Jump to content

Talk:John F. Kennedy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

McCarthy Section

This section is complete nonsense- "Kennedy opposed fellow Senator Joseph McCarthy's aggressive campaign to root out supposed Communists and Soviet spies in the U.S. government. McCarthy had been a friend of Kennedy's father, and Kennedy's younger brother Robert F. Kennedy briefly worked for McCarthy. Although Kennedy was ill during the 65–22 vote to censure McCarthy, he had helped coordinate it." -- Achilles 23:20 3 June 2005

---

Second Paragraph: In a survey conducted by C-SPAN that ranked American presidents, a panel of historians rated him eighth overall and the general populace rated him twelfth of the forty-two presidents who have served. - The sentence should state "how" they were ranked - popularity, effectiveness, etc. It should also be noted when the survey was held. --- Under Foreign Policy: '..the Kennedy administration had overestimated popular resistance to Castro and the exiles did rally the Cuban people as expected.'

I'm not sure but shouldn't it be '..the exiles did not rally the Cuban people...'?

The section on his presidency reads like a children's book. I've cleaned it up a bit and removed some of the fanboyism and rampant NPOV. There's still a lot more to be done. -- User:batkins

Assasinated by Lee Harvey Oswald? Listen, I have a another theory about that... -- Certainly-Not-Stephen Gilbert

Recent tests on audio recordings from the scene gave a 96.3% probability that there was a second gunman.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010326/sc/britain_kennedy_dc_1.html

I think "photogenicity" is an understatement of the attraction "The Kennedys" and "John F. Kennedy" in particular had for a large part of the American public. I would say he had "charisma," at least. Further he was part of a social and political dynasty, sometimes, in the earlier days, referred to as "Camelot."

I'm a Republican who relished every day of the Clinton impeachment (until the end result :-(), but I still wonder about the motivation behind talking about Kennedy's affairs before his assassination. Let's get some historical perspective here. :-) <>< tbc

I thought that the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978 acknowledged that there were almost certainly shots from more than one location. This contradicts the assertion that subsequent investigations confirmed the theory that Oswald acted alone. Dze27

I thought he was the youngest ever elected president and the second youngest to serve, Teddy Roosevelt having been elected vice president and then succeeding McKinley at age 42..--isis 10 Sep 2002

I find the current paragraph regarding the assassination to be a bit misleading. It currently states:

Investigations by the FBI and various committees under the auspices of the United States Congress have all concluded that Oswald acted alone, but that official verdict is still highly controversial: The methodology and evidence supporting that conclusion have been strongly disputed by a number of persons, including some who were involved in the investigations.

The paragraph makes it sound that every investigation has found Lee Oswald acted alone. This is not the case. I suggest this new paragraph:

Four days after Kennedy & Oswald were killed, President Lyndon B. Johnson set up a special panel that found that Lee Oswald acted alone. Three years after President Johnson's panel finshed its work, Jim Garrison, a New Orleans district attorney, investigated and brought to trial a local citizen, Clay Shaw, on a charge of conspiracy. Shaw was later found not guilty. In the late 1970's, a panel set up by the United States House of Representatives found that Kennedy died as a result of a conspiracy. To this day, various third parties have investigated the assassination, comimg up with various theories and solutions.

Comments? --hoshie

Perhaps we should make another article on the John F. Kennedy assassination, outlining the various theories and the evidence for each. Kwertii 22:48 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Absolutely. There's enough interest, and enough information and speculation, to justify an article. (And I fixed a spelling error in your comment.) Vicki Rosenzweig 23:13 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This is what the second paragraph under Military service says verbatim:

On August 2, 1943, Kennedy's boat, the PT-109, was cruising west of New Georgia (near the Solomon Islands) when it was rammed by a Japanese destroyer. This turned out to be entirely John's fault,because he had not been paying attention to the radar. Kennedy was thrown across the deck, injuring his already troubled back. Still, Kennedy somehow towed a wounded man three miles through the ocean, arriving on an island. A Kennedy must have wrote this, there is not evidence he towed someone 3 miles, give me a break. After a few days of searching, he found two friendly islanders, whom he sent for aid with a message carved on a coconut. Honestly do you believe that? How much info could fit on a coconut? For these actions, Kennedy received the Purple Heart, Navy Medal, and Marine Corps Medal. He recieved these things because he was a Kennedy, any one else would have been dishonorably discharged. However, his back injury had been aggravated and he also contracted malaria; he was honorably discharged in early 1945, just a few months before the Japanese surrender.

I don't know how much of this is supposed to be true or not, perhaps there is more I missed too, so I'll leave it up to you guys to edit.

LBJ chosen as running mate

Present article states

It is now documented that Johnson blackmailed Kennedy by threatening to expose Kennedy's physical ailments.

A statement this bald needs support to stay in an encyclopedia article The only "documentation" I have found so far is from an Internet forum

Most of Kennedy’s closest advisers were shocked when they discovered that he had chosen Lyndon Johnson as his running mate for the 1960 presidential election. It was a strange decision. Ken O’Donnell, probably his most influential adviser, had already promised important figures in the trade union and civil rights movement that LBJ would not be vice president. Powerful figures in the party such as Walter Reuther also objected. In fact, no one seemed to favour the idea.
It seems that pressure for LBJ came from Philip Graham (owner of the Washington Post). Later, Robert Kennedy claimed that the job was offered to LBJ because they had heard from one of his closest advisers, Bobby Baker, that he would turn it down. Therefore, they thought that by offering him the job they could get his goodwill without having him on the ticket. In other words, JFK was tricked into giving him the job.
JFK had his own story of what happened. He said he wanted LBJ out of his job as leader of the Democrats in the Senate. JFK was convinced that LBJ would use his power to block his legislation. Therefore, he was paving the way for his friend, Mike Mansfield, to become leader in the Senate. LBJ was made vice president because it would remove his power (this was the very reason why his friends said he would turn the job down).

it is true, you are a moron.

the coconut is available for viewing at the jfk library in boston.

i hate you.

i hate you.

skeptics should do their homework

then suck still there after if they must.

you suck.

Pierre Salinger, Kennedy’s press secretary, gives another version of events in his book, ‘With Kennedy’. Salinger was strongly opposed to the decision. So was O’Donnell, who described it as a “double-cross” and the “worst decision that JFK ever made”. :Salinger recalls a conversation with JFK a few days after the convention. He asked him again why he had made this strange decision. JFK gave him the arguments that I have included above. When Salinger questioned the logic of these arguments, JFK admitted: “The whole story will never be known. And it’s just as well that it won’t be.”
In his book Salinger claims that he did not know what JFK was on about. However, there seems to be only one explanation. JFK was blackmailed into having LBJ as his running mate. That raises the question. Why was LBJ so keen to be Vice President?''

There's also the "Southern Strategy".

It would have made more sense for LBJ to raise the issue during the primaries if he wanted to.

--JimWae 05:42, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

RE: "long-secret medical records made public in 2002"

This comment regards the paragraph about the "long secret" medical records made public in 2002.

Not everyone is convinced of this summary of the documents, or that they truly even existed. Reasons for suspecting these conclusions to be embellishments or exagerrations include:

1) The documents appeared (or were "unsealed") (conveniently?) after witnesses (such as Jackie Onasis) died, and therefore could not refute or explain them.

2) Many people merely drink coffee for this very reason --- to be and appear peppier than they actually are. In itself, this does not indicate anything decisive about their health.

3) There have been many, many unsolved mysteries surrounding John F. Kennedy's demise. I recall that at least one nationally-televised documentary (several years ago now) concocted evidence against JFK's character, by saying correction fluid (such as Liquid Paper) had been used to alter certain (other) documents. Since liquid paper did not exist before Kennedy's death in 1963, this "evidence" (against Kennedy's character) was proven to be false --- a total concoction. (If anyone remembers this documentary, please put a comment to verify this in here.)

4) Are we sure that this summary of the supposed now unsealed documents are not just a hint to the public that JFK would have died (or otherwise become incapacitated) anyway --- never mind what he might have sought to accomplish had he lived?

If I was giving myself shots of drugs before appearing in public, I doubt this would be something I would seal in a document to be opened later. Perhaps Kennedy did do this, but nevertheless many mysteries and/or concocted "pat" answers surround his death/demise. And this particular "answer" has the potential to hint to the public that JFK might have been in a lot worse physical shape than he was, or that he perhaps was even "moribound" anyway --- which might not have been the case. Many people live a very long time with physical ailments, depending on what they are.

The whole comment about the supposed documents, conveniently unsealed in 2002, smells like propaganda to me: Jackie can't comment on it from the grave. It has the potential to let the imaginations of people run wild with all the possible ailments he had, etc. Obviously he did have certain physical ailments. But somehow he did very well in spite of them.

JFK Redirect

I think that the JFK redirect should be changed to....

"JFK can stand for...

Is anyone opposed to this change? WhisperToMe 00:30, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No, that's an good idea. ugen64 17:14, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Pix

There are two pix of the same thing on this page. Anybody know what happened? Also, I'm adding New Frontier to requested articles. Anybody here want to take a crack at it? jengod 19:20, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Camelot

JFK's administration was never known as Camelot while he was alive. However the Broadway musical, which had been penned by a Harvard classmate Alan Jay Lerner, had opened just before the time he became President and became very popular. In an interview with Life magazine writer Theodore White, Jackie Kennedy revealed JFK used to play the Camelot soundtrack before going to bed, especially the "last song on the last side". "The lines he loved to hear were: 'Don't let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment that was known as Camelot.'" And to Jackie, it would never be that way again.

The interview appeared in the December 6, 1963 issue of Life, in the article "For President Kennedy: An Epilogue."

-- Anonymous (March 17, 2004)

The linked article to Jacqueline Kennedy is entitled "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis", which is indeed obviously true because after her husband's assassination, she married the Greek businessman, Aristotle Onassis. And I don't see any reason to remove the Presidents table as it already exists. Any questions? --65.73.0.137

Cleanup

I added this article to cleanup because it needs work on its NPOV (especially the President and Assasination section). Here is a link to the cleanup post.

JFK JR

No mention of him here at all. I had to hunt to find the actual page John F. Kennedy, Jr. --Generica 03:14, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Clean-Ups

Hello,

My name is Nick Keppler and I’ve done my best to clean up the John F. Kennedy article as someone had requested. Anyway, the main things I tried to do were:

1) Remove POV statements such as “Everyone was impressed and appreciated her hard work.” while still acknowledging how the Kennedys’ youth and charisma captivated the U.S. 2) Improve cumbersome sentences and sloppy writing. 3) Put the section on his presidency in sections so we don’t ramble from Cuba to civil rights to Kennedy's kids. 4) Add some missing information such as the beginning of the Vietnam War and the Alliance for Progress.

My facts might be a little off. It’s been a while since I read An Unfinished Life. Please correct anything I have incorrect. I look forward to your comments and contributions.

- Nick

Vote fraud?

There's been widespread allegations of vote fraud in Kennedy's election, and many historians think he didn't actually win except for ballot-stuffing by union-controlled political machines in a few states. Any info on this? --Delirium 19:41, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, unions and political machines are/were not at all the same thing. The Daley machine in Chicago probably committed some fraud on Kennedy's behalf, but there is generally thought to have been offsetting corruption on the part of Republican machines in southern Illinois, so it's a wash. And Kennedy won Illinois by a decent margin. Even if he'd lost Illinois, he'd still have won, in any case. john k 01:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I put in the ABC News Report concerning Mafia vote fruadf on JFK's behalf. Someone mitigated it by syaing other research showed it was irrevelant BUT no sources were quoted. Let's have a source or two. Johnwhunt 20:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Here's a start [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] - it is not first-hand, but neither are the allegations. Others blamed include Daley. Illinois was not enough to change outcome. There are also allegations about Texas. There are also allegations of Republican fraud. Your inclusion of interviews with anonymous mobsters who could not know extent nor if JFK's father was truly the source, requires some knid of balance --JimWae 21:21, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

My inclusion wasn't because of the mobsters but because of ABC News, although I must admit I'm not sure there's much of a difference. As for Texas, I lived there at the time. It was clear to the Texas newspapers at least that the vote in El Paso County for Kennedy simple could not be true. It has the highest percentage turnout and the highest percentage for JFK-LBJ of any county in the state. But I didn't have a source so I left it out. As for balance, the Salon.com article (is this a legimate reference?) info was all before the ABC story not subsequent to as you stated. I'll try to find the ABC article before I go any further. Johnwhunt 21:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Only ABC item I found was 1997 - I put year & title in article first --JimWae 21:53, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
  • Probably could include a list of books - and also counterarguments such as [6] -- in criticism section--JimWae 22:19, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

9/11 reference

Regarding the query "Where were you when Kennedy was shot?", the article used to contain this sentence:

There's only one other time this frequent question was asked afterwards: terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.

I think the "only one" bit is POV, and can't really be fixed. If you disagree, say so. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 17:40, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I concur; it's been asked about, among other things, the Apollo landing, and the explosion of Challenger. --Golbez 17:53, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
I'd also agree. That question can be and has been referenced for a number of other situations. Sahasrahla 01:33, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

I'm taking the word tragic out of the description of his assassination. Although I believe, as many do, that it was indeed tragic, it's POV and shouldn't be here.

Regarding

Only one event since has seen the comparable shock: terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The "Only one" is obvious POV & the sentence is not even well-formed ("has SEEN").

How many times should 9/11 be mentioned in each JFK article?

Regarding "Tragedy"

The Adlai Stevenson quote (in one of the JFK assassination articles, anyway) used that word but the quote has been cut in half. Why? --JimWae 17:53, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)


Everyone remembers...

I recall hearing JFK himself in a recorded interview talking about "Where were you when..." situations in his life. The gist was "Everyone remembers where they were during two events: when Pearl Harbor was attacked and when President Roosevelt [FDR] died."

I do not remember where I was during Pearl Harbor, but then I was born in 1950.

Oswald

Can anyone verify that Oswald charges read "in the furtherance of a Communist conspiracy". ALL I can find to support it are other Internet encyclopedia that copy from here.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html

and

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol15/page507.php

both have "murder with malice" for both Tippit & JFK

--JimWae 18:21, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

Criticisms

I added a specific section for Criticisms of Kennedy. Flame away, but several other US President have a section for Critisms and just because JFK was assasinated, doesn't mean he should be immune.

20th Century DOB

For some reason, a number of people seem determined to delete the remark that JFK was the first US President born in the 20th century. I have put it in this article at least 4 times, and it has been removed every time without any discussion or reason. As a historian myself, ever text I have ever read about Kennedy has this point in it: that he was the first United States President born in the 20th century. Why, then, should it not be in this article? Its not like its untrue or misleading. Lets keep it in. -Husnock

  • I think if you check you'll see it is probably one idiosyncratic person - she puts it in & takes it out of the Trudeau article all by herself too - and makes a big point about what was the last whatever in the 20th century with lots of funerals, etc. If she reads this, you will likely never know. She's a real pain in the a. Isn't wikipedia fun?
I have placed a notice on that person's talk page. The removal of that biographical fact is borderline page vandalism. I have placed it back into the article and have a mind to report this to "vandalism in progress" the next time SNIyer1 omits this for no reason. -Husnock 24Jan05
  • She (how do I know she's a she?) never responds & never gives an Edit summary - she wastes lots of people's time. However, that fact is now mentioned in 2 places & I think the 2nd is more appropriate as it relates to much else in same paragraph. If in top spot, it should come earlier in sentence so it does not break up a thought--JimWae 22:25, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
I did not notice it had been moved farther down into the article. Please revert as needed to move it from the top, as long as its mentioned. Thanks for your great support! -Husnock 24Jan05

Moving some content to subpages

As the article is already at 31KB, and much of the content is unnecessary for a simple biography, I suggest that, rather than keeping all of the content on the front page, putting it in subpages (i.e. U.S. presidential election, 1960 and many others already present). I will do this if the general consensus is to do so. ral315 20:26, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

JFK quoted Lebanese-American writer, Khalil Gibran, during his 1961 inaugural speech!

When Kennedy said in his 1961 inaugural speech, "ask not what your country can do for you --ask what you can do for your country." He was quoting Lebanese-American writer Khalil Gibran. Khalil Gibran is the one who wrote this famous saying! How come Khalil Gibran never gets aknowledged for making this great saying?

Substance Abuse

Since there is a subsection in Bush43's article about Alcohol & Drugs, wouldn't it be only fair to point out JFK's involvement with Dr Max "Dr Feelgood" Jacobson? Jacobson accompanied JFK/Jackie on his 1961 European trip, & was injecting both with his amphetamine concoctions for the length of the Administration. -- Achilles 22:00 30 May 2005

Also, is there any truth to the rumor he and Peter Lawford were doing Coke in the White House?

Why use 'F'?

Why is he always referred to as John F. Kennedy or JFK? Is there actually any reason to it? I would understand if a previous president was named John Kennedy, but there wasn't. Can anyone explain the use of the 'F' in his name? Kaiser Matias 23:43 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  • They were not certain he'd be president - though public office was prob always a possibility
  • John Pendleton Kennedy
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt
  • Fitzgerald name was powerful in MA.--JimWae 03:40, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

rjensen: some cleanups and deletion of extraneous materials and links. When an event happened in March, there is no point in having a link to the month of March.

You did far more than that ---- --JimWae 2005 June 29 01:34 (UTC)

  • every full date should be wikified so preferences work
  • why unwikify Princeton - and several other terms
  • how many will know Court of St James is ambassador to UK?
  • Tecumseh's curse & Lincoln similarities, unscientific, are still trivia items
  • Vietnam criticism is appropriate
  • choice of LBJ controversy will return
  • Bay of Pigs Invasion already planned is relevant as it was early in his presidency - and afterwards he resolved to keep command of military

RFC page opened

For those who have been following the revert-edit war apparently caused by SNIyer1, please visit and leave comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SNIyer1. Nothing personal against this user, but they have been making POV changes and reverts for the last several months, refusing to discuss the changes either here or on his/her talk page. As a regular contributor to Wikipedia, I feel this has now led to an RFC situation. -Husnock 15:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

And he has done this on other articles as well. If anyone would like to check out Death and state funeral of Pierre Trudeau or Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan, you will see similar behavior. --Woohookitty 19:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


Note on "conspiracy theory"

The Wikipedia article on conspiracy theories says the following:

Colloquially, a "conspiracy theory" is any non-mainstream theory about current or historical events, often with the connotation that the theory is unfounded, outlandish, or irrational or in some way unworthy of serious consideration.

So it is clearly non-NPOV to use the term unless the theory in question is only believed by a few crackpots. However, in the case of the Kennedy assasination, some of the alternative theories are taken quite seriously, and the official theory isn't entirely believed by a very significant proportion of the population. Cadr 22:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

They are conspiracy theories. The vast majority of them allege a conspiracy, for one thing, and for another, alternative theories of the JFK assassination are pretty much the definition of conspiracy theories. JFK assassination research is the wellspring of modern conspiracy theorizing. Gamaliel 22:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
But are they all "unfounded, outlandish, or irrational or in some way unworthy of serious consideration"? I think not. At least, no more so than the official version, which as I pointed out isn't very widely believed. Sorry about the comment on my revert, I hadn't seen your edit here when I made it. Cadr 22:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
We don't decide history by polling people. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it rational. Creationism is widely believed, but that doesn't make it any less unfounded, outlandish, or irrational. Evolution is universally believed where it matters, in the relvant fields of science. In this case, the vast majority of serious historians do not hold to these theories, most of which are quite outlandish when you look closely at them. Gamaliel 22:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, widespread belief doesn't imply rational belief, but it doesn't imply irrational belief either! The Wikipedia article on creationsim doesn't flat out call it irrational (although for the record I think that it is). "Serious historians" is hard to define in an NPOV way, and there have been some pretty prominent intellectuals and politicians who haven't believed the official account, even if they didn't have their own pet theory (e.g. Richard Nixon, Bertrand Russell). We're not in the business here of saying what's true and rational and what isn't. It's clearly POV to connotate that a theory is irrational and outlandish — even when it's reasonably widely believed — just because it's contrary to an official theory, which is hardly guaranteed to be true or rational. What harm could it possibly do to replace "conspiracy theory" with "alternative theory"? People can see for themselves the progeny of the alternative theories, and make their own decisions regarding their plausibility. Note that the main article on Kennedy assasination theories only says that they are "often called conspiracy theories". Cadr 22:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm certainly not going to advocate we call these beliefs outlandish and irrational, though they certainly are. I admit that the phrase "conspiracy theory" often has negative connotations, but in this particular case it is the most accurate term. These alternative theories all allege a conspiracy to kill JFK. We shouldn't be indirect and inaccurate. Gamaliel 23:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
But we could just use the phrase "alternative theories" and avoid these negative connotations. Is it really so important to specify that the theories generally involve the cooperation of several invididuals? It's hardly surprising that more than one person should be involved in the assasination of a president, nor is it surprising if some of them are polticians or other powerful people. These things don't really need to be mentioned in the label we choose for the theories. Cadr 23:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't see why its so important to whitewash this for fear that someone might read a negative connotation in this turn of phrase. I think it's important to call something what it actually is. Gamaliel 23:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
It's important because NPOV requires that we describe things in neutral language, without adding positive or negative connotations where this is easily avoided. It's disengenuous to suggest that someone might see negative connotations in "conspiracy theory". They almost certainly will. Cadr 23:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_F._Kennedy/Archive_1&oldid=509772336"