Talk:John F. Kennedy/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Family photo

I think family photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JFK_and_family_in_Hyannis_Port,_04_August_1962.jpg would be more appropriate than current http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kennedy_Family_with_Dogs_During_a_Weekend_at_Hyannisport_1963-crop.png for this article. Rationale: more direct contact with the audience; more a family portrait than a family-playing-with-dogs photo; in short, you get to see more who they really were as a family with the 1962 photo than with the 1963 one, in my opinion. Twipley (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

For the public image/family section, I prefer the current more informal (to the extent any official government photo can be called "informal") image than the other one which looks more like a standard posed family portrait. Just 2¢. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Prime Minister De Gaulle???

In the "Foreign policy" section : "to meet Charles De Gaulle, whose advice to Kennedy was to expect and ignore the abrasive style of Khrushchev. The French Prime Minister was nationalistic, and disdainful of the United States' presumed influence in Europe, in his talks with Kennedy" Charles De Gaulle was a French President, not a Prime Minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight Merlin (talk • contribs) 18:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. de Gaulle was the 18th President and I corrected the error in the text. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Length of Article

A tag has been placed at the beginning suggesting the article is too long. At 147MB I don't believe this is true when other presidents are considered, e.g Roosevelt, Lincoln, or Jefferson which are all of comparable length. I would propose the tag be removed. Thoughts? Hoppyh (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I remember this was discussed before; and you and I have made many edits for concision, over time. Kierzek (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection, nor any further discussion; you can remove same. Kierzek (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the 16-month-old "too long" tag since there was not an on-going, active discussion of the article length.

The "too long" tag was added May 5, 2010 by Jpatros (talk | contribs) as part of series of "too long" drive-by tagging over five weeks of: Big Bang, U.S. Route 66, Neutron star, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Cuban Missle Crisis, Mercury (planet), Malcom X, and Bill Clinton.

This was the only article where a talk page section (Too Long) was added by Jpatros to accompany a "too long" tag—but it garnered no replies.

Subsequent talk page sections regrading the article length were added by other editors in October 2010 (Article Length), November 2010 (Location of physical addresses in Early Life and Education), and January 2011 (Splitting into new articles). Newross (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Economy

The article says Kennedy's 1962 budget was the first to go over 100 billion; gpoacess.gov gives 106 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.209.21 (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I noted this sometime earlier; the figure given in the text is actually 1,000 times larger than reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.209.21 (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Assination Wounds

There was 3 wounds one thru the neck as stated in the autopsy section on this website. Also little more info as it was clear oswald acted alone if at all.--Biebersbro2 (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 13 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Add this citation to your footnotes. It is on the cuban missle crisis and some of the information is in this book. Thank you. Devine, Robert A. The Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: Markus Wiener Publishing, 1988. 75.177.55.183 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".  Chzz  ►  01:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Very minor typo

If you go down to the "Civil rights" section or ctrl+f ... "agreed the March would be held on a Wednesday and would be over at 4:00 pm" there should be a period after "4:00 pm" i.e., "4:00 pm."

 Done Thanks. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 03 November 2011

To date, the last US President to Die whilst holding office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.47.170 (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 5 November 2011

Under "Image, social life and family", please change "Kennedy at one time was regularly seen by no less than three doctors" to "Kennedy at one time was regularly seen by no fewer than three doctors", as the former is grammatically incorrect.

99.36.34.129 (talk) 07:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Done Done, thanks for the pick up. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 15 November 2011

The second paragraph states the JFK was the first president born in the 20th century. That is incorrect. He was born in 1917, and Nixon was born in 1914, making Richard Nixon the first elected president born in the 20th century.

Kevin Mayfield (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have tweaked that statement to say "first elected president". Nixon may have been 3 yrs. older, but Kennedy was elected first. So the statement is accurate, but some clarity was needed.--JayJasper (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

False HSCA report

This isn't true:

• The FBI, the Warren Commission, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded that Oswald was the lone assassin, with the HSCA allowing for the possibility of conspiracy based on disputed acoustic evidence

That language intentionally obscures the gravity of the HSCA's actual report:

• The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy
• Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of their duties. President John F. Kennedy did not receive adequate protection. A thorough and reliable investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination was conducted. The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate. The conclusions of the investigations were arrived at in good faith, but presented in a fashion that was too definitive

--Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives

The Assassination of John F. Kennedy page has a good description:

• Contrary to the Warren Commission, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1979 concluded that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The HSCA found both the original FBI investigation and the Warren Commission Report to be seriously flawed. While agreeing with the Commission that Oswald fired all the shots which caused the wounds to Kennedy and Governor Connally, it stated that there were at least four shots fired and that there was a "high probability" that two gunmen fired at the President.

Please fix this. 00099a99000 (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Minor correction

The Bay of Pigs section says:

but with no covert help from the United States

I think that the correct wording would be:

but with no overt help from the United States

The original plan was to invade with no overt help from the United States, but with lots of covert help from the United States.

Banjohunter (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Kennedy wanted to dismantle the selection of immigrants based on country of origin and saw this as an extension of his civil rights policies.[186]

The link provided does not support the claim that he wished to expand or alter the countries of origin of immigrants to the United States — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.33.162 (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not the best sourcing for the statement. Actually, the previous footnote (185, NPR) does a better job, but Ted Kennedy could be viewed as a somewhat less than completely neutral opinion.

The campaign press release at 186 is vague on the subject and seems to contain non sequiturs. The statements:

Senator John F. Kennedy today pledged that "high priority" would be given by a Democratic administration to the platform plank calling for amendments to the immigration and naturalization laws to ban discrimination based on national origin.

and:

The U.S. Congress, under Democratic leadership, has taken the initial steps toward liberalizing changes in immigration law, Senator Kennedy told the group.

seem to support the article's statement, but each is followed by JFK quotes related to the rights of naturalized citizens, not liberalization of naturalization laws themselves. Overall, I'd say the article content is probably accurate, but could use better backup. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thich Quang Duc

Thich Quang Duc burned himself protesting sweet Kennedy. Should be mentioned. At least as a "see also".--76.31.238.174 (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

JFK's 1962 award to John Glenn

Do we need to discuss this? Why is my short narrative about JFK awarding John Glenn the NASA service medal 1n 1962 being removed by Sunray? Are other editors in favor of this decision?--Ourhistory153 (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Note you even have a image of a picture of this event at Hanger S. --Ourhistory153 (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as Kennedy's life goes, it seems pretty trivial. (Exactly where is the image of a picture of this event?) Fat&Happy (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with Fat&Happy on this. You could try and add the very minor point to John Glenn's article. Kierzek (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with Fat&Happy about this. The information is not really about Kennedy (who is, after all the subject of the article); it reveals nothing interesting or illuminating about him. If we were to put a line into the article about everyone notable who received an honour from Kennedy, the article would swell to hundreds of pages. Our goal in Wikipedia is to provide information that gives and overview of the particular subject. Simply cataloging information is not what we are about. Sunray (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Conversion to {sfn} Harvard style citations

I would like to convert this article to having {{sfn}} templates for its citations. I am in favour of the sfn and harv templates, because when used in conjunction with the script available at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors, citation errors are easily detectable. The kind of errors that can be spotted include citations that do not point to any of the books in the bibliography, and citations that point to different editions than the one shown in the bibliography. Pagination is often not the same between various editions of a book, so it is important, for verifiability, to know which edition was used. The script also detects books listed in the bibliography that are not actually cited. These can be moved to a "further reading" section. Another good reason to use citation templates is because then the material is viewable by bots. Citations not in templates are invisible to bots. Bots can help us in several ways, including adding missing authors, adding DOIs, and adding PMIDs. A further advantage to sfn templates is that the citations then become clickable links down to the books which are referenced. Some people do not like then for this reason as the citations then become blue instead of black. I am not necessarily a fan of blue, but I think the clickable links are of value to the reader. Any discussion on this proposed change is welcome. We have room for more templates on the page, as the data is as follows:

NewPP limit report
Preprocessor node count: 85804/1000000
Post-expand include size: 1240077/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 696404/2048000 bytes
Expensive parser function count: 20/500

-- Dianna (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It will take a lot of time but is worth it in the end. Kierzek (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A conditional "Yes" vote.

The only concern I have is related to a situation I believe you're aware of; the Barack Obama page. I'm not Wiki-technical enough to have more than a conceptual understanding of the numbers posted. Is "Template argument size" the only real concern about templates? From all the discussions at the Obama page, it seemed the problems were being blamed on actual number of (either different or total) templates used, not data volume. Is there any chance of having similar problems of unexpanded templates occur here?

If that's not a valid concern, I say it will definitely be worth it. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty certain part of the problem on the Obama page is not just the template load but the sheer number of different sources. Citing the same book 50 times is not as burdensome as citing 50 different websites. A cite web template is a more complex template than an sfn and thus is more burdensome. Obama has four navboxes at the bottom and Kennedy only has two. Obama is not actually broken at the moment; it is at 2022558 out of 2048000. You might like to have a look at Adolf Hitler, which I successfully converted. It's a question of keeping an eye on things and not adding th cite web templates to the internet sources until we are sure that we have room for them. Remember that the vast majority of our readers are not logged in, and thus are served a cached version of the page. This means the only people suffering poorer load times due to big article size are those of us who are logged in.

I hope to eliminate some of the web citations and source to books; as Kennedy has been dead for many years, we should not have to rely on web pages for information. We also need to cut down the size of the article by a couple thousand words (we are at 13,000 and should target in the 10,000 to 11,000 range). Presumably some sources will be cut along with any content that is pruned away. -- Dianna (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I sort of guessed you had that covered, but figured it doesn't hurt to ask. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Extra-marital relationships

This section needs to be tidyied up.

One error (?) is the statement that "corroborated reports allege, but others deny, that Kennedy had affairs with a number of women". If there is corroberation, presumably the alleged affair must be regarded as true. It is far harder to prove affairs did not occur, so how much weight can be given to reports denying a particular affair? This introduction implies there is doubt that Kennedy had extra-marital affairs. Isn't it actually the case that he is known to had numerous affairs, the only questions being with which women? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is in the process of being tidied up right now. There is no doubt that Kennedy had numerous extramarital affairs, and I have reworked the content to reflect that. Thank you for your note. --Dianna (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ireland

I have removed the section on the visit to Ireland, as most of the material in the section does not appear in the quoted sources. I am open to discussion on this, or to reinsertion of the content when better sources can be found. -- Dianna (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Appeasement in Munich

I understood - I believe from an NPR interview - that Appeasement in Munich was originally in favor of appeasment (as was his father's policy), and was only re-written with the opposite emphasis after war broke out, and the former conclusion would be seen as anti-patriotic. Anyone familiar with this claim?

MarkBul (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Dallek (2003) has an analysis on pp. 61–66. He says the original thesis defended Baldwin and Chamberlain and blamed short-sighted politicians and the general public's opposition to increased taxes for the appeasement policy at Munich. Later the manuscript was revised for publication as Why England Slept to be more balanced, de-emphasising the role of the public and democracy as a whole, and giving recommendations for national security. So nowhere does Dallek say the thesis was "for" or "against" appeasement, but rather an analysis of why it happened. --Dianna (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

A July 1945 letter certifying that Kennedy was in Europe on special assignment for Hearst Newspapers.

At the end of the section on John F. Kennedy#Military service, please add a thumbnail of the photograph at right, as well as the following:

In April 1945, Kennedy's father, a friend of William Randolph Hearst, arranged for his son to obtain a position as a special correspondent for Hearst Newspapers; the assignment kept Kennedy's name in the public eye and "expose[d] him to journalism as a possible career."

Reference

<ref>{{cite book| title= John F. Kennedy: A Biography | first= Michael |last= O'Brien | year= 2006 | isbn= 0312357451 | publisher= Macmillan | page= 180 | quote= In April, through his friend William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Kennedy secured Jack a temporary assignment as a Hearst reporter. The position would give Jack something stimulating to do, keep him name before the public, probably grant him credentials to travel in Europe, and expose him to journalism as a possible career| url= http://books.google.com/books?id=fxzd__gA_I4C&pg=PA180 | accessdate=2012-02-27}}</ref>

Thanks in advance. 67.101.7.48 (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. He worked as a correspondent for the month of May 1945, covering the Potsdam conference and other events in Europe at the time (Dallek, p. 104). I am not sure this episode is important enough to include, as the article is over-sized already, by some 2000 words. What do other editors think? --Dianna (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have concern about the article's length, instead of omitting those 30 or 40 words about his father's help during his transition from the military to politics, I'd suggest following WP:SS and WP:PRESERVE and shorten by hundreds of words the eight or more long sections on topics that already have separate articles, such as 1960 presidential election, Image, social life and family and Southeast Asia. 67.101.5.35 (talk) (a.k.a. 67.101.7.48) 07:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That kind of stuff will be done too, in prep for a GA bid. The target is 10000 words. I am going ahead with the addition and have confirmed by a preview on Amazon.ca that the material appears on Page 180 of the edition of O'Brien we are already sourcing in the article. --Dianna (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

number of electoral votes in 1960

I have found: "in the Electoral College he won 303 votes to Nixon's 219 (269 were needed to win). Another 14 electors from Mississippi and Alabama refused to support Kennedy because of his support for the civil rights movement; they voted for Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia." We need to review the number of electoral votes; I heard that Harry Byrd received 15 electoral votes. What YOU currently have here is accounting for 303 + 219 + 14, which is only 536. There were 537 electoral votes in 1960.

In 1956 (and for many presidential elections before 1956), there were 531 electoral votes (96 Senators, 435 Representatives; remember there were 48 states then; D.C. did not have electoral votes until 1964). By 1960, Alaska and Hawaii had been admitted, so they sent a total of 4 Senators, and were alotted 1 Representative each; the U.S. House was temporarily expanded to 437 members so that the apportionment based on 1950 census would not be disturbed. Effective 3 Jan. 1963, the U.S. House went back to 435 members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just read the wikipedia entry about 1960 presidential election. It says that a "faithless" elector from Oklahoma voted for Byrd, so that would be the 15th electoral vote for Byrd. Could someone please account for that in this article (about John F. Kennedy)? I don't have it front of me who carried Oklahoma in 1960. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry is unsourced and cannot be considered a reliable source in any event. I found a source that shows six Alabama and eight Mississippi and one Oklahoma for a total of 15 for Byrd. I will use this citation to improve both articles. Thanks for your help. --Dianna (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 March 2012

Yes hello, I would like to request the pronunciation of President Kennedy's full name from the audio option have another voice or a voice over of what it is now. It's not the fact that it is in a Indian/Arabic accent that bothers me, though it is a American President.... It's the fact that his middle name Fitzgerald and his last name Kennedy are to heavy on the accent. I don't want to nit pick but if this could be voiced over in a standard American or a North Eastern accent like his origin I would be very happy. And I would be happy to do it if needed I am from Boston and it would be a honor to edit the Presidents page. Username -Dreaelordfrips -Dan

Dreadlordfrips (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to change here - you didn't uploaded a new file, so we simply can't use another file because we have no other right now! mabdul 12:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"Church - State - and the Unspoken Speech"

I have twice removed content under the section header "Church - State - and the Unspoken Speech", added by CIC7. The first time it was added, it was completely unsourced, and the second time, one source had been added. Regardless of sourcing, I feel this 514-word passage gives undue weight to an incident that is unimportant in the context of the presidency of JFK. I don't think the inclusion of the material is warranted, and am posting here for further discussion. -- Dianna (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Im sorry, I had added one source and saved it, I should have finished all my sources. This source was the location of the information about the interviews between Kennedy and Billy Graham. I was in the process of adding more sources when I was stopped. I was adding the source of the text of the speech that Kennedy intended to deliver at the Dallas Trade Mart and J. Vernon McGee's sermon about Jack Kennedy's interviews with Billy Graham which confirmed Kennedy's interest in the Second Coming of Jesus and the scriptures. Confirming that this was something that was known by other ministers outside the Graham circle but apparently not to the general public, even to this day. It appears to me, and I think I understand the policy on bias, that although the interviews with Graham are not well known, they and the speech he intended to deliver in Dallas are historical facts. And although Kennedy started his Presidency assuring the public that he felt that no president should be under the influence of any cleric he felt that he and any citizen of the United States were free to use whatever information they wanted. I feel that in light of the recent comments of candidate Rick Santorum the issue has some current relevance. But more than that, I think this shows another side of Kennedy, one that has not been well known. Apparently people are comfortable with the image of Kennedy as the King of Camelot, Lothario in Chief, UFO believer and LSD taker. Apparently there another side to him. I am trying to document two sources for it. It is a historical fact and the last line of the Dallas speech, the unspoken speech...I request that you let me include Church - State - and the Unspoken Speech so I can finish my references and the public can add to it.CIC7 —Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC).

I must agree with Diannaa but for the part: When Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas he had a speech in his pocket that he intended to deliver at the Dallas Trade Mart. It addressed the challenges that the United States faced in the 1960's. We were not going to back down from the challenges, although our military and scientific options were limited. Nuclear weapons were of no use against guerilla warfare or internal subversion. (cite needed, ofcourse) Kierzek (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

File:John F Kennedy Official Portrait.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:John F Kennedy Official Portrait.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:John F Kennedy Official Portrait.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Image Refresh 2012 April

Since the JFK portrait is in dispute at Wikimedia Commons I feel it should be considered that updating the image to keep the page fresh would be nice as they did with Robert F. Kennedy. I feel it should be replaced by his photographed speech at Rice.

Under what kind of dispute is the portrait? According to the file history I do not see any revert war or something like that going on.

Sorry I was assuming the above section was referring to the info box photograph. Either way his main photo should be rotated as with the Robert F. Kennedy article. If you read on the talk page they also do this with Jackie Kennedy's article as well. What do you think, I think it is a good idea? 71.240.218.38 (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

As I can see from the Robert F Kennedy article, "rotating" images often leads to edit wars. A better option would be to put this image somewhere else in the article (such as in a section which mentions that he gave a speech at Rice University). jfd34 (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I would gladly like to practice my editing skills by creating this section, would that be allowed and how should I go about doing so? Post it here on the talk page for revision? PurpleSteak (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, silly me I was not aware I had the ability to edit semi-protected articles... PurpleSteak (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it fits the page quite nicely :) PurpleSteak (talk) 11:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Iraq

What exactly was wrong with my edit? It's just echoing what Wikipedia says elsewhere. You accused me of adding words from a CIA agent, but that's not true at all.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The section you put in is cited to: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0420-05.htm. The article discusses assertions by an ex-CIA agent. Now maybe the info. is true, but the source for the article is a problem: it is a website founded by a husband and wife which is not a standard news agency or well regarded newspaper, such as the "New York Times". So there are WP:RS problems.

Also this article does not contain the speculation quotes added, which are: "Almost certainly a gain for our side," Robert Komer, a National Security Council aide, wrote to Kennedy on the day of the takeover. That Komer wrote that memo to Kennedy, without spending any time on additional research, may suggest, but does not confirm, the National Security Council, a covert operations approval committee, or Kennedy knew of planning against Qasim." I checked the cited article of the website above and that info. is not mentioned there. So this material has: WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY problems. Therefore, it should not be included at this time. Kierzek (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I got that quote from Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source. Here is something I have read, though:

"We will make informal friendly noises as soon as we can find out whom to talk with, and ought to recognize as soon as we’re sure these guys are firmly in the saddle. CIA had excellent reports on the plotting, but I doubt either they or UK should claim much credit for it."-JFK Library, Memorandum for The President from Robert W. Komer, February 8, 1963 (JFK, NSF, Countries, Iraq, Box 117, "Iraq 1/63-2/63", document 18), p. 1.

Now, let me clear a few things up. Roger Morris is the man cited in the Common Dreams article. He was never a CIA agent. He's basically a foreign policy pundit. Morris is also the source used in this article, albeit via a New York Times piece. The reason the Common Dreams story is interesting is because it claims “many experts, including foreign affairs scholars, say there is little to suggest U.S. involvement in Iraq in the 1960s," citing two authors--David Wise and James Philips. There is a lot of ambiguity surrounding what actually occurred in Iraq, because there is no documentation clearly showing that the CIA funded the coup. The main reason for assuming it may have is the Komer memo--and Morris. The CIA might not have kept records of everything, though. I don't know how familiar you are with this topic, but Congress investigated CIA activities in Iraq after the fact and found evidence of a plot to kill Qasim with a poisoned handkerchief in 1959 (under Eisenhower). This was detailed in the Church Committee report:

"In February 1960, the Near East Division [of the Directorate of Plans (i.e., Clandestine Service)] sought the endorsement of what the Division Chief called the "Health Alteration Committee" for its proposal for a "special operation: to 'incapacitate' an Iraqi Colonel believed to be 'promoting Soviet bloc political interests in Iraq'." The Division sought the Committee's advice on a technique, "which while not likely to result in total disablement would be certain to prevent the target from pursuing his usual activities for a minimum of three months," adding: "We do not consciously seek subject's permanent removal from the scene; we also do not object should this complication develop." Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (20 November 1975), "C. Institutionalizing Assassination: the "Executive Action" capability," Alleged Assassination Plots involving Foreign Leaders, p. 181, http://history-matters.com/archive/church/reports/ir/contents.htm

In turns out that the handkerchief was never received, if, in fact, it was sent at all.

So here's the story: There was a CIA plot to kill Qasim. It failed or was never actually implemented. Then Qasim was killed by a Ba'ath uprising within his own army. The CIA was aware of several plots against Qasim by various factions. It may have supported this one financially; maybe not. Morris claims that after the new regime came to power, the CIA gave them lists of Communists to kill, and he hypothesizes that a young Saddam Hussein could even have been involved.

This article claims that Kennedy sent arms to Kurdish insurgents. Prove it. I'm confident that didn't happen until much later. And it's not true to say Arif himself was a Ba'athist. He was actually a member of the Arab Socialist Union. His regime was dominated by Ba'athists, but he later purged many from his administration. In fact, the Ba'ath attempted to overthrow him in the fall of 1964, and among those arrested in the conspiracy--reportedly--was Saddam Hussein (Reich, 1990, p. 241). It was al-Bakr, the Prime Minister, who was a Ba'athist; the 1963 coup incorporated a broad coalition of Iraqi nationalists, Nasserists, and army officers as well as Ba'ath members.

Suffice it to say that the full story isn't accurately conveyed here. There isn't any firm evidence in the CIA archives to indicate that all of Morris' claims are true. Arif's regime was dominated by Ba'athists, but he turned against the party and arrested many of its members when they tried to overthrow him. The Kurds did not play a role in the 1963 coup. The US didn't so much support the Ba'ath Party as it did Arif. This article isn't even clear about what "support" the US provided the plotters. Is it alleging financial aid to the coup? Other assistance? Mere diplomatic support? Or just the supposed list of Iraqi Communists supplied after the fact?

By the way, PBS interviewed a CIA agent from the time, James Critchfield (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/critchfield.html) and he commented that the CIA didn't anticipate a "radical movement" within the Ba'ath that would ultimately turn against Arif.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the best sources on this matter is Con Coughlin's Saddam: His Rise And Fall. It explains that there were two coups in 1963: One in February, one in November. The November coup ousted nearly all the Ba'athists from the government, which precipitated the 1964 Ba'athist coup attempt. The Ba'ath did not regain control until the 17 July Revolution in 1968. The US supported the moderates against the Ba'athists in this power struggle, and then armed the Kurds against al-Bakr in the seventies.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I would say there is speculation and conjecture as to whom did what, when and who knew it. With that said, from the above, it sounds like it could lead to some tweaking in the appropriate articles. The main point being to tread carefully as to any conclusions reached based on the facts of what is known; as you know our opinions as editors don't matter and at times edits can lead to WP:OR problems or POV problems. You have cited much more sources in this discussion then in what was added but the speculations of the matters still causes some concern. Kierzek (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I gave it another try. Tell me if I still got it wrong, but I think everything I put was neutral and accurate. If anything, I would have to wonder if the article really should say that Hussein participated in the killings. The CIA lists are, themselves, unproven but not implausible--however, there are sources that say Arif later arrested Saddam, just as there are sources saying he "might" have killed communists identified by the CIA. Making claims about what Saddam might have done decades ago just seems like a way to sensationalize the story, even if it "could" be true.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

May I ask whether or not the statement by Common Dreams that "many experts, including foreign affairs scholars, claim that there is little to suggest US involvement in Iraq in the sixties" (citing Wise and Philips) is worthy of inclusion? It wouldn't be the first time Common Dreams was cited on Wikipedia, although I'm not sure that makes it reliable. Still, Wise and Philips really do say what Common Dreams says they say. Or is there sufficient evidence that, even if the claims of CIA involvement aren't true (the truth may never be known), the CIA still plotted to off Qasim in 1959 and the Kennedy administration still offered diplomatic support post-coup, so that the claim isn't needed?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe "Commons Dreams" website is a good RS source but, you should be able to obtain the same info. and better cite to put that info in. Check Google books, for example. I don't think there is enough to say what the exact CIA involvement was, when (as I said above). Plus, I also have a problem with the part about "Saddam may" have taken part. That is too wishy-washy and should be removed. Kierzek (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll try, but I don't know if I will be successful. This is because David Wise is, I gather, an activist who has been writing negative stories about the CIA since the sixties. He's not the type to write a book defending them. The claim that the CIA was involved in Iraq in the sixties is a relatively new one--yes, it plotted against the Soviet-aligned Qasim regime in the fifties and supported the Kurds against the Ba'athists in the seventies, but did it support the Ba'athists against Qasim and the nationalists against the Ba'athists in the sixties? And how? The only evidence to come out, for a long time, was the Komer memo--which clearly establishes that the CIA had good intelligence on all of the power struggles going on in Iraq at the time and viewed the 1963 coups favorably. Otherwise, no academic literature really touched the subject and the Church and Pike Committees found no evidence of CIA involvement in the sixties. Recently, Roger Morris came out in the run-up to the Iraq War and said that the US "could" have helped Saddam personally long before he seized power in 1979, and that the CIA allegedly gave the Ba'athists lists of Iraqi Communists to kill when they held power for several months in the sixties. I believe Common Dreams when they say that, according to Wise, the 1959 plot was the extent of US involvement--but I doubt that Wise actually took time to try and argue against Morris in print, not least of all because neither man really has that much evidence to use at their disposal. His most recent works are Spy: The Inside Story of How the FBI's Robert Hanssen Betrayed America (2002) and Democracy Under Pressure (2004), neither of which sound like they would address Morris on Iraq. The other man cited by CD is James Philips, a Middle East analyst for the Heritage Foundation, and he simply dismissed Morris for lack of evidence. I'm not sure if I could cite something by him that would be useful to this article. I suppose I will remove the part about Saddam in the meantime.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, Common Dreams just reposted that story from Reuters. I found other sources that reprinted it, but none were reliable. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the Reuters article itself or anything useful by Wise or Phillips. Luckily, Robert Dreyfuss has a book detailing US involvement in the Middle East that clearly denies any CIA role in Iraq in the sixties—and, believe me, Dreyfuss is no fan of America's history in the region. I also added Chritchfield's remarks. So, if the book and the PBS interview with Chritchfield that I mentioned earlier are acceptable, I think my work here is done.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw it was a "repost" but the original source of the story is what was needed to be looked at, as well; its now moot and I believe the sources you have are okay. If anyone else feels otherwise, I am sure they will say so. My only suggestion at this point is you may want to edit the section a bit for concision. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that Wikipedia's Saddam Hussein article claims that Hussein lived in Egypt from 1959-63, and while Wikipedia isn't a RS, that would make any CIA/UK/Saddam collaboration against Qasim impossible. So, I'm even more confident that the right choice was made, particularly in light of the fact that 12 of Qasim's 16 cabinet members were Ba'athists, and all of the governments post-1958 had Ba'athist influence. While the U.S. may have approved of one of the many coups that took place in Iraq in the sixties and seventies, there's no reason to think that Saddam was a paid and trained CIA agent decades before he finally took power. Egypt and Syria are the countries that most likely aided him, assuming his plan to machine gun Qasim in the late fifties received any outside support.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 May 2012

The ending of the section titled "Military Service" should include more details about John F. Kennedy's career as a journalist because this was actually Kennedy's first choice as a career, concerned his knowledge of government and foreign affairs and only later, on the urging of his father, did he get into politics.

The text now reads: "In April 1945, Kennedy's father, a friend of William Randolph Hearst, arranged a position for his son as a special correspondent for Hearst Newspapers; the assignment kept Kennedy's name in the public eye and 'expose[d] him to journalism as a possible career.'[28] He worked as a correspondent that May, covering the Potsdam Conference and other events."

But should be changed to the following: "In April 1945, Kennedy's father, a friend of William Randolph Hearst, arranged for a position for his son as a special correspondent for Hearst Newspapers. Kennedy worked at the Hearst Chicago Herald-American writing seventeen 300-word articles covering the United Nations Conference in San Francisco from April 28 to May 28, 1945. That June, his editors were so pleased he was sent to London to cover the elections in the United Kingdom, where he first predicted Prime Minister Churchill and the Conservatives would lose the United Kingdom general election on July 5, 1945. But Kennedy had written his book Why England Slept and still admired Churchill, so on Election Day. He was incorrect, and the Labor Party went on to win by a landslide.

Fitzgerald63 (talk) 03:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The suggested addition has major problems with grammar and flow, but the general drift is good. Binksternet (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The sources for citation first lists Wikipedia, which in and of itself is not sufficient; and the second cite is to a website, which would need to be checked per WP:RS. From reading the second cited part above it appears to be somewhat vague, as well. Kierzek (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The above are perfectly fair critiques. How about: "In April 1945, Kennedy's father arranged for a position for his son as a special correspondent for Hearst Newspapers. At the end of World War II, Kennedy reported for the Chicago Herald-American on the United Nations Conference in San Francisco from April 28 to May 28, 1945. His editors were so pleased with his work, he was then sent to London in June and July to cover the elections in the United Kingdom. While in Europe, he also traveled through a war torn Germany, including cities occupied by the Soviet Union.

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --Six words (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 10 June 2012

In the infobox on the right hand side of the page, it says that Kennedy's predecessor as Congressman was "James Curler" when it should say "James Curley"

24.60.113.170 (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Thanx. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 June 2012

The statement at the end of the intro that: "The FBI, the Warren Commission, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) officially concluded that Oswald was the lone assassin, with the HSCA allowing for the possibility of conspiracy based on disputed acoustic evidence." is wrong or at the very least too biased. The HSCA did NOT conclude that Oswald was a lone assassin. The HSCA concluded that Kennedy was 'probably' killed as the result of a conspiracy. Nor were their conclusions simply based on "disputed" acoustical evidence. The summary of the HSCA findings says the Warren Commission did not do an adequate job of investigating the possibility of a conspiracy. The FBI and CIA did not cooperate as they should have. Furthermore the Warren Commission was too definitive in stating its findings. That is all plainly stated in the summary at the beginning of the report.

In other words, the HCSA was in stark disagreement with the Warren Commission and not just over the acoustical evidence.

I propose the sentence be changed to: "The FBI and the Warren Commission officially concluded that Oswald was the lone assassin, but the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded that Oswald 'probably' did not act alone." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggeezz (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm autoconfirmed now so I went ahead and changed it.Ggeezz (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 4 July 2012 (Chronological order issue)

Well, I think that the 5.2.3 section (Civil Rights) is not very chronological at times. Let me quote the gist of it: On June 11, 1963, President Kennedy intervened when Alabama Governor George Wallace blocked the doorway to the University of Alabama to stop two African American students ... from attending. Wallace moved aside only after being confronted by Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach and the Alabama National Guard ... That evening Kennedy gave his famous civil rights address on national television and radio, ...Kennedy signed the executive order creating the Presidential Commission on the Status of Women on December 14, 1961. The rest is perfectly fine; merely the women-related section is misplaced and IMHO ought to be put in sensible chronological order, not listing summer '63 events before winter '61 ones; if, come to think of it, it would even be possible to put the last sentence I quoted into past perfect ("had signed..."). -andy 77.191.220.245 (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The whole sub-section is on Civil Rights. The problem is that your suggestion of moving that part would break up the flow of the Black Civil Rights discussion which started at an earlier point in time; it also was the forefront issue in that timeframe. I did tweak the words a little; including the sentence you suggested, in the way you suggested. Kierzek (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Political Party

I am of the feeling that the word CONSERVATIVE should be added before Democratic, in the Political Party listing. The reason for this is the Democratic Party before the 1968 convention in Chicago, and the one after, are two completely different parties with two different ideologies. John, & Robert Kennedy were nothing like the Democrats of today. --Subman758 (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

JFK's dad was conservative; an isolationist ambassador. The son, however, was mostly center-liberal with a giant streak of progressivism. JFK was somewhat more conservative than Adlai Stevenson and Eleanor Roosevelt, which is to say not very. Conservatives of the day were quite against JFK; they criticized his liberal policies along with his illiberal personal affairs. JFK was attacked by conservatives because he represented a lessening of moral strictures—the advance of cultural liberalism and moral relativism. JFK expanded government programs for stimulating the economy and for addressing social issues. JFK's brother RFK was exceedingly liberal; JFK chose him to break up the acknowledged bastion of conservatism in crime—the Mafia. RFK also worked to quietly crush conservative political groups as much as possible, with JFK's full approval. JFK signed the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, a liberal achievement. JFK's adviser Myer Feldman said Kennedy was an atypically liberal Catholic. In 1960 during his campaign, JFK came out with a very liberal foreign policy position on Africa, which he later diluted. He formed the Peace Corps! He was more in favor of civil rights than any previous president. JFK's announcement of a NASA drive to the moon was outstandingly liberal: the conservative position would have been to allow private industry to run the space program.

On the other hand, Commie-hater JFK was against Communists in the US, dangerously against Castro in Cuba, and firmly against Soviet aggression. Eleanor Roosevelt called him pro-McCarthy and said he was not pushing strongly enough for civil rights. JFK expanded the US military presence in Vietnam, a move that was protested by the left.

Typically, the man who wins the presidential race is not extremely right, or extremely left. To win, he has to gather as many votes as possible. Once in office, the man has to trade political capital for his pet projects, giving way on issues that are not his wish. That is why almost all presidents end up being more centrist than expected. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Citation 139

WP:RS says that "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact". For this reason, among others, I object to the use of a New York Times guest editorial by Roger Morris as citation 139. Morris did serve briefly in the U.S. government under President Nixon as part of the National Security Council (before resigning in 1970), but he can hardly comment with authority on Kennedy's Presidency. And my issues with Morris run even deeper. Morris has written for fringe sources like ZNet, which is barely above blog quality. As someone who has read a fair amount of his work, I found that his tone was somewhat restrained in the NYT editorial, but Morris has occasionally posted rants that border on outright conspiracy theories. For example, Morris has claimed that the Soviet Union helped deter a planned US invasion of Iran in 1979 and that Bob Gates was involved in car bomb attacks in Lebanon. He has also recycled old myths that the CIA overthrew the governments of Brazil (1964), Indonesia (1965), and Greece (1967). As all serious historians know, the claims about Indonesia and Greece have absolutely no factual basis whatever, and even in Brazil it's not clear that President Johnson's contingency plan to aid the military rebellion was ever implemented (although the CIA did have advance knowledge that a coup was coming). My main problem is that Morris is very, very sloppy with facts and sources. He rarely provides attribution for anything he says, and when he does it is often shockingly dishonest. In the very NYT editorial in question, Morris cites David Wise--who then publicly denied supporting any of the assertions Morris ascribed to him. Morris quotes the Church report as saying that Qasim "suffered a terminal illness in Baghdad" while deliberately omitting the second half of the quote ("an event we had nothing to do with") to better prove his point. I can say with confidence that Morris gets numerous basic facts wrong in the NYT editorial--such as claiming that the US sent a poisoned handkerchief to Qasim in 1963 (this actually happened in February 1960), and then maintained close diplomatic ties with Iraq in the seventies (there were no diplomatic relations whatever between the US and Iraq from 1967 to 1984). Morris apparently gets away with making these sensational claims due to the fact that he briefly served in the government, but he should not be trusted to give information in an unbiased manner, certainly not in an editorial about an administration he never had any ties with. Morris is currently one of three sources cited for the claim that the Kennedy White House sent secret "death lists" of communists to the government of Iraq. We can keep the claim; the other sources are academic histories. If we need another source, I would suggest adding this piece by Hanna Batatu, the renowned historian of Iraq (despite his Marxist ties). The truth is that Morris has made claims about the CIA for which he is literally the only source, thus I would much rather use historical or academic books on Iraq for this section. Morris' wording in the editorial ("it is claimed") also demonstrates his basic tactic: He will regurgitate any popular anti-American myth, and has never heard of standards of evidence.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the editorial now. Discuss here if you disagree.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It has other sources for the same info. So, I agree with the removal of the POV, opinion cite. Kierzek (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Bay of Pigs

In the beginning of the section "Cuba and the Bay of Pigs Invasion", one reads : "The prior Eisenhower administration had created a plan to overthrow the Fidel Castro regime in Cuba." There is a reference to Schlesinger.

Now, the author of a blog has this comment about this part of the Wikipedia article :

"thus implying that Kennedy merely inherited Eisenhower's flawed plan. “Documentation” for this fallacious accusation was the writings of Kennedy administration officials Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Theodore Sorensen; when, in fact, both men were writing to defend their boss from criticism by unjustly deflecting blame on Eisenhower. In fact, reputable scholars now acknowledge that Eisenhower wasn't even aware of the invasion plan and he even said so in an article published by the New York newspaper Newsday in 1965 titled "Ike Speaks Out: Bay of Pigs was all JFK's. "

(See here.) Marvoir (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

First his blog on the matter has: WP:RS and WP:POV problems. I would recommend one should read all the cited text to this article on the matter or better still, the Bay of Pigs Invasion article and the cited text therein. As for Ike, for example: On 17 March 1960, Ike approved a document prepared by the 5412 Committee (also known as the "Special Group"), at a meeting of the US National Security Council (NSC). The stated first objective of the plan was for a covert action against the Castro Regime in such a manner to avoid any appearance of U.S. intervention. FRUS VI, p. 850. On 29 November 1960, President Eisenhower met with the chiefs of the CIA, Defense, State and Treasury departments to discuss the new concept. No objections were expressed, and Eisenhower approved the plans, with the intention of persuading John Kennedy of their merit. Kennedy had already been briefed on the plan by the CIA chief Dulles on the 18th. Gleijeses (1995), pp. 9-19. Kennedy, ofcourse approved the CIA plan (which historian Schlesinger ironically was against). Later after failure occurred, and the plug was pulled, Allen Dulles stated that CIA planners believed that once the troops were on the ground, any action required for success would be authorized to prevent failure, as Eisenhower had done in Guatemala in 1954 after the invasion looked as if it was collapsing. Reeves, Richard (1993), pp. 71, 673. Kennedy did take the blame for the op. In the end, there was plenty of blame to go around and no one is let off the hook; not Kennedy or the CIA. Kierzek (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

so when and how did JFK's back problems start?

The 1st reference I can find for JFK's back trouble in this article is: "In September 1941, after medical disqualification by the Army for his chronic lower back problems, ..."

The title says it all regarding my question. I have very recently seen information that he had a back brace on at the time of his ill-fated motorcade in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, and that that brace helped keep him upright when he received 1st shot, thus making it easier to shoot him in the head. So would have that 1st shot knocked him down if the back brace wasn't there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.47 (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

JFK had back problems his whole life; he was not accepted into the US Army because of it and had to work hard physically (and get a favor) when he was volunteering for service in the US Navy. He hurt his back again during his PT boat service in WW II and especially, during the ramming of his boat, the (PT-109) by the Japanese destroyer. He continued to have chronic back problems for the rest of his life and did wear a back brace, at times. Kierzek (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Religion classification

Under Religion: The proper way to classify a Catholic is: either they are a Roman Catholic or their religion is Catholicism. It is not proper to use the term Roman Catholicism. John F. Kennedy was the first Roman Catholic to hold the office of President. John F. Kennedy practiced the religion of Catholicism.68.38.178.0 (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Facts Required

It has since been revealed that JFK was actually shot FOUR times. Twice from the back and twice from the front in an alternating pattern. Lee Harvey Oswald fired the first shot from the back, inflicting a minor wound. The following two shots (front and then back) inflicted more wounds. The FATAL shot (The cause of JFK's death) Was the FOURTH shot, fired from the front. The fatal shot actually came from behind the grassy knoll (Ironically). Therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald did not murder the President, and was only guilty of attempted murder. (Edit to article needed) - requested by [Daryl McGarry]

Sorry, but we here at Wikipedia cannot give the reader just one answer to that question. Many books have been written; we deliver the mains consensus opinion here on this page, and discuss other opinions on other pages such as the Assassination of John F. Kennedy and especially John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Check out those articles. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Inga Arvad

Is there any particular reason why there is no reference to Inga Arvad in this article? I find it rather interesting, since it was fairly important to his career in the Navy and affected where he was posted. Her article refers to him, but there is no reference of her in his. Mushrom (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is already long in bytes, for one. Also, there isn't that much to it. She was a columnist with the "Washington Times-Herald". Jack met her through his sister Kathleen; Imga was very good looking and Danish. They started seeing each other. The problem was she was a foreign national in wartime, 1941; she had been an actress and a freelance reporter who covered, in person, fat Hermann Göring's second wedding in 1935. She also had an interview with Hitler (and there was a photo of her meeting Hitler). Hoover knew all these things. In his usual modus operandi, he had her put under surveillance and wire-tap. US Navy Ensign Kennedy was soon transferred to Charleston and Kennedy through later that Hoover may have had a hand in it but who knows. Jack then in mid-July 1942 transferred to midshipman's school and he then applied for the volunteer "Motor Torpedo Boat Training Center" and the rest is history. So, it really is not that big a story, in the end. Kierzek (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty big, and as interesting as anything could possibly be. Kennedy badly (and understandably: look at her) wanted to marry Inga Arvad but Joe Kennedy scotched it with the transfer because of the Hitler connection (one source of many for that: Seymour Hersh's book The Dark Side of Camelot---Hersh also broke both the My Lai story and Abu Graib). And she was Hitler's escort at the 1936 Summer Olympics, making it an extremely strong possibility to say the least, and long rumored, that she slept with both Adolf Hitler and John F. Kennedy, making Judith Campbell Exner seem like an inconsequential piker by comparison. To make the whole thing seem even more like a Harold Robbins novel, Arvad later became an MGM screenwriter and Hollywood gossip columnist, and married 1930s movie cowboy star Tim McCoy. Joe Kennedy figured that the spectre of a woman who dated Hitler as America's First Lady was a deal-breaker if there ever was one. Accubam (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It must be remembered that Hersh is a journalist not an historian. As for Hitler, no RS historian states anything about Arvad other than she was one (of many) escorts he was seen with during the 1936 Olympic Games and as a reporter she interviewed him in the 1930s (which she came to regret years later). As for her employment in later years, yes she probably could have written a good romance movie but the article is not the place for WP:OR or "rumors". Kierzek (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm doubtless missing the obvious, but what is an RS historian? I was a history major myself but that one's escaping me somehow for the moment. Just googled it and perhaps it's some sort of data system to judge from the first discernible reference that came up; I'm happily laying myself open to look clueless out of sheer curiosity. As for Hersh's journalism, given the care with which he presented this volume, complete with interviewing many of his sources in a television special broadcast shortly before publication, I respect his veracity as much as anyone's, including any historian I can think of offhand (perhaps more than most); and if The Dark Side of Camelot isn't history, what is it? And I didn't intend that everything in my Talk section paragraph about Arvad belongs in the Kennedy article but some of it surely does, not to mention that Hoover audiotaped Kennedy and Arvad's bedroom sessions and had those tapes in his possession throughout Kennedy's presidency. Accubam (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

RS, meaning WP:RS, considered a reliable, published source; in this case I mean a reliable scholarly biography, such as, Robert Dallek, An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963 or Michael O'Brien's detailed scholarly biography, John F. Kennedy: A Biography. Historians overall, tend to write less sensationalized, more objective works. And clearly that is the case herein when compared to Hersh's book. With that said, it is not always the case, see journalist Richard Reeves (American writer), President Kennedy: Profile of Power, which overall is a balanced assessment of Kennedy's policies. In the end Inga Arvad should be a See Also; similar as to what was done with Kay Summersby in relation to Dwight D. Eisenhower and Madeleine Duncan Brown in relation to Lyndon B. Johnson. BTW-Dallek is dismissive of Kennedy being serious as to Inga Arvad, who the single JFK only saw for a few months in 1941 and early 1942. Also, even Hersh states: "No evidence linking Arvad to any wrongdoing was found", but as he goes on the say, that didn't stop Hoover from eavesdropping. p. 83. Kierzek (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I added her therein. Kierzek (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I never for a moment thought that Arvad was involved in any wrongdoing, never saw anything anywhere to that effect. Nothing ever stopped Hoover from eavesdropping, though, and who knows what wildly embarrassing statements from Kennedy, an amusing fellow his whole life by all accounts, might have been on those recordings, remembering what one's pillow talk humor might typically involve at that age, and how that might have later affected the business relationship between Kennedy and Hoover during his presidency. As for Hersh's work, he explains in the beginning of the book that this was no attempt at a balanced view of Kennedy and his administration and its many obviously stellar accomplishments, it was a look at previously unpublished darker aspects of his life, just as the title itself states, such as typically having a deputy sheriff in towns to which Kennedy traveled as president round up a couple of prostitutes for his evening activities, corroborated on camera for television at Hersh's behest by former Secret Service agents who were there and saw this, time after time. Unthinkable in today's world but fascinating and a more utilitarian contribution to the Kennedy ethos than Dallek's or Reeves' offerings, which more or less basically rehash information already readily available. I'm relieved, of course, that you omitted mention of Schlesinger's early "it all began in the snow" hagiographies. Accubam (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

She deserves a fleeting mention in this article, with a link to the Inga Arvad article, where readers so inclined can get more details. It would be silly not to provide readers with that link. Plazak (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Plazak, there is already a link to her article where readers can "get more details"; which I believe is enough for the reasons I stated above. And Accubam, as far as procurement of ladies you mention, it reminds me of what Clinton used to do when he was governor of Arkansas, but that is another story, as they say. Hersh does briefly mention FBI recording but talks about conversations discussing politics and the fact that JFK was draft writing his fathers speeches; which actually JFK had been doing for several years. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Wonder if that means Arthur Krock was surreptitiously draft writing JFK's draft writings the way he did the expanded term paper "Why England Slept." Accubam (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Which Kennedy?

Senate Section, last paragraph:

"In 1954, when the Senate voted to censure McCarthy, Kennedy drafted a speech supporting the censure. The speech was not delivered, because he was in the hospital."

Which Kennedy? In the previous sentence, 3 different Kennedys were mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseyph (talk • contribs) 08:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

JFK was the only one in the Senate at the time; his brothers didn't become elected members until the 1960s. Kierzek (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, and the designation "Kennedy" for him would also be implied, given the context, by the fact that the article's about him. The McCarthy business certainly wasn't his finest hour, not to say that anyone would envy being in that position. Accubam (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

John Fitzgarald Kennady was the preasedent of the united states of america I am proudly to be part of the usa! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claire murin (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Executive Order 11110

Can anyone tell me, where it is contained in the article ? I've read in the discussion that it is in it but couldnt find it ! Thanks 79.239.124.227 (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Despite the conspiracy claims, it was a relatively minor order that doesn't warrant mention here. (For more information, see Executive Order 11110 or John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#Federal Reserve conspiracy.) Location (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sex life

Should Kennedy's sex life be expanded in terms of the White House and his travels as President? Were young women paid to have sex with Kennedy? Apparently, Kennedy was having sex with women at the White House, other then his wife. Kennedy had several women around him at the White House swimming pool. Why else would they be there other then sex? Kennedy I believe had arranged sex meetings with women on his travels as President. I am not trying to be forward or controversial with this issue, but really, Kennedy seems to be the most sexually active President in U.S. History. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Wesley O. Hagood (1998), Presidential Sex: From the Founding Fathers to Bill Clinton Cmguy777 (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't believe so. Just as Martin Luther King's is not. Even Bill Clinton's is not in detail as to his main article. It has linked articles, like Kennedy if readers want to read further; not to mention cited books for same. BTW-other articles are still silent, for example, LBJ had sexual relations with several White House secretaries per several books I have read and per Historian Dallek, "Lyndon Johnson's hideaway office on Capital Hill, for example, where he indulged in recreational sex, was an open secret during his vice presidency." p. 375, An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917–1963. His page doesn't even have an Allegation of affairs or whatever one wants to call it. As for JFK, a fair balance is there. Remember, "Wikipedia, is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist." Kierzek (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Hagood is a reliable source. Kennedy was both Senator and President. Neutrality. Is Wikipedia endorsing that Presidents have sex with their secretaries? Kennedy hired women paid for by taxpayers money to have sex. None of these women were qualified for their positions except for sexual purposes. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, what exactly is Hagood saying? A lot of what you wrote was falling afoul of the "begging the question" fallacy. "Kennedy had several women around him at the White House swimming pool. Why else would they be there other then sex?" That's not evidence of sexual relationships. "I believe" is not evidence of anything either. What exactly is it that Hagood says, and what is his evidence? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hagood stated that none of these women were qualified to hold their secretarial positions. Hagood states that Kennedy had extra marital affairs with Pricilla Weir and Jill Cowan, and his wife's, the First Lady, secretary Pamela Turnure. Hagood contends Kennedy had affairs or sex with four celebrities, Gene Tierney, Jane Mansfield, Angie Dickinson, and Marylin Monroe. Kennedy according to Hagood had an affair with Inga Arvard during World War II. I believe this needs to be mentioned in the article. This is not unprecedented since Warren G. Harding was involved in sex scandals. There was a poll that stated had people known if Kennedy had affairs they would not have voted for him. In addition, the press knew Kennedy was having affairs but had a "gentlemen's agreement" to keep quiet. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy, a number of women are already cited and linked, along with the "headache" quote mentioned by (former) Prime Minister Macmillan; the points you raise are made; even as to the press in the article. You miss my main points, including WP:UNDUE; I am not "endorsing" anything and neither should "Wikipedia"; that would be WP:POV and WP:OR. As for Arvard, he was single at the time and JFK was not a "Senator and President"; she is under "See Also", already linked. As for Warren G. Harding, there are historians who state the sex and orgies took place and others who said they were fantasy; so it is equivocal. The matters are mentioned herein as they should be, in a balanced, encyclopedic way. Kierzek (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hagood is presenting Kennedy as a playboy who advocated a life of casual sex. The current section on his sex life does not present that in the article, in my opinion. Hagood does not judge Kennedy. On his inauguration, Kennedy was given a woman to have sex with at the White House. Arvard was a beauty queen and according to Hagoog was married. Her married name was Fejos, and she was suspect to being a German spy by the FBI. Hagood even states that Kennedy was a playboy and the most sexually active President in American History. The section on his sex life needs to be expanded supported by the Hagwood source. I recommend that Arvad, the four celebrities already mentioned, and the three secretaries be stated in the article section. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It is clear he was a playboy, how is it not. You want to include redundancy on the matter, to a degree. Hagood is also dealing in rumor and conjecture, as well. You have been around long enough to know Wikipedia is not The Daily Mail. Arvard was separated and there was no truth to the whole spy thing; even Seymour Hersh states that; see: The Dark Side of Camelot, p. 84. As for Gene Tierney, he was single then as well and she was separated or divorced at the time; the problem with it, at least as how you have presented them above, is they are not in context and some can't be confirmed. However, Tierney I don't object to if put in proper context; although I think a See Also would be good enough. But I don't feel strongly about it. Also remember, Angie Dickinson is still alive and from what I recall has not ever come out of said they had relations, if you find out where she has, then okay with me. I believe they did but as you know, it does not matter what you and I think as that is WP:OR. But as you also know, the rules as to living people is more stringent on Wikipedia. As for Monroe, I actually re-added her back at one point. But even she is not as "cut and dried" as you might think. Dallek only goes as far as saying, "their alleged relationship" which Lawford denied; and states it would appear there was "more than a casual acquaintance". p. 581. I have read all the major bios on JFK and most seem to believe there was something more there; so I don't object to her being added. As for Jane Mansfield, I have not heard her name included before; I don't care. As for the conjecture by Hagood of the status of office personal, he is vague and no other standard respected bio I have read states they didn't do their job; which seems to be your main point; irregardless of anything else. Only Alford, was said to "not be a good typist", I recall. That I do object to for all the reasons stated on this thread, above. Anyway I have stated my thoughts, supported by cites and Wikipedia policy; I must go for now as life events need my addition. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we need to be careful on those persons still living, however, this is in a published book authored by Hagwood. Any edits would be cited with the understanding that Hagwood is making these statements, not Wikipedia. If neccessary we can add Hagwood "alleges" or "conjectures" this or that affair. That is how the President Harding article is stated. If their is a source that states Lawford denied this allegation, then I believe that needs to be stated. I know Dickinson is still alive, but she has not sued Hagwood for slander and libel. My point was not to put every sexual encounter of John F. Kennedy, but rather to expand the section, to give a better understanding of Kennedy as a "playboy" President. One of White House secretaries, Turnure has come out with a book on her sexlife with Kennedy. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy, I still believe Hagwood has some verifiability problems. I would suggest something like: As a young single man in the 1940s, Kennedy had affairs with Danish journalist Inga Arvad and actress Gene Tierney. Later, he reportedly had affairs with a number of women, including, Marilyn Monroe (footnote as to Lawford denial per Dallek, p. 581), Gunilla von Post, Judith Campbell, Mary Pinchot Meyer, Marlene Dietrich and Mimi Alford. Author Wesley Hagood further alleges Kennedy's philandering included actress Angie Dickinson and Jackie's press secretary, Pamela Turnure. I have rechecked the books on JFK by Robert Dallek, Chris Matthews, Richard Reeves and Seymour Hersh and none say anything, not even a footnote as to Jane Mansfield; I would suggest leaving her out. Kierzek (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Kierzek. I don't have a problem leaving Jane Mansfield out. Sadly she died in a horrible automobile accident. Your edit looks good for the article. I believe the other White House "secretaries" needs to be mentioned. Hagwood infers that these women were hired for sexual purposes under the guise of secretaries. However, the reader can make their own conclusions. I admit this is somewhat new to me, and I never knew Kennedy had such an active casual sex life, even while married. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy777, well his "sex life" was certainly a part of his "compartmentalized" nature; Dallek explained it as: first being common in European tradition, a part of the times he lived; but more importantly, "...his sense of mortality engendered by health problems and premature deaths of his brother (Joe, Jr.) and sister (Kathleen)"; plus being adventurous and a people person. This only to explain the personal nature not to excuse it. Back to the point: a suggested re-write: As a young single man in the 1940s, Kennedy had affairs with Danish journalist Inga Arvad (ref-Dallek, p. 83-85) and actress Gene Tierney (ref name-Osborne 2006 p. 195). (I will add the cites and page links) Later in life, Kennedy reportedly had affairs with a number of women, including, Marilyn Monroe (footnote as to Lawford denial per Dallek, p. 581), Gunilla von Post, Judith Campbell, Mary Pinchot Meyer, Marlene Dietrich, Mimi Alford and Jackie's press secretary, Pamela Turnure (ref-Dallek, pp.475-476) (I have been able to confirm Turnure by cross-checking). Author Wesley Hagood further alleges Kennedy's philandering included actress Angie Dickinson, and secretaries, Priscilla Wear and Jill Cowen. (I need your page cites-you can e-mail them to me, if you wish and if you agree to the above); let me know. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kierzek. That is good. This gives the impression that Kennedy was a playboy. Hagood calls Kennedy the most sexually active President ever. I suppose my concern with Kennedy is that his marriage vows were taken to be matter of fact. The issue with Kennedy was that he apparently knew what he was doing would not be popular with the public, so he and the press kept things secret. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, just send me the page cites for Hagood as to Dickinson, Wear and Cowen or write them here. I wont be able to put it up until tomorrow afternoon, if that is okay. Let me know. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hagood actually makes a list of the women on pages 136 and 137. Dickinson is mentioned on pages 137, 138, and 164. Priscilla Weir and Jill Cowen are mentioned on page 150. I would use pages 138 and 164 as reference for Dickinson. Their sexual relationship apparently began in Palm Springs prior to Kennedy's Inauguration. According to Hagood, Dickinson and Kennedy had a one hour trist in a private room during the second Inaugural Ball. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, see what you think. I have to go for now; other commitments call. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Good job Kierzek. I added "White House" and correct spelling on "Weir". Hagood suggests that these women were only hired for sexual purposes. However, the article section is much improved and I believe gives a better understanding of Kennedy. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Civil Rights

I believe the subject of Civil Rights needs to be expanded and or readdressed, including the Legacy section. Kennedy, a northern Democrat, was up against the Solid South that had formed after Reconstruction and the Lily White movement. The Klu Klux Klan had reformed in the 1920's after President Ulysses S. Grant had destroyed the Klan in 1871 under the Force Acts. President Grant had also signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, a model for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Expanding on these historical areas would help the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

These issues are far too old to have any bearing on the JFK biography. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The article stated that JFK did more on Civil Rights then his predecessors. Either modify that statement or give better historical perspective. The Article mentions Abraham Lincoln. You can't skip all the other Presidents. The current article is POV and implies that Lincoln and Kennedy were the only anti-racist Presidents. Ulysses S. Grant, Benjamin Harrison, and Harry S. Truman were also anti racist Presidents. The Solid South was very real during the early 1960's. Only after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did the Solid South decline. The Ku Klux Klan was very active during the 1960's and Kennedy did nothing to stop them. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that JFK's civil rights position must be related to anything from before the 1940s. First thing you need to do is find a source describing JFK's position in terms of the KKK or Grant or the 1870s. Bring that source here and we can discuss it. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I was going by what the article stated. Lincoln's policies were before the 1940's. The current article links the policies of Lincoln with Kennedy without any source. I have a source that states Lincoln, Grant, Harrison, Truman, and Kennedy pursued anti racist policies. American Politics and the African American Quest for Universal Freedom, pages 200-201. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Certainly the focus should be on JFK and the Kennedy administration, with a degree of historical prospective, in context; I agree with Binksternet, it should mainly focus on the then recent past. For greater detail, the articles of the other presidents mentioned above should have inclusion of their own time in office and further, the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–68), and African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954) would be appropriate places of such material; if more needs to be added therein. A good example to follow is the section at Dwight D. Eisenhower. There it focuses on recent times, and involvement of the president. Kierzek (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I added information on Reconstruction, the Solid South, Jim Crow, segregation, and the Ku Klux Klan. I did not mention other Presidents in the Civil Rights section of the article. The Solid South had been enforced since 1877 and did not end until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Remember, though, President Grant passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 that was a model for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Kennedy is in line with Lincoln, Grant, Harrison, and Truman. I believe the legacy section needs to mention Grant, Harrison, and Truman, since Lincoln is mentioned. Historical context lets the reader understand that the Solid South and Jim Crow existed prior to the Kennedy Administration. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I was making general comments in relation to earlier posted comments above and have no problem overall with the tweaks you did already, Cmguy777. I did take out part of one tweak as redundant. The church bombing of 15 Sept. 1963 was already mentioned in the section. The original sentences in the section as to the church bombing goes on to mention "...at the end of the day six children had died in the explosion and aftermath."; what that relates to is the four children killed at the church bombing and the two other boys shot and killed in Birmingham that day. So your tweak put in earlier as to the bombing was redundant; I did tweak the original sentences to try and be more clear. See what you think. Kierzek (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Kierzek. Looks good. As long as the Ku Klux Klan is mentioned as the underlying cause of these violent events. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Legacy

The Legacy section on Civil Rights needs to by rewritten. I would mention Kennedy is linked to Lincoln, Grant, Harrison, and Truman in terms of pursueing Civil Rights for African Americans. Apparently, Kennedy was the first President to acknowledge racism was morally wrong. Also, the Solid South that dominated for almost 100 years after Reconstruction and ended by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, needs to be mentioned. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy777, I would only link JFK to Lincoln and Grant; the latter in relation to the "model" of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 as to certain provisions used in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

As for the sentences you marked for "citation needed", I found it. It is from USA Today newspaper and reads, "Even so, Kennedy moved further on civil rights than his predecessors. In a radio and TV address to the nation in June 1963 — a century after Abraham Lincoln had signed the Emancipation Proclamation— Kennedy became the first president to call on all Americans to embrace civil rights as a moral imperative. The year after JFK's assassination, President Johnson pushed the landmark Civil Rights Act through a bitterly divided Congress by invoking the slain president's memory."

The text in the article now reads: Kennedy moved further on civil rights than his predecessors. In a radio and TV address to the nation in June 1963—a century after Abraham Lincoln had signed the Emancipation Proclamation—Kennedy became the first president to call on all Americans to embrace civil rights as a moral imperative. The year after JFK's assassination, President Johnson pushed the landmark Civil Rights Act through a bitterly divided Congress by invoking the slain president's memory.

I see the problem as some past editor added the text in question without citing it and putting it in quotes; as is, it is a copyright violation the way it currently stands; it either has to be tweaked/changed and cited; or put in quotes and cited. I believe the text mentioned above is in reference to the fact that Kennedy in his Civil Rights Address, stated, "We are confronted primarily with a moral issue...One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs...are not fully free." Dallek, p. 604. Martin Luther King, Jr. called, "Kennedy's civil rights proposals,'the most sweeping and forthright ever presented by an American president'." Dallek, p. 606. Kierzek (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Kierzek. I would have to view the full quote by Martin Luther King, Jr. on Kennedy. The issue with Grant was that he prosecuted and destroyed the Ku Klux Klan. Lincoln set free millions of slaves in the South. Kennedy did not have to face the Civil War nor Reconstruction such as readmitting states and ensuring rights to African Americans. Also, Kennedy had the Justice Department, that Grant and Congress had created in 1871. Grant was able to delay the formation of the Solid South by the use of the Justice Department and the U.S. military. That is another subject, however. Grant's Attorney General Amos T. Akerman was instrumental in shutting down the Ku Klux Klan. I would need a source on the USA today article, for example who stated Kennedy did more then his predecessors, a journalist or a historian. USA Today is not exactly a historical journal. Kennedy was the first to denounce racism as immoral, I believe. Maybe a rewrite could be made in this discussion page. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible edit:

• Although initially reluctant to support civil rights legislation out of fear of loosing support from Southern conservatives, Kennedy finally proposed civil rights legistlation after civil rights demonstrations of Martin Luther King. In a radio and TV address to the nation in June 1963—a century after President Abraham Lincoln had signed the Emancipation Proclamation—Kennedy became the first president to call on all Americans to denounce racism as morally wrong. Kennedy's 1963 civil rights proposals led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. This civil rights law ended what was known as the Solid South and was similar to the Civil Rights Act of 1875, signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant." Cmguy777 (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy777, if you want to further research MLK, Jr.'s wording I cite above, whether it is more expansive or not, you can do so; I do not see the need, nor have the time. I was using it as an example in part, to show the basis of the USA Today quote used in the article. As for USA Today, it was written by journalist Susan Page, 10/4/10. Where the newspaper would be a WP:RS source, I would not consider it an overly strong one. The problem with the quoted section from the newspaper article was the fact it was not cited properly, as I state above. As for a re-write:

Although President Kennedy opposed segregation and had shown support for the civil rights of African Americans, he originally believed in a more measured approach to legislation given the political realities he faced with Congress. However, after the civil rights demonstrations of Martin Luther King, Kennedy proposed legislative action. In a radio and TV address to the nation in June 1963—a century after President Abraham Lincoln had signed the Emancipation Proclamation—Kennedy became the first president to call on all Americans to denounce racism as morally wrong. Kennedy's 1963 civil rights proposals led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. President Johnson pushed the landmark Civil Rights Act through a bitterly divided Congress by invoking the slain president's memory and signed it into law. This civil rights law ended what was known as the Solid South and certain provisions were similar to the Civil Rights Act of 1875, signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant.

Cites for all of the above can be added in. Kierzek (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Good job, Kierzek. I believe this is better then what is in the original legacy section. I would include that Kennedy proposed Civil Rights legislation in 1963. Kennedy had been President for two years before proposing Civil Rights legislation. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This is good except that it does not properly give credit to LBJ who very well could have left this legislation hanging. Instead, LBJ believed in civil rights and he gambled his whole presidency on making great strides in it. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

LBJ is mentioned, however, their needs to be a link to his name. I agree LBJ could have let the legislation die or hang. The above paragraph does state that LBJ pushed the legislation. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing how far Kennedy would have pushed the legislation. LBJ certainly took up Kennedy's mantle on Civil Rights. I agree that President Lyndon B. Johnson was willing to take the risk of upsetting Southern Democrats, and in that he was more progressive then Kennedy on Civil Rights. Kennedy seemed to respond to the Martin Luther King demonstrations where as Johnson was more proactive. I would readd that Kennedy's more measured approach was do to not being willing to upset Southern conservatives. The above paragraph is good, but could be improved. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Alternative:

• "Although President Kennedy opposed segregation and had shown support for the civil rights of African Americans, he originally did not propose civil rights legislation since he did not want to risk losing the support of Southern Conservatives. However, after the civil rights demonstrations of Martin Luther King, Kennedy proposed civil rights legislative action in 1963. In a radio and TV address to the nation in June 1963—a century after President Abraham Lincoln had signed the Emancipation Proclamation—Kennedy became the first president to call on all Americans to denounce racism as morally wrong. Kennedy's 1963 civil rights proposals led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. President Lyndon B. Johnson, Kennedy's successor, was more willing to disassociate from Southern Conservatives. President Johnson pushed the landmark Civil Rights Act through a bitterly divided Congress by invoking the slain president's memory and signed it into law. This Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended what was known as the Solid South and certain provisions were similar to the Civil Rights Act of 1875, signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant.'" Cmguy777 (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

As Cmguy777 states, LBJ is mentioned and I would have added a link after our wording agreement. I would not readd the small part just as to Southern Dems because from my reading, JFK's concerns were broader than that as to the Congress, opposition therein and in relation to his programs he wanted to get through the Congress; further public opinion polls before his death clearly showed that the majority felt a more measured approach was proper and just after Kennedy's killing, public opinion polls flipped the oppose way. Johnson was a skewed politician and used the political capital of Kennedy's memory to help ram the matter through Congress. I propose this tweaked alternative gentlemen:

Although President Kennedy opposed segregation and had shown support for the civil rights of African Americans, he originally believed in a more measured approach to legislation given the political realities he faced in Congress. However, after the civil rights demonstrations of Martin Luther King, Kennedy in 1963 proposed legislative action. In a radio and TV address to the nation in June 1963—a century after President Abraham Lincoln had signed the Emancipation Proclamation—Kennedy became the first president to call on all Americans to denounce racism as morally wrong. Kennedy's civil rights proposals led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. President Lyndon B. Johnson, Kennedy's successor, took up the mantle and pushed the landmark Civil Rights Act through a bitterly divided Congress by invoking the slain president's memory. After it passed, President Johnson signed the Act into law on July 2, 1964. This civil rights law ended what was known as the Solid South and certain provisions were (modeled, emulated or similar) to the Civil Rights Act of 1875, signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant.

Which do you like better of the the word choices, "modeled, emulated or similar" in the last sentence? I realise the sentence structure would have to be changed if the word emulated is used. Kierzek (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I would use the term 'modeled' in the last sentence. Here is the issue that may be understated. The "political realities" was Southern conservatives opposition to civil rights for blacks. Kennedy did not challenge initially the Southern conservatives because he wanted other legislation to pass Congress. Why not state this in the article? Another issue is that Kennedy promised blacks to immediately end descrimination through Executive Order in the sale and rental of housing. Kennedy stalled. Blacks sent Kennedy hundreds of pens to the White House to remind him to sign the order to end this decrimination. Kennedy signed the executive order in 1962, however, any existing descriminations were not effected. Kennedy reluctantly sent troops into Mississippi to enforce desegregation. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The term "modeled" is fine with me. The problem is not that simple, yes certainly there was Southern dem. opposition, but "Southern moderates saw him as a voice of reason". (Dallek, p. 649); there was also conservative Republicans who opposed the bill; but there were a number of Republicans like Everett Dirksen, who were for the bill. And again, one can say Kennedy "stalled" but Johnson told MLK, Jr. in a meeting on June 22 that given the Congress, "Kennedy was taking the right approach." (Dallek, p. 643) "House Democrats and Republicans - liberals and conservatives - entered into self-interested maneuvering" over the proposals. (Dallek, p. 648) Also Dallek goes on to state, "Would a strong appeal for civil rights legislation from the first have better served Kennedy's legislative agenda? Almost certainly not." Dallek, p. 649. As for your comment as for the troops, Federal Marshals were sent first, the reason troops were not sent immediately has to do with escalation; they did not want a mini-Civil War are their hands. But back to the main point, I believe what I last proposed is a fair summary of events. I would tweak the one sentence to read, Although President Kennedy opposed segregation and had shown support for the civil rights of African Americans, he originally believed in a more measured approach to legislation given the political realities he faced in Congress, especially with the Southern Conservatives. I must go for now, think about it. Kierzek (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of compromise, I can accept the latter sentence. Dallek's statements concerning Kennedy seem to be defensive and also seem to clarify Kennedy did not want to upset Southern conservatives. Johnson apparently agreed with Kennedy's approach, however, he was not President at that time. When Johnson was President he did push the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress knowing Southern Conservatives would resist. Risk Civil War? If the Southerners were in open rebellion to the Constitution of the United States, then the duty of the President is to put down insurrections. Clearly the Southerners were using terrorism against African American citizens. Kennedy had no issues with sending special forces troops to Vietnam. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Kennedy sent 16,000 "military advisors" to Vietnam and used U.S. Helicopters to effectively fight the Vietcong. Why could he not have done that in Alabama or Mississippi? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

RFK used that wording (mini-Civil War) to the president as something to avoid because they didn't know how many state citizens were armed and how the "mob" would react. Further, we are talking about US soil and US citizens, no matter have wrong they were. This issue ran very deep, you know that. You can't just send in troops and start shooting US citizens. Remember the Kent State shootings of May 4, 1970? BTW-Ike already had 900 advisors in Vietnam, so the number did reach 16,000 with 15,100 added; but that is another matter; lets not get off point. Kierzek (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I would add the word "impelled" to the sentence: However, impelled by the civil rights demonstrations of Martin Luther King, Kennedy in 1963 proposed legislative action. Kierzek (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, Kierzek. My point on the troops in Vietnam was that Kennedy did not have any issues with using the military in a civil war, since that is what Vietnam was, a civil war between the North and South. However, that is another subject. I accept your current wording and with the correct references would be good for the article. I believe the edit needs to be added to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It has been an interesting discussion in a very civil way; so thank you. I have to go prepare some work for tomorrow morning, so I will make the addition with cites and links; sometime tomorrow afternoon, I hope. Kierzek (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The conversation has been civil and interesting. Thanks Kierzek. Kennedy is fascinating, albeit controversial, historical figure. Here is the source for Kennedy and Civil Rights:

• Walton Jr., Hanes; Smith, Robert C. (2000). American Politics and the African American Quest for Universal Freedom. Addison, Wesley, Longman. p. 205. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Done, but for the ISBN number which I could not find for your 2000 edition. If you can add the ISBN in the reference section that would be great; thanks, Kierzek (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The ISBN for APATAAFUF is 0-321-07038-0. Cmguy777 (talk)

Good job Kierzek! Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)