Talk:John F. Kennedy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Our newest little contributor

These are the details for the person who removed the entire biography section:

68.189.124.91

Reverse DNS: suhsd-pat.suhsd.net. Reverse DNS authenticity: [Could be forged: hostname suhsd-pat.suhsd.net. does not exist] ASN: 22291 ASN Name: CHARTER-LA IP range connectivity: 4 Registrar (per ASN): ARIN Country (per IP registrar): US [United States] Country IP Range: 68.184.0.0 to 68.191.255.255 Country fraud profile: Normal City (per outside source): Redding, California Country (per outside source): US [United States] Private (internal) IP? No IP address registrar: BOGUS Known Proxy? No Link for WHOIS: 68.189.124.91

This information is in the public domain and easily accessible.

Criticism Section

The 'Criticism' section on this article is still an absurdity and is in fact growing exponenially in size. There is little justification for hardly any of it, and it amounts to little more than eccentric over-egging of minor squabbles - Kennedy's presidency is by no means anywhere near as controversial as that of, say, Clinton or either of the Bushs or Nixon's. It is small wonder this article fails to reach a level of quality to be regarded as a valuable piece of writing. The entire section should either be scrapped or rewritten to include no more than 3 sentences. The section is laughably immature. Get rid of it or rewrite it.Iamlondon 19:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Did JFK ever teach/become a teacher?

I am a teacher at a private school in Indonesia who received a lot of incoming students from a nearby Catholic school operated by a congregation of nuns. One of the parents whose son used to attend the Catholic school claimed that the head of the school, a very old nun, wrote in her biography that she was one of the favourite students of JFK. As far as I could remember, JFK did not have any sort of teaching experience whether it is in elementary, secondary or tertiary level. Could anybody confirm that JFK did ever teach? I probably will investigate further into her biography. Pboy2k5 16:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Zapruder film

A silouette that appears to be a person with a rifle can be seen from frames 420 to 485 of the Zapruder film. The silouette moves similarly to the way the human body moves; at one point it appears to hunch its shoulders. The silouette is in a portion of the frame the does not move with the background. This suggests that it is a reflection. Possibly from light entering through the eye piece and onto the film. This happens on Aaton 16mm cameras if you leave the eye peice oncovered (i.e. take your eye away from it). I don't know weather anyone has looked into this before, but I think it should be concidered for entry into the wiki article on JFK.

Every frame of the film can be found here - http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/zfilm/zframe485.html. Ethoen 02:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This belongs in the JFK Assassination page, not the JFK page.JettaMann 16:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Born in 20th Century - Trivia

I've noticed, with some amusement, that this trivia line is one of the most edited. Why people don't understand it I'll never know...it's quite straightforward: Kennedy was the first president of the 20th century presidents who was himself born in the 20th century. I,e Eisenhower and all preceding presidents of the 20th century were born in the 19th century but Kennedy was born in 1917. That Trivia line must have been edited 10 times by now! :o) Iamlondon 17:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made the point clear to avoid disambiguation and confusion: Kennedy was the first 20th century born U.S. president and LBJ was the first president born in the 20th century (chronologically). SNIyer12 21:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Assassination

The entire section is far too long and detailed. It all belongs (and indeed already exists in) the JFK Assassination article. It ought to read no more than two sentences - 1. That he was shot, and 2. That there is great controversy as to who the culprits were. As it stands it doesn't really have much to do with the life and career of JFKIamlondon 16:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not inordinately long, considering the traumatic effect his assassination had on the nation, & is in large part responsible for the sentimental way he is remembered. It has been pared down considerably from what it once was. Achilles2006 17:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't feel inordinately strongly either way...my personal opinion is that it is distractive. But hey...people may indeed come here looking for info on his death. Though as a POV, I think it's more sorrow than sentiment at his death. But that's irrelevant.Iamlondon 02:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Readers / Editors - I'm in the process of reporting 'Achilles2006' and his / her IPN to Wiki for subtle and blatant acts of vandalism to all pages relating to President Kennedy. I urge you to pay specific attention to this individual's contributions (easily attainable by reference to DSN Search at Google). Their DSN result doesn't change, hence their access to these articles can be banned. If you spot further abuses please report them to Wiki's staff as I have done. They will ban all such members.

At least you could have signed your complaint. Achilles2006 20:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and guys, Achilles2006 is now also trying to have the line about the Kennedy men sleeping with Monroe added to an article on the said woman.Just another FYIIamlondon 00:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Making things up now, I see. I added one question in the Monroe talk section- in response to an unsigned defense of RFK-- must have been from you. Achilles2006 10:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, the omission was an accident. So here, it's signed, people are fed up enough already. Iamlondon 23:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

People? Achilles2006 11:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Red Tie Durring the Debate with Nixon

I believe Kennedy wore a red tie during the debate with Nixon which was said to have a positive psychological impact on those who viewed the debate. Wearing a red tie during debates was seen again during the election of 2000 between Gore and Bush, where both tried to capitalize on that, and they both ended up wearing red ties. Does anyone else know more about this, and can it be included in the article Malamockq 14:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Only problem with that theory is that the debate was broadcast in Black and White !

I believe it was one of the first broadcasts availible in color. I could be mistaken though. Malamockq 17:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it was saw by most people in black and white. Color televisions hadn't been in widespread use until the late sixties. It was probably produced in color though, as colorcasting began in the early 50's. Ramsquire 00:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In theory it might have helped provoke a response in the studio audience though (was there one?), which would have then possibly spread to the viewers. It does all sound like superstitious trash though, trying to find an edge anywhere.

Last Will and Testament of John F. Kennedy

We wish to advise everyone that we (the Living Trust Network) have a copy of John F. Kennedy's Last Will and Testament posted on our website, which we believe is of interest to anyone seeking information about the life of John F. Kennedy. We have also discussed our desire to post a link to John F. Kennedy's Last Will and Testament with Wikipedia administrators [See User talk:Livingtrust], either under "references" or "external links." Last Will and Testament of John F. Kennedy. Wikipedia does not object to the link but has requested that we not put the link up ourselves since we are a commercial website. Instead, it has requested that we make it known that the Last Will and Testament is available, and anyone who wishes to add the link to the "reference" section or the "external links" section may do so. So, we solicite your help in adding the link set forth above. Thanks. Livingtrust 02:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Movie reverts

I just wanted to note that I reverted an anonymous edit that changed the list of movies such that one on the list named the director instead of the actor who played Kennedy, when every other entry lists Kennedy's actor. To preserve consistency, I've reverted. Cheers! Chuchunezumi 23:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Conally

In the 'assasination' section we read: ' Texas Governor John Conally survived the bullet he received. ' . This is a bit unclear, Why was Conally there, where did the bullet come from, where was Conally located, who shot it. Marminnetje 03:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

motorcade pic source?

Image:JFKmotorcade.jpg may be automatically deleted due to not having source info. I've searched and so far have only come up with http://www.cyberpoems.com/9-2/grassyknoll.htm which identifies it as a Bettman/Corbis file, but I haven't been able to verify it, nor identify the photographer. I believe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:HistoricPhoto can be asserted, but it needs source info first. TransUtopian 01:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for researching the photo. Hopefully someone will be able to to provide a source. It would be a shame to lose this photo from Wikipedia. Mytwocents 04:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I believe I've found the copyright holder and photographer, and have added fair use reasoning (the same as in another photo on the JFK assassination page), so hopefully that'll suss it. OrphanBot tags pics without source info and the like for auto-removal several times an hour, so if anyone likes doing research like that, bookmark Special:Contributions/OrphanBot. --TransUtopian 12:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms section

"rumors exist" that JFK had an affair with Marilyn Monroe? Does anyone really doubt it? More seriously, why no mention of his affair with Judith Campbell carried on at the same time as her affair with Sam Giancana- mob boss of Chicago & conspirator with the CIA in assassination plots against Castro? Achilles2006 13:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Fix it. This article is complete Pro-Kennedy. There is very little about Vietnam. All it states about Vietnam is pure Kennedy propaganda: "Kennedy followed the policy of the previous Administration." Huh? I'm going to focus on Vietnam. You can focus on Kennedy's extra-martial affairs.--Getaway 15:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Good luck. I've noticed people get emotional when there is criticism of St JackAchilles2006 00:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Achilles2006

My additions to the 'Criticisms' section were reverted rather quickly. Achilles2006 18:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No unsourced rumors will be allowed in this article. Only reliable sources can be used and they must be explictly cited. Rjensen 19:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There were plenty of rumors in the Assassinations section naming inviduals with no evidence- didn't you people learn anything from the John Siegenthaler disaster? Marilyn Monroe admitted to reporters like James Bacon her relationship with both Kennedy brothers. Angie Dickinson has publically admitted numerous times her affair with JFK- I saw her do it on the Johnny Carson show. The Sen."Church Cmte" established the 3-way relationship of JFK/Campbell/Giancana, at the same time Giancana was plotting with the CIA to kill Castro. JFK's friend Chuck Spalding has admitted that he & the 1st couple were patients of Max Jacobson- Spalding stopped, & unsuccesfully tried to persuade the President to stop. There are no sworn statements from JFK that he did any of these things. The man has been dead for 43yrs. Isn't it about time the media myth was ended? 00:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Achilles2006

I am glad to see that most of the pointless chit-chat has been removed at last and that this article is now starting to look like a serious encyclopedia entry instead of something from 'National Enquirer'! I would remind the people with all the various fetishes and animosities towards President Kennedy that this is not a chat forum but a site aiming at producing a valued article about a statesman. Hence 'criticisms' are nearly 100% irrelevant when concerned with the man's private life. As to this whole nonsense about Marilyn Monroe...I think it would be obvious to anyone with just half a brain that the unfortunate Miss Monroe was a fantasist with severe emotional problems who clung to her fantasies. There is not one person who knew her personally who would be able to verify or state on oath that Monroe had any form of physical relationship with JFK. JFK slept around (an irrelevancy in my book) but Monroe was not one of his affairs. Pure and Simple.Iamlondon 13:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the removed text as that damaging from my personal perspective (though certainly understand why others view it differently). I won't readd it because I understand the desire to make an excellent article with only the most reliable sources. Not that I don't believe magazines, newspapers and TV programmes reported this, but that AFAIK none of them would be what WP would strictly consider WP:RS.

I'd like to just keep this portion here on the talk page for reference.

"Kennedy was also known to have had a long history of extramarital affairs including Marilyn Monroe, who confided her relationship with both Kennedy brothers to several reporters including James Bacon, and Angie Dickinson who has admitted it publically on television. More seriously, according to the US Senate Church Committee, he carried on an affair with Judith Campbell Exner, who was simultaneously having an affair with Sam Giancana, the boss of the Chicago Mafia, while Giancana was conspiring with the CIA to assassinate Fidel Castro. Kennedy was also rumored to have had an affair with suspected East German agent Ellen Rometsch.

According to longtime JFK friend Charles Spalding, both Kennedy and his wife were patients, throughout his Presidency, of Dr. Max Jacobson. Known by the nickname "Dr. Feelgood" because he injected his patients with an amphetamine mixture of his own concoction. Dr. Jacobson accompanied the Kennedy's on their 1961 trip to Europe for the Vienna summit with Khrushchev. Later in the 1960s, Jacobson was stripped of his medical license by the state of New York." TransUtopian 15:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Lam, you must be the only peron in the world who doesn't believe the Marilyn Monroe story. Angie Dicikinson has admitted it. What excuse do you have for excluding the Judith Campbell episode- the Senate discovered that, & it is relevent that one of the biggest crime bosses in the country shared a mistress with the President, while conspiring to kill a foreign leader. An d how can you say with such certainty that Monroe was not one of his affairs? Achilles2006 19:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Er...I have little interest in whether he slept with Monroe or not - what I am concerned with is providing a worthy article, not some tatler article for conspiracy theorists and celebrity gossip journalists. I think you fail categorically to understand the difference - hence your use of this misleading word, "Admit". If I "admit" that I slept with the Queen of England without demonstrating evidence does that still mean I did in fact sleep with the Queen?! This is supposed to be an encyclopedia.Iamlondon 21:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia? I was under the impression that you were using it to maintain the iconic stature of the Kennedys, despite the revelations of their abuses (in government & personally) over the last 30 yrs. Achilles2006 23:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fact is that celebrities (or their press agents) "admit" to having affairs with super-glamorous people like JFK, whether they did so or not. Rjensen 18:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll stick to Judy Campbell. She didn't "admit it" until the US Senate dragged her into it. Though I think you are either very naive, or, duplicitous if you really believe JFK wasn't with Monroe & Dickinson. Achilles2006 19:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what either of you think at this point. Until the editor arguing for inclusion comes up with a verifiable source re: these affairs, it can't go in the article anyway. Once such source is found, we'll then discuss whether it is true or not. Keeping in mind that truth is not as important as verifiability. Ramsquire 21:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. Which is all I ever said. Sure - I argued that it is irrelevant nonsense but essentially my complaint has been, and remains, the same - this is an encyclopedia and not National Enquirer. Why is FDR not accused of 'telling serious lies' to the public about the severity of his illness in the FDR article for example? Because he didn't sleep around, as far as we know. QED this article is being used to curious moralising oddballs to throw in their varying slices of moral code / objection.Iamlondon 21:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

FDR should be criticized for lying to the people, during the 1940 campaign, concerning his intentions toward the war.

BTW, it's not "moralising", it's trying to counter the propaganda perpetuated by "Camelot" zealots. Achilles2006 23:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"truth is not as important as verifiability"? Sounds like legalistic nonsense. If that is the standard, then this article should not exist. The biographies that these editors consider "reputable" (Schlesinger, et al) were written by JFK's close associates, & participants in his Administration. They regard the biographies written by others (Hersh, T. Reeves, et al) as "critcal" & suspect. Achilles2006 19:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable source like a Senate session transcript under oath? The previous version mentions the US Senate Church Committee in relation to Ms. Campbell. I don't know if such a thing exists or is accessible, but would something like that fall under verifiable (which you could then discuss the truth of the statement itself)? TransUtopian 22:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To me, that would be a start. Usually U.S. Senate transcripts, are part of the Public Record and can be accessed relatively easily. Note: After re-reading my original post, it seems to be much harsher than I meant it. I apologize if it came across the wrong way to anybody. Ramsquire 22:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Senate transcripts = originial research and very hard to use because full of contradictions. better use a reputable biography that analyzes the testimony and decides what is valid. -- that is job for the scholar, not the Wiki editor. Rjensen 23:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Under WP:RS, a primary source such as a U.S. Senate transcript should be fine if it is has been made available by a reliable publisher, i.e. stenographer. Nevertheless I see your point and Wiki does encourage seconday sources over primary one. But if the entry he seeks to put in is "X claims she had an affair with JFK" a transcript of X's Senate testimony, under oath, should be sufficient verifiability that X did claim an affair with JFK. However, the cite wouldn't be sufficient to state that X actually had an affair with JFK.Ramsquire 23:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What Wiki wants is an evaluation of the testimony -- and other evidence-- done by a reliable scholar. It's almost impossible to rely on Congressional testimony without looking at a lot of other sources. Specialists do that-- not Wiki editors. Another point: if the biographers do NOT include a topic they know about that's a very good reason for Wiki to avoid it. There is a vast amount of speculation about JFK, most of it contradictory. Rjensen 23:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we're crossing signals here. I am not saying that a Senate transcript would automatically allow the info to go into the article. I said it would be a start, especially since right now we have nothing. Once presented with something, we can then have a debate (and I suspect that at that time, we'd probably be on the same side of the debate). Also, I am not saying that the transcript, if it even exists, would be sufficient to state as fact that Kennedy had an affair, it clearly wouldn't. But if the entry that started this whole hub-bub (and I admit to being ignorant to what was originally in the article) is simply that someone claimed to have an affair with Mr. Kennedy then a transcript of that person saying it (saying in the transcript "I had an affair with JFK"), released through a reliable publisher, would be sufficient to verify only that said person said they had an affair. If the editor, wanted to put in "Kennedy had an affair" and cite it to the transcript, then it would be improper. The policy is not a blanket prohibition: Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher. So until we see the source and find out exactly what he wants to do with it, we shouldn't take a position, yet. It may fit through that narrow hole. However, I understand that you probably have a better idea of the origins of this dispute than I and are more familiar with the editors who are pressing this issue, so I will defer to your objections. Ramsquire 00:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the Senate Cmte was investigating CIA/Giancana links to assassination attempts on Castro, & came across old FBI surveillance reports on Giancana-- the FBI had records of phone calls/meetings between Giancana & Campbell, & when they began to investigate her, the FBI discovered frequent phone calls between Campbell & Evelyn Lincoln's (JFK's secretary) office, & her traveling to "meetings" with the President. As far as I know, there is no photographic evidence of what went on between the 2, but given that Campbell was a young 'party girl' from Frank Sinatra's circle, IMO reasonable people can safely assume the nature of their meetings. Achilles2006 05:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So the question would then be: Are there reliable scholars who have published works documenting multiple reliable sources that JFK had an affair with a particular woman? My guess is: There are self-proclaimed scholars, but none WP would consider reliable because they don't base their conclusion on multiple reliable sources? (Or construct a false conclusion from loosely-tied-together evidence)

Repeating my disclaimer: I know virtually nothing about this and am not pushing to get this in the article. Just fostering discussion: Which scholars, books, sources, to try and reach a consensus. TransUtopian 01:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Plot thickens: O'Brien (2005) has thorough a 13-page coverage Campbell-Exner (plus much more on all/most of the other girlfriends.) Campbell-Exner wrote her autobiography, and testified to Congress. O'Brien says (p 687) she definitely lied in her book and to the Senate. Moral: Wiki should rely on scholars who cross-check many sources; we should avoid reliance on primary sources that we have to use OR to interpret. Rjensen 06:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but she still said it. That's exactly what I was saying, people say things all the time, it doesn't mean it's true though. After reading more about this issue it does seem that the information is innuendo, rumor and speculation and cannot be cured by any kind of sourcing. We would have to do the whole tit for tat thing where we have one sentence laying out the accusation and another sentence rebutting it. It's not really necessary for Wiki purposes. Ramsquire 17:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Campbell's testimony/writings are irrelevent-- Senate investigators used old FBI surveillance reports to establish the JFK/Campbell/Giancana connection. That's how they discovered her existence. Giancana was called to testify, but was murdered before that could happen. Achilles2006 19:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, then the Senate transcript would not be a proper source for the entry, and Rjensen would be accurate. It would violate WP:OR.Ramsquire 22:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

With your judicial-sounding 'rulings', are you some sort of official Wiki watchdog?

As far as I can find, the fact of a JFK/Campbell/Giancana connection seems undisputed by historians/journalists/etc. The nature of the connection is what's up for debate here. What do the others think the 3 involved were doing? Frankly, I find the sex angle the most plausible-- Sinatra introduced her to both men, & I doubt JFK was consulting with her over the Berlin crisis, & I doubt Momo Giancana discussed the skim from the Las Vegas casinos with her. I am open to the possibilty she was a communications conduit between the the 2 men. Achilles2006 23:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is undisputed by historians, journalist, etc., then you should have no problem finding a reliable secondary source. I am only trying to help here, but if getting called names is going to be the result of it, then I shouldn't bother. Wiki's policy on sourcing is clear. if it makes me a watchdog to know them and encourage users to abide by it, then I guess I am a Wiki watchdog. Ramsquire 23:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not calling you names, just trying to learn how you fit in. You sound like some sort of official. Achilles2006 23:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I took it the wrong way. I have no official position at Wiki, yet, but I have been here since '04, so I have some understanding of the lay of the land. However, yesterday I was in a long discussion with Rjensen arguing to let you present your evidence before saying no, and now I seem to be on the verge of one with you today going the other way. Maybe I'm starting to develop Wiki stress. Ramsquire 23:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Offhand, 'The Kennedys' by Collier & Horowitz, & 'A Question of Character' by Thomas Reeves, are 2 books which recount the episode. Just look up Judith Campbell in the index. Achilles2006 00:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Assassinations section

At the end, it mentions individuals, with little or no evidence. And it also brings in the Mossad. All speculation. I don't think it should be here. Achilles2006 13:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Achilles2006

Can we just agree to keep the details of the assassination in the JFK assassination page? We hsould only state: 1) An assassination occurred (date, time, etc...). 2) The facts are disputed by many (then point to the assassination page via link in the same sentence).JettaMann 16:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirect JFK here?

I'd like to argue that when most people type in JFK to WP's search box, they're looking for this article, and not the film, the airport, etc. Granted, those two things are pretty popular, but I still advocate having JFK point here, adding the following at the top of the page

"JFK" redirects here. For other uses, see JFK (disambiguation).

moving JFK to JFK (disambiguation). It'd be like a WP shortcut here, though one in extensive use outside WP, as long as there's a consensus that most searching for the other meanings don't mind an extra click. It's hard to get a reliable source on my argument without a straw poll or before discussion.

Ghits for JFK -airport -movie = 13.4 million
JFK airport = 12.9 million
JFK movie = 4.9 million

However, there are many articles about the president which also mention the airport named for him, so up that first number by a bit.

I didn't find discussion in the edit summary for JFK, its talk page or this talk page, so rather than a potentially time-wasting revert (I wouldn't war), I'd like to bring it up here. TransUtopian 15:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Early Political Career

Why so little about JFK's early career? The Joe McCarthy/Civil Rights Act of 1957 sections keep getting reverted? Why ? They were 2 of the biggest issues of the 1950s, & affected the way he was perceived by the public, & other politicians. Achilles2006 23:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That is major, so I'm not sure why some misguided JFK protector is reverting your changes. I would add them and put a direct, reliable web reference next to the information. JettaMann 16:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam War in Legacy Section

The US military incursions into South Vietnam did not represent a cause for lack of trust in American politics and Government by the time of Kennedy's death in 1963. Hence the removal of the line concerning Kennedy and Johnson. That much is clear and so the suggestion that people had already begun to despair of government on the massive scale of the years immediately succeeding Kennedy's death is erroneous and possibly misleading. The President who stands out, in the minds of those who were anti-Vietnam, was Johnson. Please refer to Vietnam War for further discussion of this, and Kennedy's limited contribution to the scale the Vietnam War was to take in the succeeding years. By the time of Kennedy's death the situation in South Vietnam had not escalated. Timing is thus very much part of the reason the American electorate still sees the Kennedy administration's legacy in such positive light (whether it be justified or otherwise).Iamlondon 15:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Fact remains that Kennedy is the President that sent in 18,000 advisors, napalm, etc. Kennedy brought the U.S. deeper into the conflict. Kennedy is part of the Vietnam story.--Getaway 16:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point...let's not turn this into a pointless ego war - you can easily put your remark in another section - it is completely out of place in the paragraph it currently sits in.Iamlondon 00:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The country only hadn't lost trust because Kennedy had lied to them and gotten away with it, as the Pentagon Papers prove. Ellsberg makes clear in subsequent interviews that he was aware of government deception as far back as the Kennedy administration, and in retrospect wishes he had leaked the Pentagon Papers much earlier. This seems pretty well established by now---deception started with Kennedy, and continued through Johnson and Nixon. In conventional histories of the Vietnam War it is said to have started under Kennedy, so this certainly seems to be well-established as part of his legacy. --Delirium 03:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

POV paragraph

The following is an example of furtive POV edits:

"Despite his professed admiration for people showing political courage, that same year he demonstrated his political suppleness with the Civil Rights Act of 1957, by voting for final passage, after having earlier voted for the "Jury Trial Amendment," which effectively rendered the Act toothless. He was able to tell both sides of the debate that he had voted with them."

The language is blatant, the content debatable, the closing sentence relying on skewed inference. It's been reverted enough times now for it to be rewritten or left out. Don't be breakin' them guidelines, people...this relies on at least some form of workable consensus (more's the pity).Iamlondon 11:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You are well aware of the revert habits of Griot. Achilles2006 20:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Iamlondon, your edits are more suspicious than anyone. You seem to be one of these people who object to facts coming out about Saint JFK, regardless of whether or not it is truthful.JettaMann 16:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

FACT- JFK voted for final passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, after he voted for the Jury Trial Amendment. That amendment rendered the Act useless, because no convictions could possibly be attained. Do you dispute that?

Jfk's dealing with the Joe McCarthy (& his father's open support, & his brother's working for McCarthy) issue was viewed with suspicion by the liberal wing of the Dem Party- Eleanor Roosevelt in particular. Do you deny that? Achilles2006 20:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just assert the facts and cite them. Don't render your opinions on those facts. A simple re-write such as:"JFK voted for final passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, after having earlier voted for the "Jury Trial Amendment" (Name of the source of researcher or researchers) believe the JTA effectively rendered the Act toothless. (add cite here)" would make the text less POV. Ramsquire 20:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I did. Achilles2006 20:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The last version was more NPOV than the earliers ones. But it still isn't all the way there. The POV language is in bold: That same year he demonstrated his political suppleness with the Civil Rights Act of 1957, by voting for final passage, after having earlier voted for the "Jury Trial Amendment", which effectively rendered the Act toothless, because convictions for violations could not be obtained. He was able to tell both sides of the debate that he had voted with them. [T Reeves, "A Question of Character', p 140]

I understand that you are citing to the source, but the problem is, the source is giving an opinion. But you are stating that opinion as a fact. Attribute the opinion to the person making it, and make clear that it isn't a fact. A simple blurb about the author, his qualifications, and attribution of his opinion, should make the sentence NPOV.

You'll probably need to make the same type of edits to the McCarthy entry as well. Please be aware of the three-revert rule. In a show of good faith, I won't revert what's there now, and will give you an opportunity to fix it. However, please be aware that if another editor reverts you edit, you may be blocked if it is reported. Please make your changes now. Ramsquire 21:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ramsquire 21:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that editor Griot reverts entire sections of the article. Although invited to discuss his reasons, he declines, & continues reverting entire sections. I would suggest you also look at the Robert F Kennedy article-- it is pov to the point of idolatry. Achilles2006 21:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm busted. I have not read the entire article, only the recent edits. But to be fair, I probably should so I shall do so now. Ramsquire 21:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The RFK article is a work in progress, it is far from perfect but does not gain by becoming your personal battleground. Your contribution to date has been to do nothing constructive other than question any positive moments in Robert Kennedy's career and/or turn the article into a page about who shot whom and who was worse - JFK or RFK. I don't believe, after having tried to hand you concessions myself, that you have proved yourself as having a helpful interest in either that article on this one. Iamlondon 21:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I can point out portions of the RFK article that I wrote that you apparently haven't noticed. You got upset only when I mentioned Marilyn Monroe, & have been obstructionist ever since- often threatening me with banning. In the article I mentioned nothing about "who shot who", but merely wanted included that RFK did not tell the Warren Comm about US govt plots against foreign leaders. Achilles2006 21:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ entirely on the above statement. And that would be one POV I'm entitled to. I'm just curious as to whether there is a figure you *admire* and whether you have made contributions to those articles. And where Monroe is concerned, I'm not the one who inserted a mention of her which lacks any serious support via evidence. I'm no fan of Adolf Hitler's and there are allegations that he was in fact homosexual. I have made no attempt to go to his article and declare that "Adolf Hitler was a homosexual, loads of troops from his unit in WWI said so". Iamlondon 22:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You've threatened me with banning at least twice.

I have made contributions to the RFK article that you haven't objected to. Achilles2006 22:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

POV?

After reading through this article, I only have two complaints. The entire introductions was ripped word for word from this site [1] without attribution, and there are some citations that need to be added. I'll be adding the tags where they are needed over the next day or so. However, I don't think the article is overly POV in any direction. It is positive, but that doesn't mean it's POV. Ramsquire 21:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Some citations needed but a good article nonetheless.Iamlondon 22:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No objection. Though I suggest you watch for frequent, wholesale, & widespread, deletions. From Griot, in particular. Achilles2006 22:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That site[2] attributes its pageS to wikipedia --JimWae 22:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oooh, I needed my reading glasses to notice what that link said. I stand corrected. Ramsquire 22:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Unclear?

Is it just me,or does this paragraph seem quite unclear?

"it came to be known that Kennedy carried on numerous extra-marital dalliances throughout his presidency, all connived at by those members of the presidential staff and members of the press who were aware of them at the time"

in particular "it came to be known","extra-marital dalliances " and "all connived at by ".

I'd rather not rewrite these paragraphs because I don't know much about John F Kennedy or his life.Serenacw 03:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's entirely clear. Why do you have a problem with it? Masalai 08:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Um,'it came to be known'(by who?) and 'connived at'(connived isn't even a word,according to a wiktionary search.Serenacw 08:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It came generally to be known. Check any biography of JFK beyond 1970, most recently Dallek, but also memoirs of Kennedy intimates such as Benjamin Bradlee (A Good Life). As for "connived at," look in a dictionary. It means they turned a blind eye. This isn't the place to discuss the meaning of English words. Masalai 11:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure,it's not the place to discuss meanings of words,but wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.The meanings of the words in their context are important too.Serenacw 02:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

abortion & birth control

The issue in the 1950s was birth control (not abortion) and Kennedy always refused to discuss his position on birth control(he was never asked about abortion). Many Protestants thought he was controlled by the bishops, but he vigorously denied that--so much so that Martin Marty concluded JFK was "spiritually rootless and disturbingly secular." That is, JFK's thinking and actions were less motivated by religion than other presidents (though he did attend Mass every sunday) See O'brien bio pp 417ff quote p 419 Rjensen 00:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

anything salvageable from this?

urrent revision (21:23, 22 September 2006) (edit) Ramsquire (Talk | contribs) (rv please stop inserting this unsourced opinion piece into the article.)

Line 251: Line 251:

Source:[3] Source:[4] - - No fewer than 43 raters, consider him overrated. An essay by Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School faults JFK for appeasing Southern Democrats by stocking the lower federal bench with "notorious segregationists"; the best civil rights judges were Eisenhower appointees. And with the appointment of his brother as attorney general, he tried to found a political dynasty, abhorred by the Founding Fathers. "The metaphor of Camelot, after all, is ultimately un-American and undemocratic, conjuring up images of crowns and dashing young princes and noble birth." - - His callowness and amorality got us into Vietnam. Or to be more precise, his blunders turned a limited commitment into an open-ended one. One of the few specific pieces of advice Gen. Eisenhower gave his young successor was to put American troops in Laos, that is, astride what later became the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Instead, Kennedy sent Averell Harriman and Roger Hilsman out to negotiate an agreement on Laos, which of course gave Ho the access he wanted. - - Infiltration and subversion increased in South Vietnam. With Buddhist bonzes committing self-immolation, the best and brightest argued the problem was the Catholic recalcitrance of our ally, Ngo Dinh Diem. President Kennedy authorized a coup against Diem; the generals who took over killed him on Nov. 2, 1963. On Nov. 22, Kennedy was assassinated; his martyrdom fixed his reputation. - - Yet the pieces, and much of the blame, fell to Lyndon B. Johnson. Just before moving into the White House, Ellen Hammer has reported, the new president showed Hubert Humphrey a picture of Diem. "We had a hand in killing him," LBJ said. "Now it's happening here." Johnson of course made his own errors, but the die was already cast. In overthrowing an ally in the name of winning the war, the U.S. had made a commitment from which it could scarcely walk away. Many of Kennedy's admirers later became war protesters, of course, chanting that American society was immoral. - - These two presidential images are reflected in today's debates over economic policy, foreign interventions, the role of morality in politics. Not least, they raise far broader questions about whatever other myths are propagated today by the conventional wisdom that rates Kennedy a hero.

Very little of it because of WP:RS. Rob Bartley's article is a reliable source for his opinion. However, it is not a reliable source to state as fact, that Kennedy's "callowness and amorality got us into Vietnam" as well as other portions of this passage. As Bartley didn't state his sources for his opinion, they can't be reprinted here as fact. Ramsquire 18:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Change of image?

I want to change the first image of the page to a public domain image of Kennedy from the presidential library. Unless there are objections, I will change the picture. --Blue387 05:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you thinking of reverting to the photo that was there before? The copyright holder of a the current photograph offered it as good faith improvement. If you have another photo beside the one that was up before, I guess we can see if it is yet another improvement. Ramsquire 17:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My proposed image is this, except the larger public domain version from the JFK Library. I was going to change it earlier but this person beat me to it. We can keep the other picture in the article, say, move it down to the presidency section. --Blue387 18:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it to the previous photo because the new one, while it is in color, is low res and is not a very good image of Kennedy since his eyes are practically closed. --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

However, either of the subsequent ones is considerably more attractive than this one, whose lack of appeal is so extreme as almost to constitute an implied editorial comment to the effect that Kennedy was often in poor health, notwithstanding the image he projected of energy, vigour and charisma. Masalai 04:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I only wanted to help, my uncle was a rather private man for a news photographer even up to his retirement, he took this picture while the handsome and charismatic youthful president was answering questions from various radio news, and tv reporters, in the late afternoon at the family compound in a Hyannis, Massachusetts one weekend saturday that last summer, the photograph was only taken a few weeks before his death, at "the Summer White House" August 1963.

my uncles malachi's work is listed even more on wikicommons, i have all the copyrights, i'll publish a higher resolution photo version, when i'm next in nyc to visit some relatives in brooklyn heights in late November,'06.

(cathytreks 01:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC))

If you can provide a better photo where he is not squinting, that would definitely be much better. The lead photo should project the clearest possible image of the subject in question; the one right now is pretty bad because you can't see his eyes. Masalai, that particular image that I had replaced the color one with was the best photograph I could find in the Library of Congress' online catalog, and I'm not quite sure what you have against it. It is a photo of what he looked like, whether we like it or not. --tomf688 (talk - email) 19:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone identify the decoration?

Kudos to you, Catheryn, for a wonderful photograph. I followed Pres. Kennedy's administration very closely as a boy and adolescent, and I've never seen a photo that captures his persona as well as your uncle's. It is a great portrait. Thank you for allowing everyone to share your legacy. BTW---Does anyone happen to know what is draped around Kennedy's neck? It looks like some sort of medal or decoration. 66.108.4.183 01:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

needs a little work

needs a little work70.243.228.101 19:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Any problems in particular? Please clarify --WikiSlasher 12:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)