics", then I'd appreciate it if, between now and the time you're banned, you'd be so kind as to hyphenate the phrase.  Misuse of hyphens grates on my nerves.
 * How did you come to solicit the wise counsel of Rex071404? He's currently serving a six-month ban for his relentless POV warfare, which incidentally was not unlike what you've been doing.  He also tried to game our policies by using an anonymous IP for some of his edits, hoping to seem like two different people.
 * Your request for a "disputed neutrality" tag can't be honored. The reason is that your POV edit warring has led to yet another protection of this article.  I assume that, whenever this protection is lifted, the article will be open to editing for only a few days before you and Team Anon are back with more garbage that gets repeatedly reverted, leading to another protection.  Therefore, you should be sure to step lively to put that totally unjustified tag on during the brief window when your other misconduct doesn't prevent the addition.
 * I'm glad you've finally noticed that it was a relative who was accused of rape, not Kennedy. I pointed out the example of Neil Bush.  Should the article on George W. Bush mention that one of his relatives was accused of complicity in S&L misconduct that cost U.S. taxpayers $1 billion?  Should it mention that another of his relatives (his wife) ran a stop sign and killed a teenager?  Should it mention that both of his daughters have been busted for underage drinking?  More generally, should we go through all our articles about public officials, Republican and Democratic, and spice up each one with every accusation that's been made against any of the article's subject's relatives? or with every instance in which the subject testified? or with facts about the article's subject's relatives' lawyers' wives?
 * No one has yet given any remotely plausible argument for claiming that Kennedy's conduct "speaks volumes" about anything. Three adults decided to go socialize and have some drinks, as do many, many adults.  If we assume the truth of the factoid that you keep mentioning -- that Kennedy "chose to pull his son and nephew out of bed" -- what it means is that he had a suggestion for doing something and woke them up to ask if they'd be interested in coming along.  These two men, both adults, decided to do so.  What is the superlative of "so what?"
 * The fact is that, unless you can come up with something a lot more substantive than what you've produced so far, this is all going to be just a repeat of the fatboy foolishness, in which you accomplish nothing except to waste huge amounts of other people's time and undermine our goal of creating an encyclopedia. JamesMLane 19:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Upon reviewing the article, I was surprised that his use of poppers and cocaine to seduce a 17 year old among others is not disclosed. This is all from a reputable source, "The Senator", by Richard Burke, his aid of ten years. I was assuming more context than you apparently had, when suggesting that this spoke volumes. --Silverback 22:03, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Suggested Comprimise
Alright, as far as I can tell, this incident did happen but the discussion is over it's relavence and how it sheds Kennedy in a bad light that is misleading. Therefore, I suggest we SERIOUSLY reword it and place it into one of the other sections of his life where approriate. The rewording needs to: a) establish a neutral point of view b) remove completely irrelevent sections like his lawyer married one of the jurors and c) make note of William Kennedy Smith's acquital of all charges. How does that sound to the parties involved? Again, I know almost nothing about Ted Kennedy as I am not even American, I am more conservative then liberal and people should not be slinging those terms around anyways. Let's just get some productive suggestions on the article rather than pointless squabling over who's right and wrong. Sasquatch &#08596;&#35762;&#08596;&#30475; 19:00, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that the anon's wording is clearly POV. The problem is that even a neutral rewording wouldn't deal with the unimportance of this incident in Kennedy's life.  The anon has solicited the aid of some editors who tend to be conservative.  Let's see what any of them think of a possible compromise in which this item is added to the Ted Kennedy article, and the George W. Bush article is also enhanced by NPOV presentations of the incidents involving his brother, his wife, and his daughters.  (Actually, of course, I'd oppose that "compromise".  Larding a Democrat's article with irrelevancy wouldn't be cured by repeating the mistake in a Republican's article.) JamesMLane 20:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you, however, willing to use this? I'm going to wait and see how other users think and stuff before I take any further action. Sasquatch &#08596;&#35762;&#08596;&#30475; 23:32, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

After more careful thought and review other articles, this does seem completely irrelavent. Until these editors add sections in Bush's article about his alcoholism and his daughter being arrested for underage drinking, we should probably remove these parts due to relavence. Sasquatch &#08596;&#35762;&#08596;&#30475; 23:44, August 7, 2005 (UTC)