Talk:John F. Kennedy/Archive 2

message: Is it true that he was an average student at Harvard, never earning a A, but getting Bs and Cs (and 1 D), yet he graduated "cum laude".  Where I went to school, such grades would not get you the "cum laude" designation on your degree. Is Harvard different or is one of the statements incorrect?   68.20.140.8 20:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. According to several sites, including JFK's Navy bio he did graduate cum laude. But I don't know about the never getting an A thing. It does seem unlikely (improbable even) that one could graduate cum laude with such an average performance (I am from Australia and am not familiar with the Latin honours). Does someone know of a reference stating he only got B's, C's and D's? Akamad 11:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  cum laude & "average student"  ??? 

message: I nominated the article for FA yesterday, here are the comments as of now. Akamad 23:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck! PacknCanes | say something! 17:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article candidate 

message: I agree with the editor that removed the Martyred People categorization.  Firstly, the definition given martyrdom on that category's page seems awfully broad, and secondly, I don't believe JFK's assassination fits the description anyway.  If JFK fits it, then anyone assassinanted for practically anything fits it.  But the proper word is "assassinated", not "martyred".  That's why we don't just say JFK was murdered – "assassinated" carries the correct connotation, and it's not necessary to stretch the definition of "martyred". --  Kbh3rd 05:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Martyrdom

message: Yeah, it was on Tucker Carlson's show on MSNBC.  They were talking about how the article claimed this guy was tied to the assassinations of JFK and his brother, Robert.
I get the feeling this articles going to be vandalized because of this.--Kross | Talk 04:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article's TV appearance

message: I have removed some of the "gossip", primarily as it is unsourced. We also really have to be more careful when stating negative points about people. These can tend to have more impact than the positive ones.  Wallie 12:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gossip 

message: All the assassination details and theories are very thoroughly covered in Wikipedia.  The is a biography about JFK and has to focus on him. What is important is that he died and that the death was a major shock for America. Who got arrested in a movie theatre, etc.,  we should read elsewhere. Rjensen 19:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I disagree.  The assassination details are inextricably linked with JFK, and first time visitors may initially visit this page to get a brief overview. --Viriditas 02:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that it is impossible to have a NPOV statement on the matter in the JFK article.  The deleted material contains mostly speculation any one point of life at all--they have a totally separate existence (or non-existence if you will).  The deleted material is NPOV and is rejected by the vast majority of Kennedy scholars.  Look at the main biographies: they do NOT dwell on all the conspiracies. Nor should Wikipedia.  Anyone can get his fill of who-dunnit with a click, so let's not degrade the article with material that fascinates a fixed group and diverts attention from the history that we in fact do know.Rjensen 03:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree.  I think NPOV is possible.  According to your edit history, you have been deleting large amounts of content from many articles on Wikipedia, often times without mentioning that you are doing so.  I admire your goal of improving the quality of the encyclopedia, but I think outright deletions of controversial or uncontested content that you deem unimportant is the wrong approach.  I see you are running into the same problem on Franklin D. Roosevelt and other articles.  Describe what you want to do on the talk page and work with the community. --Viriditas 03:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Assassination

message: The close relationshipo between Sen McCarthy and the Kennedy family is discussed in all the biographies about McCarthy, JFK and Robert Kennedy.
What point is in dispute--any? all?
For example you can search on AMAZON.com the indexto  Reeves bio of McCarthy and get p 808 many citations.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1568331010/ref=sib_rdr_idx/104-8802475-3136759?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S008&j=0#reader-page
Apart from the Kennedys, McCarthy was the most prominent Irish Catholic figure in the country. Rjensen 20:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to reinstate the bit about McCarthy, please provide a reference. It is very damning for anyone to be associated with McCarthy. To my mind he more than anyone else gave the United States a bad name. I am sure that the Kennedys would want to distance themselves from any such person. Wallie 16:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The text in question was cut and pasted from the Joseph P. Kennedy article. Was John Kennedy, Joseph's son, a special beneficiary of his father's connection to McCarthy? As another poster noted above, having an association with McCarthy is damning. Unless someone can provide evidence to show that John Kennedy benefitted especially from his father's association with McCarthy, I suggest dropping this or at least editing it down to a sentence or two and placing it elsewhere in the article. The John Kennedy-McCarthy connection doesn't deserve this much ink. Griot 19:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The text accurately tells how close McCarthy was to Kennedy family & how that played a role in JFK 1952 Senate election, the 1954 Censure vote that JFK did not make, and how it hurt JFK with many Demicrats in late 1950s. All the biographies agree--there is nothing at all controversial or POV. It's POV to downplay this central event in the 1950s. As for separating JFK from his father and brother Robert--can't be done in 1950s as JFK quote re censure vote demonstrates. The notion that Kennedy became president indepent of father and brother is pretty far afield. Rjensen 19:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's POV to devote more words in a JFK article to the Kennedy family's connection to MCcarthy than to Kennedy's early political career, his domestic policies, and his leadership in the space program. Please edit this down so that this small episode is not overblown. Griot 20:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think we have to be careful with undue weight here.  Particularly, though, I'm wary of the portions of the text that talk about "alleged" deals between McCarthy and Kennedy.  Even sourced, I have a problem including this type of guesswork in an encyclopedia article.  However, some description of Kennedy and McCarthy's relationship probably does belong in this article, if not in a subsection all its own. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 20:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: on the alleged deal in 1952: I think all the major biographers agree there was some sort of deal. (McCarthy spoke in every state with a large Irish Catholic population except Massachusetts).  It was a close election -- Lodge was the incumbent and Ike did carry the state, so the stakes were very high. Rjensen 20:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "All the major historians agree" is a blanket statement. Please consider how to trim this. It's a clear violation of undue weight. Griot 20:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's based on reading most of the Kennedy biographies. Can anyone name a Kennedy bio that takes a different position--who thinks the relationship was unimportant? To condemn the relationship is of course POV and the article does not do that. 
Here are what scholars are saying: 1) The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys By Doris Kearns Goodwin p 780 "Kennedy's national ambitions might have been brought to a halt by his failure to take a stand against McCarthy."; 2) "JFK was "careful not to alienate the millions of Americans who liked Senator Joseph McCarthy (a family friend)...." p 401 of The American Presidency edited by Alan Brinkley; 3) "Liberals had never heard him rebuke McCarthy; indeed, the two were friendly" The Achievement of American Liberalism: The New Deal and Its Legacies - edited by William H Chafe p 117; A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House by Arthur Meier Schlesinger p 13 "It was always a puzzle why liberals took so long to forgive him" (on McCarthy issue). Of course O'Brien, Dallek and other full-scale biographers have full details, and are in agreement. Rjensen 21:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCarthy 

message: The article claims the following: "Kennedy started his fight for civil rights when he appealed to Black voters during his campaign in 1962." I personally do not know what campaign this refers to. In my humble opinion, the reference is confusing. His presidential election campaign took place in 1960 according to the article. It might be a simple typo. Anyone more qualified to correct it? Roberttt 21:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's referring to the Congressional elections of '62 when he was campaigning on behalf of Democratic candidates.UMclassof06 04:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Possible Mistake 

message: In the Zabruder film, it shows Kennedy's head exploding.  This is not the damage from one bullet.
* The video is consistant with the passage of a single bullet from a high-powered rifle.  Bud Dwyer shot himself in the head, with similar results.  And there are many videos of people shot by both police, SWAT, and military conflicts which show the same "explosion effect".  Unless you propose that multiple shooters fired at exactly the same moment, from exactly the same distance, with exact same rifles, bullets, and powder loads?  A 2 grain difference in powder loads, 3' difference in distance, or 1/10 second of hesitation would produce a noticeable "multiple hit".  But that is not visible in the film, just a single hit from a high powered rifle.    Mushrom 1500, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
* Common belief (and I think it's been proven, but I could be wrong) was that he was hit in the head by a high-explosive bullet. That tends to make things to boom a little. As far as multiple shots to the head, you can tell that's not what happened from the "autopsy" photos. There's one enterence wound, and a giant hole.
Curious that anyone would take a blind bit of notice of the post mortem photographs when the lady who took them testified in 1992 that they were not the photographs she took as the official mortuary photographer. There is also very clear evidence that the President's body was tampered with between the two post mortem examinations that took place. But the most damning piece of evidence is this - the 9 surviving doctors who examined Mr Kennedy's wounds have ALL said that the large exit wound was at the back of the head and not the front. The BACK of the head. 9 out of 9. It's all there to be read about on reputable news service websites...no need for conspiracy nutjobs, just plain old inconsistencies.--Iamlondon 00:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Shooters 

message: I put a  tag on this section.  It's indisputably POV to state, "The Kennedys brought a new life and vigor to the atmosphere of the White House."  Among other statements.  It needs to be reworded in a way to objectively observe the reaction of the people at the time who may have held that point of view.  But the article should not fawn over them so – it's embarassing.  It's late and I haven't read the whole article for similar problems, but they should be addressed wherever they occur.  --Kbh3rdtalk 06:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: POV?? I don't think so. This was unanimously agreed by critics the n and now. Is there serious disagreement?? I don't think so and you need to cite some sources with an opposing view. Rjensen 12:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image, social life and family 

message: John F. Kennedy was assassinated by his driver. END OF STORY. The videos (SIC) CLEARLY show it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.34.89.149 (talk • contribs) . added with revert as comment blanked previous section
When you write "END OF STORY", you are clearly being blinkered and are the living example of a walking POV, my dear sir/madam. I wish you the best in your efforts to prove that Jackie, Mr & Mrs Connally and Kellerman saw, and heard, a gun in the car, when they mentioned nothing about it.
--andreasegde 17:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Driver

message: I came to this article looking for information about the many theories surrounding JFK's assasination. Would it not be appropriate to add links to JFK (film) or other more appropriate places where these theories could be described?
jamiemcc 01:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to be added?

message: What do you think about replacing the front image with this? --Blue387 09:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New picture? 

message: I believe the article would be enhanced if there were more on Kennedy's career in the House and the Senate. --Blue387 02:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need more on Congressional career 

message: Or his visit to Berlin? New Frontiers? Tax cuts? 1960-61 recession? The "vital center" philosophy? Test ban treaty? Kennedy and civil rights? It seems the article skips straight from bay of pigs/space race to assasination. Wikipedia can do [much] better than that... and the criticism section seems biased and unbalanced. It gives only criticisms, citing from conservative sources like the WSJ, with no responses. And given that every single president has faced criticism, I hardly see what the special justification for this section is, as opposed to one devoted to controversy over his health that erupted in the late 1990s. 18.251.5.83 10:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you could try reading the article. We don't do your homework for you -- Gurch 17:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a word on the Cuban missile crisis? 

message: Something needs to be done with this section. It reads like a narrative from an anti-Kennedy novel rather than an encyclopedia. It may be a little too bold, but I'm placing it's text here. I have no political views pro or con on this issue, but I don't have the knowledge to rewrite this section properly, and this desperately needs change. NeSS 17:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I moved the section for the following reasons. (a) From reading it, John himself did precisely zero regarding McCarthy. (b) It is completely unreferenced. (c) It includes a quote which almost surely isn't. 
A cleaned up version belongs either in the Kennedy clan article, or the appropriate pieces belong in the Joseph and Robert Kennedy article, where they already probably are.
Anyone care to defend it, as properly belonging as a section in this article? Derex 19:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All JFK's biographers agree it is an important topic. (for example OBrien devotes 15 pages to the topic). The revised version focuses on the two-men JFK and McC, with just a sentence on Joe's role.  It;s important for several reasons--most important it made JFK enemies around the country. Rjensen 19:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The present version has 3 sentences regarding John, one of which is a quote which I'd bet a $100 isn't one.  It states that John agreed not to give any speeches about McCarthy, can that be verified?  The only other thing it says is that John drafted a speech calling for McCarthy's censure and that he was hospitalized during the actual vote.  This section needs (a) references (b) neutralized language (c) some explanation of the connection between John Kennedy and McCarthy.  A connection between Robert or Joseph is just that.  You need to establish some connection with John.  I'm not saying there isn't one, because I've never heard anything about this.  But, the current paragraph is titled links between John and McCarthy, and then proceeds to document no links.  All it says is that John didn't make any speeches criticizing McCarthy, though he did draft one.  It makes no sense.  If there was a quid pro quo on that, it needs to be referenced.  At the moment, this paragraph represents the very worst of Wikipedia.  Derex 19:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It now has detailed page references to OBrien and Reeves books that discuss the episodes. Dallek could be added too: see pages 171, 180, 190-91; Dallek says "His failure to join all his fellow Democrats and a majority of the Senate in condemning McCarthy's disgraceful behavior became an enduring political problem. Jack gave a number of unconvincing explanations for his non-vote." [191].  Dallek says regarding 1952 anti-McCarthy ad: "Jack was not averse to squelching the ad; it was poor politics. McCarthy remained very popular with the state's 750,000 Irish Catholics" (p171) Rjensen 20:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Derex seems to be astonished to hear for the first time that JFK had close ties to McCarthy; Derex and wants them covered up fast. Alas, father Joe and brother Robert were very close to McCarthy and pulled JFK in with them. This has been well known for 50+ years -- all the biographies carry the news--and was one of the major reasons the liberal wing of the Dem party distrusted JFK throughout the 1950s. Rjensen 01:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, since I never read this follow-up. That's a personal attack -- that I want a "cover-up fast"; it's an allegation of intellectual dishonesty. It's false, and I don't appreciate it. Rjensen and I settled this on talk pages long ago. But having seen this, I want to set the record straight here. Derex 07:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: To Derex. thanks for removing POV.  The McCarthy link was only partly about anticommunism. It seems that the family was pretty close to McC before he got involved on the anti-red theme in 1950. JFK seems to have gotten his anti-Red views quite independently. Rjensen 07:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCarthy 

message: I've clarified about presidents being born in the 20th century. Kennedy being the first president born in the 20th century seemed somewhat vague because LBJ was born before him. That's why I said that Kennedy was the first 20th century-born American president and LBJ was the first president born in the 20th century (chronologically).
This at least avoids confusion. -- SNIyer12 (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First president born in the 20th century

message: The article starts with his military service. What about his childhood? Where did he go to school?
:User:Harro5 has put it back in. - Akamad 00:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing a section 

message: * Latest - I have re-written the Criticism section. It was absurdly biased and pointless. I have left in what was there previously (mentions of ill-health, extra-marital affairs...) but altered the phrasing. Why anyone would use Kennedy's health in order to criticise his Presidency is beyond me - one need only remember FDR in order to see how patently foolish a tool this is to use against Kennedy. --Iamlondon 00:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is mostly unreferenced, and thus could be said to be original research. It still has close to no balance whatsoever; Iamlondon has swung the balance the other way so as to whitewash some criticisms (comparing JFK to FDR on illnesses is not the purpose of this section, and is blatant POV; also, contending that there is no proof of a Marilyn Munroe affair is a brush-off). These need more detailed discussion with dates, and direct references to individual claims. Until this is done, the section must be marked POV. Thank you. Harro5 00:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism Section

message: I have added the following which I am confident covers the actual significance of Mr Kennedy's death without resort to the various theories which circulate. 
"Ultimately the death of President Kennedy and the ensuing confusion surrounding the facts of his assassination are of political and historical importance insofar as they marked a decline in the faith of the American people in the political establishment - a point made by commentators from Gore Vidal to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. 
Coupled with the murder of his own brother, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and that of Martin Luther King, Jr. the five tumultous years from 1963 to 1968 signalled a growing disillusionment within the well of hope for political / social change that so defined the lives of those who lived through the decade of the 1960's. The Watergate scandal of President Richard Nixon's adminstration is widely recognised as being the final stroke in this process of diminishing trust in government."
David.--Iamlondon 09:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legacy & memorials

message: Anybody knows about the (Secret Service-SS) driver William Greer? --AmonRaa 10:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: The Good article nomination for  has failed    
:Prose is kind of weak and citations are fairly thin considering this is an article about a former U.S. President (I’ve added some tags in certain places though I will say I was a little suprised to see no citations in the assassination sec.) 
Prose example: “On June 26, 1963, Kennedy visited West Berlin and gave a public speech criticizing communism. While Kennedy was speaking, some people on the other side of the wall in East Berlin were applauding Kennedy and showing their distaste for Soviet control. Kennedy used the construction of the Berlin Wall as an example of the failures of communism: "Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in." The speech is known for its famous phrase "Ich bin ein Berliner".The last sentence is kind of weird awkward in its placement. 
I also wonder about its POV with its usage of phrases like “Determined to stand firm against the spread of communism,” “The death of their newborn son in August 1963, Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, was a great loss.”; there seem to be a great many uncited assertions in this article
 TonyJoe 13:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, it should have failed.  It reads like a Democratic Party wet dream.  Kennedy's Presidency was a short, no real accomplishments, had its share of failures (Bay of Pigs), but this Wikipedia article reads like it was written by the Kennedy Historical Society.  It needs real work. It is not a balanced article in any shape or form.  Even in the criticism section there are comments of Wikipedians added into the critical sentences, so that critics can't even get there point out without some Kennedy snowball being thrown in there. --Getaway 03:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed