Talk:John F. Kennedy/Archive 2

cum laude & "average student" ???
Is it true that he was an average student at Harvard, never earning a A, but getting Bs and Cs (and 1 D), yet he graduated "cum laude". Where I went to school, such grades would not get you the "cum laude" designation on your degree. Is Harvard different or is one of the statements incorrect? 68.20.140.8 20:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC) James Morrison

How could he graduateing bitt hey hey hey he6tt djgtmcxzbfdnsfd nsbjkcxjklwrngm,cxnvlkjfdsjjgfkjgskglhsdgs;klfdhglkfdkg;lfdsgjfldkgjfdgfagkfgjklfdjgl;dfjgl;ksjglkfdsgb.vnb,mxvcnbnxvc,mbnvjjgfgjlfkdsjg;lfd

with honors if he "never earning an A, but mostly B's and C's, with a single D in a sophomore history course."? Kingturtle 01:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Good question. According to several sites, including JFK's Navy bio he did graduate cum laude. But I don't know about the never getting an A thing. It does seem unlikely (improbable even) that one could graduate cum laude with such an average performance (I am from Australia and am not familiar with the Latin honours). Does someone know of a reference stating he only got B's, C's and D's? Akamad 11:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It used to say here that he got a "magna cum laude" for the honors thesis - which would have raised his overall standing too, likely --JimWae 07:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

JFK was a very average student at Harvard (Bs and Cs). However, I believe he earned honors status as a result of his thesis. At Harvard at that time, I think honors were awarded based on the senior thesis, as it was seen as a kind of culmination of all you had learned in the preceding four years.UMclassof06 04:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidate
I nominated the article for FA yesterday, here are the comments as of now. Akamad 23:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Object for now. I'm concerned with the level of unattributed opinion in the article. A quick scan read throws up "some people", "some sources", "some claimed", "some critics", "critics, some of whom", "many other critics", "leading many to deem", "many who listened", "many military officials" and "many civil rights leaders". Who are these people? Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Object:
 * There are entirely too many one- and two-sentence paragraphs, which really chops up the prose and doesn't allow for a good flow to the article.
 * I'd like to see some better organization to the article; for example, under "Early political career" there are details about Kennedy's marriage and stillborn child. These have nothing to do with his political career, so I'd recommend creating a specific section dedicated to his personal life. (You could probably put it under "Image, social life and family" but I think that deserves a full section and not just a subsection.)
 * At points'', the article reads like a "list in prose". It's not a list per se, but it seems to be little more than an annotated timeline at times.  (In 1950, this happened.  In 1952, this happened.  Then in 1953, this happened. ...and so forth)
 * Good luck! Pack n Canes  |   say something!   17:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Object:
 * Very unevenly written. Some paragraphs are excellent, but between them are one sentence paragraphs that often seem out of place. For example, "Years later, it would be revealed that Kennedy had been diagnosed as a young man with Addison's Disease, a rare endocrine disorder. This and other medical disorders were kept from the press and the public throughout Kennedy's life." is the second paragraph of early life. Not only does it not fit, it is hardly important in the overall role his childhood played in his becoming president and the greater influence that had on US and world politics.Dtaw2001 19:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Object:
 * The images Image:JFKPT109.jpg, Image:JFKSENATE.jpg, Image:Jfknixon.jpg, Image:Jfkspeech.jpg, Image:JFKNASA.jpg, Image:KennedyCabinet.jpg, Image:2005 proof Kennedy half dollar.png have no source information.
 * The image Image:Jfkatbcin56.jpg has no source or copyright information.
 * The image Image:JFKMLK.jpg has no source information. "Fair use" cannot be claimed without knowing the source of the image.  Also, there's no reason to use a non-free image here.
 * The image Image:Kennedy bros.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but it appears to be for decorative purposes only. This isn't allowed under Fair use.
 * The image Image:JFKCasketLeavesCapitolHill.JPG is claimed as "fair use", but I'm sure there's a public-domain replacement somewhere.
 * The image Image:Democratslogo.png, used in the template USDemPresNominees, is tagged as "fair use". Non-free images are not permitted in templates.
 * The image Image:JFKmotorcade.jpg is tagged as "fair use", but has no source information. It also has what appears to be a copyright statement dating from 1992 in the lower-left corner.  If at all possible, this image needs to be replaced with a free image; if not, source information and a fair-use rationale need to be supplied.
 * --Carnildo 23:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Martyrdom
I agree with the editor that removed the Martyred People categorization. Firstly, the definition given martyrdom on that category's page seems awfully broad, and secondly, I don't believe JFK's assassination fits the description anyway. If JFK fits it, then anyone assassinanted for practically anything fits it. But the proper word is "assassinated", not "martyred". That's why we don't just say JFK was murdered – "assassinated" carries the correct connotation, and it's not necessary to stretch the definition of "martyred". -- Kbh3rd 05:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Article's TV appearance
Yeah, it was on Tucker Carlson's show on MSNBC. They were talking about how the article claimed this guy was tied to the assassinations of JFK and his brother, Robert.

I get the feeling this articles going to be vandalized because of this.--Kross | Talk 04:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I just saw it too--whicky1978 04:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it talked about how this article claimed some guy was a suspect in the Kennedy assassination. Of course, he was just some guy, that really wasn't. --Mac Davis 21:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Gossip
I have removed some of the "gossip", primarily as it is unsourced. We also really have to be more careful when stating negative points about people. These can tend to have more impact than the positive ones. Wallie 12:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Assassination
All the assassination details and theories are very thoroughly covered in Wikipedia. The is a biography about JFK and has to focus on him. What is important is that he died and that the death was a major shock for America. Who got arrested in a movie theatre, etc., we should read elsewhere. Rjensen 19:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I disagree. The assassination details are inextricably linked with JFK, and first time visitors may initially visit this page to get a brief overview. --Viriditas 02:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it is impossible to have a NPOV statement on the matter in the JFK article. The deleted material contains mostly speculation any one point of life at all--they have a totally separate existence (or non-existence if you will).  The deleted material is NPOV and is rejected by the vast majority of Kennedy scholars.  Look at the main biographies: they do NOT dwell on all the conspiracies. Nor should Wikipedia.  Anyone can get his fill of who-dunnit with a click, so let's not degrade the article with material that fascinates a fixed group and diverts attention from the history that we in fact do know.Rjensen 03:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. I think NPOV is possible.  According to your edit history, you have been deleting large amounts of content from many articles on Wikipedia, often times without mentioning that you are doing so.  I admire your goal of improving the quality of the encyclopedia, but I think outright deletions of controversial or uncontested content that you deem unimportant is the wrong approach.  I see you are running into the same problem on Franklin D. Roosevelt and other articles.  Describe what you want to do on the talk page and work with the community. --Viriditas 03:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

A german TV documentary (to be aired on January 6, 2006) claims to include footage of "not metally ill witnesses appearing on screen under their full name" whose testimonies link the assassination directely to Fidel Castro, according to leading german weekly "Der Spiegel" (www.spiegel.de) - Once the documentary is out, is that information appropriate for this page?

I have a problem with the clarity of this portion of the article: Critics have proposed a number of Kennedy assassination theories which contradict the various theories on exactly how the assassination took place that have been proposed by the government's official reports. There is no consensus among government investigations, let alone amongst their critics, on the number of bullets fired at the president, the direction from which all the bullets were fired, and which of the bullets struck the president, and Governor John Connally who was also wounded in the attack.

1. The government only has one official version of the JFK assassination-- the Warren Commission. The Select House Committee verified the Warren Commision with the caveat that there "may" have been a conspiracy.

2. The general consensus of the overwhelming majority of witness in Dealey Plaza was 2 to 3 shots, and coming from the general area of the Texas School Book Depository. The article should note that and not leave it so ambiguous.

I think a re-write to clear up the author's point is necessary. I'm not sure if he is comparing conspiracy theorists to non-conspiracy theorists or is simply stating that certain information is just not verifiable. The former is true whereas the latter is not as accurate. Ramsquire 23:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

McCarthy
The close relationshipo between Sen McCarthy and the Kennedy family is discussed in all the biographies about McCarthy, JFK and Robert Kennedy. What point is in dispute--any? all?

For example you can search on AMAZON.com the indexto Reeves bio of McCarthy and get p 808 many citations.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1568331010/ref=sib_rdr_idx/104-8802475-3136759?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S008&j=0#reader-page

Apart from the Kennedys, McCarthy was the most prominent Irish Catholic figure in the country. Rjensen 20:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

excerpts: "Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy, who was a friend of Joseph Kennedy and other members of the Kennedy family. McCarthy had spent a weekend at Hyannis Port in July, 1949. Joseph Kennedy, who controlled his son's campaign--it was Joseph Kennedy who fired John's campaign manager Mark Dalton and insisted that young Robert Kennedy take over--killed an anti-McCarthy statement prepared by John Kennedy's liberal supporters. Joseph Kennedy also gave the ill Wisconsin Senator $3,000.00 and suggested that McCarthy stay out of the Massachusetts campaign." p 26

ibid p 75-76 "The Junior Senator from Wisconsin was a friend of Joseph Kennedy and Robert Kennedy worked for the Senator's sub-committee. This created a problem for John Kennedy. "How could I demand that Joe McCarthy be censured for things he did when my own brother was on his staff?" asked John Kennedy. By 1954, however, Robert Kennedy and McCarthy's chief aide, Roy Cohn, had had a falling out and Robert was in active opposition to McCarthy. John Kennedy wrote a speech calling for the censure of McCarthy for abusing Senatorial privileges, but the speech was never delivered. When the vote to censure McCarthy was taken on December 2, 1954, Kennedy was in the Hospital for Special Surgery fighting for his life. Kennedy's third decision was to undergo an operation to free him from the hated crutches, an operation undertaken against the advice of Dr. Sara Jordan, the family physician."


 * If you wish to reinstate the bit about McCarthy, please provide a reference. It is very damning for anyone to be associated with McCarthy. To my mind he more than anyone else gave the United States a bad name. I am sure that the Kennedys would want to distance themselves from any such person. Wallie 16:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I did provide a reference: read the quotes in previous 2 paragraphs cut and pasted from a standard short biography: John F. Kennedy. by Peter Schwab and J. Lee Shneidman - Publisher: Twayne Publishers. Boston. 1974. pp 25 and 75-76. ( Peter Schwab, Ph.D. was Associate Professor of Political Science State University of New York College at Purchase and J. Lee Shneidman, Ph.D. was Professor of History Adelphi Universityin 1974) You will find the same info in the standard biogs of Kennedy. Is it damning to be associated with McCarthy? Or perhaps is history a bit more complicated? Rjensen 17:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The text in question was cut and pasted from the Joseph P. Kennedy article. Was John Kennedy, Joseph's son, a special beneficiary of his father's connection to McCarthy? As another poster noted above, having an association with McCarthy is damning. Unless someone can provide evidence to show that John Kennedy benefitted especially from his father's association with McCarthy, I suggest dropping this or at least editing it down to a sentence or two and placing it elsewhere in the article. The John Kennedy-McCarthy connection doesn't deserve this much ink. Griot 19:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The text accurately tells how close McCarthy was to Kennedy family & how that played a role in JFK 1952 Senate election, the 1954 Censure vote that JFK did not make, and how it hurt JFK with many Demicrats in late 1950s. All the biographies agree--there is nothing at all controversial or POV. It's POV to downplay this central event in the 1950s. As for separating JFK from his father and brother Robert--can't be done in 1950s as JFK quote re censure vote demonstrates. The notion that Kennedy became president indepent of father and brother is pretty far afield. Rjensen 19:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's POV to devote more words in a JFK article to the Kennedy family's connection to MCcarthy than to Kennedy's early political career, his domestic policies, and his leadership in the space program. Please edit this down so that this small episode is not overblown. Griot 20:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think we have to be careful with undue weight here. Particularly, though, I'm wary of the portions of the text that talk about "alleged" deals between McCarthy and Kennedy.  Even sourced, I have a problem including this type of guesswork in an encyclopedia article.  However, some description of Kennedy and McCarthy's relationship probably does belong in this article, if not in a subsection all its own. &middot;  j&middot;e&middot;r&middot;s&middot;y&middot;k&middot;o  talk &middot; 20:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * on the alleged deal in 1952: I think all the major biographers agree there was some sort of deal. (McCarthy spoke in every state with a large Irish Catholic population except Massachusetts). It was a close election -- Lodge was the incumbent and Ike did carry the state, so the stakes were very high. Rjensen 20:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "All the major historians agree" is a blanket statement. Please consider how to trim this. It's a clear violation of undue weight. Griot 20:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No it's based on reading most of the Kennedy biographies. Can anyone name a Kennedy bio that takes a different position--who thinks the relationship was unimportant? To condemn the relationship is of course POV and the article does not do that.

Here are what scholars are saying: 1) The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys By Doris Kearns Goodwin p 780 "Kennedy's national ambitions might have been brought to a halt by his failure to take a stand against McCarthy."; 2) "JFK was "careful not to alienate the millions of Americans who liked Senator Joseph McCarthy (a family friend)...." p 401 of The American Presidency edited by Alan Brinkley; 3) "Liberals had never heard him rebuke McCarthy; indeed, the two were friendly" The Achievement of American Liberalism: The New Deal and Its Legacies - edited by William H Chafe p 117; A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House by Arthur Meier Schlesinger p 13 "It was always a puzzle why liberals took so long to forgive him" (on McCarthy issue). Of course O'Brien, Dallek and other full-scale biographers have full details, and are in agreement. Rjensen 21:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A Possible Mistake
The article claims the following: "Kennedy started his fight for civil rights when he appealed to Black voters during his campaign in 1962." I personally do not know what campaign this refers to. In my humble opinion, the reference is confusing. His presidential election campaign took place in 1960 according to the article. It might be a simple typo. Anyone more qualified to correct it? Roberttt 21:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's referring to the Congressional elections of '62 when he was campaigning on behalf of Democratic candidates.UMclassof06 04:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Multiple Shooters
In the Zabruder film, it shows Kennedy's head exploding. This is not the damage from one bullet.


 * The video is consistant with the passage of a single bullet from a high-powered rifle. Bud Dwyer shot himself in the head, with similar results.  And there are many videos of people shot by both police, SWAT, and military conflicts which show the same "explosion effect".  Unless you propose that multiple shooters fired at exactly the same moment, from exactly the same distance, with exact same rifles, bullets, and powder loads?  A 2 grain difference in powder loads, 3' difference in distance, or 1/10 second of hesitation would produce a noticeable "multiple hit".  But that is not visible in the film, just a single hit from a high powered rifle.    Mushrom 1500, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Common belief (and I think it's been proven, but I could be wrong) was that he was hit in the head by a high-explosive bullet. That tends to make things to boom a little. As far as multiple shots to the head, you can tell that's not what happened from the "autopsy" photos. There's one enterence wound, and a giant hole.

Curious that anyone would take a blind bit of notice of the post mortem photographs when the lady who took them testified in 1992 that they were not the photographs she took as the official mortuary photographer. There is also very clear evidence that the President's body was tampered with between the two post mortem examinations that took place. But the most damning piece of evidence is this - the 9 surviving doctors who examined Mr Kennedy's wounds have ALL said that the large exit wound was at the back of the head and not the front. The BACK of the head. 9 out of 9. It's all there to be read about on reputable news service websites...no need for conspiracy nutjobs, just plain old inconsistencies.--Iamlondon 00:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Image, social life and family
I put a tag on this section. It's indisputably POV to state, "The Kennedys brought a new life and vigor to the atmosphere of the White House." Among other statements. It needs to be reworded in a way to objectively observe the reaction of the people at the time who may have held that point of view. But the article should not fawn over them so – it's embarassing. It's late and I haven't read the whole article for similar problems, but they should be addressed wherever they occur. --Kbh3rd talk 06:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * POV?? I don't think so. This was unanimously agreed by critics the n and now. Is there serious disagreement?? I don't think so and you need to cite some sources with an opposing view. Rjensen 12:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Driver
John F. Kennedy was assassinated by his driver. END OF STORY. The videos (SIC) CLEARLY show it. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.34.89.149 (talk • contribs). added with revert as comment blanked previous section

When you write "END OF STORY", you are clearly being blinkered and are the living example of a walking POV, my dear sir/madam. I wish you the best in your efforts to prove that Jackie, Mr & Mrs Connally and Kellerman saw, and heard, a gun in the car, when they mentioned nothing about it.

--andreasegde 17:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling what this person is refering to is the driver (illegally?) slowing far below regulation minimum speeds for presidential vehicals in the situation it was in, and, from watching the zapruder film, how it appears that the driver deliberately stays slow long enough for the president to be shot, looking back over his shoulder, untill such time as he sees the president killed, where he finally speeds off. Personally, I dont really know who exactly set up the assasination, but it is beyond doubt to me that it wasn't Oswald alone shooting, and since there is a photo of Oswald in the doorway at the time of the shooting, (if it is real, which it seems to be) I dont know how people have any doubt that there was a conspiracy.

Links to be added?
I came to this article looking for information about the many theories surrounding JFK's assasination. Would it not be appropriate to add links to JFK (film) or other more appropriate places where these theories could be described? jamiemcc 01:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link unrelated to Kennedy’s assassination. It’s a small collection of material relating to President John F. Kennedy's proposal for a joint US-USSR manned lunar landing. Note: Sergei Khrushchev's disclosure is thus far unsourced; this page helps fill in many blanks. Stephen Birmingham 18:31, 16 March 2006

If you want historical information about JFK, do NOT watch the movie JFK. For that matter, if you want history, don't watch ANY Oliver Stone movie. Movieman894 23:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

New picture?
What do you think about replacing the front image with this? --Blue387 09:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Need more on Congressional career
I believe the article would be enhanced if there were more on Kennedy's career in the House and the Senate. --Blue387 02:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

NNPOV

 * Going up just in time to be swamped by the Florida election contest, the project has not received the attention it deserves.

Not a word on the Cuban missile crisis?
Or his visit to Berlin? New Frontiers? Tax cuts? 1960-61 recession? The "vital center" philosophy? Test ban treaty? Kennedy and civil rights? It seems the article skips straight from bay of pigs/space race to assasination. Wikipedia can do [much] better than that... and the criticism section seems biased and unbalanced. It gives only criticisms, citing from conservative sources like the WSJ, with no responses. And given that every single president has faced criticism, I hardly see what the special justification for this section is, as opposed to one devoted to controversy over his health that erupted in the late 1990s. 18.251.5.83 10:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * very good points. I added some details. Rjensen 11:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, a bit random: can someone help me with an essay I'm writing on JFK. I need to assess his historical significance. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.154.173.53 (talk • contribs)
 * Well, you could try reading the article. We don't do your homework for you -- Gurch 17:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy did make the biggest tax cut ever, and the Cuban missile crisis is the closest ever to nuclear war. . . but its mentioned (Hint: use the find button on your broswer)

Criticism
Something needs to be done with this section. It reads like a narrative from an anti-Kennedy novel rather than an encyclopedia. It may be a little too bold, but I'm placing it's text here. I have no political views pro or con on this issue, but I don't have the knowledge to rewrite this section properly, and this desperately needs change. NeSS 17:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy is among the most popular former presidents of the United States; however, a few critics argue that his reputation is largely undeserved. His admirers argue that the opposition was so strong that he had little chance to achieve much during his presidency. However Kennedy did drastically increase the number of American troops sent to fight in Vietnam and he personally took the blame for the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

"The Republicans have allowed a communist dictatorship to flourish eight jet minutes from our borders," accused John F. Kennedy during his famous debate with Richard Nixon during the 1960 presidential campaign. "We must support anti-Castro fighters. So far these freedom fighters have received no help from our government."

Two weeks before that crucial debate in October of 1960, JFK had been briefed by the CIA (on Ike's orders) about Cuban invasion plans (what would later be known as the Bay of Pigs invasion). So JFK knew perfectly well the Republican administration was helping Cuban freedom fighters. But since the plans were secret, he knew perfectly well Nixon couldn't rebut.

Kennedy blindsided his Republican opponent Nixon knowing full well that Nixon could not rebut. Nixon bit his tongue. He could easily have rebutted Kennedy on the subject. The issue of Cuba and Bay of Pigs was of national security and he could not reveal the planned invasion.

Four months later, 1,400 of those very Cuban freedom fighters that "we must support" were slugging it out with 51,000 Castro troops, squadrons of Stalin tanks and his entire air force at a beachhead now known as the Bay of Pigs. (For details see "Fidel: Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant," Chapter 11.) JFK was no longer a candidate. He was now commander in chief.

It was time to put up or shut up. He'd already done plenty of putting up by hemming and hawing about the planed invasion from the moment he entered office. Then by forcing the CIA and military planners to change the landing site. Then by holding up his approval of an invasion a year in the making till 24 hours before the planned D-Day. Then by canceling 80 percent of the pre-invasion air strikes. All this was to somehow hide the U.S. logistical role (this massive secret!).

JFK and his Best and Brightest were ashamed of that role. James Burnham nailed this mindset in a famous passage from his book "Suicide of The West": "... the Liberal cannot strike wholeheartedly at the communist for fear of wounding himself in the process."

And despite what Camelot's press agency (the mainstream media and Ivy League academics) have written, those pre-invasion air strikes were the vital element of the invasion as planned under Eisenhower. The Cuban invasion was born under a Republican administration, with Vice President Nixon its main booster. The man who saw through Alger Hiss was also the first to see through Fidel Castro.

After the cancellation of the air strikes, the invading freedom fighters and their supply ships found themselves completely defenseless against Castro's air force. They were sitting ducks and under a constant hail of rocket fire. Here was a final chance for President JFK to stand with them, as promised by candidate JFK.

The U.S. carrier Essex was stationed 30 miles off the Cuban coast, dozens of deadly Skyhawk jets on deck and primed for action. Their pilots were frantic, banging their fists, kicking bulkheads and screaming in tears of desperate rage against the sellout of their freedom-fighting brothers on that heroic beachhead.

Simply give the nod, Mr. Commander in Chief, and they'd roar off to a chorus of whoops and cheers.

Key point of change
Now with air cover, the freedom fighters' ammo ships might survive a run on the beachhead. The invaders could reload, refuel and keep blasting forward. Their planes could fly in from Nicaragua. Then, perhaps, Cuba's liberation: firing squads silenced, families reunited, tens of thousands of emaciated prisoners staggering from dungeons and concentration camps.

In 1961, newsreels might have captured such scenes without crossing oceans. Castro's prison camps and jails held between 250,000 and 300,000 prisoners – the highest political incarceration rate on earth at the time, perhaps the highest in history. If men who voluntarily took up arms and put their lives on the line to smash Castro's regime don't qualify as freedom fighters, then I surely learned the English language in vain.

And 45 years ago this week, 1,400 of them were hard at it on the beaches surrounding Cuba's Bay of Pigs. Thousands more were waging a desperate, heroic and equally lonely guerrilla war in Cuba's hills. The original plans called for the two groups of freedom fighters to link up after the invasion. The Best and Brightest nixed that when, barely a month before D-Day, they abruptly ordered the stunned military planners to change landing sites.

"Where are the PLANES?" kept crackling over the invasion ships' radios. That was their commander, Pepe San Roman, roaring into his radio from the beachhead between artillery concussions. Soviet howitzers were pounding 2,000 rounds into the desperately embattled men (and boys). "Send planes or we CAN'T LAST!" San Roman yelled while watching the Russian tanks close in, his ammo deplete and his casualties pile up.

The pleas made it to Navy Chief Admiral Arleigh Burke in Washington, D.C., who conveyed them in person to his commander in chief.

JFK was in a white tux and tails that fateful night of April 18, 1961, having just emerged from an elegant Beltway ball. For the closing act of the glittering occasion Jackie and her charming beau had spun around the dance floor, to the claps, coos and titters of the delighted guests. In the new president's honor, the band had struck up the Broadway smash "Mr. Wonderful."

"Two planes, Mr. President!" Burke sputtered into his commander in chief's face. The fighting admiral was livid, pleading for permission to allow just two of his jets to blaze off the carrier deck and support those desperately embattled freedom fighters on that shrinking beachhead.

"Burke, we can't get involved in this," replied Mr. Wonderful.

"WE put those boys there, Mr. President!" the fighting admiral exploded. "By God, we ARE involved!"

Mr. Wonderful refused to help the freedom fighters. The advice from his Best and Brightest again prevailed. The election was over, you see. Now his "leadership" was on full display.

"Can't continue," crackled the final message from San Roman a few hours later. For three days his force of mostly volunteer civilians with one day's ammo had battled savagely against a Soviet-trained and -led force 10 times its size, inflicting casualties of 30 to 1.

To this day their feat of arms amazes professional military men. Morale will do that to a fighting force. And there's no morale booster like having watched Castroism ravage your homeland and families.

Pigs will flap their wings through interstellar space before Hollywood (or the MSM) deigns to depict that battle accurately. But to get an idea of the odds faced by those freedom fighters, the desperation of their battle and the damage they wrought, you might revisit Tony Montana during the last 15 minutes of "Scarface."

"Russian tanks overrunning my position," San Roman on his radio again, "destroying my equipment." crackle ... crackle ... crackle ... "How can you people do this to us?" Finally the radio went dead.

"Tears filled my eyes," writes CIA man Grayston Lynch, who took that final message. "I broke down completely. Never in my 37 years have I been so ashamed of my country."

Eisenhower described JFK's role during the Bay of Pigs as "a profile in indecision and timidity." And warned that it would embolden the Soviets. Like clockwork, four months later the Berlin Wall went up. And a year later the Soviets began arming Castro with nuclear missiles.

Eighteen months after the botched invasion, a guilt-stricken JFK ransomed the remaining freedom fighters back from Castro's dungeons. Their battlefield and prison ordeal – brought on by JFK's famous "leadership"– was over. But JFK's "culture of secrecy" (remember, the very thing Senator Edward Kennedy blasts in Bush's administration) was far from over.

"I will never abandon Cuba to Communism!" That was JFK addressing the recently ransomed freedom fighters and their families in Miami's Orange Bowl Dec. 29, 1962. "I promise to deliver this Brigade banner to you in a free Havana!" Apparently those men and their families hadn't been subjected to enough lies, to enough betrayal. The grieving mothers, widows and newly fatherless children – they hadn't been through enough either. In Camelot's eyes they deserved more shameless lies and swinishness.

Here's Nikita Khrushchev himself regarding the deal he'd cut with JFK barely two months before JFK boomed out his Cuban liberation promises in the Orange Bowl: "We ended up getting exactly what we'd wanted all along. Security for Fidel Castro's regime and American missiles removed from Turkey. Until today, the U.S. has complied with her promise to not interfere with Castro and to not allow anyone else to interfere with Castro [italics mine]. After Kennedy's death, his successor Lyndon Johnson assured us that he would keep the promise not to invade Cuba."

"We can't say anything public about this agreement," said Robert F. Kennedy to Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin when closing the deal that ended the so-called Missile Crisis. "It would be too much of a political embarrassment for us."

Kennedy's private life has also attracted the ire of critics, some of whom argue that lapses in judgment in his personal life impacted his professional life. Among the critics' charges are: that the Kennedy family concealed from the public his serious, potentially life-threatening health issues (e.g., he suffered from Addison's disease) and his heavy medication regimen; that he had a long history of extramarital affairs; and that he had alleged, circuitous links to organized crime figures. Seymour Hersh's The Dark Side of Camelot (1998) presents such a critical argument. Robert Dallek's An Unfinished Life (2003) is a more balanced biography, but details Kennedy's health issues.

McCarthy
I moved the section for the following reasons. (a) From reading it, John himself did precisely zero regarding McCarthy. (b) It is completely unreferenced. (c) It includes a quote which almost surely isn't.

A cleaned up version belongs either in the Kennedy clan article, or the appropriate pieces belong in the Joseph and Robert Kennedy article, where they already probably are.

Anyone care to defend it, as properly belonging as a section in this article? Derex 19:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * All JFK's biographers agree it is an important topic. (for example OBrien devotes 15 pages to the topic). The revised version focuses on the two-men JFK and McC, with just a sentence on Joe's role. It;s important for several reasons--most important it made JFK enemies around the country. Rjensen 19:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The present version has 3 sentences regarding John, one of which is a quote which I'd bet a $100 isn't one. It states that John agreed not to give any speeches about McCarthy, can that be verified?  The only other thing it says is that John drafted a speech calling for McCarthy's censure and that he was hospitalized during the actual vote.  This section needs (a) references (b) neutralized language (c) some explanation of the connection between John Kennedy and McCarthy.  A connection between Robert or Joseph is just that.  You need to establish some connection with John.  I'm not saying there isn't one, because I've never heard anything about this.  But, the current paragraph is titled links between John and McCarthy, and then proceeds to document no links.  All it says is that John didn't make any speeches criticizing McCarthy, though he did draft one.  It makes no sense.  If there was a quid pro quo on that, it needs to be referenced.  At the moment, this paragraph represents the very worst of Wikipedia.  Derex 19:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It now has detailed page references to OBrien and Reeves books that discuss the episodes. Dallek could be added too: see pages 171, 180, 190-91; Dallek says "His failure to join all his fellow Democrats and a majority of the Senate in condemning McCarthy's disgraceful behavior became an enduring political problem. Jack gave a number of unconvincing explanations for his non-vote." [191]. Dallek says regarding 1952 anti-McCarthy ad: "Jack was not averse to squelching the ad; it was poor politics. McCarthy remained very popular with the state's 750,000 Irish Catholics" (p171) Rjensen 20:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Derex seems to be astonished to hear for the first time that JFK had close ties to McCarthy; Derex and wants them covered up fast. Alas, father Joe and brother Robert were very close to McCarthy and pulled JFK in with them. This has been well known for 50+ years -- all the biographies carry the news--and was one of the major reasons the liberal wing of the Dem party distrusted JFK throughout the 1950s. Rjensen 01:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, since I never read this follow-up. That's a personal attack -- that I want a "cover-up fast"; it's an allegation of intellectual dishonesty. It's false, and I don't appreciate it. Rjensen and I settled this on talk pages long ago. But having seen this, I want to set the record straight here. Derex 07:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To Derex. thanks for removing POV. The McCarthy link was only partly about anticommunism. It seems that the family was pretty close to McC before he got involved on the anti-red theme in 1950. JFK seems to have gotten his anti-Red views quite independently. Rjensen 07:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

First president born in the 20th century
I've clarified about presidents being born in the 20th century. Kennedy being the first president born in the 20th century seemed somewhat vague because LBJ was born before him. That's why I said that Kennedy was the first 20th century-born American president and LBJ was the first president born in the 20th century (chronologically).

This at least avoids confusion. -- SNIyer12 (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

missing a section
The article starts with his military service. What about his childhood? Where did he go to school?


 * User:Harro5 has put it back in. - Akamad 00:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the section Early Childhood and Education said absolutely nothing about his education, I added a sketch. WBcoleman 05:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I didnt see anything about.. Executive Order 11110: On June 4, 1963 President Kennedy signed this virtually unknown Presidential decree, which had the authority to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest, essentially putting the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank out of business. The order returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Johnson reversed the order shortly after taking office in November, 1963. Some conspiracy theorists believe this executive order was the cause of President Kennedy's assassination.

Criticism Section

 * Latest - I have re-written the Criticism section. It was absurdly biased and pointless. I have left in what was there previously (mentions of ill-health, extra-marital affairs...) but altered the phrasing. Why anyone would use Kennedy's health in order to criticise his Presidency is beyond me - one need only remember FDR in order to see how patently foolish a tool this is to use against Kennedy. --Iamlondon 00:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Having worked for Encyclopedia Britannica for 2 years in my early twenties I can assure you that the section labelled 'Criticism' does not warrant inclusion for the most part. It contains rather black gossip, the majority of which is totally unfounded and clearly intended to subtly direct the reader's own conclusions toward a negative aspect.

The talk of JFK having been involved with Marilyn Monroe is nothing other than popular myth - there is nothing other than glitzy rumour to suggest Mr Kennedy went near Ms Monroe. I've removed that section as it has no place in a serious article concerning the facts of the man's life. Nor Ms Monroe's for that matter.

I have also removed "a possible venereal disease" as it is, again, nothing more than hearsay intended to slant the article.

Lastly, mention of "Possible connections to organised crime figures" has been removed for exactly the same reason. This is a ludicrous statement, and only the most incredulous person of any intelligence would credit this tripe with having some basis in fact beyond the loosest of definitions. It is no different to suggesting that because Churchill had to deal with the troubles in Ireland he therefore "had possible connections with the IRA".

I've left in the other sections regarding his health even though the wording of these lines demonstrates a blatant bias (FDR was never the healthiest of men).

Neither have I removed the line concerning his extra-marital affairs in general as there is very weighty evidence for this area of his life (though, again, what bearing on the greater relevance of his life this has I do not see).

If one is to add in random, unfounded rumours concerning a politician's life then every single article concerning every public figure on Wikipedia needs updating. Sadly Mr Kennedy suffers from this form of criticism more than virtually any other American political figure of the 20th century. There is good reason for this - his family have long upheld their refusal to comment on his or their own often turbulent private lives - a rare characteristic in this age of scandalous media attention to the minutiae of the lives of 'celebrities'.

Insofar as it is possible, references to a public figure's private life should be strictly limited to the knowable facts...not the workings of gossip columnists and conspiracy theorists.

The entire 'Criticism' section needs a non-biased rewording to remove overstatement and prejudice. The quotes are pretty useless in this section as they accomplish, via other means, what is generally meant by Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The section is remarkable only in he depth of it's fallacy and prejudicial purposes. There are plenty of noteworthy critiques of JFK's presidency which do not feel the need to resort to slander...perhaps these should be preferred over the more 'tabloid' variations. --Iamlondon 11:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The section is mostly unreferenced, and thus could be said to be original research. It still has close to no balance whatsoever; Iamlondon has swung the balance the other way so as to whitewash some criticisms (comparing JFK to FDR on illnesses is not the purpose of this section, and is blatant POV; also, contending that there is no proof of a Marilyn Munroe affair is a brush-off). These need more detailed discussion with dates, and direct references to individual claims. Until this is done, the section must be marked POV. Thank you. Harr o 5 00:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect I did nothing of the sort - were I a typical 'Kennedy Fan' I would have simply deleted the section and not even mentioned it here in the discussion page. Saying that Kennedy hid his ill health from the public is neither valuable criticism nor is it relevant criticism...it is meant merely to portray Kennedy as a liar. If you'd bothered to carefully consider the changes I made and read the objections I put you'd see that my clear questioning is not the neutrallity but the RELEVANCE of this tripe. It's like reading old ladies' gossip. Hence I am removing the POV bar.


 * It's ridiculous - no respectable news source will throw in a pointless bit of gossip concerning a public figure's private life without evidence. Why? Because they would be sued. There Is No Evidence Of Any Merit That Remotely Suggests Kennedy Had An Affair With Marilyn Monroe. The section should not exist separately in the first place. It was put there in order to slant the entire article. Ought someone to now go and write a section in the Adolf Hitler section reading, "Some Positive Points of Hitler's Contribution" ?! If the genius who decided on this section existing separately wishes to use the man's health as a reason to damn him then quite simply Hitler's good health must be used to approve that individual. It is for precisely these sorts of reasons that Wikipedia has such a bad reputation - failure to recognise the difference between academic usefulness and pure inane junk. As I said before, if you want to damn the man then do it with some intelligence, not resort to irrelevant talk about bedding an actress and having a painful illness. --Iamlondon 02:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Legacy & memorials
I have added the following which I am confident covers the actual significance of Mr Kennedy's death without resort to the various theories which circulate.

"Ultimately the death of President Kennedy and the ensuing confusion surrounding the facts of his assassination are of political and historical importance insofar as they marked a decline in the faith of the American people in the political establishment - a point made by commentators from Gore Vidal to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.

Coupled with the murder of his own brother, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and that of Martin Luther King, Jr. the five tumultous years from 1963 to 1968 signalled a growing disillusionment within the well of hope for political / social change that so defined the lives of those who lived through the decade of the 1960's. The Watergate scandal of President Richard Nixon's adminstration is widely recognised as being the final stroke in this process of diminishing trust in government."

David.--Iamlondon 09:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment
Anybody knows about the (Secret Service-SS) driver William Greer? --AmonRaa 10:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed
The Good article nomination for has failed
 * Prose is kind of weak and citations are fairly thin considering this is an article about a former U.S. President (I’ve added some tags in certain places though I will say I was a little suprised to see no citations in the assassination sec.)

Prose example: “On June 26, 1963, Kennedy visited West Berlin and gave a public speech criticizing communism. While Kennedy was speaking, some people on the other side of the wall in East Berlin were applauding Kennedy and showing their distaste for Soviet control. Kennedy used the construction of the Berlin Wall as an example of the failures of communism: "Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in." The speech is known for its famous phrase "Ich bin ein Berliner".The last sentence is kind of weird awkward in its placement.

I also wonder about its POV with its usage of phrases like “Determined to stand firm against the spread of communism,” “The death of their newborn son in August 1963, Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, was a great loss.”; there seem to be a great many uncited assertions in this article TonyJoe 13:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, it should have failed. It reads like a Democratic Party wet dream.  Kennedy's Presidency was a short, no real accomplishments, had its share of failures (Bay of Pigs), but this Wikipedia article reads like it was written by the Kennedy Historical Society.  It needs real work. It is not a balanced article in any shape or form.  Even in the criticism section there are comments of Wikipedians added into the critical sentences, so that critics can't even get there point out without some Kennedy snowball being thrown in there. --Getaway 03:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia is wrong
Kennedy is not the only US President to have both parents present at his inauguration. Both of George W. Bush's parents were present at both of his inaugurations.

hey
"Let us think of education as the means of developing our greatest abilities, because in each of us there is a private hope and dream which, fulfilled, can be translated into benefit for everyone and greater strength for our nation. "

80 minutes?
No matter how intertwined JFK's life is with his death, the paragraph/line concluding the Assassination section, "Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested just 80 minutes after Kennedy was assassinated," stands alone raising doubts about Oswald's guilt(whether or not that was the intent). It just seems to have a slanted bias and at minimimum seems out of place in this article.

Bias
The words "The world mourned the assassination of the assassinated president", I feel, are inherently American-centric words. A lot of people, even in the United States, obviously were no, particularly his fiercest political opponents and their followers. I think this article needs a cleansing of Politically correct headlines like this. I certainly don't think that Soviets were happy, either.

This is, I feel a blanket, unsourced statement designed to project a POV on the death of a United States President as a tragedy and not a historical event. The word: "tragedy" represent a POV bias towards the outcome of any certain conflict. Wikipedia has a strict NPOV policy, so I think that this needs to be changed from a less western-centric view.