Talk:Ted Kennedy/Archive What a Joke

What a Joke!
nixie has now locked the page on JamesMLane's last edit. JamesMLane, of course, is the editor who writes on his user page that he is "Hostile to the right wing" so we can be sure that his version is a neutral version. LOL. The locked version does not include any mention of the William Kennedy Smith rape trial, the waitress sandwich incident, or the use of Romney's mormon religion during the 1994 campaign. The protection of JamesMLane's version speaks volumes about what is wrong with wikipedia. On the bright side, at least the NPOV tag appears on this version.--Agiantman 03:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * See The Wrong Version. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You really shouldn't cite The Wrong Version, in a case when the admin edited twice after putting the protection on. The first edit was justified, because the protected version was obvious vandalism (the "hockey" stuff), but the second edit was not justified.  It was an attempt to get the "right" version.--Silverback 04:21, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Point taken. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've reverted to my first revert. Previous discussion on this page seemed to indicate that it was the last agreed upon version, since that's not the case I reverted.--nixie 04:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It was the version with the most support. But once you eliminated the vandalism, I don't think you should have continued looking for the "right" version, in a content dispute. I happen to agree with the JamesMLane version you just reverted, but I'd rather have neutral admins than the "right" version.  Thanx for doing the right thing!  That said, we need a better way to deal with sock puppet anons.--Silverback 04:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Agiantman, instead of complaining and being deliberatly provocative why don't you suggest a NPOV rewrite on the scandals on the talk page, I will gladly add it to the article if there is concensus to do so.--nixie 03:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * BS - You Democrat=NPOV types will just continue to delete anything that makes Kennedy look bad, delete or fix polls on what should be added, and when all else fails initiate your witch hunt "RFC" crap against any user to the right of Lenin. Hypocrites. Agiantman is being persecuted here.


 * How did this get edited after the protection? I thought protection stops editing?  If they don't like Ted Kennedy's past, perhaps they should not like Ted Kennedy.  The Rape happened, the Waitress Sandwich happened, Chappy happened.  Not to report the facts is censureship.  This is the USA, let's live like it.  Remember Bataan, men and woman died so that we can live with truth.  If the "editors" want to write good stuff about Ted, go to it, we're not reverting it.  Stop taking our work down.24.147.97.230 04:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "The Rape happened"? Only if you wish to claim that the verdict was wrong.  He was acquitted.  You may mean that the trial happened, which is true.  However, that misstatement is characteristic of why we have an edit war.  Robert McClenon 11:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You can't exactly blaim them, they're born this way, and they should recive the same compassion as anyone else with a debilitating mental disorder--I-2-d2 04:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Lay off the personal attacks. If you actually read my first comment on this page I said that I thought the information being disputed should be included but not in the form it was presented.--nixie 04:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You guys can make your points without personally attacking those who disagree with you. Really, it's not hard. --kizzle 04:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's your groups failure to negociate that upsets so many? I've offered to work with your team in the past many, many, times.  I was never taken up on my offer.  Our work is deleted, but not called by vandalism, though entire paragraphs are removed.  How about a real effort to work together?  So far it's been your way or no way.24.147.97.230 04:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No. The majority has been very willing to negotiate.  We have tried several methods of reaching consensus as to how to provide an encyclopedic summary.  "How about a real effort to work together?"  I agree.  That does not mean simply adding the same material over and over again, but trying to rework it to make it encyclopedic and neutral. Robert McClenon 11:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)