| Revision as of 22:22, 22 August 2005 edit24.147.97.230 (talk) →Does the "Waitress Sandwich" deserve its own section?: small section← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:24, 22 August 2005 edit undo24.147.97.230 (talk) →Does the "Waitress Sandwich" deserve its own section?: small sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| 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) | 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. ] 22:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Does the "Waitress Sandwich" deserve its own section? == | == Does the "Waitress Sandwich" deserve its own section? == | ||
Revision as of 22:24, 22 August 2005
Archive
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)
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)