Talk:Jack Kemp/Archive 1

message: I changed this, which I assume was a mistake:
"Because Kemp was a comparatively liberal Republican, running on his record of supporting government welfare programs, he was seen as a means to attract conservative and libertarian-minded voters"
Dole was the comparatively liberal Republican, and Kemp was the means to attract conservatives. Tooptoo 16:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Older entries

message: there's so much worthwhile stuff one can say about kemp... how do some comedic remarks about soccer rate even a mention on this page?  such silliness...
Why not? As far as I can see it breaks no rules, and doesn't harm the value of the article. Many times people become known for silly things. Lehi (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aren't the soccer references silly? 

message: The part about his political career reads like a Republican campaign ad.
:I hope you feel it is now neutral.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  18:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  It reads like a campaign ad... 

message: "As secretary of HUD, Kemp spearheaded the Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere (HOPE) program, an effort to reform socialized housing, by allowing residents of government housing projects to buy their own unit. Likewise, with his Urban Enterprise Zone program, he promoted market-based urban business district reforms by offering tax breaks and reducing the regulatory burdens for businesses in poor neighborhoods. These ideas were fought by welfare proponents, but their immense success compared to public housing and other attempts to control communities through heavy government, they have become the dominant stances of housing and urban development today, giving rise to modern Urban Renewal systems."
I hope someone will clean up this section and add citations to the broad claims of fact before removing the disputed tag.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.120.84 (talk) 08:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I think.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  18:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This section appears to be written by a partisan supporter of Kemp's, not in NPOV 

message: this is one of the worst wiki articles--both poorly written and very thin on content.
plus, it is weak on facts and poorly sourced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.147.5.84 (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me know what you think of the new breadth and depth as it continues to evolve.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  18:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A really bad article 

message: Kemp is a really complicated and important Republican. Very conservative, but heterodox too. He deserves much better.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.111.45 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am working on it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  18:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone needs to rewrite this 

message: Any source on his receiving a draft notice? Note Kemp had previously served in the Army Reserve, U.S. involvement in Vietnam started in earnest in 1965 when he turned 30, odd time to get a draft notice.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  18:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft citation? 

message: THIS ARTICLE IS REPLETE WITH CITATIONS OF ARTICLES WHICH ARE EXPRESSING OPINION TO PASS ALONG AS FACT.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.213.104 (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: THIS DISCUSSION PAGE IS REPLETE WITH EDITS BY PEOPLE WHO CANNOT FORM COHERENT SENTENCES. Ec- 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is the most biased and devious article I have ever read in Wikipedia 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
# It's a very well written and well cited, article, however there are some things that I would like to point out:
#:It's too long. I know the Reagan article and others are longer, but Kemp was a congressman, not a president or world leader. It can use some trimming; not a lot of trimming, but some. One of the sections that I would favor removing is "Views on soccer" because it is purely trivial.
#:The main parts of the "career summary" football section should be integrated into the rest of the section, and the minor parts removed.
#*I will look at this article more closely.  However, WRT length it sounds like you are saying, he is only high or mid importance and therefore can not have an article as long as a top importance person.  This is not true.  On my current browser the article gets to the notes on the seventh time I hit page down.  Reagan on the tenth although the article still needs a large template added for his cabinet. Hillary Clinton-tenth, George W. Bush-eleventh, Bill Clinton-tenth, Stephen Harper-ninth, Condoleezza Rice-twelfth, John McCain-eighth, Grover_Cleveland (Buffalo's most important politician)-ninth, Gerald Ford-tenth, Emma Goldman (random person of lesser importance from WP:CHICAGO that I follow closely),  Franklin Delano Roosevelt - thirteenth, Theodore Roosevelt-fifteenth.  Comparatively, Kemp's article is not too long.  The question should be whether the article contains minutia or not.  I went through all 368 articles that show up in a Time magazine search for Jack Kemp.  I got through the first 130 articles in the New York Times search.  This is the article that results from that.  I had thought of going through the 111 Newsweek magazine search results.  I am guessing doing so may add a page or two.  In truth the article might improve via quality rather than be degraded by minutia in so doing.  There are few points that have excessive detail and few that are uninteresting to those wanting to know about the subject.  I am going to review the article, but don't think I will remove much except for reworking the two sections you mention.  Almost every sentence comes from a reliable source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  14:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: I would like to discourage shortening the article merely for the sake of keeping it from being "too long." As Tony pointed out, all statements are well-sourced. One approach that would make sense if it continues to grow, however, is to make spinoff articles (e.g. Football career of Jack Kemp, or Political views of Jack Kemp). Once such articles have been created, the less-vital stuff can be trimmed in this article without any worry of depriving the reader of information.
Specifically on the "views on Soccer" issue -- I think it was better off as its own section. It's a little unusual, to be sure, but since the issue covers both football and politics (both aspects of Kemp's professional life), it's significant. Much of it is not part of his congressional career, that's just where he made his first House floor speech. Also, I don't think the subject should be introduced by saying he's been an "outspoken critic," considering that the seriousness of his "allegations" is called into serious question a couple sentences later. Some rephrasing is in order.
Regardless of these specific comments, congrats on a good article and a healthy review process! -Pete (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: Jr. in his name predated my involvement with the article.  His fathers name was not Jack. What gives?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  18:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1990 Britannica Book of the Year article on Jack Kemp, p. 91, identifies his name as "Jack French Kemp" without the "Jr." I hesitate to remove the "Jr." from the article without additional confirmation.  Softtest123 (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

text: His name isn't Jack either, it's John (as would be expected of any Jack of that age) but according to this article his father's name is Paul.  A reference for John French Kemp Jr.:  Bennetto (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected (based on the reference added for the California birth-record website).  He is actually named Jack.  A few obits had mentioned John, and (based on experience with the name and understanding of the history) it seemed much more likely other references had missed or ignored it.Bennetto (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jr. 

message: In the second paragraph of "Cabinet" is the project opposed by Congress the same as the project opposed by Darman? They have the same description.  Also, I do not consider the overall wording of this paragraph to be neutral.  Take for example the phrase "welfare reform to correct government offsets".  Certainly it is a welfare "change". Whether it's a "reform" or not depends on your pov. Similarly with the word "correct". There are also other wording issues. I edited it once, but was reverted so I'll leave the issue here for discussion.  Jpmonroe (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw your note at FAC and will respond there where the most eyes are.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  04:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with Cabinet section 

message: (Congress: "...The article explained allegations of 1967 Sacramento office Reagan staffer homosexual activity, which apparently did not refer to Kemp who was cleared of all related charges....")
Homosexuality isn't a charge of which one must be cleared.  Allegations of homosexuality aren't something of which a person must be cleared.
The text as it stands makes it sound as if he was charged with one or more crimes.
If the allegations were false, say that -- not that he was cleared of possibly being homosexual.  If there were other allegations, say what they were.
:It does seem reasonable to at least mention that he rode out the scandal of having bought a cabin with Reagan's gay chief of staff (Battaglia while he was an intern in Reagan's office, in 1967. See "Governor Reagan: His rise to power", page 251, last paragraph.
:If anyone less lazy than me agrees, it looks like a good citation to use (you can link to Google Books for it, too)
:--75.80.187.183 (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality 

message: Probably deserves to be incorporated in post-political material, right?  Hekerui (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer diagnosis 

message: I'm for not putting this in the infobox - it's in the lead, not an elected position were he was "in office", and it doesn't appear necessary for the other VP nominees either. Hekerui (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a captive audience at WP:FAC right now.  You can probably get some responses there.  I have included it for three reasons: 1. it is an official democratic party office, 2. he was not in any other office at the time so it does not conflict like it would for Palin/McCain/Biden/Obama who were holding other offices when they ran, 3. It gives a complete picture of his most important offices in the info box and for Kemp it is arguably the most notable office he ever held.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  01:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wendell Willkie, Alton B. Parker, and William E. Miller mention it upfront but without infobox and they look decent. It might be a party office (source?) but it's not an office with official power to do anything with regard to party or country. Also, it's mentioned in the second sentence of the article. And sorry for not going to FAC but that's more for the hard core and they'll probably bite. I'm myself at the moment merely trying to get an article from Stub to B, so that's not my league :-) Hekerui (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's the third time I've had to comeback & remove those annoying Nominee thingys, from the Infoboxes. Those are not government offices & they make the Infobox bloated. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republican Vice Presidential nominee in infobox 

message: Since he's no longer living, could we replace the main picture with one from when he was holding office or running for office?  Something from the late-80s to 96?  Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, can someone get us some pictures of him from his football days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  05:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better picture 

message: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/04/specter-claims-kemp-alive-congress-better-funded-medical-research/
I understand that it is Fox News, but surely the quotes are good. I find it rather sickening that he has only just died and Specter is so irreverent as to immediately use him as a political figurehead. Is it worth mentioning that Specter is trying to use him as a rallying call for government-funded cancer research?   
--Pstanton (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use by Specter and wiki project spam 

message: The article says that Jude Wanniski met with Jack Kemp to discuss supply side economics in 1967.  Purportedly, this meeting took place in Kemp's Congressional office.  Kemp was not in Congress in 1967.  While I certainly believe this meeting took place, the year is inaccurate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.154.190 (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meeting with Jude Wanniski 

message: One does not need be an M.D. to know that spending additional money on cancer research might find a cure for various cancers.  Senator Specter in a long-serving leader and member of the senator, and his POV should be considered.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs) 23:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: If he is the Jack Kemp who received the Truman-Reagan Medal of Freedom (posthumously), please put the info into the article  wherever appropriate. - Altenmann >t 01:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truman-Reagan Medal of Freedom 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Jack Kemp - Library of Congress, Congressional Portrait Collection.gif Nominated for Deletion