Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:28, 24 August 2005

Archive

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3
• /Archive 4
• /Archive 5

Clean Slate

Yes, there were current conversations going, but frankly, this talk page has become a battleground over RfC's, accusations of sockpuppetry, accusation of all and mighty powerful Pro-Kennedy Cabals, attempts to remove info by Sleepnomore, etc. Stop the Madness!!!

Everyone needs to just take a second and chill out. Lets start over and try to calmly dialog with each other as to what needs to change on the page. No more accusations of sockpuppetry for now. No more accusations of cabals either. Just state your point without personally attacking the other. --kizzle 19:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

those ignorant of history, may well be doomed to repeat it.--Silverback 20:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

It's not forgotten, you can go back in the archive and read it all you like. --kizzle 20:40, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Is good faith really in such short supply? We've all fought with trolls who had no good faith to offer, but I doubt everyone here is a troll. Good faith is what separates the tried-and-true from the trolls.

Come on folks, as Kizzle suggests, let's all step up and conduct ourselves as adults - so this article can be unprotected and the "Ted Kennedy" encyclopedia article given it's due. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The article can be unprotected now, it was the wrong solution to the problem in the first place, it just transferred the problem to the talk page. This gimmick is just an intellectual crutch. The issues and principles involved have not changed, we just have to replicate them again, some immature people were distracted by personal attacks, or at least found them more interesting to discuss than the issues, since the page was protected.--Silverback 20:39, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm in agreeement with all. I look forwared to working as a team to resolve the issues of content. 24.147.97.230 20:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy attacked Romney's mormonism?

Mormonism came up in the campaign only to paint the candidate as possibly more conservative on some issues. I see no evidence that there was a religious attack rather than focus on the issues. --Silverback 21:45, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where this was ever a big issue, I don't think it needs any mention but would not object to it's being here. 24.147.97.230 22:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Does the "Waitress Sandwich" deserve its own section?

This drunken mashing deserves no more than a line or two, perhaps it can be mentioned than the incident has been pejoratively (or perhaps mockingly or dismissively) referred to as a "Waitress Sandwich".--Silverback 21:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I did not mean to be too dismissive of this incident. It does DESERVE the line or two, as it shows Kennedy's reckless career threatening and philosophically inconsistent and indefensible behavior (well hopefully this is not consistent with his philosophy). He risked possible assault charges, and if convicted, the public tends to take these pretty seriously.--Silverback 21:14, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

As a reader (not yet a major contributor) of the article, I think these sorts of reports of prurient incidents are most POV when over-emphasized beyond the public's level of awareness. Few non-Kennedy-haters are that 'up-to-speed' on the allegations behind this incident, and an entire section to me seems disproportionate and POV-laden. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This deserves a small item on the page. It's not as important as the Rape Trial, but shows a side of Kennedy that needs to be presented. Four sentances would cover all that needs to be said. 24.147.97.230 22:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this doesn't need to be a major highlight of the article. - Sleepnomore 01:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why it deserves any mention at all. It's luridness for the sake of luridness, and is of minuscule importance in Kennedy's life and career, assuming it ever happened at all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

the WKS rape trial

The only import the rape trial had in Ted's carreer is that it once again publically stirred up all the rumors and yes facts about his womanizing, drug use, and drunkenness. This is already well represented in the article. Perhaps there can be a note on the link to the WKS page, that mentions there is more information about the rape trial there.--Silverback 21:07, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

On this point, I'd point to actual statements or actions by Senator Kennedy in the context of the WKS trial, and leave other 'some say' or 'others saw this as'-type anecdotes out. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Sworn testimony admitted into evidence is not usually considered anecdotal. Kennedy's own testimony at the trial was not that interesting or informative, nor was the behavior testified to, that scandalous, but the publicity and rehashing of all the other revelations about his private life were significant. I submit though that the signficance is already reflected in the article. The trial itself deserves no special mention, beyond in a link to elsewhere.--Silverback 21:20, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I understand the difference between anecdote and testimony, and I trust you understood my point rather than dismissing it with a snipe. Little snipes like that start bad faith exchanges. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This is one of the highest profile rape trials in the history of the US. The fact that the Senator was invloved with the participants the night of the rape is significant. The fact that the Senator testified is significant. The fact that the defendant was a relative is significant. I doubt that anyone thinks of Ted's Immigration Policy before the rape trial. Why is the Immigration Policy here?24.147.97.230 22:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it was high profile, but we need to separate the significance of the publicity in relationship to the Senator's life and career, from the significance of the Senator's involvement with the trial. The senator was merely involved in the drinking that occurred before the alleged incident, and was not involved in the incident itself. There was testimony about him walking around a private home with partying guests present, unclothed from the waist down. Frankly, this does little to alter the Senator's reputation, other than to revive it once again with a spotlight. The fact that Ted was there and that WKS himself was a Kennedy is perhaps unfortunate for the accused, since it resulted in the public glare, however, that is perhaps compensated by the ability to afford the best legal defence, and to enjoy considerable bleeding edge sexual freedom without much concern for the women as human beings. The trial is a general Kennedy family thing that can be handled best on the WKS page or a general family scandal page. It did little for the Senator's reputation.--Silverback 22:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

"that is perhaps compensated by {...} considerable bleeding edge sexual freedom without much concern for the women as human beings. "

I was with you until you tangented into Limbaughesque commentary. Sans that line, I agree with your assertion. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, a few mindless romps with willing teenage super models might be fun, what you characterize as Limbaughesque commentary, may merely be sexual jealousy. Somehow these guys find women that are really like the porno queens, but without the diseases. You are right, that in the broad of scheme of things, these are less important than a good intelligent companion and loving nurturing mother for your children. But that is perhaps the wrong comparison, a more correct comparison might be to an evening watching primetime TV. Power and wealth have their privileges, lets just not pretend they are caring and not exploitive ones.--Silverback 00:00, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

An honest description without scandal-mongering or innuendo would be something like: "In 1991, Kennedy's nephew William Kennedy Smith was accused of rape, but the jury acquitted him of all charges. Kennedy was one of the witnesses at his nephew's trial." Of course, to put it in context like that -- accusations against Smith, not Kennedy -- makes it clear that this little factoid doesn't belong in the article. JamesMLane 23:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane has jaded me enough that I now agree that the rape trial deserves no mention at all. It just doesn't belong here.Voice of All(MTG) 00:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Again, Ted pulled his son Patrick and nephew WKS out of bed to go drinking. He lead the way. Ted's tie to the rape and trial is well know and documented. If this was about a relative in Wyoming that he never saw or wasn't with the night of the rape it would be a diff story and I would agree with you.

From http://www.usatoday.com/community/chat_03/2003-07-11-klein.htm , 'The Kennedy Curse': Author Edward Klein,

Birmingham, Alabama: Mr. Klein, what do you believe to be the worse story of ALL of the cursed Kennedy's, I mean the most hurting and longest lasting curse or death to overcome?

Edward Klein: I think the worst story concerns the alleged rape in 1991 in Palm Beach of Patricia Bowman by William Kennedy Smith. Patricia Bowman told her best friend that while she was being raped and shouting for help, that Sen. Ted Kennedy was nearby, watching, and did nothing. That, to me, is truly shocking. 24.147.97.230 00:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Link to Fatboy.cc

I am not so sure that Kelly Martin had the authority to make a decision on this matter. I would like to see this link here with a disclaimer that it is an anti kennedy site. There are many other pages with external links with disclaimers. It only takes a small part of this page to post it. For all of the political satire, there is much content which appears on no other site. The Rosemary Kennedy section is written non POV. There are high resolution photos and items of Ted's past found at no other place. 24.147.97.230 22:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you proposing a descriptive link to this site as an alternative compromise to extensive recounting of the scandals in the article?--Silverback 22:40, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

We've already spent months on this exact issue. The consensus was quite clear: fatboy.cc is an attack site, and as such is not encyclopedic -- it's focus is on attacking Ted Kennedy in any way possible, and the information contained on it is not reliable. Do we have to go all the way back to the beginning of May and have this argument all over again? (Or maybe it was June. A long time ago, regardless.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I wonder how consistent we are willing to be on this. There is something refreshing and honest about an attack site called fatboy, it certainly isn't pretentious, yet has some good information hard to obtain on the web otherwise. What if it had been called tedkennedywatch.org? Consider these two sites with more pretentions that are cited on Christian right, . There is not reason to think they are anything other than attack sites. They accumulate one sided evidence and then spin the patterns they want to see with that evidence.--Silverback 03:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Good reason to get rid of those links, then. An encyclopedia should prefer unspun references. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind discussing it (again). Many issues in wikipedia require multiple discussions. Personally, I don't think linking to an "attack site" is by any means a reason unto itself to be unencyclopedic. There are multiple items that many feel don't deserve inclusion on this site due to their weak links to Mr Kennedy. However, they are of items of interest and can apparently be found on this site. Obviously, I think the link, if included, should be noted as highly anti-Kennedy POV. - Sleepnomore 03:11, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Compromise

Here is a possible compromise. I cleaned up and shortened the text a bit. The Palm Beach Rape Incident is not needed because:

1. His testimony was not very significant
2. The type of issues raised about the Kennedy's lifestlye during the trial are already mentioned in the article.

Voice of All(MTG) 23:48, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Waitress harassment

"Kennedy and fellow Democratic senator Chris Dodd, from Connecticut, were accused in 1985 of sexually assaulting a waitress at Washington DC’s La Brasserie restaurant. It was reported that Kennedy threw Carla Gaviglio on top Dodd, who was slumped in a chair, drunk, and then jumped on top of her, after which Gaviglio ran from the room screaming. Although there were several witnesses, Gaviglio declined to press charges."

Further reading

Burke, Richard E. (1993). The Senator: My Ten Years With Ted Kennedy. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0312951337.

"The Bachelors; They Say Power Corrupts. In Washington It Also Seduces," Washington Post, Oct 3, 1990.)

• Voice of All(MTG) 02:00, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Lets discuss this proposal with our "clean slate"

Regarding the The Palm Beach Rape Incident, Ted Kennedy's role in the incident is absolutely needed. Sen. Kennedy was a central figure in the most widely publicized rape trial in US history. --Agiantman 23:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

"most widely publicized rape trial in US history" - care to substantiate that with a citation or fact? Off the top of my head, I can think of a few more high-profile rape cases than this one. Like Kobe? -- RyanFreisling @ 23:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan, you are probably exaggerating the trial's coverage. And remember, Agiantman, that the trial centered around Teddy's brother, not Ted himself; Ted was just testifying because he was around the are when the incident took place(or didn't, he was acquited). For any comprimise, there will not be a Palm Beach Rape section, its just pointless. Just accept that and move to the other incidents that carry at least some relevance......hmm...Ryan and Kizzle in the same room, what a dynamic duo:-)Voice of All(MTG) 23:28, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I still don't understand why his involvement should be stricken from an encyclopedic article about the man. I know this will be construed as anti-Kennedy, but I really don't understand what the issue is. The trial took place and Kennedy was involved -- since when is the involvement of a politician in a sexual crime not encyclopedic, even if mentioned briefly? I'm of the opinion that politicians need to be held accountable and the only way to do this is through making sure the facts can be researched. What is accomplished by not including this text? What harm does it do by including it in a factual basis (i.e. he was involved and acquitted)? I do agree that their is some definite exageration of importance, but I think the incident needs mentioned. - Sleepnomore 01:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

. When we kept calling it unencyclopedic, that was because, after we just had consensus to put in a sentence about the trial, people kept adding in a whole speculative, poorly cited paragraph. Nobody said that any mentioning of the trial is unencyclopedic; JamesMLane and I are saying that once the speculative unencyclopedic stuff is removed, that you have nothing important left. Also, as Silverback and I have said, liftestyle issue have already been added to the article. I fear you are not reading into the discussion enough, just like when you deleted "personal attacks," many of which were not. I will tell you something someone else told me: "haste makes waste". If I must say however, you do a better job at staying calm than I do sometimes;-).Voice of All(MTG) 01:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

"Momma always said..." - I try to remain calm cause I'm too stupid to do otherwise. - Sleepnomore 01:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you are too young to remember. The William Kennedy Smith Rape trial was first celebrity televised, gavel to gavel trial on the new Court TV network. Millions watched the new cable channel and the media soaked up every drop, esp. the tabloids. The Kobe trial, which was not televised and really ended before it began, did not come anywhere near the phenomenon that was the William Kennedy Smith trial. When User:Voice of All(MTG) states "that the trial centered around Teddy's brother, not Ted himself" (LOL!), it is pretty clear that there is more POV at work here than actual knowledge. The incident is encyclopedic, esp. since folks like User:Voice of All(MTG) need to know what actually happened.--Agiantman 02:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to attack other users as having 'more POV than knowledge' or 'needing to know what actually happened'. That's bad faith and the editors here have agreed to make an effort to avoid such anti-Misplaced Pages behavior.

Your original point is that it was the most publicized rape trial in U.S. history, and although you are correct that it was quite public, you haven't convinced me of your point on the face of fact. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

As Ryan said, avoid the Ad Hominem. Anyway, Kennedy was there to give any relevant information, his nephew was actually on trial, he was the focus of the trial. Speaking of facts, you have yet to convince me and Ryan of your claims.Voice of All(MTG) 02:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Google search, "most publicized rape", 3rd hit is the Kennedy trial. "--In 1991, William Kennedy Smith was found not guilty by a jury in West Palm Beach, Florida in the most publicized rape case in U.S. history. Patricia Bowman accused Smith of raping her on the Kennedy estate lawn on March 30, 1991. Senator Ted Kennedy testified in court." It's a Florida radio station web site, but it shows that some consider this trial to be the most publicized rape case in U.S. history. It was fully broadcast, complete with "blue spot" if you watched. I feel this belongs, how many other US sentators had to testify at their relatives rape trials? This was front page news for a long time. Thanks 24.147.97.230 06:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Same google search, only 7 results. Only one points to the WKS trial (and it's the Orlando radio station's web site you mentioned). The others point to the Kobe trial, or the Scottsville trial of the 30's. So it's unfair to call that conclusive, and I would consider it appropriate to assert in Misplaced Pages that the MKS trial is one of the most publicized rape trials in U.S. history. Anything more is unsubstantiated.

He testified and his nephew was acquitted. If there is relevant testimony of Kennedy's that warrants inclusion, fine - but the fact he testified at a rape case by a relative has dubious, if any, value to an article about Kennedy himself - this is an encyclopedia, not a character evaluation. To prove a point about Kennedy's behavior, stick to Kennedy's behavior. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, lets move on to the waitress issue.Voice of All(MTG) 14:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

User:Voice of All(MTG), please educate me. You wrote "Kennedy was there to give any relevant information, his brother was actually on trial, he was the focus of the trial." Could please identify the brother who was actually on trial?--Agiantman 11:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

That is a typo, it should be nephew, obviously, William Kennedy Smith.Voice of All(MTG) 13:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I was sure it was a typo in both comments. Thanks for clarifying. The rape trial will be included.--Agiantman 21:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

We're not all in agreement with that assertion, Agiant. Care to raise any other reasons why you think it should? Because right now, it's far from certain. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy was a central figure in the most widely publicized rape trial in US history. There was a prior consensus here, even among POV pushers, that there should at least be a brief mention of the incident. Please stop your repeated efforts to keep unfavorable information out of the Ted Kennedy's article. It is not encyclopedic to maintain a puff piece for Ted Kennedy on wikipedia. We can get that from Kennedy's official Senate bio. Care to raise any other reasons why you think it shouldn't be included? Because right now, it's far from certain that it won't be.--Agiantman 22:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do not refer to people who disagree with you as "POV pushers". Thank you. --kizzle 23:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Agiantman, your assertion that there was a consensus to include something about the Smith trial is false. I'm not the only person who thought the Smith trial should be discussed in the Smith article. JamesMLane 23:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

(Scratching head) I must have been watching a different trial; I thought the central figure was William Kennedy Smith, and his uncle was an interesting sidebar. The trial wasn't widely publicized because of Ted Kennedy, per se; it was widely publicized because of the Kennedy family as a whole. Which possibly points to the solution to this: the information belongs in the Kennedy political family article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Attacking me for 'repeated efforts to keep unfavorable information out' is completely disingenuous. I have only asked for facts to justify this inclusion, and there are still little coming. As stated, let's concentrate on what actually happened.

'Puff piece'? Hardly. 'Central figure'? No. He testified in the trial of a family member, who was acquitted. 'Most publicized rape trial?' Unsubstantiated. Is Kennedy's conduct at issue? Nope, just that it was a rape trial... and so on the face of it, this does NOT belong - since there is nothing about Ted Kennedy at issue here, except his having testified. As I asked before, is there relevant testimony here?

For an article on Kennedy, we concentrate on Kennedy. For a section describing womanizing or questionable judgment, we use Kennedy's behavior and judgment - not his having testified (which as you may or may not agree, does not confer guilt upon the witness). Again, I implore you to Assume good faith, exercise restraint, concentrate on facts and actions of Kennedy himself, and stop making personal attacks against other editors who DO display good faith. Right now, your behavior is marginalizing your input, to the detriment of the article. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Have we really come so far and become so right-wing and left-wing jadded that we can't look at the fact that a United States SENATOR was involved in a RAPE TRIAL and consider that noteworthy on his record on its face? Additional relevant testimony aside, this fact alone is noteworthy. I can see your argument to a point, but the fact is the judge and jury found Kennedy a noteworthy enough figure in this trial to call him as a witness, yet we can't seem to include this fact in an article about the man? I look at it like this, if someone reads a wikipedia article about Ted Kennedy, they should know the man's life. If someone came up to him after reading this article, he really shouldn't have to say "gee, I didn't know about that" after someone else informs him about the incident. Furthermore, lets consider the fact that this is encyclopedic. The very definition of encyclopedia is a "written compendium of knowledge". And the definition of compendium is "A compendium is a comprehensive compilation of a body of knowledge." How can you claim this article to be comprehensive if it only includes some of the details of the mans life? That's my argument on the point. I get what you are saying, Ryan, but those are my reasons why I feel it should be included -- even if nothing else is known about the incident, it should be mentioned briefly and further information should be linked to (if possible). - Sleepnomore 00:29, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

It's not about being jaded, and it's not about left-wing/right-wing. Accusing someone of partisanship is a form of personal attack, and I haven't demonstrated any behavior to warrant that attack.

It's about applying a critical filter to the issue and it's encyclopedic value. The fact that he testified at his nephew's rape trial is noteworthy - and I have not contested that - but on the face of it, other than the fact that he testified, there is no additional relevance to the Senator himself - meaning one sentence will do nicely:

"In 1985 Senator Kennedy testified during the rape trial of his nephew, who was subsequently acquitted."

Is there anything more relevant than that point? Because unless I missed it I haven't seen it mentioned, and anything more than factually relevant information incorrectly paints the incident as a character aspect of Senator Kennedy's character - which would be erroneous and would ágreatly cheapen the article. Again, please focus on the issue, not on painting others as partisans. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Sleepnomore, I gave my take on your first point a while ago, probably before you were editing the page. So let me set the wayback machine and give you this hypothetical: Kennedy, his son, and his nephew are sitting in a bar one night. They notice a tall striking redhead walk past them, laughing, and holding hands with a guy slightly shorter than she is. The two leave the bar. The three men in the Kennedy party all agree that the woman was gorgeous, and they make some jokes about how her date better watch out for competition from tall guys. Because of these facts, all three remember the incident. When the woman later accuses the man of having raped her, Kennedy is called to testify about what he saw. OK, so now we have "a United States SENATOR was involved in a RAPE TRIAL". Should it go in the Senator's bio? Would your answer depend on whether the defendant was an unknown or a celebrity? I know you think this case is different. I'm just trying to see exactly where we disagree by considering a different case. I think this would be "Clearly omit", but what say you? "Lean toward omit", "Undecided", "Lean toward include", "Clearly include", or none of the above?

As for your second point, there's a difference between an encyclopedia article and a biography. McCullough's biography of John Adams is 752 pages long. Someone who reads the Misplaced Pages article, and then McCullough's book, will indeed often say "gee, I didn't know about that". A Misplaced Pages article is a summary. We have to make some judgments about what's most important. JamesMLane 01:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"We have to make some judgments about what's most important." We being the Leftist POV warrior moderators of course. That is what you folks call "consensus", isn't it?

I will chime in and say that the trial was really really covered big on the big three networks and it was water cooler talk. And it certainly was clearly covered because he was a Kennedy. I'm thinking as I write this, yes because he was a Kennedy, but that is not the same as saying it was because he was Ted's nephew.

So to me the logic of saying this is vital to put into the Ted Kennedy article would to me be a logic that any article that is about any Kennedy would require inclusion of this trial. That to me just doesn't work.

I say all this without taking any position of whether the info belongs in this article. However, I would note that the fact that an individual testifies in a relative's trial does not reflect that the person giving testimony has done any wrong. I sense a little that reporting in Ted's article that he gave testimony/that a nephew was prosecuted is done with the intent not so much as to inform but to provide a negative composite of Ted. Ted may be deserving of coverage of negative facts about his own activities, but juxtoposing Ted to another individual's conduct, I'm not so sure that is Wiki.

If it is considered editorially necessary that this encylclopedia have coverage of the trial then to me it would go into an article on the nephew; sorry, I don't know if there is one. If there is a article on the nephew then it seems appropriate to link to that article from Ted's article without comment.

In fact, that may be the compromise the two sides here can settle on.

If there were links to all my misdeeds in life then Wiki would surely crash.Kyle Andrew Brown 00:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Compromise

"Gaviglio had several witnesses to the event" is POV. The witnesses existed, or didn't. Was there any testimony, or coverage of witness statements? If so, "Although there were several witnesses, Gaviglio declined" would (imho) be more factual and POV-neutral. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

imho? Ryan, I am not sure what you mean, please clarify a bit so I can make the corrections. Thank you.Voice of All(MTG) 23:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I just reworded the proposal. (writing a new one for this will just waste space since both are mine.)Voice of All(MTG) 23:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

No problem - and btw (by the way), imho means in my humble opinion. My larger point being that she 'had' no witnesses - witnesses are, or are not. Whether they are hostile or not to either side of a criminal event does not affect their status as witnesses.

Thanks for the edit. I assume the existence of witnesses is citable? :) -- RyanFreisling @ 23:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Does this rise to the level of "sexual assault"? Was there any unclothing or penetration? was groping rather than pressing described?--Silverback 23:43, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Good point, I just updated that too.Voice of All(MTG) 23:46, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, the more I look at it, it was violent enough to be assault(jumping on top of her). I just changed it back.Voice of All(MTG) 23:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)