Talk:Chappaquiddick (film)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chappaquiddick (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Year of release? edit
The article opens, "Chappaquiddick (titled The Senator in the UK)[4] is a 2017 American drama film directed by John Curran and written by Taylor Allen and Andrew Logan."
But though it was shown at a Canadian film festival in 2017, the movie wasn't released until 2018. Shouldn't it, therefore, be referred to as "a 2018 American drama film..."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1580:45C6:0:D54B:FA08:974D (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Wording of the lead edit
The original summary of the accident read thus: "The plot details the 1969 Chappaquiddick incident in which Kennedy drove his car into Poucha Pond, killing Kopechne, as well as the Kennedy family's response." VenomousConcept recently edited this, replacing "killing Kopechne" with "leaving Kopechne to drown". I then changed it to state simply that "Kopechne died", which VenomousConcept changed back, on the grounds that "Just saying 'died' or 'killed' implies she died instantly". However, I think that "leaving Kopechne to drown" is misleading, firstly because it implies unproven negligent intent on the part of Kennedy, but also because it is simply false and contrary to the depiction in the film of attempts by Kennedy and then by Gargan and Markham to extricate Kopechne from the car. I think a better short summary of the incident is needed.--Blurryman (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Phrasing it 'died' or 'killed' is misleading because it implies she died instantly, which is false. It is a historical fact that he left her to drown. It is a historical fact that he went back to the hotel and didn't contact the police til the next day, if he had done she would've survived. It is a historical fact that he was tried and convicted of leaving the scene of an accident. You can read all of these things in the article on the incident. All of these things are verifiable which is the benchmark for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. On the other hand there is only Kennedy's word that he made any attempt to rescue her, which is unverifiable. Even if he did, he still left her to drown. So, you're just arguing against the facts here really. VenomousConcept (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- I am not arguing against the known facts. I am questioning your interpretation of the known facts. You say that "It is a historical fact that he left her to drown" and that "there is only Kennedy's word that he made any attempt to rescue her"; but there is only your unverifiable word that he did not, and, since there were no witnesses, objectively it can never be known for sure. You also say that "Even if he did, he still left her to drown"; but such an assertion can only follow from a belief that Kennedy knew she was still alive, yet deliberately left the scene so that she would drown, but there is no evidence to support such a belief and it is a historical fact that he was never charged with anything directly related to her death. You also say that "if he had [contacted the police] she would've survived"; but, based upon the known facts, that is conjecture and cannot be known for certain. Finally, the Wikipedia article on the actual incident does not use anything like your wording. So, for something we could agree on, why not just use the wording from the lead of that article? "Kennedy's negligence [...] resulted in the death of his 28-year-old passenger Mary Jo Kopechne, who was trapped inside the vehicle." Blurryman (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed Anything more starts to stray into WP:FRINGE theory territory. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I am not arguing against the known facts. I am questioning your interpretation of the known facts. You say that "It is a historical fact that he left her to drown" and that "there is only Kennedy's word that he made any attempt to rescue her"; but there is only your unverifiable word that he did not, and, since there were no witnesses, objectively it can never be known for sure. You also say that "Even if he did, he still left her to drown"; but such an assertion can only follow from a belief that Kennedy knew she was still alive, yet deliberately left the scene so that she would drown, but there is no evidence to support such a belief and it is a historical fact that he was never charged with anything directly related to her death. You also say that "if he had [contacted the police] she would've survived"; but, based upon the known facts, that is conjecture and cannot be known for certain. Finally, the Wikipedia article on the actual incident does not use anything like your wording. So, for something we could agree on, why not just use the wording from the lead of that article? "Kennedy's negligence [...] resulted in the death of his 28-year-old passenger Mary Jo Kopechne, who was trapped inside the vehicle." Blurryman (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)