Talk:Ted Kennedy

seperate article- Senate career of Ted Kennedy

This section covers over 1/2 the article. Ted Kennedy has no doubt been one of the most flatulent Senators of all-time, he deserves his own article.--Levineps (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This section covers more like 4/5 of the article; Kennedy's biography largely is his senate career. Splitting it out would be pointless, just as it was for Joseph McCarthy when you tried to do it there and were quickly reverted. And "Senate career of ..." subarticles have some of the lowest readership rates in all of Wikipedia. Doing this here wouldn't benefit anybody. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel that his Senate career would be better in its own article, and then summarized here, similar to John_McCain#Senate_career_after_2000. I sense that this article is already restraining itself in terms of what information is included, and if it were split up, then we would definitely have less of a length problem. Wasted Time R, in my opinion, the point of splitting up the section is to make it more readable; frankly, I imagine that few people who want to learn more about Ted would be willing to read most of that section. The benefit of splitting the section up is so that we keep the information we already have and can add to it, and then in the main Ted article, we have summary style information for people who just want a general overview of the Senator. Gary King (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. Splitting the article does absolutely nothing but split the quality. WTR is absolutely correct that no one reads those compared to main articles. A significant part of Kennedy's biography is his Senate career, so that would just remove a huge chunk from the article. If it continues to grow and be unwieldly, much time should be carefully taken to keep a Senate section that is still long enough to be thorough in all major parts, with the subarticle filling in the details as well. There should obviously not be a full cut-and-paste carelessly moving the section to a subarticle, as Levineps is famous for. Reywas92^Talk 19:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing inherently wrong in creating a sub-article, and heck there's plenty of extra info that could be added to such an article. At the same time, that doesn't mean anything has to be removed from the parent article, and as Reywas mentions, the Senate career should fill a big chunk of the main article. Joshdboz (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose also, still. The readership page view stats are daunting. For July 2009:

• Hillary Rodham Clinton 124,800 (includes redirects)
• Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton 1,151
• John McCain 89,893
• Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present 384

These are 100:1 and 200:1 and worse ratios, which is quite typical of biographical subarticles like these. (You can see some April 2009 page view stats in the section below, to show that these are consistently bad results.) And I'm the main (usually only) author of both of those "Senate career of ..." articles, so I know whereof I speak. Hell, you don't even need the readership stats to know nobody reads them; look at Talk:Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, it's completely empty, nobody's ever posted a single thing there!

So moving pieces of his senate career out of this article and into a subarticle would mean that 99% or more of readers would never see it, which is tantamount to deleting it. That's not good. Furthermore, on thematic and biographical grounds you can't usefully reduce and split his senate career out from the rest of his bio. The death of his brothers gave him newfound purpose in the senate. His 1980 presidential campaign fed off his senatorial dissatisfactions during the Carter administration. His late 80s/early 90s personal troubles led to his silence during the Thomas hearings. And so forth. Everything in his life is intertwined.

It's true, as Joshdboz says, that there is much more that occurred in Kennedy's long senatorial career than is included in this article. Having slogged through Adam Clymer's biography, which deals with Kennedy's legislative career in truly exhausting detail, I know! So somebody could, if they wanted, leave everything intact in this article and create a "Senate career of Ted Kennedy" that went into far more detail, using what's here as a starting point. But it would be a ton of work with very little readership reward, so I wouldn't advise it. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So if you want to hide things, then make a subarticle???? Dellcomputermouse (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed split - WTR's suggestion that those who want to develop an outstanding and detailed Senate article is eminently sound, and prevents no editor from going ahead and doing the hard work necessary. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• As the section currently stands, it's not only about Kennedy's Senate career but is about everything that happened to him while he was in the Senate. If material were split, most of the section should remain here since it is of general biographical nature. An article on the Senate career of Ted Kennedy should be more like the Political positions of Ted Kennedy article, a highly circumscribed detail only of his actions in the Senate. — AjaxSmack 03:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, now that you mention it, instead of having a chronological "Senate career of ..." article, why not just strengthen Political positions of Ted Kennedy so that it covers all or most of his Senate votes, positions, and legislative moves? (Right now coverage in it is very hit or miss.) An advantage would be that it would be organized by issue topic, and thus be a good alternative to the chronological organization of the main BLP article. Readers could use one or the other or both, depending upon how they wanted to look at Kennedy's career. One of Wikipedia's main drawbacks is that it doesn't have an index, the way that real books do, and this would somewhat counteract that. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Senate career is integral to the biography and should not be split off. I also agree that the Political Positions article could be strengthened instead. Racepacket (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is a separate article, then the biography of Kennedy will be short. It would be "Kennedy was born, went to Harvard, got into trouble so joined the Army, finished up at Harvard, went to law school, married twice. Since 1962, he's been a senator. End of article." Dellcomputermouse (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose split. The statistics don't lie. Splitting off this article would mean the death of the Senate career information, and the personal article would be awful. CorpITGuy (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Length of Chappaquiddick summary section

User:Ylee recently made substantial cuts to the "Chappaquiddick" section, with the edit summary "Abridged section to point people to main article while retaining all essential facts". I agree that the existing section had some problems with an inconsistent level of detail and an inappropriate bullet list. But, the size of the section was quite appropriate. WP:Summary style does not mean that when there is a main article elsewhere, the summary section in another article should be short as possible. Rather, the summary section must be the proper length for the subject at hand, relative to all the other content in the subject's article.

In this case, Chappaquiddick is a major episode in Kennedy's life, one that resulted in the death of a person, one for which even sympathetic biographers don't believe all aspects of Kennedy's story, and one that eventually prevented Kennedy from ever running an effective candidacy for president. It is by far the biggest blemish on Kennedy's career and life (which is, as this article conveys, filled with many great accomplishments). This article must be written assuming the reader never looks at any of the other articles xref'd to or linked to, and still have proper weighting; that's the essence of summary style. Most biographies of Kennedy deal extensively with Chappaquiddick, such as Clymer's (otherwise generally very favorable) one. The Boston Globe seven-part bio series on Kennedy, which this article draws heavily upon for citation, devotes almost all of one part to Chappaquiddick. Thus Ylee's abridgement goes way too far, and there are many "essential facts" that it left out. I've restored much of the previous content, while trying to fix some of the problems with inconsistent levels of detail. As restored, this material is still an abridgement, as it leaves out many of the well-known details of that night, and arguably the section should be still longer to achieve proper weighting with how WP:RS deal with Chappaquiddick. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree on Chappaquiddick's paramount importance to Kennedy's life (rightfully more so than the discussion of either of his marriages, for example). Regarding the section's length, though, I'd pose the question this way: Was there any crucial fact missing from my abridged version? Some point that would force the reader to jump to the (very, very detailed) main article to have a complete understanding of the incident? I think not, with one exception: A sentence with more-explicit discussion of how the incident permanently crippled his chances for higher office. (I'd thought the further mentions of the incident later in the article fulfilled this role, but I agree the sentence saying so in your restored version is needed.)

In any case, I think your longer version can still be abridged. I don't think it needs a link to or discussion of the Boiler Room Girls, for example, or a mention that Kennedy's lawyers requested the inquest be conducted in secret (if desired, just say "secret inquest"). Again, the main article exists for a reason. YLee (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The Boiler Room Girls reference is meaningful because it shows this whole incident sprung from the tight loyalties that the Kennedy family inspires, and the nature of the Kennedy family is one of the thematic threads of this article. That Kennedy wanted a secret inquest is highly relevant, because the Kennedy family is quite powerful in those parts and there are many who believe aspects of the investigation and other inquiries were done in excessive deference to the Kennedys. And the fact that the inquest judge found several aspects of Kennedy's story to be untrue, beyond just his negligent driving, is quite important. Also, Kennedy asking the Massachusetts electorate whether he should stay in office is important. And the name of his 1970 GOP opponent should be included, since it is for his other elections in the rest of the article. And again, abridging this further does not give it the proper weighting in terms of a Kennedy biography. This article is attempting to be a comprehensive, GA/FA-level treatment of Kennedy's life; if a reader just wants "essential facts", they can read the lead section and stop there. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose there are Wikiphilosophical differences operating here. I agree on the name of his 1970 opponent (for consistency's sake, if nothing else) and the veracity of Kennedy's story, but I don't see the Boiler Room Girls or the inquest-secrecy request or Kennedy's appealing to the Massachusetts electorate to be so pertinent here. Are they important? Absolutely, but not in a summary section with a comprehensive main article. I'll leave the section as it is, though; we are both working off of good faith in the other. YLee (talk) 03:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree we're both working in good faith. As I see summary style, the existence of a main article elsewhere never changes the article you're in. For example, someday somebody may write a Ted Kennedy presidential campaign, 1980 article, similar in nature and size to, say, the John McCain presidential campaign, 2000 article, which is GA. But I would claim that the current "1980 presidential campaign" section in this article would not change at all once that other article came into being, other than doing a {{main}} xref to it. That's because the current 1980 campaign section has the right length and right level of content and right weighting for this article, regardless of whether a more detailed article on it exists elsewhere. It sounds like you would shorten the campaign section in this article, if a separate campaign article were written. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely would shorten the campaign section here, yes; otherwise, why have a separate article at all? Also, having a summary section that's longer than "just the facts, ma'am" increases the risk that some well-intentioned editor will add something to the summary but not the main article; before you know it, the two are horribly out of sync and the section's size is about to exceed the main article's.

I don't know if this makes me a "deletionist" as opposed to an "inclusionist"; my understanding of that debate is that it has more to do with whether Wikipedia should be the kind of entity that contains articles on every Pokemon ever made or not. My vision, however, of the ideal Wikipedia article on a vitally important topic (on an American President, let's say) is one in which every single section is a brief, one or two-paragraph summary of a longer main article. WP:SUMMARY doesn't quite explicitly advocate that yet, but I expect it will someday. YLee (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason for having the separate article would be that it goes into much more detail than the existing section in the main article, not to shorten the section in the main article. For example, if you look at the McCain 2000 article I mentioned (another insurgency campaign that ended up losing with bad blood resulting with the winner, so similar in nature), it's much longer than the campaign section in this article, and thus adds value for the interested reader. Yes, maintaining long summaries vis a vis the detail article can be a pain, but if the article is watchlisted by a faithful editor, it's tractable. The main problem with your model is that the readership stats (see site mentioned in section below) show that no one ever reads the subarticles. Look at the stats for the bio subarticles on Obama, McCain, Palin, anyone, compared to their main articles. It's always a 100:1 difference or worse. That's because search engines don't find the subarticles and because readers don't click through the fairly obscure main xref links. If this problem could be fixed I would be more tempted to believe in your model. But I put a lot of work into these articles and I want them to be found. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not know about the difference in readership between the subarticles and main articles. I don't believe that the stats should affect this discussion, though, any more than editors should worry about Wikipedia's performance (two sides of the same coin, really).

I'd think of it this way: If a fact is important enough it'll appear in the main article. If it's not important enough, it'll be in the subarticle. By the same token, if a fact is necessary for a reader to gain an accurate and overall (as opposed to "comprehensive" or "detailed") understanding of a topic, it should be in the main article; otherwise, it shouldn't. Again, a difference in Wikiphilosophy. (That said, note that my stated intention to shorten the section after a subarticle is created is the Wikipedia guideline.) YLee (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) I think the guideline you're referring to is when one section becomes too long relative to everything else (like if I had written a subarticle-length treatise on the Kennedy 1980 campaign and stuck it in the main article), not when a main article section has an appropriate length but then someone wants to explore it further. As for readership stats, here's a sample for April 2009:

• Hillary Rodham Clinton (including redirects): 128,833
• Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton: 529

• Sarah Palin: 200,122
• Early political career of Sarah Palin: 413

• John McCain: 96,681
• House and Senate career of John McCain, until 2000: 416

For the McCain articles, I took summary style very, very seriously. I wrote them all and got one subarticle to FA and two to GA (including the one shown above), which is more than any editor I know of has done. The reward has been virtually no readership of the subarticles and I'm the only editor who ever bothers to keep them up to date. Summary style for biographies is good in theory, but doesn't work in practice at this time. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Article size tag

User:98.116.115.180 placed a tag on the article for it being over 100K in edit code size, with the explanation "taking much too long to load these days even on FIOS broadband (other smaller wiki article pages are fine as are other sites) - a probable high-profile article such as this should easily navigatable" and the edit comment "tag 'longish' because of loading problems - over 130kb in length - needs more tightening where possible and/or splitting". But all of Wikipedia's GA/FA-level biographies of long-serving political figures are of this kind of size: Jack Kemp is 161Kb, John McCain is 145Kb, Joe Biden is 135Kb, Barack Obama is 152Kb, and so forth. The reason is that in order to be GA or FA you have to comprehensively treat the subject's career, and you have to cite everything on a statement-by-statement basis. Both of these tasks will drive up the edit code size. And the load times for all these articles are bad, not just Kennedy's, and they're all high-profile articles.

In fact, it's that heavy citing, absolutely demanded for political BLPs in particular, that really helps drive up the load times. You can find 130K talk pages that load lickety-split, because they're all text with no citing templates, succession box templates, images, etc. But there's no way we can remove the cites or the succession boxes (well, I think half of them are dumb, but there are editors here who savor them) or the images. So there's nothing really that can be done with the load time on this article or similar articles, until the MediaWiki parsing becomes more efficient and the network load times become better and the browsers and underlying computers get faster. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your nice response. i think you understand - my comment clearly has nothing to do with content or heavy citation, etc. it's merely on the technical problem. if one can't access an article easily, what good is it? there must be a way to split a long article within wikipedia just as terribly long lists are with "see next xx" styled with a "continue reading" or something. it that is not wikipedia-doable, it's quite antique. (interestlingly, both the articles on obama, mcain, biden and kemp load, for me, night/day faster (minor sluggish but almost normal) than EMK's. perhaps the emk article has gremlins embedded (a joke).--98.116.115.180 (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's possible to split up biography articles in Wikipedia, but in practice it hasn't been very successful. Both Obama and McCain are split up, but the subarticles get very little readership (see this site if you're ever curious about how often WP pages get viewed) and there's a lot of redundant maintenance editing between the two and the main articles end up still being big anyway, as the above stats attest. Kennedy would be especially hard to break up because almost all of it is his Senate career, he doesn't really have discrete parts like Obama. As for why those other articles load faster for you than this one, I have no idea. For me, the Kemp article is always mega-slow, while the Biden article is a bit faster than the others. But it's hard to measure, because you don't know what caching effects are going on behind the scenes (article loads are slower if they are frequently being edited, like this article has been recently, because each change blows out the formatted and cached version on the proxy servers). As a frequent editor of many of these articles, I suffer the load times more than most anyone ... but in practice there's not much to do about it. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This statement in the article is one sided, and needs the other side to be added.

The article states:

"Kennedy appealed to the Massachusetts governor and legislature to change its law regarding U.S. Senate vacancies, so that a temporary senator could be appointed pending a special election and a vote in favor of a health care bill would not potentially be lost."

However, the article does not mention that it was Kennedy himself who created the current law. In 2004 when Senator Kerry was running for President, Kennedy created the special election law because he did not want the Republican governor to appoint a replacement Senator. Now that the state has a Democrat governor, Kennedy wants to switch back to a governor appointed Senator instead of the election. The article should mention this information, in the name of balance and NPOV. Boston Globe Wall St, Journal.

I cannot add this to the article myself, as I have been topic banned from political articles. If someone else thinks this that adding information will improve the article, please do so. Thank you.

Grundle2600 (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the article to make it clear that the current governor of Massachusetts is a Democrat. However, Kennedy did not "create" the current law, since it's a state law, not federal. The Boston Globe article you point to says that Kennedy's people say he never liked the 5-month vacancy in the law, and doesn't mention any role for Kennedy in the 2004 law change. The WSJ piece you point to is an opinion piece and thus not a WP:RS. It in turn points to a 2004 Globe story that says Kennedy urged the change at the time, to prevent Romney appointing Kerry's successor if he won the presidency. But it's still possible that Kennedy wanted an early special election (rather than waiting until the next even-yeared November, as most states do) but also wanted a temporary appointment by the governor as well to fill in the 5-month gap (such an interim appointee wouldn't have much of an advantage in a special election). You'd have to find that 2004 piece, and others, to get the full story on this. But at such a level of detail this becomes a topic for some article on Massachusetts election law, not this article. It's obvious that the reason Kennedy wants the law change now is not some selfless desire to see Massachusetts always have two senators, but because he wants the vote to always be there for health care reform if he doesn't make it. I included it in the article because it's the best indication yet of Kennedy acknowledging his mortality and because it perfectly fits one of the section's themes, which is the effect that Kennedy's physical absence has had on the debate over his long-time top legislative priority. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Here is just one article which points to the fact that Kennedy pushed to have the law changed to prevent Romney from appointing a senator had Kerry been elected. It is an important piece of context to point out the Kennedy pushed to have the original law put into place. Arzel (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, in the edit you made immediately before this one, you wrote "Yes, but it is not up to US to provide the context." Gamaliel (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That article is the same WSJ opinion piece pointed to earlier; as opinion it can't be used as a source. Furthermore, we need clarification on what Kennedy supported in 2004. The pre-2004 situation was the one most states use: upon a vacancy, the governor appoints an interim senator until the next regularly scheduled congressional election. For vacancies occurring soon after an election, this means the appointed senator gets almost two years of incumbency before they have to face election, which may give them a big leg up (consider how Gillibrand has muscled out all her major potential primary foes after being appointed to replace Hillary). The 2004 Massachusetts law changed this to call for a special election about five months after the vacancy, which Kennedy clearly supported then and now. But should the senate seat be vacant during those five months, or should a really-short-period interim senator be appointed? Such an interim wouldn't have much of an incumbency advantage in the special election (and could be formally or informally required not to run in it), but would ensure that the state is still fully represented in D.C. during that time. That's what Kennedy is calling for now, and per the 2009 Boston Globe article, Kennedy's aides say he was never happy with the vacancy aspect of the 2004 law. So Kennedy's stances are not necessarily inconsistent, depending upon what can be further found out about his position in 2004. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've heard references to Kennedy supporting the 2004 bill, but never found a reference until now- Boston Globe, June 11 2004. This seems to clearly show in a non-opinion piece that Kennedy engaged in significant activity to promote the 2004 bill changing the succession process. Kennedy's aides now saying he was never happy with the bill have to be considered less reliable than they would be if they had made the statements before now, as those statements are clearly serving the interests of the person they worked for. The 2004 Globe article shows that Kennedy intervened in support of the bill that was stalled, and was instrumental in getting it taken back up and passed despite concerns over its partisan appearance. This means it is clear that Kennedy supported the 2004 bill at the time. He did not advocate that the then-stalled bill be modified at the time, which he clearly could have done, and would have addressed some of the charges that the bill was partisan. I believe it is reasonable to include that Kennedy supported the changes he recently did, that the 2004 law was passed for the purposes it was, and that Kennedy vigorously supported and contributed greatly to the passage of the 2004 bill. I am still on the fence as to whether is is necessary to reference the different interpretations of the facts that are out there now- whether enlightened interest in the representation of the state, or political hypocrisy motivated by hardball politics. I haven't added this yet, as I'd like to see any arguments against it, but it does seem to now be established by a non-opinion article in a reliable source.Packetmonger (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Since there has been no argument not to, I have added a simple statement that Kennedy intervened personally to get the 2004 succession process change passed. Packetmonger (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

---

There need be no vacancy. The law contemplates the submission of a resignation that is effective weeks and months later. The law mandates an election occur 146 to 160 days later. The election merely needs to be held after the actual effective time for the resignation, which could be midnight before the election day. There is a hint on the vacancy process at the top of List of United States Senators from Massachusetts. A few cites/sorces below.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Belluck, Pam (June 25, 2004). "Massachusetts Politicians Fight Over a Kerry Victory". New York times. Retrieved 2008-05-21. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Zezima, Katie (July 2, 2004). "National Briefing: Massachusetts: Senate Approves Interim-Appointment Bill". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-05-21. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Greenberger, Scott S. (July 31, 2004). "Romney veto overridden: Governor can no longer fill vacancies in the US Senate". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2008-05-21. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |coauthors= (help)
• Anderson, Rob (July 16, 2004). "Devil in the Details: After Kerry, The Deluge". The American Prospect. Retrieved 2008-05-21. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• "Chapter 236 of the Acts of 2004". Acts of 2004 (Session Laws). The General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. July 30, 2004. Retrieved 2008-05-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Thanks for all the references. While there need be no vacancy in the event of a resignation, there would always be one in the case of death. The American Prospect reference states that Romney tried to add a very-short-interim-senator-appointed-by-governor provision, as I was discussing above, but there's no indication of whether Kennedy was favorable towards that notion or not. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

In order to avoid edit war a simple referenced sentenced that the law was changed in 2004 to prevent Romney from appointing a successor is sufficient for now. There seems to be no debate about this aspect. Arzel (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW this article seems to imply that Kennedy did support the original change. Arzel (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you perhaps mean a different article than the one that is linked in your note? Reading that, I can't find any comment about what your talking about. Its an opinion piece saying that Kennedy supported the 2004 bill. So I presume that you were reading a different article- care to point me in the direction of it? Thanks! Packetmonger (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Dead Again?

He has not yet been confirmed as dead, trustworthy news sources are not yet confirming he is, in fact, dead. Shouldn't we hold off in declaring him dead until official word is given out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.10.113 (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, neither you nor anyone on Wikipedia is capable of declaring anything, let alone someone's death.65.215.94.13 (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

ABC ([1]) more than fulfills WP:RS guidelines. 71.103.96.80 (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

-- I'll take CNN as a source.. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/26/obit.ted.kennedy/index.html --24.141.236.57 (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

--BBC more than does it for me! jcuk (who forgot to sign in first..my bad) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.189.197 (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

--Why don't you look at the timestamp before you bash it? At the time, nothing was confirmed. It wasn't until almost 10 minutes later that it was actually confirmed by any reputable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.10.113 (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflicts.....

1926 (or whenever) – 2009.

I've been trying for ten minutes to change the dash between his year of birth and his year of death from a hyphen to a proper dash. "Edit conflict" every time.

OK, it finally worked.

I guess Wikipedia is no longer an obscure unheard-of-web site that it was a couple of years ago in 2002. I always thought it would become well-known some day. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll be needing protection as soon as someone can come along, of course. 71.103.96.80 (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Go to requests for page protection. miranda 05:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It helps to check "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page" in the gadgets section of your preferences. No more conflicts with section edits while you edit the lead of an article! UncleDouggie (talk) 10:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy death is hilarious?

He is confirmed to be dead. Someone wrote his death was described as "hilarious".

There's no need to bring up individual cases of vandalism on the talk page; just revert it. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Death time

Though many of the sources were published on the 26th, his exact death was just before midnight on the 25th. Read the ABC source and others. Steven Walling (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Faked his death?

WTF Why does it say that he faked his death??!! Someone change this quick.

Lock

Probably should lock this article for a bit, or at least protect it until more information is known. --Tarage (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

RIP, Ted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.221.143 (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Are we using Eastern time for Date of Death?

If so, he died on 8/26/2009 according to CNN. Prapsnot (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

CNN changed date of death to 8/25/2009, matching story by ABC News, never mind. Prapsnot (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes.

Sean7phil (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy Curse

I mistakenly linked to this page in a comment in the Kennedy Curse change history. The correct Talk page is Talk:Kennedy Curse#Absolutely Rediculous. YLee (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Help with obit at Wikinews

See n:Senator Ted Kennedy dies at age 77

Help would be appreciated, I added some sources but the article text itself could certainly be expanded a great deal, utilizing those sources. Cirt (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Article name

Why is this guy listed as Ted Kennedy when everyone in the world knows him as either Edward Kennedy or Teddy Kennedy? Deb (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

See past discussion above at #Why not Edward M. Kennedy?. If the article name was changed, it would be to that. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the link - I see that there was a vote on this way back in 2005. Time for another one, I think. How ridiculous the present title makes wikipedia look. Deb (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really. "Edward M." was his name, "Ted" was his nickname, and "Teddy" a familiar diminutive of that. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that "Ted" was just one of several nicknames used for him, whereas "Edward" was not only his real name but the most common name by which he is known. Deb (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Perception is an odd thing; seems to me pretty much nobody called him Edward. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Except everybody outside the USA. Deb (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

--jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

JFK's two requests

{{editsemiprotected}}

Add to Ted Kennedy#Early life, military service, and education, at the end of the first paragraph:

His brother Jack, a student at the Choate School at the time, asked to be the newborn's godfather, a request his parents honored, though they did not agree to Jack's request to name him George Washington Kennedy (although Kennedy was born on the 200th anniversary of Washington’s birth).

Here's the reference:

<ref>{{cite web| title=Kennedy dead at 77 |url=http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/08/26/kennedy_dead_at_77/ | last=Nolan| first=Martin F.| authorlink=Martin Nolan| publisher=[[The Boston Globe]] |date= August 26, 2009 | accessdate = August 26, 2009 | quote=The ninth child of Joseph P. and Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy was born on the 200th anniversary of George Washington’s birth, Feb. 22, 1932. His brother Jack, then at the Choate School in Connecticut, wrote to his parents, asking to be godfather and urging the new arrival to be baptized George Washington Kennedy. The parents agreed to the first request but named the child Edward Moore Kennedy.}}</ref>

Thanks. 72.244.204.220 (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC).

This seems to be more about Jack than Ted, and too minor a matter to include here. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Fun fact, but really relevant to Ted. Template removed. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 14:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact is actually relevant; it deals with a godfather, and a possible alternative name. It can be shortened a little bit; let me see what I can do with it. YLee (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Intro too long tag

User:Tocino has added an {{intro-toolong}} tag. I disagree. It's a longish article about a person with a long, complex life and career, and the intro should correspondingly be on the longish side and fairly summarize the article. And the intro is four paragraphs, the upper limit allowed by WP:LEAD. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Because of the heavy traffic today, the day after his death, I have shortened the lede, placing three quarters of it into a new section "Life, in brief". It will be nearly impossible to edit the lede for the next day or two, and this makes it possible to edit the redundantly long summary of his life. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Your change was quite unorthodox and doesn't seem to have lasted long, as I never saw it. Somebody (or multiple people) then came along and shortened the lead by removing everything negative about Kennedy from it: expulsion from Harvard, guilty plea in Chappaquiddick, rhetoric against Bork (negative/positive depending upon viewpoint), and public personal problems in the late 80s/early 90s. At the same time, they extended the intro to five paragraphs, in violation of WP:LEAD. Surely a long lead is better than an unbalanced lead? Wasted Time R (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Now, editors are competing to see how much they can remove from the intro. I really don't see the point in this; the long intro was an alternative to those readers who didn't want to read the full article. Now it completely fails to capture the nature of Kennedy's personality or career. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Who decided that the introduction was too long? It seems to me it's just about the right length for this kind of article. I'll remove the tag for now. Lampman (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's compare Ted with the Presidents. According to a simple MS Word word count, Ted's intro has 479 words. Obama has 271 words in his intro, JFK has 309, LBJ has 323, Nixon has 357, Ford has 300, Carter has 345, Reagan has 377, H.W. Bush has 344, Clinton has 369, and W. Bush has 374. So Ted currently has at least 100 words too many in his intro. --Tocino 04:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Filibuster proof?

Regarding this sentence-"With Kennedy's death, the Democratic Party has lost its 60-seat supermajority in the US Senate, although they do retain at filibuster proof 59 seat majority out of the 99 filled seats."- I'm not sure this is correct. I am under the impression that it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster in the US Senate. Am I wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.161.250 (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The potential effects on the health care reform debate will be interesting, to say the least. — Rickyrab | Talk 14:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say "filibuster proof" now. It doesn't really matter, though, since the Dems have trouble getting all their votes together on anything significant, and anything that's modified enough to pick up their centrists will often pick up a GOPer or three as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"Former President"

There may already be a consensus on this sort of thing and I'm not sure how to go about researching it.

I wonder: is there a good reason Bush II is referred to as "former president Bush" or whatever in the caption for the photo of him and Kennedy? The photo was taken in 2002; Bush was not a former president at the time, and I found the caption to be confusing at first. Maybe it's normal for all presidents to be referred to as former presidents in all photographs? ...but it doesn't seem to be the most helpful of descriptions.

Can we change that to just "President Bush"? ...even with a qualifier like "then President Bush." It just struck me as weird to have a former president signing a bill. :) 12.19.84.33 (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss changes to Bush's article on that talk page, please. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

i believe the comment just above by User talk:12.19.84.33 relates to the photograph on ted kennedy's article (shows bush, kennedy and feinstein) down toward the bottom and so the caption would be appropriately discussed here.--98.116.115.180 (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The caption should just say "President Bush" and I've changed it accordingly. It's always assumed in historical writing that offices and positions are at the time between described, not the time the reader is reading it. Books about the Civil War just say "President Lincoln", not "then President Lincoln" or "former President Lincoln". Wasted Time R (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy and John Tunney seeking KGB help in 1980's against Reagan

If this revelation is not included, it will prove the liberal bias prevalent frequent in many wikipedia pages. Please include this piece of information. Look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.72.16 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, providing extraordinary documentation for extraordinary claims is the responsibility of the person wanting to introduce the claims. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Ted Kennedy → Edward Kennedy —. Deb (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I know this is going to be controversial, but I was just amazed when I saw the title of this article. Looking back, I found that "Edward Kennedy" was indeed the article's original title, but it was moved without discussion to its present title. My reasons for proposing the move are pretty much the same as those given when it was proposed back in 2005 (when a total of 6 people participated in the vote). These are as follows:

1. His name is Edward Kennedy.
2. Throughout the world he is generally known either by his name or by the nickname "Teddy" rather than "Ted".
3. Ted Kennedy should be a disambiguation page pointing to both Edward Kennedy and Ted Kennedy (hockey player).

• Oppose. Wikipolicy is clear. Edward Moore Kennedy is better known as Ted Kennedy than anything else. As Jpgordon advised you above, if you want to justify this move you'd better . YLee (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly opposed: Is the page about the life of Marion Robert Morrison called that? Nope. What about Archibald Alexander Leach? Nope. What about 'Richard Cheney'? Let's be serious here. The Squicks (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. A quick Google search finds that 'Edward Kennedy' and 'Ted Kennedy' are both frequently used, but 'Ted' is slightly more common. It's the name I'm more familiar with, at least. Robofish (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: see previous discussions in archive 1, in archive 6, and in archive 8, as well as higher up on the page and possibly elsewhere in the archives (I haven't done an exhaustive check). Baileypalblue (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose based on clear policy, precedent, and previous consensus. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support move to Edward M. Kennedy (not Edward Kennedy as proposed here), out of parallelism with John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy and in conformance with serious mainstream publications. I believe in going by the New York Times and other publications' style guides for first reference, which use Edward M. Kennedy, not Ted Kennedy, but use Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton. There's a real but somewhat subtle distinction between the two cases, which I think WP should also observe. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support move to Edward M. Kennedy as with JFK & RFK. He is known as Edward Kenendy in Britain, occasionally (years ago) as Teddy. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Despite paying attention to health care debate had not heard the name "Edward Kennedy" before this morning, while being familiar with Ted Kennedy for years. InfiniteThinking (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I haven't done multiple searches, but my sense is that his name normally appears as 'Ted Kennedy' or 'Senator Edward M. Kennedy' - the initial is common but not always included. I rarely see 'Edward Kennedy' used. On my site, I had identified him as 'Edward Kennedy' at one time, then noted that Wikipedia used 'Ted Kennedy' and changed all references on my site to match. You could say that part of my opposition is that I've decided to follow the Wikipedia style for most names, so it's more work for me if it gets changed. But I think the current style is correct based on common usage. The 'Teddy Kennedy' form seems to me to be an affectation, used by those who want you to know that they actually knew the man personally. Vanhorn (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose He is known as Ted and Teddy in his home state of Masaschusetts. Headlines in his home state newspapers, and other forms of media are about "Teddy Kennedy" and "Ted Kennedy". The redirect is adequate for the purpose of locating the article. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support the proposed move or a move to Edward M. Kennedy per part of User:Wasted Time R's reasoning above. Mainstream publications and other media outlets use Edward or Edward M. As User:Wasted Time R notes, the New York Times and other publications' style guides "use Edward M. Kennedy, not Ted Kennedy, but use Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton. There's a real but somewhat subtle distinction between the two cases, which I think WP should also observe." Kennedy's own web page[2] uses "Edward M. Kennedy". News results[3] favor "Edward" over "Ted" with most of the uses of "Ted" being quotes of acquaintances. However, Britannica[4] uses "Ted" so there's one for the opposition. — AjaxSmack 03:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support move to Edward M. Kennedy - not to Edward Kennedy - (of course with redirects for Ted Kennedy and Teddy Kennedy retained). Per WTR's logic. Tvoz/talk 04:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support move to Edward M. Kennedy...Modernist (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose use Teddy Kennedy, as he is/was commonly known. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Keep at Ted, as he was most widely known as. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The article title is usually the most common name. And the name in the infobox should be changed to "Ted Kennedy" as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support move to Edward M. Kennedy (I repeat include the M. initial because...) Sen. Kennedy's official website and written works use "Edward M." as do many media outlets. If we echo the State Department in using Hillary Rodham Clinton as the default title, if we use John Murtha instead of Jack Murtha based on his House page, then the same should apply for Kennedy. I don't see how un-common "Edward M. Kennedy" is. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support move away from Ted Kennedy. Proposed alternatives are better for reasons already given. AugustinMa (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support move to Edward M. Kennedy. The press release from his family uses Edward M. Kennedy, not Ted Kennedy. Many of the other press releases on his official website do use Ted Kennedy, but these are all phrased in a very personal manner between close friends. I think we should respect the family's wishes on formal public references to him. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support move to Edward Kennedy, oppose excess inclusion of initial. Unlike his brothers he's best known without the initial. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support move to Edward M. Kennedy. A redirect from "Ted Kennedy" and "Teddy Kennedy" is just fine. People who prefer to call him Ted will still be able to find the Wikipedia page on him, and the article title will reflect his full name. -BloodDoll (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I adopt above reference: He is known as Ted and Teddy in his home state of Masaschusetts. Headlines in his home state newspapers, and other forms of media are about "Teddy Kennedy" and "Ted Kennedy". The redirect is adequate for the purpose of locating the article.--Timbrophy (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I don't think so. See the August 27, 2009 issue of The Boston Globe. He was rarely referred to in Massachusetts as "Senator Ted Kennedy". He was "Senator Edward M. Kennedy" or "Senator Edward Kennedy." For those making comparisons with President Jimmy Carter or President Bill Clinton, that's the difference.

• Oppose — WP:UCN.
  — Ω (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support-I think we should recognize a formalistic approach to the names of famous individuals upon their deaths.T.E. Goodwin (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I disagree. Look above for the person who referenced John Wayne and Cary Grant in this debate. If their pages were moved back to their original names, noone would know where to look. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - stage names of actors is a completely separate matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:UCN doesn't make that distinction, and I don't see why we should. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose - Article titles are meant to be the name the person is best known as. This is why you will find the main article at Bill Clinton, not William Clinton, and Jimmy Carter, not James Carter. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - as I pointed out above, Clinton and Carter are different cases than Kennedy, per the style guides that many major publications use. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

All the articles I see at the top of a Google News search are referring to him as "Ted" in the lede, with some referring to him as "Edward" somewhere in the article space, far less prominently than "Ted". Some others are going the "Mr. Kennedy" route. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - "Edward M. Kennedy" (with middle initial) is a professional encyclopaedic usage following his formal announcements, etc. style.--98.116.115.180 (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly Support. This is his full name and, contrary to claims, he was not always known in every situation as Ted or Teddy. The parallels with Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter don't hold, any more than we should argue that Richard Nixon should be changed to Dick Nixon, which was a sometimes-used nickname. Every article and every individual is different and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I also added this in a comment above, but the special section in the August 27, 2009 issue of The Boston Globe sums up the distinction very well. He was rarely referred to in Massachusetts as "Senator Ted Kennedy". He was "Senator Edward M. Kennedy" or "Senator Edward Kennedy." Teddy was a nickname, not used much by the general public until late in his life. --Crunch (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support I think that we should definitely be using his full name in the title here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - certainly his given name was Edward M. Kennedy, but he was more commonly referred to as Ted, which is what we're after. Regarding his brothers, the interesting thing is that neither lived into the modern media age; how they might have been referred to had they done so might well be different, but it is a matter of conjecture. They are clearly historical figures; sources don't typically refer to them as Jack and Bobby, so we don't. Sources do refer to Edward M. as Ted, and in the less formal, Teddy. If consensus builds in support of a move, I would say to include the middle initial, as such a move would be to the formal name, and I think of all the possibilities, "Edward Kennedy" is the least-used.  Frank  |  talk  16:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy supports terroist groups

Maybe we should include a paragraph detailing Kennedy's support for Noraid the US front for the IRA. Not just moral support but provided funds for the IRA. He said "[Ulster Protestants]should be given a decent opportunity to go back to Britain". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.7.65 (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

His 1971 position, and that quote, is already in the article (at least it was as of this morning), as is his backing off of it within a couple of years. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

More on the Chappaquiddick incident (Teddy not even in the car!)

See this source http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/08/27/teddy-kennedy-and-chappaquiddick-the-true-story/ as well as the 1994 BBC documentary which came to the same conclusion. Does this meet the reliable sources standard? If so, it should at least be mentioned. Jschnur (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Chappaquiddick incident is the place for weird theories, not here. And this "source" manages to get Kopechne's age wrong by almost ten years. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

L'Osservatore Romano article

There was a L'Ossservatore Romano article published recently that criticized Kennedy's legacy over his political support for abortion. This could maybe be mentioned in the article, given that many Catholics were upset at the Kennedy clan for having given up on the pro-life cause. Ted Kennedy even got a 100 % rating from NARAL at the end of his life. [5] [6] [7] [8] ADM (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The article already says, "During the 1990s and 2000s, NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood typically gave Kennedy ratings of 100 percent, while the National Right to Life Committee typically gave him a rating of less than 10 percent.[239]" It's a given that every pro-choice Catholic politician will get criticized by the Church. Unless there's something more, like a threat to ex-communicate or being barred from receiving communion somewhere (see Joe Biden#2008 vice-presidential candidacy), it's not worth mentioning. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"Senator"

Correcting, "Edward Moore "Ted" Kennedy (February 22, 1932 – August 25, 2009)[2][3] was a United States Senate from..."

Should be: Ted Kennedy "was a United States Senator", Not a "Senate".

--Timbrophy (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2009

Looks like ... was a [[United States Senate|United States Senator]] ... to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Knighthood

I would like to propose changing the link for Knighthood under the Awards and Honors section of the article. The link directs readers to the classic definition of knighthood and not to the proper modern honors. I would instead suggest using this:

• • Senator Kennedy received a number of awards and honors over the years. These include an honorary Knighthood bestowed by Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom...

On a similar note, I would recommend the addition of KBE after the late Senators name. Not being British, we cannot refer to him as sir, but being an honorary recipient he is still intitled to the post-nominal abbreviation. Alex (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Cancer "Battle"

I have altered the statement in the lead referring to his "battle" with cancer. As originally written, it used both a euphemism and a cliche to refer to his illness and the cause of his death, which is to be avoided per WP:EUPHEMISM. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I like to think that Ted relished the description of his illness as a 'battle' as he was a born fighter, and as we all know, a true champ. He was well up for it basically. --83.141.77.130 (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point. It doesn't matter how he characterised it, or how the news media sensationalised it. Its use here is unencyclopedic, a euphemism and cliche used to describe an illness and his cause of death. If it is just being used to lionize him, as you seem to be suggesting, then it's a violation of WP:PEACOCK as well. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "battle with cancer" is used all over wikipedia in many biographical articles. It is a common phrase in at least the American English language, and to those who have had cancer, an accurate description of their experience. It is more than just getting treated in a hospital, it is a psychological "battle" as well, to keep the spirit up, and keep the will to survive. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this problem is more widespread than I thought. The fact that it is a "common phrase" is irrelevant. "Passed away" and other such euphamisms are also common phrases, but they are avoided in Wikipedia because they are unencyclopedic. Phrases like "battle with cancer" are equally cliche, equally euphemistic and equally unencyclopedic. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you should show some respect for the dead. Just because he lost his battle, you think you can make fun. Ted spent hours a pond hours fighting while his brain was bulging with a massive tumour. You need to step a day in his shoes before you become a judgerous person. --83.141.77.130 (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No, battle is an appropriate word, and not a euphemism. Euphemism is defined as "an inoffensive or indirect expression that is substituted for one that is considered offensive or too harsh". I don't care who has cancer, Ted Kennedy or Arlen Specter, it is always a battle. The word "battle" has several definitions, one of which is "a protracted struggle". We could change the word "battle" to "protracted struggle", but that is awkward wording and it doesn't really make sense to change it since it means exactly the same thing. A euphemism specifically replaces an offensive word or phrase. There isn't anything offensive about the word battle. It is what it is. nut-meg (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah and also, Ted was a true champ, wasn't he? So he did win the battle. --83.141.77.130 (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It is just a way of romanticizing an illness. It may not me a euphemism by the strict dictionary definition, but it is a cliche and it is still innapropriate for an encyclopedia. And as for you, 83.141.77.130, I am not judging anyone, nor am I making fun of anyone. I'm just trying to help improve the article. If anything, your comments indicate exactly the problem that I am referring to. It is turning the simple fact that Kennedy had an illness into an epic battle that he was the true champ of because he won or whatever. Not encyclopedic. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought plenty of people would be interested to know about Ted's struggle. 'Seine Kampf', if you will. --83.141.77.130 (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah poor Ted. Poor Father Ted. --83.141.77.130 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Most Influential Leader In History!!! =

Seriously Wikipedia....seriously? And I quote "Kennedy was one of the most influential leaders in history and one of America's greatest senators." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.68.66 (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

KGB connections and undermining Reagan

The Internet has plenty of buzz about Kennedy's connections to the KGB and his attempts to undermine Reagan's military policy by strategically eroding confidence in the President's policies. I see no reference to this on here. Much out there is biased and confusing; from what I can tell, Kennedy was borderline guilty of treason. Can someone please assemble the information and clarify these events? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.173.226.236 (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, providing extraordinary documentation for extraordinary claims is the responsibility of the person wanting to introduce the claims. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Burial at Arlington National Cemetery

As you may have heard, Ted Kennedy will be buried in Arlington National Cemetery. I always thought that cemetery was meant for veterans, for their spouses and children if they are buried there, and for U.S. presidents. I read through the criteria at the Wikipedia article at Arlington National Cemetery and couldn't find a reason that a U.S. senator may be buried there if he has no ties to military service. I do not think that siblings of U.S. presidents can be buried there. Does anyone know why he can be buried there? Midtempo-abg (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Read the article again. It says, Any former member of the Armed Forces who served on active duty (other than for training) and who held any of the following positions...An elective office of the U.S. Government (such as a term in Congress). Ted enlisted in the US Army in 1951, and was discharged as a PFC in 1953. I think he was an MP. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Aha. I did not know he had military service. Thank you for that clarification. I was listening to a conservative talk show where this issue was raised and the host said something like "I always thought the Cemetery was for veterans only - I didn't know that members of congress can also be buried there." The host (Jay Severin), as he often does, gave misleading or inaccurate information. And of course I didn't bother to read beyond the first paragraph of the Ted Kennedy article. And just in case it comes up, I don't listen to Jay Severin because I like what he has to say - I listen to him to hear the "other point of view" and because I find some of the bigotry and justifications for it entertaining. Midtempo-abg (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you can see, behind the bigotry is ignorance that could easily be corrected, if the bigot actually wanted to be informed as opposed to just another big mouth with a radio show. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ted was a true fighter. He loved the army. --83.141.77.130 (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)