Talk:Chappaquiddick incident/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Broadcast official statement copyvio

I have removed the 'Broadcast official statement' section from the article page because it appears to be a violation of copyright of the material at [1], which says at the borrom of the page, "Copyright Status: Text, Audio, Image = Restricted, seek permission." -- Donald Albury 14:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

I created a proposal for a new wikiproject to deal with political scandals and controversies. The idea would be to try to get a group of people involved in making sure that current and past political scandals were accurately stated and sourced on wikipedia. Anybody that is interested can sign up at [2]. Remember 14:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Time of day?

At what time of day did the incident alledgedly occur? And where were Kennedy and Kopechne headed for? Was there a respectable and plausible destination given, or were they joyriding? Thanks, Maikel 15:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have found the relevant information in the article on Mary Jo Kopechne. Maikel 15:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

1115p Kennedy said in a statement: ""On July 18, 1969, at approximately 11:15 PM in Chappaquiddick, Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, I was driving my car on Main Street on my way to get the ferry back to Edgartown. I was unfamiliar with the road and turned right onto Dike Road, instead of bearing hard left on Main Street.". Others say it was more like 1245a. - Kennedy's story didn't add up, because he said he was unfamiliar with the road, which he wasn't, and he said he was trying to get somewhere that was in the opposite direction. http://www.ytedk.com/chapter2.htm < Not sure why this site isn't listed as a link or source; it's got more info and docs on the incident than any other site on the web. LAEsquire 02:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)LAEsquire

"POV check" question

Please, could you make a specific point about the POV check request. Do you have a specific part of the article that you take issue with? What I have seen so far is you simply saying you "feel it has a negative slant" and then arguing with some people. They might be biased, but the article is not. If you have nothing more specific than that, it seems that the point is moot. I personally see no slant— only facts are presented as such, speculation is referred to as speculation. Also, if anyone is really interested in finding more information there are reliable sources to be had. (Try http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,878649-3,00.html for a start) I would not consider myself to have any more knowledge of the incident than anyone else (I most certainly know less than those of you editing the article), nor am I very interested in it, so I don't see myself adding or editing right now on this article. I just don't like that unfounded "Unreferenced POV Claim". Kylesandell 05:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That template has been on the article since November. I originally placed the template after a major cleanup effort, just to be sure. I had hoped at the time there was some roving band of POV-checkers (as so many people claim to be) who would follow these templates to the articles upon which they were placed and check them against WP:NPOV. Apparently my understanding of How Things Work was somewhat flawed, however we've had numerous editors stop by and offer their counsel on various matters relating to POV. For the most part, as you have noted, the article seems to be well within WP:NPOV; template removed per your suggestion (and others'). /Blaxthos 09:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  I actually saw the BBC documentary which alleges that a policeman near his police car saw Kennedy leave the Kopechne car before the so called accident.----

Drunk

Should it not be noted that many think Kennedy was drunk, thus casuing him to drive off the bridge?--68.192.188.142 05:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Not unless there is more than speculation (which there is not). See our biographies of living persons policy, as well as the need for reliable sources and attribution. /Blaxthos 08:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the speculation that he was drunk be mentioned in the Impact or Significance sections? The implications of the scandal affecting the '72 elections make it seem noteworthy enough to expand on the public (and thus speculatory) perception of the event, not to mention it's historical impact upon Kennedy's career at large.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.211.173 (talk)

Did you take a look at the policies that Blaxthos referred to, above? I have been unable to find one reliable source that says (or even speculates) that he was drunk. We have to be careful with biographies of living persons. Innuendo will not cut it. Sunray 09:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

We do not speculate. We are an encyclopedia. /Blaxthos 17:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Reporting that many, many other people have speculated is certainly not the same as offering an unqualified speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.114.140 (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the word you're looking for is libel. Please see WP:BLP and the multiple explainations above. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Saying that Ted Kennedy was drunk at the time is libel, saying people have speculated that he was is an entirely true statement.--68.84.186.169 (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't know anything about this incident, and I was very confused while reading the article. I didn't understand why voters would choose not to vote for Kennedy just because he got into a car accident. Was it because they thought he was drunk? If so, shouldn't that be mentioned? Maybe there is some other reason; if so, can someone knowledgeable please put that into the article? 68.73.153.128 (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm - because he left a girl to die rather than call the police? In any case, he got re-elected to the Senate several times (and is still there today). Grover cleveland (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually one of the books, I think Senatorial privilege, calculates on the basis of the inquest testimony (including Kennedy's own) that Kennedy had consumed a huge amount of alcohol in the 24 hours before the incident. If anyone can find the refs for this, it could be included as long as attributed per WP:NPOV. I may try myself if I have time. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Alcohol

The amount of alcohol drunk by Kennedy is hardly mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.108.96 (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR, WP:SYN, and (most importantly) WP:BLP. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Kennedy was convicted on 25/7/1969, making it difficult for him to sue for libel,

at least in Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.108.96 (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Kennedy has not sued anyone for libel since 1969. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the points I made was made in a newspaper and it was not sued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

He was not convicted of an alcohol-related offense. Beyond that, we don't toss out WP:BLP based on timelines of lawsuits (or for any other reason). Move along. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Independent

The article says "Kennedy applied his brakes". I was wondering if there is any independent evidence of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC) The investigator employed by the Readers' Digest referred to the braking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Malm house photograph

Either the caption of this photo or the prose of the article should be changed to make this photo's relevance more clear. I assume it's speaking to the assertion that on Kennedy's walk back from the bridge, he would have had to pass four houses (at which he could have tried stopping to call for help). Is this one of those four specific houses along that route? Do we know that it was there at the time of the incident? Since the caption mentions Sylvia Malm by name, then was she also the owner back then? These points should be made clear. 12.155.58.181 (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 12.155.58.181 has not looked at www.ytedk.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC) See www.ytedk.com, which notes that Sylvia Malm was in the house at the time, in 1969. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.174.180 (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info. I wouldn't use ytedk.com as a source, since that site clearly has an agenda and I don't think would meet WP:RS, but I did use it as a starting point to look into things and ultimately, I found some newspaper articles that mentioned Sylvia Malm and her presence at the house that evening. So I cited one of those and clarified things in the prose and in the caption. 12.155.58.181 (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE weight

What? How come we have an entire article (and a lengthy one too) about the Chappaquiddick incident, but when Laura Bush is involved in a similar incident, she gets a single paragraph about it? Cheers, Jonathan321 (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia ideally should reflect the weight of coverage that outside sources have provided to such an incident. Whether you think it's right or not, the fact is that the amount of coverage that reliable, secondary sources have given to the Chappaquiddick incident completely dwarfs what coverage there has been of Laura Bush's car accident.

For the record, I also don't agree with you that the two incidents are really that comparable, given the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the crash itself and its aftermath that exist with Kennedy, but do not appear to exist with Bush. But the main point is that neither your opinion about just how similar they are, nor mine, is relevant with regard to WP:UNDUE. What's relevant is only what the level of coverage has been in reliable, secondary sources. Mwelch (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mwelch here. The Chappaquiddick incident was a pivotal event in the life of a sitting Senator and could-be President (not to mention a Kennedy); L.Bush's accident occurred long before she had any national standing. Likewise, there was copious coverage of Kennedy's incident, and very little of Bush's. Rest assured there is no Wikiconspiracy here.  :-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced POV claim

Did Kennedy ever notify police or did then Chief Arena send for Kennedy? Kennedy never reported the accident to authorities until he was summoned by Arena, nor did Gargan, Markham, or any of the boiler room girls. From the official transcript of the inquest of Monday, January 5, 1970 before Judge James A Boyle, Kennedy is questioned on page #62. THE COURT. I think the answer had been no. Q. [by Mr. Dinis] And now may I ask you, Mr. Kennedy, was there any reason why no additional assistance was asked for? A. Was there any reason? Q. Yes, was there any particular reason why you did not call the police or fire department? A. Well I intended to report it to the police.

Kennedy never initiated contact with police or fire immediately after the accident or the next morning. Kennedy was found by the Edgartown Police Chief Arena the next morning and questioned.

From Leo Damore's "Senatorial Privilege" paperback July 1989 printing, page 11, "I'm afraid I have some bad news," Arena said, "There's been another tragedy. Your car was in an accident over here. And the young lady is dead". "I know," Kennedy said.

Page 85, "Markham said later, "We hoped Ted was going to report the accident, but we didn't know for sure what he was going to do"

Kennedy never reported the accident before being contacted by the police. It was Chief Arena who sought him out—Preceding unsigned comment added by 18:01, 28 October 2006 (talk • contribs) 24.34.49.160

This isn't going to fly here anymore than it does on the Ted Kennedy article. Sock puppetry, unreliable sources, overly negative claims by an anonymous editor with an axe to grind. Furhter vandalism will result in protection, just as it did on the Ted Kennedy page. /Blaxthos 22:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking over this entire page, the only indication of any person with an axe to grind is Blaxthos, who seems to spend an inordinate amount of time over-policing the data to exclude things which he alone deems are in violation of wiki policy. [18:51, August 20, 2009 70.222.126.29]

Unreliable sources? In court Kennedy said that he "intended" to contact the police. Hence he didn't contact them. Instead, he must have first been questioned by the police.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.58.255 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 19 January 2007

That would be original research, which is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. /Blaxthos 23:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Are the court transcripts confidential? The orignal poster said the "official transcript of the inquest of Monday, January 5, 1970 before Judge James A Boyle, Kennedy is questioned on page #62. " If that's true, how does that qualify as original research. A little confused. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.22.220.96 (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

The transcripts don't say what the editor alleges; he's drawing conclusions from what he's alleging the source says (transcript says X, so it must mean Z), which is the epitome of original research. /Blaxthos 18:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, Blaxthos, you are not familiar enough with Wikipedia's Original Research policy which refers "to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material." I assume you are attempting to draw on the second part here, since it IS published. However, drawing from a question posed: "was there any particular reason why you did not call the police or fire department?" and converting this into a non-question is not actually analysis.Kylesandell 04:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

But this is all pointless anyway, since we can use another source, TIME magazine's article (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,878649-3,00.html) published in 1970. Wikipedia's policy is to "rely on reliable published secondary sources" which this article most certainly is. Kylesandell 04:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am somewhat surprised by this controversy. Kennedy didn't notify the police until after the body had been discovered independently by the two fishermen. Does the article not make that clear? Grover cleveland (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability of contemporariness of Apollo 11?

Is it notable at all that the Chappaquiddick Incident coincided with Neil Armstrong's moon flight? (Were there cultural influences, commentary, etc.?) — Rickyrab | Talk 21:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No question. The incident occurred two nights before Armstrong walked on the moon. I was looking at an old copy of the NY Times earlier today from the 21st, the morning after the moon landing, and Chappaquiddick was a small article on p. 17 about how no charges were being filed. Other than the JFK assassination and 9/11/01, I can think of no other events in the last 50 years that dominated coverage as much as the moon landing. Even the day Chappaquiddick was first reported, it was on the bottom fold of page one of my local paper (the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin). From a contemporary perspective, this was not as big of an event as it appears now from our current historical perspective. Rather, it grew in perceived importance over the weeks, months, and years following. InsultComicDog (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Those sound like reasonable (and important) observations. Do you think there are some reliable sources we can use to incorporate them into the article? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A months later answer to myself: The New York Times is featuring a story that points out that both occurred on the same weekend. I would like to find some sourcing that more directly deals with the effect the Apollo focus may have had on the Chappaquiddick news cycles. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the Adam Clymer biography made a point of this as well, but I don't have it with me. Nevertheless, while the initial impact of the story may have been minimized a bit, it soon became very well known, especially as aspects of Kennedy's story came under doubt. Chappaquiddick is one of the things Kennedy is most known for, and it eventually undermined all of his presidential aspirations. So it's hard to make the case that it could have been much worse for him than it was in terms of press attention. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Kennedy came very close to destroying his Senate career (and did destroy, of course, his viability as a presidential candidate) as it was. It's not unreasonable to think that, had the news hit the front pages immediately instead of a couple of days later, the additional negative publicity would have forced a resignation. In any case, yes, it would definitely be useful to find a reliable source discussing the serendipitous nature of the Apollo 11 mission. YLee (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Did" versus "chose"

I just reverted the following edit, which had changed "did" to "chose." I don't have the Anderson book on hand, but going back to February 2008 (right after the text and cite were added), I see that "did" was the verb used. "Chose" implies a conscious, willful act; thus, "did" is preferable. YLee (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Autopsy

As I read this article, I find myself asking why no autopsy was performed. 75.82.208.152 02:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC) My name failed to appear 75.82.208.152 02:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC) I'll try again 75.82.208.152 02:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Oops, my login had timed out. LorenzoB 02:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not autopsy was performed? Because there was no evidence that an autopsy was required and, most likely, also because the body was already buried. Autopsies tend to only be performed if the cause of death was unknown or in the case of a homicide. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe in most jurisdictions, any death that does not occur in a hospital or under the care of a physician is a coroner's case, and could be taken to autopsy. Most of the time, although a death may not occur as in the above situations, the death is so clearly not an instance of foul play (for example, an elderly, ill person dying at home in their sleep), that autopsies are usually not done. In the Kennedy case, however, the cause of death was most certainly not known. She was found under water, but this was a violent death witnessed only by a man who fled the scene. Nothing points inescapably to death by drowning. Nobody examined her for bullet wounds, knife wounds, evidence of strangulation or contusions, or for the presence of pregnancy (the latter a possible motive for a slaying). I can think of no other instance where such a situation would not result in a forensic study including autopsy. Only the powerful Kennedy family could have manipulated the situation to avoid an autopsy, and we have to wonder why. If nothing else, an autopsy which confirmed death by drowning would have silenced many a conspiracy theorist.Cd195 (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In any case, the talk page is not a forum for discussing the topic, but rather a place to discuss improving the article. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the article (which cites Bly for this statement), it was Kopechne's family that refused an autopsy, not the "powerful Kennedy family". --Dystopos (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

How does she drown if there was no water in the car? That sounds more like suffocation to me, considering she was found inside the car, not outside in the lake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.169.103 (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't there normally have been an autopsy on someone who died in such circumstances? It wasn't clean-cut regarding the circumstances, it was not natural causes, the only witness to survive was the person who caused the death, and it was the subject of a criminal trial. Surely such a case would normally have an autopsy as a matter of course, and would be demanded by the authorities, regardless of family members of the victim objecting. Is it rare for a road death victim to never be autopsied? If so, was, as the article claims, only the parents not wanting one that prevented it? Politics a (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Why no mention of the BBC documentary?

The theory it puts forward, that Kennedy was not in the car, is too credible to ignore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.108.243 (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have citable references on this, please add it. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Grover, I just saw this question and your response. I was the producer/director of the BBC documentary referred to. As there are guidelines on wikipedia about special interest, I hesitate to add the ref to the article itself. But if you consider it useful you may wish to do so. The documentary is called "Chappaquiddick", made in 1994 for the 25th anniversary of the event and shown on the BBC's "Inside Story" series and in the US on A&E's "Investigative Reports".Produced by Otmoor Productions for the BBC.Directed by John Edginton.see http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=74211 to purchase from A&E. (i'm not sure of the rules on commercial references) The film has interviews with many of the key players including police chief Jim Arena, diver John Farrar,Kennedy aide Dun Gifford, writer Leo Damore ,one of the "boiler room" girls and others. New forensics and crash scene investigations informed the conclusion that Kennedy had left the car before it crashed with Mary Jo driving. I leave it to your judegement ,if any of this helps the article..Yours seabream Seabream (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the conclusion of that documentary was somewhat ridiculous. If Kennedy was never in the car why put himself through this decades-long ordeal? Yes, there were discrepancies in the evidence, but why take such a leap into the abyss of illogic?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Because being in the car when it went into the drink looks a whole lot better than standing behind the rear bumper... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.229.30 (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I recall watching that documentary on A&E and being impressed that its analysis fits the facts better than the Senator's explanations do. If its conclusions are correct, then instead of having to make sense of the inconsistencies in the official story of what happened, we just have to wonder (with decades of hindsight) why Kennedy chose to claim responsibility afterward—and we can speculate forever on why someone acted unwisely. The BBC documentary's theory deserves to be mentioned in this article. David Cohen (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is another interesting source (Crikey.com is usually considered very reliable). http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/08/27/teddy-kennedy-and-chappaquiddick-the-true-story/ Jschnur (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Two respectable independent sources (BBC and Crikey). The above assertion seems to have some weight. Jschnur (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Crikey is not "usually considered very reliable". It is highly controversial and often attacked as unreliable (though sometimes unfairly). Moreover the Crikey source is Bob Ellis, a controversial figure who was successfully sued for defamation.

That being said, I think the theory -- and any others -- deserves a run in the article. However implausible it is no more implausible than Kennedy's version.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Point taken re Bob Ellis. There is however the BBC doco which came to the same conclusion. Plausibility is a subjective quality and personally I find Kennedy's version (that he left the scene leaving Mary Jo, went back to the hotel and then to bed without telling anyone) almost impossible to believe. Jschnur (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way we can cite this documentary, other than purchasing the DVD? Is there a transcript or summary anywhere on the web? Grover cleveland (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Seebream (see above) may be able to help out here? Jschnur (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's be bold.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted immediately. Oh, well, I tried.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Kudos for being bold. An IP editor deleted it for being "poorly formed" whatever that means. I think we should push for its inclusion if we can somehow cite the BBC documentary as well. Jschnur (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Unaware of this discussion I've just added it, with two sources - one to the BFI database and one to a contemporary TV review which explains the basic theory well. I'll happily supply the full text of three contemporary reviews (one of them rather brief) if anyone else would like to check them but posting them here would be potentially copyright infringing. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about actual plea

I don't have a source for this. I was young but reading newspapers at the time. This article states that Senator Kennedy entered a "guilty plea." This may be a fine point, but wasn't this actually a "nolo contendere" (no contest) plea? I believe this is the first time I heard that phrase. The two pleas are the same for the purpose of sentencing, but one amounts to, "I won't dispute the charge" and the other is just plain "I did it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Un Mundo (talk • contribs) 19:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not that this is the forum, but nolo contendere and guilty carry the same criminal weight -- they're both pleading "guilty". The only difference is that a nolo contendere verdict may not be used as evidence in a civil proceeding. I'm not familiar with which type of guilty plea Mr. Kennedy entered, but I would support the more specific nolo designation if we have reliable sources that clearly make the distinction. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Teddy liked to tell jokes about Chappaquiddick?

Can someone remove this, no one would ever make jokes about this. Its all lies. Ted was the Liberal Lion of the Senate and a Prince among men. He was a Kennedy - stop smearing him in his death.99.141.253.255 (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The source is a National Public Radio interview of one of Kennedy's best friends. It's ironclad- it's notable and its reliably cited. The Squicks (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea whether Kennedy said this or not, but Ed Klein's reputation is not very good, especially after The Truth About Hillary. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for Ed Klein's reputation, but unless someone can provide a really good reason for not considering him or his work a reliable source the quote should stay; it is, as The Squicks said, notable and cited. In any case, the quote is phrased in the article as "according to," not "Kennedy joked about Chappaquiddick[43]," style, which softens the message sufficiently. YLee (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Teddy was an awfully nice chap who let a young woman drown and was too busy complaining about noise in his hotel to call the police. What a liberal icon; what a prince. [personal attack removed]. 86.17.211.148 (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

In Klein's 2009 book Ted Kennedy: The Dream That Never Died, in stores now as I write this, Kennedy is quoted asking if there are any new jokes about Chappaquiddick, but the way I read it is that it was not because he liked to tell or hear them but because he realized he was the negative subject of comedians, so it was kind of an, albeit sick, ice-breaker among his friends at gatherings. 5Q5 (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that this article (or anyone else that I've seen here) has said that TK made the jokes because he liked to hear them. I personally have no freaking idea as to what went through his head when he asked to hear them, and the article leaves this issue blank as well. The Squicks (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Through some fairly simple deductive reasoning, one can suss out the meaning of the phrase "Have you heard any new jokes about Chappaquiddick?", and whether or not Kennedy was literally asking for jokes as alleged. First off, why would a family friend such as Ed Klein even mention it? You'd think he would take that to his grave. Also, why would he wait until the very end of the interview to drop that bombshell? And for someone who is supposedly airing Kennedy's dirty laundry, isn't it strange how he spent every other moment doing the exact opposite? One can only conclude that either Klein had a mental breakdown at that very moment, or that the phrase was not meant to be taken literally.

Chappaquiddick wasn't a "favorite topic of humor" (a quote this article had mistakenly attributed to Klein). There were no jokes - because he wasn't actually asking to hear any.

"Have you heard any new jokes about Chappaquiddick?" was just a way to bring up a heavy, painful subject. It placed the incident in perspective, against the normal, everyday things that can be joked about. It wasn't said to be funny or remorseless, although it is an absurd question at face value. Of course, Ed Klein didn't have a chance to explain any of this since the interview was over by the time he brought it up. --Lednerg (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The article gives another quote from Klein which suggests that Kennedy was venting macabre humour. Nevertheless there is a question whether this anecdote belongs in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Bascially everything that Jack Upland and Lednerg have just said above is original research and is not appropriate to include in the article. I don't know why Kennedy joked about the incident- I'm inclined to think that maybe you are both right- but there's no reason to put speculation in the article. The Squicks (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Original research, my elbow!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Tone of the Article

The reason Robert Kennedy's staff was there was becouse the Kennedy family wanted to thank them for their work on RFK's campaign. To use words like "party" for what was really a wake, remember RFK was murdered one month before, this subitly misleads. As does the use of "boiler room girls". This sounds a bit sinister and maybe even low class. The female staffers were there with the male staffers as staffers.174.31.133.135 (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

These terms are not invented by this article, but are all used widely in the secondary literature on the subject. Grover cleveland (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

RFK wasn't murdered "one month before" -but one year and one month before Chappaquiddick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.53.152.128 (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ted's car?

In July 1969, Kopechne's body was discovered inside an overturned car belonging to Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy: was the car Ted's, or his mother's? I seem to remember reading somewhere that the car was actually registered to his mother. 69.42.7.98 (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC) At the moment, the article credits the car to both owners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.71.78 (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

An Alternative Theory

On 9/6/2009 I edited this article to include the following:

Another alternative theory has it that there was another woman in the car with Kennedy and Kopechne, with Kopechne in the rear seat sleeping and the other woman, presumably someone with whom Kennedy being seen in a car late at night would be very embarrassing politically, being in the front seat as reported by Deputy Sheriff Christopher Look. The delays in Kennedy reporting the accident, his avoidance of help immediately nearby, self-acknowledged erratic behavior and the subsequent meetings and arguments among he and his allies are explained as the calculated efforts to get this woman out of the picture quickly enough that no one outside the inner circle would ever suspect her involvement. This theory arises from statements attributed to the late Pierre Salinger, he purportedly having confided this to family friends, based on his alleged role in and connections with those who were responsible for the coverup.

This edit was removed by "Grover Cleveland," whom I take to be not Grover Cleveland but a Wikipedian somewhat uncleverly identifying himself by that name. The reason cited was "rv. needs a source."

1) What does "rv. needs a source." mean, besides the obvious that "Grover" adjudges that my reference to Mr. Salinger does not constitute a source?

2) What might qualify as a source citation acceptable to Wikipedia?

Thanks, 24.173.158.26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.158.26 (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think what is requested is a source other people can check, i.e. a published source which includes the claim attributed to Salinger, given that, as you say, he never made it public himself.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is true that Salinger did not make this public. It was related to me by one of the persons to whom he did reveal it in private family conversation. (Apparantly, others were also present and may be a source of confirmation; the one from whom I heard it is certainly a reliable witness as to what they believe they heard -- what would have to be confirmed is that she correctly heard what Salinger actually said.) Now, the threshold of acceptability seems to be equivalent to a level of proof suitable for journalistic publication, i.e., an editor deems a reporter's story to meet the standards of veracity, reliability and confirmability necessary to put the publication's reputation behind the story. Note, though, this curious caveat vis-a-vis Wikipedia's policy (insofar as it's precisely stated here by Jack Upland -- I realize his remarks do not represent a rigorous restatement, but a casual recounting.) It is the publication of the claim, and not definitive proof, that constitutes a citable published source. Just to put those at ease who fear this becoming another blah-blah session about "Well, I'm publishing it on the Internet-and-endless-cyclical-logic-permutations-thereof", I'm not heading down the 'weird' road on this. I'm not Bob Woodward, but this was very intriquing given the credibility of the source. She would rather explode than lie about such a thing, and is a family friend of the Salingers. (I hate to say this, but one might also infer from my tone, vocabulary, orthography and punctuation that I myself am a level-headed and educated person, and no, I am not a lawyer.) What remains then, it would seem, is to get this whole thing into publishable trim and if it passes muster and goes to print, then there it is. (Of course, one could cheat and use deep right wingers like worldnutdaily or the like to 'publish' it, but what would that prove?) Obviously, Pierre Saliger is deceased so there can never be first-hand authentication on this, but not everyone who is alleged to have worked with him on this project is gone, and there are others who heard him amplify on this. Curious. Very, very curious. Any comment? Signed, 24.173.158.26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.158.26 (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you only know this via personal sources that have never been published, it fails WP:V and can't be put in Wikipedia. Sorry. Grover cleveland (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

More than 30 years ago, a person I knew who moved in Kennedy circles told me that Kennedy didn't know Mary Jo was in the back seat. According to him, Mary Jo had gone to sleep in the back of the car after too much alcohol. (It wouldn't have taken much if she didn't drink often.)

Kennedy and some other woman took off from the party (for the usual reason he thought). Kennedy missed the road and went down a boat ramp into the water. He and the woman got out, and had no idea that Mary Jo was drowning in the back seat. Kennedy didn't think much of the silly accident and got someone else to report they had driven the car into the water.

When the car was found and the body discovered, that story wouldn't work, he obviously could not put Mary Jo's death on someone else. But Kennedy apparently could not tell the real story.

The actual situation was told to the judge in a closed court session. The judge treated it as a tragic accident (which if this story is true, it was).

Now this is third hand at least, and I can't even reference the person who told it to me because he has been dead for 20 years now.

But it makes a lot more sense than the official version which describes totally unreasonable behavior if Kennedy knew Mary Jo was in the car.

I know unpublished material can't go in Wikipedia. Now that Ted Kennedy is dead, perhaps some of the people who knew what actually happened will talk about it and the real story (if indeed this is it) will get into print. Keith Henson (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This would indeed be an excellent explanation, were it not for one minor detail: it asks one to believe that given the choice between enduring the public damage of a charge of promiscuity on the one hand, and one of both promisucity and manslaughter (or worse) on the other, that a person would choose the latter. I find this to be extremely unlikely. John Cocktosten (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite certain that most people getting in a car notice a fully grown woman asleep on the back seat before they drive away. And in this case there would have been two people getting in the car who overlooked her.

Besides, he later claimed to have dived several times before setting off on his long hike home to sleep. Claverhouse (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

'Alternative Theory'? So the most logical explination is that Mr Kennedy crashed an automobile into a river at night. Made repeated attempts to rescue the woman inside the crashed car by diving into freezing cold water. He then went to his Hotel. Curled up in bed and went to sleep. The next day. with not a scratch or any other injury looks astonished when he is told of the accident?

Or is the most logical explination just as the B.B.C. suggested.? Mr Kennedy was last seen by a Police Officer who said Mr Kennedy noticed he had seen him driving late after a Party. (Mr Kennedy it is believed, then got out of the car and let Mary Jo drive home while he walked to his hotel to avoid being stopped for D.U.I.). Next day after the discovery of the crashed car, there was no other way out but to take responsibility on himself for the crash.?Johnwrd (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Chappaquiddick 101

Just added a couple details about Arena and Farrar. Note that Arena made attempts to discover if a body was in the car, but the current was too strong, the water turbid. Damore, to my knowledge, never says that Arena had done so, neither do Lange and DeWitt.

Replaced the "quickly" estimates with actual times, as supplied by Cutler's timeline.Mysweetoldetc. (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Damore is cited but he says nothing about a “quick” removal of the sedan, or the time it was removed, only that it follows the extraction of the body by Farrar. Besides, what does this “fact” contribute to understanding the event? It only clutters up the narrative. Deleted. Mysweetoldetc. (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, compulsive edits are often placed in a confusing context. To wit: Farrar had no idea what underclothing "Kopechne" was wearing - Dr. Donald Mills discovered this during the exam. As a matter of fact, no one knew the identity of the decedent (Rosemary Keough's pocketbook was recovered from the car, with her identification cards), so he didn't find "Kopechne's body", but an unidentified body. Better to move "panties" statement within context of Dr. Mills, at all events.

Mysweetoldetc. (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to update the former "Alternative Theory" section. This will provide for a more complete presentation of hypotheses contrary to the conclusions or "findings" from Judge Boyle, but based, in part, on the evidence from the inquest. All "theories" should be sourced from published work, availible for view at WorldCat. Mysweetoldetc. (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE concern

As now written, the article spends a much larger amount of time on fringe theories (in particular the spectacularly implausible "conspiracy to blame" scenario) than it does on the official report from the inquest. Grover cleveland (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been unable to find any independent information about "N. Whitehouse, Manchester MA", the publisher of Cutler's book in which that individual promulgates the "conspiracy to blame" theory. Is this possibly a self-published source? I suggest that the coverage of Cutler's theory be made far more concise: a paragraph at most. Grover cleveland (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Aha: it is self-published. I'm going to cut down its coverage in this article. Grover cleveland (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's a get a few more opinions on this matter, before you start tampering with it. You've been on this site for years, and haven't done much to improve the quality of the existing confusion and false claims. Just hold your horses, mister.

By the way, Cutler's book is available at Powells in Portland, $45, signed, collectors item.

Sax-and-dog (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't change that fact that Cutler's book appears to be self-published, and therefore ineligible for use as a source for this article. By the way, please refrain from personal attacks on other editors (even incoherent ones). Thanks. Grover cleveland (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"Aha"; precisely

The “Fringe” claim is unwarranted, and everybody knows it.

If someone knows what the “mainstream view” of the Chappaquiddick incident is, kindly state it. (Judge Boyle’s ruling does not constitute “mainstream view”, by the way). Is it Olsen? Damore? Tretter? Rust?

Reading this Discussion page – spanning 5 years – it’s clear that there’s been a good deal of confusion – and lively interest – on the details of the conspiracy hypotheses. My contribution helps to reduce the confusion.

Grover Cleveland/Blaxthos have been either inept or evasive in fielding inquiries on the subject of Chappaquiddick. There’s too much “I think…” speculation (Grover cleveland (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)) and this is typical: “I am confident that more sources can be found if necessary. Give me a day or so...” Grover cleveland (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC) and never followed up. Grover hasn’t responded on this page to Seabream’s serious-minded defense of the BBC production on Chappaquiddick.( Seabream (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)) An egregious snub.

The following comment, logged 2 years ago, sums it up: “Looking over this entire page, the only indication of any person with an axe to grind is Blaxthos, who seems to spend an inordinate amount of time over-policing the data to exclude things which he alone deems are in violation of wiki policy.” [18:51, August 20, 2009 70.222.126.29]

The section I’ve developed offers sources that have been cited by Lange & DeWitt, as well as by Knight et al and reveal the basis for the conspiracy claims. These arise from the testimony and evidence related to the case, not to WP:FRINGE “pseudoscience” Example: Fringe includes “Faces on the Mars” as valid, though “demonstrably incorrect”.

Joesten and Cutler hypotheses are not “demonstrably incorrect”; nor are those of Olsen, Damore, Tretter and Rust.

Lange/DeWitt/Knight don’t agree with the conclusions from Cutler, but acknowledge the research as serious and an honest effort to develop scenarios from the evidence.

On the other hand, the Grover/Blaxthos/Ylee “composite” permit all sorts of tendentious claims to pass without criticism on this webpage, and have continued to do so for years. Interestingly, they have plenty of time to lavish special attention to irrelevencies regarding Mary Jo Kopechne’s panties (See: “Missing Panties” above)

"...I'm going to cut down its coverage in this article." It's not groovy to Grover, so it's comin' down, like it or not.

Legitimate development on this site comes under attack; in the meantime, Wikipedia condemns itself to irrelevency.Sax-and-dog (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Judge Boyle’s ruling does not constitute “mainstream view”, by the way. I should have thought that the definitive judgement of the legal system is, almost by definition, "mainstream". As I said before, please stop the personal attacks. If you have a point to make, please make it without attacking other editors. Grover cleveland (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Your claims of "personal attacks" are unwarranted. I shall continue to make constructive - and forthright - criticisms of the editors who visit this website.

As far as the "mainstream" issue goes, I refer you to the Dred Scott case and the decision by Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger B. Taney. Rather than "I should have thought...", kindly provide a source for the "definition". You may be quite correct, but cite your source.Sax-and-dog (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As an outside party here, I agree with Grover that the current state of the article is wildly unbalanced toward fringe-y conspiracy theories. There is no real need to go into thorough detail about every possible conspiracy, when the content could quite well be summarized by cutting off everything after "3) The "Stage the Incident" scenario..." and just padding the three numbers out with a bit more description. The sort of content you've added might be well-suited for, say, a blog about the topic, or a separate website about the incident, but because this is an encyclopedia and we aim to do survey articles rather than exhaustive detail about every possible thing that's ever been thought or written about something, it's not needed here.

In addition, Sax, while you've clearly put a whole lot of work into this article, please try to understand that Grover is not attacking you or criticizing the validity of your efforts; he's just saying that the extent of the information you've added is a bit excessive. Your reactions to him are coming off as quite aggressive and uncooperative, when all he's trying to do is compromise with you to improve the article in a way that incorporates some of your information and is balanced enough for an encyclopedia. Attacking him or his intentions isn't going to help with that effort. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sandwich -

First, let's dispense with the "attack" accusations; if you object to a particular remark I've made, then quote it. On the other hand, my exasperation is justified. GC and Blaxthos have been active on this site for going on a decade. Many facutal errors that should have corrected years ago. The "current state of the article" is traced to them, not I. Why have they been AWOL?

Now that a serious-minded contributor shows up - one who's familiar with the topic - they come out of the woodwork. Reflect on this for a moment, my fine feathered fluffernutter. (You'll note that GC has not responded to any of my questions, as I am responding to yours).

"There is no real need to go into thorough detail about every possible conspiracy..." No. Just the ones laid out by Knight and others. See my sources.

"...no real need to go into thorough detail..." Hardly much detail, only a sketch, really, but of interest to those who visit the site.

"...quite aggressive and uncooperative..." Give me a break.Sax-and-dog (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted this article back almost a month. Sax-and-dog, you really need to read WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:POV pushing, as what you have done is effectively hijack an article about an incident and turn it into an article about a supposed conspiracy. Courcelles 23:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Up to your old tricks again, eh Courcelles? (As usual, this so-called Administrator fails to cite the portions of WP that I've violated; it's just "...you really need to read..." and that ends the matter).

Of course, you could, Courcelles, rather than vandalize my contribution, simply establish a new site on, say, "Chappaquiddick Conspiracy Theories", as was done for the JFK assassination. But that would be constructive, useful and considerate. And that's no fun at all, is it?

More to the point, Courcelles has - I presume - been reading my previous compliants about this site. The fulsome response to the phony request for a source and citation on Mary Jo Kopeckne's "panties" was ridiculous; Courcelles approved of it. In addition, the "hijacking" had already been accomplished with the tendentious and excessive citations from diver John Farrar. Again, that's O.K. with Courcelles.

My regards to YellowsubMarie and the rest of the Fortress Dickinson gals. "Hijackers" indeed! Maybe you can work in some details about Emily Dickinson's "panties" if it's of interest to the Blaxthos - Ylee - little Grover composite. Mysweetoldetc. (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Empty, uninformed complaint addressed by "Sax"

On Sandwich's complaint about the supposed "exhaustive detail about every possible thing that's ever been thought or written about something" - well, it only seems that way to someone who is not familiar with the literature on the subject.

I offer you the contents of Wiki site John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories:

Contents 1 Background 1.1 Public opinion 2 Possible evidence of a cover-up 2.1 The murder weapon 2.2 Witness intimidation allegations 2.3 Witness deaths 2.4 Withheld documents 2.5 Autopsy 3 Conspiracy theories 3.1 More than one gunman 3.1.1 Witnesses 3.1.2 Suspects in Dealey Plaza other than Oswald 3.1.3 Analysis 3.2 New Orleans conspiracy 3.3 Federal Reserve conspiracy 3.4 Three tramps 3.5 CIA conspiracy 3.6 Military-Industrial Complex 3.7 Secret Service conspiracy 3.8 Cuban exiles 3.9 E. Howard Hunt 3.10 Organized crime conspiracy 3.11 Lyndon Johnson conspiracy 3.12 American Fact-Finding Committee 3.13 Soviet conspiracy 3.14 Cuban conspiracy 3.15 Israeli conspiracy 3.16 Decoy hearse and wound alteration 4 Other published theories 5 See also 6 Notes 7 References 8 External links

NUMBER OF WORDS IN ARTICLE: 9,285

Compare to our site under consideration Chappaquiddick incident Contents 1 The party 2 After the party 3 Recovery of Kopechne's Body and Kennedy's Statement 4 Legal proceedings 4.1 Kennedy's televised statement 4.2 Farrar's Testimony and Kopechne's Cause of Death 4.3 Inquest 4.4 Grand jury 4.5 Fatal accident hearing 5 Miscarriage 6 Revisionist interpretations of the evidence 6.1 The "Shield Kennedy" scenario 6.2 The "Conspiracy to Blame" scenario 6.2.1 The Frame-up Hypothesis - Testimony and official findings 6.2.2 The frame-up hypothesis – conjecture based on the evidence 6.2.3 Kopechne: Cause of Death – Testimony and Official Findings 6.2.4 Kopechne: Cause of Death – Conjecture Based on the Evidence 6.2.5 Kennedy’s Physical Injuries – Testimony and Official Findings 6.2.6 Kennedy’s Physical Injuries – Conjecture based on the Evidence 6.2.7 Dike Bridge Design and Safety Record – Testimony and Official Findings 6.2.8 Dike Bridge Design and Safety Record – Conjecture based on the Evidence 6.2.9 The Benzidine Test and the Bloody Blouse – Testimony and Official Findings 6.2.10 The Benzidine Test and the Bloody Blouse – Conjecture based on the Evidence 6.2.11 Kopechne: post mortem Condition – Testimony and Official Findings 6.2.12 Kopechne: post mortem Condition – Conjecture based on the Evidence 6.2.13 Kopechne’s Blood Alcohol (ethanol) Levels - Testimony and Official Findings 6.2.14 Kopechne’s Blood Alcohol (ethanol) Levels - Conjecture Based on the Evidence 6.2.15 Was Kopechne Pregnant? – Testimony and Official Findings 6.2.16 Was Kopechne Pregnant? - Conjecture Based on the Evidence 6.2.17 Officer Look’s Evidence – Testimony and Official Findings 6.2.18 Officer Look’s Evidence – Conjecture Based on the Evidence 7 Legacy 8 Notes 9 Bibliography 10 Further reading 11 External links

NUMBER OF WORDS = 8220

I rest my case. Sax-and-dog (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting moving the conspiracy theory material to a new article: Chappaquiddick incident conspiracy theories? That might be an option. Grover cleveland (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing panties?

It's been about 40 years since I read Jack Olsen's book, The Bridge at Chappaquiddick, but I remember Olsen stating as fact the important detail that Mary Jo Kopechne's panties were missing when her body was found. If true, this would be evidence for the alternative theory that the object of Kennedy's advances that night was Ms. Kopechne herself and not some mysterious third person in the car. Since Jack Olsen was a competent Time journalist, it's unlikely that he just made this up, although it's possible that his source did. It's also possible that my memory is faulty and I got this from a less reliable source than Olsen.

The strange thing is that the missing-panties clue is never mentioned anywhere else as far as I know, including this Wikipedia article. Has it been ruled out as unsubstantiated rumor? One would think the fact would be remarkable enough to appear in the police report unless it was purposely covered up.

Since I'm too lazy to pursue this question, I'm hoping that someone with a copy of the Olsen book will confirm that the missing-panties clue appears there and, if so, can tell us Olsen's source (was it the diver who recovered the body?). If confirmed, I suggest that this information be included in the article under Olsen's alternative theory. Also, would any Chappy incident aficionados like to weigh in here in this Talk section on the plausibility of the missing-panties story or the reasons for its suppression? Thanks. Bh23b (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I cannot find this in the Olsen book, but did find a reference in Tedrow and added it to the article. YLee (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It's Blaxos who doesn't have a long memory - here is his comment a few years ago at this DP:

"Sock puppetry, unreliable sources, overly negative claims by an anonymous editor with an axe to grind. Furhter [sic] vandalism will result in protection, just as it did on the Ted Kennedy page." /Blaxthos 22:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Sock-puppetry"? "Vandalism"? "Axe to grind". All these elements conveyed by Bh23b. My comment was simply an observation: "Bh23b has a long memory for panties" (40 years!) and his inquiry was tendentious and without foundation; if he wants to make an informed contribution, he can do his homework before he visits this site, rather than making wild assumptions about "suppression" of evidence. Based on my reading of your earlier exchanges, you should know better than this, Blaxthos. Sax-and-dog has spoken.--Sax-and-dog (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is anyone wasting their time trying to edit this entry at all? It seems one particular person has taken it upon himself to find increasingly ridiculous justifications (any source not expressing a reverence for Kennedy usually reserved for Jesus is claimed to have an "axe to grind") for removing anything that might make Kennedy look like anything less than saint who, by the way, happened to leave a woman to die. Just a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

POV check

This article feels like it has a negative slant, and there seems to be a fair amount of liberty taken with the facts as well. I'm asking for a POV check instead of slapping totallydisputed tag. /Blaxthos 20:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's quite obvious that there's somethin' fishy going on with Ted and the whole "accident" thing. There really is only one way to show this article, and that's through the points of view of the people who accurately investigated this. → JARED ^(t)  02:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. One, your reply necessarily implies a point of view (by quoting "accident" and stating that it is obviously fishy). Two, those investigating the accident are not the only points of view involved -- obviously Kennedy, his lawyer, and ultimately the Court did not agree either. In any situation, there is not only one point of view (and hence the tag exists!). /Blaxthos 02:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I acknowledge that, but you also have to take into the account the credibility of Ted. He was drunk, probably lied (...who wouldn't) and a criminal's POV is usually not taken. Yes the court gave him a minimal sentence (which was suspended!) but that's only because he's a senator. I'm sure if it was just some regular old guy, he'd have been in jail for life, but that's just my opinion. → JARED ^(t)  02:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one, if you have a particular point of view on certain subjects, you should avoid editing them on Wikipedia. You're injecing your analysis (see WP:OR) and it reflects your point of view (see WP:NPOV). We should attempt to create a credible encyclopedia using reliable sources; we do not welcome editors who want to use their personal bias to influence decisions.

To your credit, I appluad your honesty about your point of view. However, there are certainly other interpretations of what happened. The court didn't feel that any criminal activity occured other than leaving the scene of the accident. Also, perhaps his sentence was suspended because it was his first and only offense. My whole point is that the article seems to convey the point of view you're pushing, which is exactly why I am requesting a review. Since you admit your obvious bias your review does not comply with WP:NPOV. /Blaxthos 03:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[The court and authorities were working with the info they had, which Kennedy and his many advisors and attorneys sought to limit / obfuscate, according to numerous sources. It was not Kennedy's first offense. In fact, his license was expired at the time, also (a misdemeanor), but this was 'corrected' by others. LAEsquire 02:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)LAEsquire]

I'll just leave you with the facts that (1) I have three times the edits that you do, so I obviously have a clear sense of policy (not saying you do not). (2) I was just showing my POV, but the truth is, there are more sources which support the opinion which I coincidentally share, which leads me to (3), that I don't recall ever editing this page, so nothing I've said physically reflects what's been put on the page, and if it does, it's because it's probably the best way to put it.

I applaud your decision to request a review, as any knowledgeable Wikipedian would do when there seems to be POV bias. With more experience, you may realize that some topics are intrinsically biased to a certain degree because that is what is generally accepted. A court case doesn't actually make one story better than another, although it can definitely be a good piece of evidence. I would, however, go ahead with the peer review. → JARED ^(t)  20:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Edit counts don't really have much to do with the issue at hand, do they? I'm at a loss as to why you'd even want to look that up, much less use it to try and justify your position. I've been around Wikipedia for longer than you (by a fair margin) -- does that mean anything? Of course not... let's stick to the issues at hand.
2. I'm not pushing any particular point of view; I'm trying to keep it neutral. You answered the request for a POV review by calling the Senator a criminal, insinuating that he was drunk (despite no evidence of such), and that we shouldn't trust the subject at all. What I find ironic is that you want to discredit "Ted" due to him being a "criminal" ("suspended sentence" not withstanding) and then in the same breath you want to ignore the same Court when it decided that there was no other culpable conduct. Having the cake and eating it too, no ?
3. WP:BLP is very clear about POV and sourcing. I would also subject the sources you claim to have to WP:RS.
4. "A court case doesn't actually make one story better than another, although it can definitely be a good piece of evidence. - I have no idea what this means.
5. I make no claim that you've touched the article. My point is simply that if you're going to answer a call for POV check, please don't do so by trying to push your significantly biased point of view. If you can't do so while adhering to WP:NPOV by at least trying to be unbiased, then you shouldn't answer it at all.

IMHO. /Blaxthos 00:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just so that it doesn't look like I'm ignoring this, I'll respond to say that you should just go ahead and get the darned thing over with. I'll just remind you of WP:IAR. Sometimes, as I said, it may be better to leave a somewhat knowingly biased section in an article because it would be closer to the truth than any other NPOV source. I think that it is inappropriate to talk about our thoughts, though, so this would be a good time to call it quits. I apologize if I offended you at any point of this seemingly bitter conversation. My personal opinions kind of intervened (a little...). → JARED ^(t)  02:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really get bitter over things (especially wikipedia talk pages), and I apologize if I came across as such. You didn't offend me, and I guess we both exhibit some pretentiousness. However, I don't resort to edit-counting and WP:IAR when I think my viewpoint is the right one. What you've basically saying is that "it's okay to be biased because it's what I believe" -- even though the Courts are at odds with what you espouse as fact. Which do you think is in a better position to say -- people pushing an agenda, or our best efforts at an independant and accurate judiciary? The courts aren't always right, but you shouldn't jump to ignoring all rules (of which you'd have to ignore at least three of the most important) just to justify your point of view. Make some effort at being objective. Be it noted that (1) i'm simply asking for a non-biased evaluation (because I never take my own objectivity for granted); and (2) I respect the fact that you at least acknowledge your bias. No hard feelings. /Blaxthos 02:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Also the article says "According to the testimony of the surviving party-goers". When i read this first i thought it implied that all party goers were somehow involved in the accident. I assume however that the testimonies of the other party-goers were taken immediately after the accident become known. In other words, isn't "surviving" in this context a weasel word? 194.248.249.199 (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

All the surviving partygoers testified at the inquest: their testimony was eventually made public. Obviously, Kopechne could not testify as she was dead. I suppose we could have said, "According to the testimony of the party-goers other than Kopechne", but "surviving partygoers" seemed a more elegant phrase. Grover cleveland (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems fairly obvious that one particular person is hell-bent on removing any information that he construes as negative. The pathetic excuses given for removing Kennedy's sworn testimony perfectly illustrates what I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is anyone wasting their time trying to edit this entry at all? It seems one particular person has taken it upon himself to find increasingly ridiculous justifications (any source not expressing a reverence for Kennedy usually reserved for Jesus is claimed to have an "axe to grind") for removing anything that might make Kennedy look like anything less than saint who, by the way, happened to leave a woman to die. Just a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

purse and hotel key left behind?

I have noticed this sentence:

"Kopechne told no one that she was leaving with Kennedy, and left her purse and hotel key at the party."

And earlier in the paragraph it said she was going to return to her hotel? Where was the hotel? Also, the purse being left behind is cause for concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:John F. Kennedy

Why is Template:John F. Kennedy on this page? John F. Kennedy had been dead for more than five years when this event occurred. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No idea... removed, as it seemed dubious. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comments: improper source

Please consider the following text:

On November 4, 1979, CBS presented a one-hour special entitled "Teddy", during which the journey from the cottage to Dike Bridge was retraced by a car-mounted camera. As the car makes a sharp turn off the main road toward the bridge, the camera jumped up and down because of the rougher surface of the new road. According to one account, this suggested to viewers that Kennedy could not have been telling the truth when he said that he was unaware that he had taken a wrong turn. This was one factor that led to Carter defeating Kennedy for the nomination.

This paragraph has been repeatedly re-inserted based on the following reference:

• Jamieson, Kathleen Hall (1996). Packaging The Presidency: A History and Criticism of Presidential Campaign Advertising (3rd edition ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195089421. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

I am concerned about its inclusion for the following reasons:

1. WP:BLP - The source is accusing a sitting United States Senator of lying, in opposition to the facts as adjudicated by the court. The innuendo of "suggested to viewers" is absolutely not strong enough to support the accusation contained therein.
2. WP:RS - While books may be reliable sources, this is a non-peer reviewed source. When coupled with the WP:BLP concerns this doesn't rise to the level necessary to support the allegation.
3. WP:UNDUE - This source is three pages in a nonfiction book on an entirely different topic (Criticism of Presidential Campaign Advertising). To use it as justification to include innuendo and improper conclusions gives it both too much weight and too much credibility (on this topic).
4. post hoc, ergo propter hoc - The included text supposes a conclusion ("This was one factor that led to Carter defeating Kennedy for the nomination.") that the source, without actual relevant research, cannot conclude.

In conclusion, I do not believe this material is suitable for inclusion. Comments requested. Thanks in advance. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Judge Boyle concluded that he was lying. This is just another reference. In addition, it isn't really the book that is the reference, it's the CBS show. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Blaxthos. I think the root of the problem is that this quote isn't about Kennedy's actions at Chappaquiddick per se: it's about the effect that Chappaquiddick had on his subsequent political career.

1. The source does not accuse Sen. Kennedy of lying. It claims that a television program suggested to its viewers that Kennedy had told an untruth. This is not the same as claiming directly that the senator told an untruth. In fact it is quite clear that the Roger Mudd, the presenter of that show, believed that Kennedy lied and tried to convey this impression to viewers, as the following quote (Jamieson p. 380-381) shows: If you're a journalist and you go up to Martha's Vineyard and you take that trip you come back knowing that he's lied, and when you have somebody who wants to be president of the United States and you know he's lying, you go for the Holy Grail. If you feel that it would clarify the matter we could include the entire quote in the article.
2. I really don't see how you can have a problem with this source. Its author is a Professor at the University of Pennsylvania. It is recommended by the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. It is published by Oxford University Press. It's now in its third edition, and has been reviewed in multiple academic journals. It seems to meet just about every criterion imaginable for a reliable source.
3. I think the source quite clearly states that the Chappaquiddick TV coverage damaged Kennedy's campaign for the 1980 Democratic nomination. It describes the two parts of the CBS special as "two of the most politically damaging segments ever to air on national television". (p. 380). It then continues in the next paragraph, talking about the Iran hostage crisis, "The second event that dramatically tipped the presidential popularity scales in Carter's behalf" (p. 381), clearly implying that the CBS TV show was the first such event. Grover cleveland (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Frist RfC response: It seems to me this broadcast was at least significant enough to merit mention in the article because (1) There weren't that many channels back then, and one program was often viewed by millions. TV was much more influential in those times; and (2) Because there seems to be some evidence that this program actually did have influence. That said, if the program really was that influential, we should have more than one source to substantiate that impact - not just one. And more than one should definitely be used, since the assertion in this article is that this contributed to a political loss. Without more than one source, I would remove the information. Otherwise, keep the information. Another issue is this sentence: "This was one factor that led to Carter defeating Kennedy for the nomination." This statement is an opinion. Wikipedia does not have opinions - EVER. Wikipedia, when appropriate, does report the notable opinions or consensus of respected or famous individuals. So, this sentence needs to first be removed, never to return. Two, if this opinion is notable (not necessarily true or even credible, just notable), then we need to find sourcES (plural) to substantiate it. The reason we need multiple is because the assertion, again, is far too grand for simply one source.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am confident that more sources can be found if necessary. Give me a day or so... Grover cleveland (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OUTSIDE OPINION I basically agree with the above comment. The last sentence is pure synthesis. If a source were given, it would need to state it in a way like "some attributed this to Kennedy's loss to Carter". If uncited, it should go. The rest appears to be fine. We can use information from a book that isn't completely about this incident, as long as the source says what it's claimed to say. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The coroner's inquest found that Kennedy had deliberately turned off the road to the ferry, into a quiet road. That facts that the girl left her purse and hotel keys - and apparently panties - at the party may be relevant to his. It has never been proven what Kennedy had been doing, or intending to do.203.184.41.226 (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite

In light of the concerns expressed above about WP:SYN and the request to add more sources, here is a proposed rewrite of the section:

Kennedy challenged incumbent President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination in the 1980 U.S. presidential election. On November 4, 1979, CBS aired a one-hour television special entitled "Teddy" presented by Roger Mudd. The program consisted of an interview with Kennedy, interspersed with visuals. Much of the show was devoted to the Chappaquiddick incident. During the interview Mudd repeatedly questioned Kennedy about the incident, and at one point the interviewer said "Kennedy, you know, you were drinking, you lied, and you covered up!" Mudd also asked Kennedy "Do you think, Senator, that anybody will ever believe your explanation for Chappaquiddick?" In one of the visual segments the journey from the cottage to Dike Bridge was retraced by a car-mounted camera. As the car made a sharp turn off the main road toward the bridge, the camera jumped up and down to indicate the rougher surface of the new road. This segment was juxtaposed with interview footage of Kennedy claiming that he turned off the main road by mistake. "Teddy" is credited by several sources with inflicting serious political damage on Kennedy. The Senator went on to lose the nomination to Carter.

• Barry, Ann Marie. Visual Intelligence: Perception, Image, and Manipulation in Visual Communication. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. ISBN 0791434354.

Oppose as written - The entire presentation (most especially the cherry-picking of quotes that are accusatory, the lack of the Senator's responses, and the diction in general) seems intentionally designed to give a decidedly negative point of view, specifically prohibited by WP:NPOV. Better sourcing improves some of the claims made (particularly the supposition that the incident had an influence on the outcome of Kennedy's presidential campaign), however the way this information is presented is far from neutral. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

But the Barry book makes it clear that the whole TV show was designed to give a "negative point of view" on Kennedy. There was very little positive material about Kennedy included in it. For example, video footage of Kennedy and his wife together at a sporting occasion was undercut by verbal commentary suggesting that their marriage was fake. Kennedy's responses to Mudd's Chappaquiddick questions, if there were any, don't seem to have been recorded in the available literature. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We should avoid exclusively using (and over-relying on) material that presents only one side of an issue. Barry (and the show) may have a negative POV, but Wikipedia certainly may not. By choosing to include only (or mostly) negatively slanted information, we guarantee that our presentation will likewise have a certain slant (something we should strive to avoid). My suggestion would be to trim out some of the gory details and superfluous information that serves only to spin this (for example, the extremely subjective quotes). The TV show (and possibly the literature quoted) were designed to be negative... they are opinion pieces. We shouldn't rely on explicitly biased material to write an encyclopedia. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to emphasize once again that this section of the article is not about the Chappaquiddick incident per se (which is covered earlier in the article), but about the effect it had on Kennedy's subsequent political career. The TV program about Kennedy, a large portion of which was devoted to Chappaquiddick, is widely sourced as inflicting serious political damage on the Senator. It seems to me that an article can describe how this damage happened even though the TV program itself may have been biased against Kennedy. Reporting the questions Roger Mudd asked on TV, when these seem to be highly notable and are reported in the relevant literature, is important not because of how Kennedy answered them, but because they were the means by which the damage was inflicted. Consider a parallel case: in the article Watergate scandal the question "What did the President know, and when did he know it?" is reported because it was a highly notable quote from the Congressional hearings on the scandal, and caused serious political damage to Nixon. The reply from John Dean or the Nixon administration, if there ever was one, is not given in the article. It would be absurd to demand that this Watergate quote be stricken from the article in the name of NPOV. Indeed, I don't see anything in the WP:NPOV policy that explains why the quotes from Mudd violate the policy in the first place. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Call it what you like, but what you're doing is presenting a singular point of view and selectively including quotes to enhance that perception. I can't imagine a circumstance that is further from the intenet of WP:NPOV. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You say "selectively" including quotes. This implies that other quotes, indicative of opposing points of view, are being excluded. Can you tell me what those other quotes are? Grover cleveland (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Second attempt

I've tried to remove the direct quotations that Blaxthos finds objectionable, while still retaining the essentials (i.e. the program was broadcast, it was partly about Chappaquiddick, and it damaged Kennedy).

Kennedy challenged incumbent President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination in the 1980 U.S. presidential election. On November 4, 1979, CBS aired a one-hour television special entitled "Teddy" presented by Roger Mudd. The program consisted of an interview with Kennedy, interspersed with visuals. Much of the show was devoted to the Chappaquiddick incident. During the interview Mudd repeatedly questioned Kennedy about the incident, and at one point directly accused him of lying. "Teddy" is credited by several sources with inflicting serious political damage on Kennedy. The Senator went on to lose the nomination to Carter.

• Barry, Ann Marie. Visual Intelligence: Perception, Image, and Manipulation in Visual Communication. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. ISBN 0791434354.

That seems supremely more reasonable to me... concise, informative, and still includes the points contained in the previous version. I'm much more comfortable with this version. Bravo. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool -- I'm glad we were able to resolve this. Any objections from anyone else to replacing the existing text with the proposed new version? Grover cleveland (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Murder?

This article refers to the death of Kopechne as 'murder' in the first paragraph. Surely this is unacceptable. Murder has a strict legal definition which does not apply here. The only truly neutral alteration to be made is to put 'death' instead of 'murder'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.64.142 (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. But the statement that she was "killed when he accidentally drove his car off a bridge" is also unproven. I vote for deletion of the word "accidentally".203.184.41.226 (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Concussion

According to Kennedy's own statement, his doctors had informed him that he had suffered cerebral concussion.

Did he actually have a medical examination that day, confirming recent concussion? If so, it would tend to suggest that he was in the car when it hit the water.

Or was he/they referring to his crash landing in 1964, which is known to have affected his physical health? Valetude (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Next morning

'By 7:30 a.m. the next morning he was talking "casually" to the winner of the previous day's sailing race, with no indication that anything was amiss.'

This statement forms part of a long section, combining several people's testimony. But it doesn't say who reported this significant piece of evidence. Valetude (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)