Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John F. Kennedy document hoax/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 June 2024 [1].

John F. Kennedy document hoax

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting little stir was created in the mid-1990s when it was claimed that a new cache of documents had been uncovered that contained salacious details about the private life of the former US president John F Kennedy. The documents, it was claimed, showed he'd been married before his nuptials to Jackie, that he did a deal with a mafia boss to win his senate seat, and that he bribed the FBI's J Edgar Hoover to keep quiet about his (Kennedy's) sex life. The one drawback is they were forgeries – and not very good ones either. Cue much wailing, gnashing of teeth, law suits, embarrassment and criminal charges. This has gone through a full rewrite recently and then been given a thorough going over by Wehwalt and Ssilvers to remove any lingering Britishness in the writing, for which they both have my thanks. All further comments are most welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made edits and comments when the article was in draft.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I too commented informally while the article was in draft, and on rereading for FAC I find nothing to add. As far as I can see the article is comprehensive, balanced and well sourced; and it is surprisingly well illustrated. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 16:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to you both for your earlier comments and assistance - it was much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Cusack Jr was the lawyer for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, who was appointed as a guardian of the estate of Gladys Pearl Baker, Monroe's mother, in the 1970s." This is confusing as grammatically "who" appears to refer to the archdiocese. I would delete "the lawyer for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, who was" as not important for the lead.
  • "a written signature had removed a tiny part of a line typed by using a modern plastic typewriter ribbon". I do not understand what a signature removing part of a line means,
  • "Cusack Jr. was also the personal counsel to Cardinal John O'Connor.[13] In the 1970s, a surrogate court judge appointed Cusack Jr. as a guardian of the estate of Gladys Pearl Baker, Monroe's mother. This is the only known connection he had to either Monroe or Kennedy.[14] Cusack Jr. died on October 28, 1985, aged 66. [13] Cardinal O'Connor officiated at his funeral." Putting Cusack/Baker/Kennedy in the middle of Cusack/O'Connor implies a connection between the church and the guardianship. I think the two sentences about Cusack/Baker/Kennedy should be moved to a separate paragraph and the church comments cut down as tangential background.
    I went with keeping them in the same para in the end, although separating them. A separate para was less than a line and just looked lost and stubby. I've kept the church info in for the moment as I think it's good background on the father as a responsible, trusted and upright lawyer, in comparison to his son. I can be persuaded to trim it down if necessary though! - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "audited one of its courses". What does this mean?
    What form the audit took I don't know (ie. audited financially or whether it was a standards audit), as unfortunately the sources do not make it clear. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, in the US, when we say that someone "audited" a course, we merely mean that they attended the class sessions, but did not credit as part of their degree program a grade for classwork. It is done for one's personal educational interest and because one admires the professor or has heard that the course is of high quality. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They also purportedly showed that to keep Kennedy bribed J. Edgar Hoover, the Director of the FBI, to keep quiet about Kennedy's sexual activities." The grammar gets lost here.
  • "archives at Cusack & Stiles concerning a transfer of land from the Kennedy family to the New York Archdiocese". Does this qualify the statement that the guardianship was Cusack senior's only connection to Kennedy?
    I've tweaked the first bit slightly to show it was JFK, rather than the Kennedy family. - SchroCat (talk)
  • Presumably Cusack could not repay in full but is it known whether he paid part or was pursued through the courts to pay?
    There's nothing in the sources, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An interesting article - one of a number of cases which show how gullible people can be if they think they have got a scoop. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Dudley, Many thanks for these. Shades of the Hitler Diaries, with everyone over-excited about the possibilities without doing some basic checks first! I hope I've done justice to your comments, which are all done, except where commented on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Dudley: it's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Forged_Kennedy_document.jpg could use a stronger FUR and a different tag

Comments

[edit]
  • "Hersh began including information about the documents into his book" => "Hersh began including information about the documents in his book"
  • "It was during the checks of the documents by NBC television network" => "It was during the checks of the documents by the NBC television network"
  • "His marriage notice in The New York Times stated he graduated" => "His marriage notice in The New York Times stated that he graduated"
  • "The documents Cusack forged supposedly showed Kennedy had" => "The documents Cusack forged supposedly showed that Kennedy had"
  • "Cusack showed the some of the documents" => "Cusack showed some of the documents"
  • That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Tim O'Doherty

[edit]

Marker, ping if I've not started ~10 days from now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. A few points (might be slightly out of order, did two passes):

  • according to Kennedy's biographer Richard Reeves, she had previously told people both of the affair, and that she wanted to marry the president - MOS:JOB would have this be "the President". Additionally, (keeping in mind this article is in American English) is the comma before "and" needed?
    I think so. I wouldn't have put it in if it were BrEng, but I think it's needed in AmEng. Happy if a passing AmEng speaker corrects it though! - SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the comma is not wanted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • She later told a confident - confidant?
  • In addition, as of 2024, Hersh has won - is "in addition" needed? "As of 2024, Hersh has won ..."
    I've added to it, rather than removed. If we go with "As of ... then the list doesn't include the Pulitzer, so we need something to link the Pulitzer to the other awards. - SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need to repeat "pulitzer". How about "As of 2024, Hersh has also won..."? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • testified before the United States Senate subcommittee on Education in 1963 - "US Senate" or just "Senate"?
  • Cardinal O'Connor officiated at his funeral. - is "Cardinal" unnecessary or American English? [insert British wisecrack here]
  • fix the 1960 US presidential election - can we drop "US"?
  • an early, secret first marriage - does the source say how early this "marriage" was?
  • In November 1993 Cusack, Reznikoff and Cloud - comma after 1993 (for the Yanks)?
  • as "a sort of vigorous 9-year-old valiantly combating dyslexia" –[53] - should the ref be before or after the en-dash?
    After, as far as I am aware. - SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ABC did not tell him in advance that they knew the documents were forgeries - haha. I imagine the temperature in that room dropped quite a few degrees after that.
    Unsurprisingly, he wasn't a happy bunny during the interview, from all I've read! - SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link federal prison?
I would not link federal prison. The US system of federal and state authorities is unnecessary to explain. If anyone really wants to know more about federal prison, they can look it up, but the words are clear enough on their faces, and it is not important to this topic to have a specific understanding of which prison system he was sentenced to. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might do another round but I can't see how this is anything but a support. Very interesting case. Cheers — Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim, all covered; thanks for the comments - all much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And a couple of tweaks, based on SSilvers's comments too. - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Had another scan and nothing to complain about. Support. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Tim, that’s great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

Saving a space -- another fascinating topic. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of the forged documents supposedly showed Kennedy's dealings with organized crime: as I read that as written, it implies that Kennedy definitely did have dealings with organised crime, but it's dubious as to whether the documents really showed it (compare "the picture supposedly showed the Queen's lover, Geoffrey Boycott"). Suggest "supposedly showed that Kennedy had had dealings with..." and so on.
How about just "supposed dealings"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would work fine for this bit, but I'm not sure how it would mesh with the rest of the sentence, where we list a whole bunch of other false accusations. On the other hand, it is a long sentence, so there might be an argument for splitting it anyway. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cusack sold the papers through memorabilia dealers for between $6 and 7 million: my usual inflation query.
  • John F. Kennedy, while the 35th president of the United States from 1961 until his assassination in 1963, was likely romantically involved with actress Marilyn Monroe at some point during his presidency: not sure about the while here: it reads awkwardly with at some point during his presidency. Also, technically, he remained the 35th president after his assassination. Suggest "John F. Kennedy was likely romantically involved with actress Marilyn Monroe at some point during his presidency, which lasted from ..."
Or just "while serving as president of..."? I don't think the number is important here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: I think the dates are important, though. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biographers differ in their opinions of the length or depth of any relationship, while: I think the point would be clearer if we moved "While" to the front of the sentence: the point is that people believe it happened so hard that the actual fact or not of it is moot for our purposes.
  • and that she wanted to marry the president: suggest "marry Kennedy": it wasn't that she wanted to marry whoever was president.
  • Having the Spoto quote as a pullout (and the last word), in my view, puts the article's weight behind its broad conclusions -- that they were not having a love affair in any meaningful sense, and that Quirk et al were wrong. Do we have a strong enough consensus in the sources to make that claim?
    Yes, I think so. There are degrees of opinion, obviously, but most seem to be in this sort of area. Where Spoto takes a slightly different line to the others, it is in talking about the two being partners in a love affair; the others don't focus on the love angle, seeing it as a more earthy pursuit of two people with high sex drives. - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm: I think if we are fairly definite that the two were sleeping together, we should adjust the framing of the article to be less conclusive that "an affair" wasn't taking place -- it sounds like what Spoto is really doing is quibbling the meaning of affair rather than disputing what most people would see as the important thing. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'd rather keep it in. I think we're clear that it is probable that they slept with each other - and don't forget, there is no evidence or proof that there was a physical relationship, just a high probability. The Spoto quote just clarifies the nature of the relationship to some extent, which is important, given what Cusack's forgeries claimed. - SchroCat (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree, but I think the order is important: at the moment, we have:
    They were likely involved -> they likely slept together -> but Spoto says they didn't have an affair
    I think this could be read as casting WP:UNDUE doubt on the sleeping together: I'd perhaps frame it as:
    They were likely involved -> While Spoto says what they had didn't count as an affair -> Even he says they probably slept together.
    UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, but I don't think it's an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thinking, slightly morbidly, of WP:ENDURE, you may wish to amend to Seymour Hersh, an investigative journalist and political writer, came to prominence... (that is, remove the present tense). Granted, the "as of 2024" section will need changing anyway when that tense is no longer appropriate.

More to follow.

  • Capital letter needed in as of 2024
  • Hersh and Little, Brown and Company: consider Hersh and the publishers Little... to avoid the potential ambiguity/clunkiness of going from one name into a single name composed of many (it sounds as if there were four men here).
  • Little, Brown thought: this is the normal way of shortening their name, but it does read a little oddly: suggest the publisher?
  • Suggest clarifying that both Loyola High School and Columbia are in New York (Loyola is in Manhattan). Is it relevant that Loyola is specifically a Jesuit institution? Can see it either way.
Both Loyola and Columbia are in Manhattan. BTW, does the source specify which undergraduate school he attended at Columbia? Almost certainly Columbia College. Also, the correct name of Loyola is Loyola School (no "high"). -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The school name isn't mentioned, unfortunately - it's just "The younger Cusack, who attended Loyola High School and Columbia University" in the source. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the title of Samuels 1997, hyphen should be an endash.
  • After his father's death, Cusack & Stiles lent him : would put a date on this. Could we change one of the pronouns to a name: in theory, it could be read that the law firm lent the money to a dead man?
    I was trying to avoid "After Cusack's death, Cusack and Stiles lent Cusack..."! There's no date shown, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we not bring in "after Cusack Jr.'s death, C&S lent the younger Cusack" or something like that? The "Jr." might be a useful disambiguator. We do know that Lawrence X. Cusack Jr. died in 1985, so could add "after [his] death the following year". UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tweaked this to "After his father's death, Cusack & Stiles lent Cusack ..." - SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Works perfectly! UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When he completed his courses, he went to work at his father's firm: strictly, it wasn't his father's any more, was it? "The firm" would do fine.
  • Both BrE and AmerE would prefer naval intelligence to "Navy intelligence".
  • Cusack had never been either in the Navy or Naval Reserve: technically, the Navy Reserve is part of the Navy, so this isn't an either-or. We should also use the contemporary term consistently: Naval Reserve (as it was until 2005).
I think it reads well now -- it's worth specifying both. The only thing I might change in that phrase is "never *served* in either the Navy or Naval Reserve. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but it's grammatically wrong: it's like saying "he had never been either to London or to England": you either need to clarify something like "to London, or to anywhere in England at all", or to rework to something like "had never served in any part of the Navy". UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FBI is never spelt out: is it such a common abbreviation that it doesn't need to be? I think the MoS has a list somewhere.
FBI is absolutely unambiguous here. Would European readers find it ambiguous? -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's very clear which organisation, but technically the MOS says to give the full rendering at some point, so I've dropped it in. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a precious metals dealer: hyphenate: precious-metals dealer (though I'm sure he was precious, too).
  • verifications on the handwriting: verifications of or tests on, I think.
  • he was not concerned that Cusack's claims were false – instead he was relieved that Cusack was not a spy: personally, I'd always treat someone's internal monologue as unverifiable, and so go with something here like "he later said, in a 1999 interview, that he had not been..." -- we can verify what he said, but not what he thought.
How about just adding "said that", as in he "said that he was not concerned". I think that this confirms that it was something he said (not a controversial fact, I think), and I think it would be distracting to the narrative to lay out exactly when he said it -- the ref supplies the date of the interview. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • August 1996, Hersh and Obenhaus began filming the documentary, but NBC informed them that the network had decided to cancel the project. : that was quick! Any idea of the separation between these two events? We later imply that there was enough time for some text specialists to give the documents a fairly good look.
    Unfortunately not: the sources are hazy on some of the dates. - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obenhaus's research team noticed that two of the letters, written in Kennedy's hand, but on Cusack Jr.'s office notepaper: they weren't actually written in Kennedy's hand: suggest "written on C. Jr.'s office notepaper and purportedly in Kennedy's hand..."
  • printed on an IBM Selectric : add typewriter?
  • which was unavailable until 1973: it might be worth, at some point around here, reminding readers of when Kennedy died.
  • Could we name or at least link Jacqueline Kennedy?
  • Suggest linking dyslexia. Is there anything in any source we can add to the effect that Kennedy was a confident or particularly capable writer? It's not out of the question that a US president would have struggled with his handwriting.
Sorry to disagree on this one, but I don't think we should link dyslexia. Not only is it a commonly-known disorder, but it is a wild goose chase here, as we are not actually talking about anyone's dyslexia. Vidal was being metaphorical. And the legibility or consistency of one's handwriting is not related to his or her confidence or capability as a writer (there is no reason why a US President's handwriting would be any more legible than anyone else), so I don't see how this would be helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there is no reason why a US President's handwriting would be any more legible than anyone else: well, precisely: in other words, we need some reason to believe that the poor handwriting would weigh against an identification of it as Kennedy's. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry -- reading again, more carefully, I had the wrong end of the stick. Happy here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • instead, interview Cusack and Cloud for an exposé.: purely for prose, I would either add a to before interview or change it to interviewed: it's a long way from the to which modifies its form, making it read as slightly awkward.
  • Jennings asked him directly if he had forged the papers: I would remove directly here: I don't think the meaning changes if we do, and it's always good to omit needless words.
  • Cusack claimed that the documents may be copies of earlier originals: sequence of tenses: may have been.
  • Could a wikitionary link or something help to clarify what Hersh meant by "Big deal" (that is, in very American English, that it wasn't a big deal?)
Isn't there something in the MOS or somewhere that says not to link stuff in quotes, generally? And, again, if a reader does not understand the sarcasm intended, I'm not sure making them follow some links to figure it out is helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:LINKQUOTE says link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author: this is precisely what I'm suggesting doing here. The clearly intended meaning is not the surface reading that, in particular, a non-native reader may infer. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's used sarcastically here too, although obviously I don't know about the rest of the world. I think short of adding <sarc></sarc> tags around it, we're going to have to leave it the readers to get the gist - it's a bit too much of an OVERLINKING for my liking. - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair: there's a lot of latitude for individual taste here, and I err more on the side of linking than most. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, again, but it is helpful here to clarify that this was a jury trial -- not a trial before a judge without a jury. In fact, a criminal defendant can waive a jury trial, at least in some US jurisdictions if not all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some monetary values are not inflated (I noticed $7 million), though most are.
    I think I've given them where I can safely link them to a base year (from the sources). Where there is no definite date (for example, when he was made a loan by Cusack & Stiles), I've not given an equivalent. Please let me know if there are any I've overlooked, though. - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a state court. In June 2001, this claim was denied by the courts: how come "court" has become plural here? Was it a NY state court?
  • Per MOS:SOMETHINGOROTHER, footnotes for material in dashes and brackets should go at the end of the parenthesised bit: I'd put note i directly against the number, personally.
Sorry to interject above. Great comments overall! -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All covered, I think. Please flag up something if I've overlooked it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if overlooked or simply disagreed on, but I'm still not wild about the "in the Navy or the Navy Reserve" (compare "he had never supported a football team or Manchester United"). Could do "in the Naval Reserve or the regular Navy" ("regular" in the sense of "professional") if you like? Alternatively, "active-duty" is quite common in American writing at the moment, but not sure if it was at the time. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I thought it was the word ‘either’ that was the problem, which I removed. Having said that, I think we need to mention both as they are different entities. Your simile is slightly wrong: to extend the imagery, I see it as the difference between the junior and senior teams of ManUre: you’re in one and then move to the other. Both are closely related, but still under the same umbrella. - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the case here, though, because the Naval Reserve is part of the Navy -- everyone in the Naval Reserve is, by definition, in the Navy. It's closer to "the United Junior Team and United" UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most Americans are not up on the fact that the Naval Reserve is "part of" the Navy"; until now, I always had assumed that it is an additional, affiliated body. I think it reads smoothly now, while UC's alt suggestion reads less smoothly. But, I guess, UC is technically right, and maybe more military-minded readers will recognize the issue that UC sees. Up to SchroCat. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve gone with “joined in the Navy or served in its reserve”. I think we need to refer to both entities (rather than ‘any part of the navy’), as it is a distinct and separate part - and I suspect (without anything in the way of proof except how UK equivalents behave), that members of the reserve will describe themselves as being in the reserve, rather than the navy as a whole. UK army reserves describe themselves as being in the reserves, rather than the army, for example: there is a difference between the full time and part time wings of the organisation, despite the administrative bundling together of the two entities. - SchroCat (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great -- that works for me. Happy to Support UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too. An elegant solution! -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent (although I made a slight tweak to it by removing an "in"). Many thanks as always for going through this and I'm delighted we landed at something much stronger. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-check upon request. There might be additional sources here, but not many I'd think. Sauce formatting wise, the main thing I notice is that ISBN isn't linked the same way in the sections. I presume that this is a reliable source? Does "Winship, Frederick M. (August 7, 1996). "Kennedy Book War Heats Up". United Press International." have a news(paper) name? Is "Weinberg, Steve (November 1997). "Attacks on Style and Substance". The IRE Journal. 20 (6): 6–15." in the right section? I notice that many of the news articles have no online footprint; are they really this obscure? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Jo-Jo. In answer to your questions: the ISBNs are all in the book section and are all linked in the same manner. Yes, I think Legal Assistant Today is reliable: is there any reason to think it isn't? No, there's no newspaper name for United Press International, as UPI is an agency (I've included the field "agency=United Press International" in the template). I think the IRE Journal is in the right section as a trade magazine, rather than an academic journal, although it could be argued either way. I've added one further URL to the news reports, but the others don't have links. As this includes at least one article that appeared on the front page on The Washington Post, I'm not sure they should be described as 'obscure', just that practice varies between newspapers. Many thanks for the comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Churchwell cite links to a different ISBN article than the others. I was asking about Legal Assistant Today because I couldn't find much of a footprint. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand the point about the Churchwell cite: the templates are all formatted identically and they all seem to render properly. Could you expand on that - I'm obviously being a bit slow on the uptake here. From the research I did on LAT, it seems to be reliable: it ran for ten years from a reputable publisher, no visible complaints about the output. It changed name at some point and may no longer be active, which probably explains the lack of footprint. - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like I was wrong about the links, so nevermind the ISBN thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Placeholder... Hi SchroCat, I have a few minor questions to ask. Should be finished tomorrow my time. JennyOz (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat, sorry for delay and length of my comments! Mostly they are my curiosity and I will be quite happy for you to simply answer "yep" or "nope" to any you deem too worthless:)

top

  • short description - start with 1993?

John F. Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe

  • almost any other event in the man’s presidency - curly apos in man's
  • In Spoto quote "historicocritical" - add hyphen historico-critical per ref ie is intentional compound hyphen not a line break hyphen (and our article also treats it as a compound although it uses "historical-critical" not "historico")
  • Kennedy's brother in law, described - add hyphens ie brother-in-law

Lawrence X. Cusack Jr. and Lawrence X. Cusack III

  • which was based at 61 Broadway, Manhattan, New York. - better as 'was based at 61 Broadway in Manhattan, New York.'?
  • Senate subcommittee on Education - cap S on subcommittee (seems the official norm eg here and article, etc)
  • Cusack Jr. died on October 28, 1985, aged 66.[13] O'Connor officiated at his funeral - move this sentence chron wise to bottom this para?
    I was trying to keep the church-related stuff together and separate from the Monroe-related stuff. - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of Cusack Jr.'s sons was his namesake, Lawrence X. Cusack III - I noticed that some sources call him Lex. Should we add "also known as" or "sometimes called" or similar somewhere?
  • He never studied at Harvard, but had only audited one of its courses - link Academic audit
  • Cusack had never joined the Navy or served in its reserve. - nor served? Cap R on reserve?
    Not sure on this one as it's a generic term, rather than a formal name. - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Production and sale of the documents

  • Reznikoff told Cusack that documents relating to Kennedy were highly sought after and valuable - I think sought after takes a hyphen (UK and US) even when not used attributively before a noun?
    I've gone with it: if one of the Americans watching this knows differently, they can chip in and correct us. - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To give credibility to his story, Cusack claimed that between 1959 and 1963 his father had counseled Kennedy on numerous sensitive and personal matters - I'm guessing there's a hint here that the Cusack Jr. and Kennedy connection was as Catholics? Do any sources suggest Cusack III thought the firm's Catholic ties lent plausibility to JFK being counseled by the older Cusack?
    There's nothing in the sources on this, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • showed that Kennedy bribed J. Edgar Hoover, the - add a nbsp between J. and Edgar (it was on a new line for me)
  • They also purportedly showed that Kennedy bribed J. Edgar Hoover, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to keep quiet about Kennedy's sexual activities. - need to add (FBI) here to cover its use in lede and caption?
  • Other fabrications in the papers included tax evasion by Kennedy; the payment of hush money to Monroe as his lover; - link hush money (ie beyond lede)
  • and a secret first marriage in 1939 - do we know if Cusack claimed it was secret at the time it happened or that it was later concealed?
    The sources focus on what the papers were claiming, not whatever line Cusack came up with. - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cusack stole genuine deeds from archives at Cusack & Stiles concerning a transfer of land from the Kennedy family to the New York Archdiocese - clarify this refers to the wider Kennedy family (not JFK's immediate) with that link. (Because above has "This is the only known connection he had to either Monroe or John F. Kennedy.")
  • stage a high-profile auction to enable to original investors - second "to" should be 'the'?
  • Hersh was contacted in December 1994 and shown some of the papers; he was interested in the story immediately.[19][33][34] According to journalists Evan Thomas and Mark Hosenball, this was when Hersh decided to change the focus of the book away from the assassination and towards the information in Cusack's Kennedy documents - I think "this was when Hersh decided" could be changed to 'this was when Hersh then decided to' (He could not have decided to change focus before he'd been shown the papers?)
  • According to journalists Evan Thomas and Mark Hosenball - link them or intentionally not done? (They both have author-links.)
  • he was relieved that Cusack was not a spy - any context available why the concern? spy for whom? someone protecting Kennedy's legacy?
  • With the new information from the Cusack documents, Hersh negotiated an advance from Little, Brown of $250,000. - but p. 66 of The New Yorker says Hersh already had a million dollar advance for The Dark Side. It's an additional advance? Also should p.39 be p.26?

Uncovering the forgeries

  • he continued to use experts in different fields, including those versed in fingerprint and handwriting analysis, and - we don't mention that no Kennedy fingerprints were found on the documents (per Zoglin Time)
  • although the verification continued - verification attempts?
  • she denied that she had ever seen Monroe and that a signature that appeared was hers. - ambiguous? is she denying the signature is Monroe's or that it was hers (Janet's)?
  • None had any knowledge of any connection - maybe 'No associates had any'?
  • any connection between the two men or had heard of Cusack Jr - or had previously heard of?
  • Another flaw was that the "y" in Monroe's signature - Marilyn? (because the "y" is in her first name)
    I think I'd best stick with the surname throughout - some people got a little over-excited last time I used a first name in an article! - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kenneth Rendell - link Kenneth W. Rendell?
  • although this was based upon a sample of only three cards - what sort of cards, greeting? (this is only mention of cards)
  • Another clue was that Kennedy's handwriting was irregular and inconsistent - Kennedy's own/real/genuine handwriting?
  • Gore Vidal, described it as "a sort of vigorous 9-year-old valiantly combating dyslexia" –[53] while - that ref should go before the dash, ie belongs to Vidal's quote?
  • Hersh wanted the news spread widely to ensure no-one else was fooled by them, and to ensure he was not legally liable for their promotion. - 2 x ensure, 'and to protect himself from legal liability' or similar?

Arrest and trial

  • investigators had found a notebook containing - where? do we know? Had Cusack not tried to cover his tracks?
    It just says they found his notebooks. I suspect he wasn't expecting to be caught, but it shows a particular attitude not to hide some of the giveaway clues of one's guilt! - SchroCat (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cusack's trial ended on April 30, 1999; - do we know when it started?

Aftermath

  • he filed for a writ of habeas corpus - add italics

Magazines

  • Frank, Reuven - authorlink Reuven Frank

News

  • Harden, Blaine - authorlink Blaine Harden

Misc

  • Re the false titles, eg "with actress Marilyn Monroe", "Journalist Lawrence J. Quirk", "although actor Peter Lawford", etc. (I thought between BB, TR and SC I understood and appreciated them but am now confused.) Are they used here as an Engvar option ie more acceptable in AmEng?
  • "between $6 and 7 million" x2 - maybe just me but this reads strangely? It's technically okay I think but just thought I'd mention other MOS options... 1) $6–7 million (removing "between" of course) or 2) 'between six and seven million dollars'
  • There is a "Script warning: One or more cite news templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden" - I have no idea how to identify.
    Trial and error in deleting them one by one has found the culprit. Now error free. - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. JennyOz (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MSincccc

[edit]
  • Some of the forged documents allegedly showed that Kennedy had dealings with organized crime (through Sam Giancana of the Chicago Outfit), tax evasion, bribery of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, payment of hush money to actress Marilyn Monroe for being Kennedy’s lover, and a secret first marriage.
  • The flaws in the forgeries came to light during document verification by both NBC television network and ABC News while preparing the documentary.
    I agree @SchroCat. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional errors included the use of ‘lift-off’ type to correct a misspelling in Kennedy’s name and a signature that had inadvertently removed part of the underlying type—created using a modern plastic typewriter ribbon, which did not exist in the early 1960s.

MSincccc (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Monroe's biographer Donald Spoto observed that an affair between the two "has been assumed for so long that it has achieved as solid a place in public awareness as almost any other event in the man’s presidency".[4]
  • Journalist Lawrence J. Quirk characterized Kennedy and Monroe's relationship as an "on-again, off-again affair," while actor Peter Lawford, Kennedy's brother-in-law, rejected the speculation as "garbage".
  • Spoto describes four occasions between October 1961 and August 1962 when Kennedy and Monroe are known to have met;...

MSincccc (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the early 1990s, Cusack met John Reznikoff, a dealer in historical memorabilia, to sell a small collection of stamps left by Cusack's father.
  • Cusack and Reznikoff selected Tom Cloud, a dealer in precious metals who also engaged in memorabilia trading, to present the documents for sale.
  • Among those Reznikoff presented the documents to was Hal Kass, a collector and businessman.
    The suggested version is stronger because it flows more naturally and succinctly. This sentence structure is clearer and more engaging for the reader, making it more suitable for a potential FA-class article. But ultimately it's your choice whether to use it or not @SchroCat. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchroCat, was Kass an investor, and part of the group? If so, I would say so: "One of these investors to whom Reznikoff showed the documents was Hal Kass, a businessman and collector." -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plan involved generating interest post-1998 and subsequently holding a high-profile auction to enable original investors to resell at a significant profit.
  • In December 1994, Hersh was contacted and shown some of the papers, immediately expressing interest in the story.
  • Following six months of negotiations, Hersh signed an agreement on July 3, 1995, granting him complete and exclusive access to all of Cusack's documents ahead of the scheduled auction.
    The present version is fine as it is. This was just a suggestion from my end. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • NBC executive Warren Littlefield subsequently stated that he had told Hersh:...
    In May 1997, one of Obenhaus's research teams noticed that...
    When the phrase "one of Obenhaus's..." is used, it indicates that there are multiple research teams or members. Hence, it suggests the plural. MSincccc (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was only one team, so this would be wrong, but I have clarified this. - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This included Janet Des Rosiers, one of Kennedy's former secretaries, whose name appears in the papers and who denied that she had ever seen Monroe and that a signature that appeared was hers.
    Adding an "and" between "papers" and "who denied...". It makes for a stronger phrase then. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's grammatically confusing this way and not stronger. - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As soon as it became clear in July 1997 that the documents were fake, Hersh wanted the news to spread widely to prevent anyone else from being fooled by them, and also to ensure that he was not legally liable for their promotion. More preferable. MSincccc (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an improvement (the "also" adds no benefit to the reader. - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But you couls use this phrase as it is grammatically more sound-As soon as it became clear in July 1997 that the documents were fake, Hersh wanted the news to spread widely to prevent anyone else from being fooled by them,... MSincccc (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ABC, following legal advice, decided to cancel the documentary project and instead chose to interview Cusack and Cloud for an exposé. MSincccc (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cusack responded that he had not and also claimed that the documents may have been copies of earlier originals. MSincccc (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to claims of forgery,... You can omit the "the" for a better flow of the sentence. MSincccc (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An investigation showed that he had spent the money he received from the sale of the forgeries on two large houses... This version avoids the repetition of "Cusack" which already appears in the sentence before and after this one. MSincccc (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When that ended, the duo's federal claim was withdrawn, although a different defamation action continued in a state court. This version avoids repeating the phrase "Cusack and Cloud's" in successive sentences. MSincccc (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mike Stern, one of the collectors who had paid $300,000[i], stated:... I rephrased it for a clearer flow of the sentence. MSincccc (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But this has changed the meaning. "one of the collectors who had paid $300,000" means that more than one person paid $300k, which we don't know. "one of the collectors, who had paid $300,000" means he was one of the collectors and that he paid $300k: this we do know. - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchroCat I have reviewed the article's prose. I would be pleased to support the nomination once I receive your feedback on the recent suggestions. Regards and anticipating our future collaborations. MSincccc (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read up to the section "Uncovering the forgeries". I will complete the rest of the article and its comments later. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/John_F._Kennedy_document_hoax/archive1&oldid=1228007147"