Talk:Jack Kemp/Archive 1

Older entries
I changed this, which I assume was a mistake: "Because Kemp was a comparatively liberal Republican, running on his record of supporting government welfare programs, he was seen as a means to attract conservative and libertarian-minded voters" Dole was the comparatively liberal Republican, and Kemp was the means to attract conservatives. Tooptoo 16:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am going to add some stuff in here, because this guy was a fairly influential politician and most of his entry is about his football exploits. -- amcalabrese

Why is Bill Clinton's My Life listed in the bibliography? Is it of any relevance to Kemp? -- dynzmoar

How did US soccer players react to the content of Kemp's fatuous comment on their sport, apart from the potential financial losses? -- dynzmoar

Aren't the soccer references silly?
there's so much worthwhile stuff one can say about kemp... how do some comedic remarks about soccer rate even a mention on this page? such silliness...

Why not? As far as I can see it breaks no rules, and doesn't harm the value of the article. Many times people become known for silly things. Lehi (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It reads like a campaign ad...
The part about his political career reads like a Republican campaign ad.
 * I hope you feel it is now neutral.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This section appears to be written by a partisan supporter of Kemp's, not in NPOV
"As secretary of HUD, Kemp spearheaded the Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere (HOPE) program, an effort to reform socialized housing, by allowing residents of government housing projects to buy their own unit. Likewise, with his Urban Enterprise Zone program, he promoted market-based urban business district reforms by offering tax breaks and reducing the regulatory burdens for businesses in poor neighborhoods. These ideas were fought by welfare proponents, but their immense success compared to public housing and other attempts to control communities through heavy government, they have become the dominant stances of housing and urban development today, giving rise to modern Urban Renewal systems."

I hope someone will clean up this section and add citations to the broad claims of fact before removing the disputed tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.120.84 (talk) 08:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. I think.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A really bad article
this is one of the worst wiki articles--both poorly written and very thin on content.

plus, it is weak on facts and poorly sourced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.147.5.84 (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I would add that the claims the tax cuts are credited for the growth of the Reagan administration are incredibly biased. While Kemp is loved by conservatives, no economist on either side of the aisle could say the tax cuts did what is claimed with a straight face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.193.159 (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me know what you think of the new breadth and depth as it continues to evolve.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to rewrite this
Kemp is a really complicated and important Republican. Very conservative, but heterodox too. He deserves much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.111.45 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am working on it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Draft citation?
Any source on his receiving a draft notice? Note Kemp had previously served in the Army Reserve, U.S. involvement in Vietnam started in earnest in 1965 when he turned 30, odd time to get a draft notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What was the timeline here? Was the Knee Injury during his athletic career, or at the end of it, or...? DS 14:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Got it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the most biased and devious article I have ever read in Wikipedia
THIS ARTICLE IS REPLETE WITH CITATIONS OF ARTICLES WHICH ARE EXPRESSING OPINION TO PASS ALONG AS FACT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.213.104 (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * THIS DISCUSSION PAGE IS REPLETE WITH EDITS BY PEOPLE WHO CANNOT FORM COHERENT SENTENCES. Ec- 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Ec-Ec- (User talk:Ec-talk • Special:Contributions/Ec-contribs)

GA review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Overall, I'm placing this article on hold until the issues (mainly length and images) can be worked out. Thanks to the editor(s) for all his/her/their hard work. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It's a very well written and well cited, article, however there are some things that I would like to point out:
 * It's too long. I know the Reagan article and others are longer, but Kemp was a congressman, not a president or world leader. It can use some trimming; not a lot of trimming, but some. One of the sections that I would favor removing is "Views on soccer" because it is purely trivial.
 * The main parts of the "career summary" football section should be integrated into the rest of the section, and the minor parts removed.
 * 1) *I will look at this article more closely. However, WRT length it sounds like you are saying, he is only high or mid importance and therefore can not have an article as long as a top importance person.  This is not true.  On my current browser the article gets to the notes on the seventh time I hit page down.  Reagan on the tenth although the article still needs a large template added for his cabinet. Hillary Clinton-tenth, George W. Bush-eleventh, Bill Clinton-tenth, Stephen Harper-ninth, Condoleezza Rice-twelfth, John McCain-eighth, Grover_Cleveland (Buffalo's most important politician)-ninth, Gerald Ford-tenth, Emma Goldman (random person of lesser importance from WP:CHICAGO that I follow closely),  Franklin Delano Roosevelt - thirteenth, Theodore Roosevelt-fifteenth.  Comparatively, Kemp's article is not too long.  The question should be whether the article contains minutia or not.  I went through all 368 articles that show up in a Time magazine search for Jack Kemp.  I got through the first 130 articles in the New York Times search.  This is the article that results from that.  I had thought of going through the 111 Newsweek magazine search results.  I am guessing doing so may add a page or two.  In truth the article might improve via quality rather than be degraded by minutia in so doing.  There are few points that have excessive detail and few that are uninteresting to those wanting to know about the subject.  I am going to review the article, but don't think I will remove much except for reworking the two sections you mention.  Almost every sentence comes from a reliable source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) *I would argue that the way the football career is sectioned by coaching era certain summary statements are not applicable to any era and should be in a concluding summary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Without more photos, and with long sections, reading articles like this can get very boring for readers (it's not your fault that there aren't very many images, but the articles needs to be shaped around those and the estimated attention span of readers). I'm sorry if it sounded like I was saying that Kemp is not important, because that's not for me to judge. All that I know is that removing trivial sections, such as views on soccer, can help the readability and the article's overall state. If you don;t want to trim a lot in the football career and political career sections, than I would suggest adding in more subsection headings to break up the text. I would also remove little extra details within those sections. I comend your work on the article, but I do think that some of this needs to occur before I can pass it, especially the removal of trivia. Happyme22 (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You know what, if you feel that the summary section is best for the article, I'll ablidge because I really don;t have the time to argue against it right now :) Happyme22 (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have moved soccer from a separate section to the congress section. I did not take text out, but shortened the length by making it one paragraph.  I had intended to request you pass it with the three additional images and the recent changes.  I think it will likely get a lot of specific suggestions at a line by line level of what should be removed at WP:FAC.  I am hoping to make this my next nominee.  I think it meets good standards now.  I will try to run through one more time, but I think it is good now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage, focusing well on Kemp's two main fields. But see above for length issues.
 * 2) It is strikingly NPOV, with numerous mentions of Kemp's good and bad sides.
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable for sure.
 * Great--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It it not well illustrated by images. I understand that not many are available, however a quick google search reveals at least one or two more than are free use.
 * One image added.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do candidates own the rights to their campaign logos. There are things at http://www.4president.org/ocmi1988.htm and http://www.4president.org/ocmi1996.htm that I am wondering about using.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so (see Image:McCain2000logo.gif), but you can probably upload it under fair use using the Non-free logo temp (as the McCain image was). Happyme22 (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added the mag cover because of the story about how they almost missed being on the cover.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on this list, and requests from the nominator, I am passing Jack Kemp as a Good Article, per the GAC. The editor has done a fine job with it. Congrats! Happyme22 (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

MINOR CORRECTION NEEDED: Immediately after footnote number 288, the current text reads: "Later, in 2002, when Lott made caustic remarks about Strom Thurmond, Kemp was upset, and he supported Lott's apology," Lott did not get into trouble for making CAUSTIC remarks about Thurmond, the kerfuffle was over the fact that Lott PRAISED Thurmond, saying something to the effect of:  America would be better off had Thurmond won the 1948 presidential election. Of course Thurmond was a strict racial segregationist at the time. It was this praise that upset Kemp and cause Lott to apologize. I have not changed the original text. 65.32.96.200 (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC) William Malmstrom, Clearwater, FL

Article length
I would like to discourage shortening the article merely for the sake of keeping it from being "too long." As Tony pointed out, all statements are well-sourced. One approach that would make sense if it continues to grow, however, is to make spinoff articles (e.g. Football career of Jack Kemp, or Political views of Jack Kemp). Once such articles have been created, the less-vital stuff can be trimmed in this article without any worry of depriving the reader of information.

Specifically on the "views on Soccer" issue -- I think it was better off as its own section. It's a little unusual, to be sure, but since the issue covers both football and politics (both aspects of Kemp's professional life), it's significant. Much of it is not part of his congressional career, that's just where he made his first House floor speech. Also, I don't think the subject should be introduced by saying he's been an "outspoken critic," considering that the seriousness of his "allegations" is called into serious question a couple sentences later. Some rephrasing is in order.

Regardless of these specific comments, congrats on a good article and a healthy review process! -Pete (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Jr.
Jr. in his name predated my involvement with the article. His fathers name was not Jack. What gives?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The 1990 Britannica Book of the Year article on Jack Kemp, p. 91, identifies his name as "Jack French Kemp" without the "Jr." I hesitate to remove the "Jr." from the article without additional confirmation. Softtest123 (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * His name isn't Jack either, it's John (as would be expected of any Jack of that age) but according to this article his father's name is Paul. A reference for John French Kemp Jr.:  Bennetto (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected (based on the reference added for the California birth-record website). He is actually named Jack.  A few obits had mentioned John, and (based on experience with the name and understanding of the history) it seemed much more likely other references had missed or ignored it.Bennetto (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Issues with Cabinet section
In the second paragraph of "Cabinet" is the project opposed by Congress the same as the project opposed by Darman? They have the same description. Also, I do not consider the overall wording of this paragraph to be neutral. Take for example the phrase "welfare reform to correct government offsets". Certainly it is a welfare "change". Whether it's a "reform" or not depends on your pov. Similarly with the word "correct". There are also other wording issues. I edited it once, but was reverted so I'll leave the issue here for discussion. Jpmonroe (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw your note at FAC and will respond there where the most eyes are.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality
(Congress: "...The article explained allegations of 1967 Sacramento office Reagan staffer homosexual activity, which apparently did not refer to Kemp who was cleared of all related charges....")

Homosexuality isn't a charge of which one must be cleared. Allegations of homosexuality aren't something of which a person must be cleared.

The text as it stands makes it sound as if he was charged with one or more crimes.

If the allegations were false, say that -- not that he was cleared of possibly being homosexual. If there were other allegations, say what they were.


 * It does seem reasonable to at least mention that he rode out the scandal of having bought a cabin with Reagan's gay chief of staff (Battaglia while he was an intern in Reagan's office, in 1967. See "Governor Reagan: His rise to power", page 251, last paragraph.
 * If anyone less lazy than me agrees, it looks like a good citation to use (you can link to Google Books for it, too)
 * --75.80.187.183 (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that would be reasonable -- if it were discussed as you described it. Instead, words like "allegations" and, now, "implicated" have been used. If it's worth mentioning, perhaps the article should simply say what you've said here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.77.155 (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

FOOT NOTE ERROR? In the section that discusses Kemp's investment in the cabin co-owned with gay Reagan staffers, Esquire magazine is cited, followed by footnote number 12. The link in footnote 12 takes one to a fluff piece on Kemp's college days that was published in LA Daily News, not Esquire. I did a search for the word "Esquire" in the article, found only the one instance in the text, but no "Esquire" in the footnotes themselves. 65.32.96.200 (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC) William Malmstrom, Clearwater, FL

Cancer diagnosis
Probably deserves to be incorporated in post-political material, right? Hekerui (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Republican Vice Presidential nominee in infobox
I'm for not putting this in the infobox - it's in the lead, not an elected position were he was "in office", and it doesn't appear necessary for the other VP nominees either. Hekerui (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We have a captive audience at WP:FAC right now. You can probably get some responses there.  I have included it for three reasons: 1. it is an official democratic party office, 2. he was not in any other office at the time so it does not conflict like it would for Palin/McCain/Biden/Obama who were holding other offices when they ran, 3. It gives a complete picture of his most important offices in the info box and for Kemp it is arguably the most notable office he ever held.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wendell Willkie, Alton B. Parker, and William E. Miller mention it upfront but without infobox and they look decent. It might be a party office (source?) but it's not an office with official power to do anything with regard to party or country. Also, it's mentioned in the second sentence of the article. And sorry for not going to FAC but that's more for the hard core and they'll probably bite. I'm myself at the moment merely trying to get an article from Stub to B, so that's not my league :-) Hekerui (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it's the third time I've had to comeback & remove those annoying Nominee thingys, from the Infoboxes. Those are not government offices & they make the Infobox bloated. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Better picture
Since he's no longer living, could we replace the main picture with one from when he was holding office or running for office? Something from the late-80s to 96? Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, can someone get us some pictures of him from his football days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Use by Specter and wiki project spam
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/04/specter-claims-kemp-alive-congress-better-funded-medical-research/

I understand that it is Fox News, but surely the quotes are good. I find it rather sickening that he has only just died and Specter is so irreverent as to immediately use him as a political figurehead. Is it worth mentioning that Specter is trying to use him as a rallying call for government-funded cancer research?

--Pstanton (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Meeting with Jude Wanniski
The article says that Jude Wanniski met with Jack Kemp to discuss supply side economics in 1967. Purportedly, this meeting took place in Kemp's Congressional office. Kemp was not in Congress in 1967. While I certainly believe this meeting took place, the year is inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.154.190 (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Legacy
One does not need be an M.D. to know that spending additional money on cancer research might find a cure for various cancers. Senator Specter in a long-serving leader and member of the senator, and his POV should be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs) 23:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Should Arlen Specter statement be included in the article
Should the statement "Senator Arlen Specter claimed that Jack Kemp would still be alive if the federal government had done a better job funding cancer research." be included in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am of the opinion that it is a medical opinion by a person who is not a reliable source for medical opinions and that it is a speculative statement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with including that—Specter's clearly not a reliable source on medical issues, but I think its inclusion would be more about the remark's political significance than its medical significance—but I think it would be undue weight to include it in the present article. If the article was expanded considerably, with new subarticles created, I think there could be a place for it there, but not as the article stands now. Steve Smith (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * RfC comment. I would not create sub-articles, but I agree with Steve Smith that the remark is political rather than medical. The problem with the now-reverted passage is that it just sits there without context, which makes it read like a POV attack. If the Legacy section had a well-sourced paragraph describing how Kemp's legacy includes reductions in federal spending (it comes close to that now, but does not discuss it directly), then the sentence could be part of that paragraph, and would be entirely appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to RFC No. Let this article be about Jack Kemp, not the use of his memory in an uninformed remark in a political debate to which Kemp is entirely peripheral. There might be better grounds for including it in an article about Specter, but even there the specter of recentism arises. Ray  Talk 03:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the statement, as it stands, seems to come out of left field. I also agree that the information is not necessarily inappropriate. The ideal solution here is someone expanding on the significance of the comment and giving it context. If we can get a volunteer to do that, the issue will be resolved (in my opinion). -- MQ Duck (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think it belongs in Jack Kemp's article, as Arlen Specter was not Jack Kemp's physician nor is he a medical researcher who could be reasonably expected to have an informed and reliable opinion on the matter. It might belong in an article on US health care reform or on Arlen Specter himself, however. --NellieBly (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur. Specter's statement should go in Specter's article. Alan (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Arlen Specter has battled Hodgkin's lymphomais, a type of lymphoma (cancer originating from a type of white blood cells called lymphocytes). One can assume that Senator Specter has had access to the latest treatments and has become quite knowledgeable about this cancer.  Also one would think that he has also consulted with the leading doctors in the field, and has first-hand knowledge in formulating his opinion about cancer research.


 * Now what does this have to do with Jack Kemp?  Sometimes a writer or speaker wishes to convey a message that questions or challenges our beliefs.  But to directly confront the establishment could incur the retaliation of those who control or benefit from the status quo.  To avoid direct confrontation and at the same time stimulate the reader to question existing policy, the speaker or writer makes use of explicit statements which have overtones which transcend their immediate context and demand our special attention.


 * Arlen Specter by invoking Jack Kemp name’s so shortly after his death, and Specter claiming that Kemp would be alive today if Congress spent more money on cancer research, and knowing that Jack Kemp advocated less government spending and tax cuts, one could deduce what Specter thinks Kemp’s legacy is.Cgersten (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to RfC. No.  As with similar opinions above, speculative and politically motivated quote adds nothing the section on Kemp's death. --Whoosit (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Closing as consensus to remove. I think the general consensus is to remove this content from Kemp's article with the feeling if it is included on WP it should be added in Specter's article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A clarification: the content could be appropriate here in a different form, with greater context. I think several editors have said that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The biography of Jack Kemp is rather bland; does not promote thought or debate, as to what Jack Kemp’s contribution was to America. Senator Specter’s comment about Jack Kemp being alive if the government had spend more money on cancer research says in a coded statement what Specter thought of Kemp’s policies.  The readers of Kemp’s biography should know about Specter’s statement so that perhaps they will be moved to investigate further Kemp’s contribution to America.Cgersten (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Specter’s comment about Kemp’s legacy is the most profound statement I have ever heard of a politician’s evaluation of another politician. Specter’s statement should be part of Kemp’s biography as it is an indication of what at least some of his colleagues thought of him.Cgersten (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Truman-Reagan Medal of Freedom
If he is the Jack Kemp who received the Truman-Reagan Medal of Freedom (posthumously), please put the info into the article wherever appropriate. - Altenmann >t 01:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)