Talk:Reactions to the assassination of John F. Kennedy/Archive 1

Role of Personal Sentiment & Sentiment in General in an Encyclopedia
Does anyone else (besides not me) think that the most tragic thing about the assasination was that the youngest elected was also the youngest to die? Wouldn't the end of a hopeful dream be a better way to express the loss - no matter what the age of the "dreamer" might have been when elected?

Is any encyclopedia a proper place for sentimental comment by the author? Even if genuinely felt, when can the author speak in any way even semi-objectively about the feelings of others about the same events?

Should any encyclopedia be making statements about how everybody felt or what the saddest thing about it all was, or how fitting it was that it rained -- as though they were factual?

Does anyone (besides not me) think people read encyclopedia to discover how they SHOULD feel about the events covered? Do people expect lots of metaphor and simile and personification in their encyclopedic prose?

I have removed some of this sentiment before, but find it has returned from the same contributor - despite messages left on her talk page & in the edit summaries, so in case they were not seen, perhaps this page will be --JimWae 04:37, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

The article says
 * On the Sunday after the assassination (1963 November 24), the "years of lightning" became a "day of drums."

It also says Monday was the day of drums. These terms are the title of a book. The Monday may have been called the day of drums on that actual day in 1963 (maybe), but neither the day before nor the years before were referred to as "years of lightning" until much later in same book title. At least one of these terms is derivative (without pointing out its source) & does not reflect the terminology of the actual day.--JimWae 04:58, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)


 * An encyclopaedia should be a source of information, not a melodrama. jguk 21:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

SNIyer1
I know something is bothering you and you are trying to express it. But your words here are inappropriate for an encyclopedia - in fact sometimes they barely make sense. I have tried to phrase your contributions to improve the wording, but you are making the entire article seem too sentimental & too much like a cheap romance novel or cheap tragedy.

Have you noticed other people are bothered by how maudlin some of what you add is? Yet you just keep putting back the same inadequate wordings that others remove. Are you aware that in the end, all your melodramatic words will disappear from the encyclopedia? Wouldn't you rather work on a lasting contribution?

It is one of the protocols of wikipedia that you discuss disputes on this page, rather than just making changes that are little different from vandalism. You are being rude by acting as though you own the article.

There are so many problems with what you have written.

The #2 guy from Soviet Union did not lead the procession. My Internet search indicates it was indeed the person whose name you keep removing (without indicating why), the King Baudouin of Belgium

There were 111 countries in the UN that day - why the continued focus on just 3 of the 20 or more that were not here?

The term "Years of Lightning, Day of Drums" comes from a documentary film so entitled. We do not need comments here so tied to a film that make a entire day begin at 11 am and end before 4pm.

If you can find some reference to it being called the "day of drums" other than the film documentary, please say so. It does seem somewhat appropriate, given the steady drumbeat that accompanied the funeral, but you have not built a foundation for such a reference.

I can tell we are making some headway, because you did not add the other term which you had not laid foundation for "Years of Lightning". (If you do it now, you will be demonstrating your immaturity even for a lady your age.)

Perhaps you can also give some account for why 9/11 need be mentioned thrice (so far) in this same short article, and why intricate details of 9/11 belong here.

You are very high maintenance, Lady SNIyer1

The more melodrama you put into the article, the more closely others will scrutinize it - and some have already removed some wording that could have survived otherwise.

--JimWae 07:45, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

Question for JimWae
I hadn't heard that there were early rumours of LBJ being hit. Could you give me a source? Also, shouldn't that be on the main assassination page rather than this one, or am I missing something? jguk 22:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---
 * I remember hearing it, but finding a report from any official news-source will take some time. It could have been 3rd hand misreports regarding Connally. There's no doubt people were saying it. I will keep looking.--JimWae 23:02, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

Secret Service forced occupants of LBJ's car down to floor http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:EjucCeHnb4QJ:jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/comp4.htm+johnson+%22two+cars+behind%22&hl=en&start=36

--- I have copy of NY Daily News of Nov 23 which says LBJ was admitted to the hospital. He entered holding his side --JimWae 18:19, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
 * it turns out he was injured when the Secret Service agent pushed him to floor.

Article misnamed
Almost this entire article is about the funeral - Hardly any is about "reaction" - which is more of an immediate or long-term response - not funeral details. Make separate article for funeral & be done with it--JimWae 18:19, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)


 * I agree. I've done a copy edit to try to get rid of the worst of the journalese, but there's still a lot of it in there. It looks to me as though this has been copied out of one or more magazine articles. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

New Article
You might want to move details about the funeral to Funeral of John F. Kennedy and keep this article solely for the reaction. The details about the reaction by world leaders, as well as the mourning around the world should be moved to this article.

a note on Asia
"News of the assassination reached Asia during the early morning hours of November 23, 1963, because of the time difference, as people there were sleeping."

Is it just me, or is this very un-wiki quality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.62.168 (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)