User talk:D. R. O'shea

J. Edgar Hoover
I explained my reason for reverting your edit in my edit comment, visible here. If you want to discuss this edit, use the discussion page of the article. Don't simply keep replacing it without any comment or discussion. RedSpruce 18:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of what I want, it's a question of the standards of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, you edit is so poorly written that it's often impossible to understand what it's trying to say. Therefor I can't fix it without doing the research to see what the facts are. I don't feel like doing that right now. If you read a few articles in Wikipedia, you may be able to educate yourself on the type of writing that is expected. Or you can just not waste your time editing Wikipedia.
 * Before you make a habit of mechanically replacing this edit, please read up on the 3 revert rule.
 * RedSpruce 00:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. UserDoe 16:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I thought you might want to know what some of the specific problems with the edit you're trying to add to J. Edgar Hoover are. I've summarized them here:

Infamous relationship with the Kennedy's What does it mean for a relationship to be "infamous"? People or incidents can be infamous; using it to refer to a relationship has no established meaning. "Kennedy's" is not the plural of "Kennedy."

It is well known Hoover had a strained relationship with the Kennedy's. Is it well known? what's your source for that?

But, depite popular belief, it wasn't as bad as people portray it to be. You're repeating "well known" with "popular belief," and it's still unsourced. Starting a sentence with "But," is poor English. How bad do "people portray it to be"? Which people? What's your source?

Kennedy, who was aware of Hoover's secret files, was polite to the director when they met. There's no established connection between the first part of this sentence and the second. Was Kennedy polite because he was afraid of Hoover's secret files? If that's what you mean, what's your source for that? What is your source that Kennedy was "aware of Hoover's secret files"? What does it mean to be "aware of secret files"? Which files? Did he know what was in all of them, or did he just know that some kind of secret files existed? Whatever you mean, what's the relevance of it?

And in return, Hoover was polite as well. This is very poor and awkward writing.

Some could even say Hoover felt he had to protect the young president at times. "Some could even say" has no meaning. "Some" people "could even say" anything at all about anything at all. Has any notable source actually said this? Who? Protect him from what?

One example would be him going to the president himself and warning him about his affair with mafia mistress Judith Campbell. This is terrible writing. What you mean is "For example, in [some date] Hoover privately warned Kennedy about [something, presumably some danger, relating to] his affair with [replace "mafia mistress" with something that has some actual meaning] Judith Campbell". What's your source?

After that, Kennedy severed all ties with her. Poor, awkward English.

A second example would be him and Bobby Kennedy (the president's brother who was Attorney General) going after senators who were demanding investigations into one of Kennedy's affairs. Very poor, very childish writing. "him and Bobby Kennedy" in particular is fourth-grade level writing. What does "going after" mean? Which senators? Which Kennedy? What's your source?

Because of the large age difference and their different opinions on Civil Rights, the two would be at odds sometimes, though sources tell us there weren't to many direct confrontations. Who says that their age difference was a problem? Why would it be? What's your source? "Civil Rights" should not be capitalized. What do you mean by "sources"? "to many" should be "too many", and "too many" in this context is casual, colloquial writing, not encyclopedic writing. Instead of "weren't too many" you should say "were few". How many is "too many"? By whose standards? What's your source?

Another factor could be that Hoover had wanted direct contact with John Kennedy (as he had with many of the other presidents in the past) and not have Bobby as the laison. Another factor in what? Their strained relationship or their lack of direct confrontations? What does "could be" mean? Has some author actually stated this as a possibility or a probability? "had wanted" is incorrect; you mean simply "wanted. "and not have Bobby" is awkward and incorrect phrasing.

But despite all of that, there a number of photos shown that have Hoover and Bobby either laughing or enjoying the moment. "But despite all of that" is colloquial writing, rather than encyclopedic writing. "there a number of photos shown that have Hoover..."is incorrect, and not only because you left out a word; what you mean is "A number of photographs show Hoover..."

Hoover was also the one to break the tragic news to Bobby of his brother's death. Referring to this as "tragic news", although true, is unencyclopedic writing.

When you've corrected these problems, I'll be happy to see this edit added to the article. RedSpruce 15:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Latest version
Your latest version is a big improvement, and I appreciate your sincere efforts. However, in addition to problems with the writing of this edit, there's a deeper problem: namely, whether this subtopic deserves any coverage in this article. What I mean is this: Ideally, this Wikipedia article will be like a condensed version of a professionally written biography of of Hoover. One of the most important aspects of that "condensing" is to keep the coverage of the various subtopics in proportion to what would appear in the full-length book. If 20% of the book is about Hoover's anti-communist efforts, then about 20% of the article should be about that subtopic, and so on.

Most books about Hoover don't spend much space talking about his relationship with the Kennedys. After all, the Kennedy administration was only 3 years out of Hoover's 48-year career. For example, the book J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets, there's a 30-page chapter out of an 850 page book devoted to the Kennedys.That's about 3% of the book. Many other books spend less space than that.

If it wasn't for this concern, I'd be happy to work with you to bring this edit up to professional quality. That's the least I can do considering the work you've put into it yourself. But in order for me to do that, I'd have to do a lot of research to make sure that the section was accurate and reflected what scholars have to say about Hoover and the Kennedys. Before I committed to doing that work, I'd want to be sure that such a section makes sense as an addition to the article, and I don't think it does.

I'm really not just being disagreeable on purpose, and I apologize for my past angry words with you. RedSpruce (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 14:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

December 2007
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.  Alex ' fusco ' 5  19:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)