Talk:John F. Kennedy document hoax/Archive 1

Archive 1

where is the "STUB" tag?

Nine lines and it is not a stub? Why not place it where it is relevant?184.144.76.115 (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Content moved from Seymour Hersh

Extended content

The original manuscript of Hersh's book made a number of controversial assertions about the former president, including that: Though Jacqueline Bouvier officially was his first wife, his actual first marriage was to a woman named Durie Malcolm, which was never legally terminated, and was hushed up by his father Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. He had been a semi-regular user of a prescribed pharmaceutical amphetamine-related drug, receiving injections from Dr. Max Jacobson. He had had a close working relationship with American Mafia boss Sam Giancana that supposedly included vote fraud in one or two crucial states in the 1960 presidential election. In 1958, when he was a member of the United States Senate, he had an extramarital affair with "an attractive aide in [his] Senate office," Pamela Turnure. This was three years before she became First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy's press secretary. In 1958, Turnure's landlady Florence Kater took a photograph of the senator leaving Turnure's apartment in the middle of the night, a photograph that Kater tried repeatedly to bring to public attention to ruin the senator's presidential campaign. "On May 14, 1960," says The Dark Side of Camelot, "just four days after Kennedy won the West Virginia primary, [Florence Kater] approached him at a political rally at the University of Maryland carrying a placard with an enlarged snapshot of the early-morning scene outside Pamela Turnure's apartment. Kennedy ignored her, but a photograph of the encounter was published in the next afternoon's Washington Star, along with a brief story describing her as a heckler." The reels of microfilm for The Washington Star that cover the month of May 1960 indicate that the newspaper, then known as The Evening Star of Washington, D.C. and The Sunday Star, never published an article about Florence Kater, nor did the article about Kennedy's campaign appearance at the University of Maryland mention a heckler. For many of these allegations, Hersh relied only on hearsay collected decades after the event. In a Los Angeles Times review, Edward Jay Epstein cast doubt on these and other assertions, writing, "this book turns out to be, alas, more about the deficiencies of investigative journalism than about the deficiencies of John F. Kennedy." Responding to the book, historian and former Kennedy aide Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. called Hersh "the most gullible investigative reporter I've ever encountered". References

The above material was part of larger move of material from Seymour Hersh to this article via this edit. It is about Hersh's allegations and his book and not specifically about the hoax, so I have moved it her for future reference. -Location (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Release from prison

When was he released from prison? It can be inferred from the date, but I can't say for sure if he was released early. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

See also

Might a link to the Hitler Diaries hoax be appropriate here? Stronach (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done, that seems appropriate. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Is reference to signature character correct?

In the "Uncovering the Forgeries" section, the text refers to when the letter y from Marilyn Monroe's signature had created an artifact as it crossed over the signature line. Yet in that same subsection, the image shows what seems to be the same phenomenon (or one similar), except that this is the effect of a Monroe signature's letter o crossing the signature line. These may be two distinct and separate things which had happened. Yet the circumstances move me to ask whether this can somehow be double checked, to make sure that the text is not attempting to describe what we see in that image, because if that's the case, then the text should be changed. —catsmoke ^talk 05:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it’s correct. The citation is linked, if you’d like to check for yourself. - SchroCat (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd love to have checked it myself, but last month I threw away all my pre-2000 back issues of Vanity Fair. —catsmoke ^talk 12:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Typo?

Paragraph 3 states that "lift off type" was used to correct an error. Should that be "lift off tape?" 70.187.40.175 (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

No, ‘type’ works just fine. - SchroCat (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Old people like me remember those IBM selectric typewriters that actually lifted off the letters by sort of gouging the ink out of the surface of the paper. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Reversions

The recent reversions in this article of my various style improvements are totally ridiculous and unjustified. They were done on the clearly false claim that there were "multiple Kennedy's" (sic) mentioned in the article and that we need to be "specific". This is sheer nonsense. Throughout the article all of the many references to "Kennedy" by itself are only ever to John F. Kennedy. The only other Kennedy mentioned at all is Robert Kennedy, once in a caption. If the reverting editor thinks that my one change of "John F. Kennedy" to "Kennedy" is somehow not "specific" enough then every other mention of "Kennedy" should also be changed to "John F. Kennedy". The reversion of all of my various style improvements is one of the worst examples of totally unjustified and incorrect reversions I have witnessed. This is the kind of very poor and inexcusable editing behaviour which too often makes responsible and sensible editing an unnecessarily unpleasant experience. Quizical (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Quizical, I think it is worth repeating the first name and initial at this point in the article (not in other sections where it is used more than once), and I would defer to Schrocat's judgment on the issue, as he has done the most work on the article. Calling expert editors' work "nonsense" only shows that you have nothing of value to add. Whether your edits are "improvements" is for others to judge, and I completely disagree that they are. In addition, your WP:EDIT WARring, violation of WP:BRD and aggressive approach here is the most unpleasant thing that I have witnessed in many months working on this article, and I assure you that the many experienced editors who watch this article would not appreciate it. Please see WP:CIVIL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you take note of your own aggressive and unpleasant attitude to other editors as indicated by your own uncivil comments and attempting to justify the reversion of all of my edits. Quizical (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you think you could take the aggression out of the comments please? There’s no need for it, and it only ever leads to people upping the ante in response. - SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Despite the hyperbole in the comments, I’ll say again, we refer to ‘the Kennedys’ on multiple occasions. Having a small piece of clarification to be of assistance to readers seems to be a beneficial thing. - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

There was still no excuse at all for reverting all of my edits. Quizical (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

In your opinion, maybe. - SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)