Talk:John F. Kennedy/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

wrong link

sorry I would have edited myself, but I don't have an user.

Please edit the link in the 2nd cite note.

http://www.pulitzer.org/faq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.250.44.113 (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the link. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sense?

In the "Memorials" section (ref. 62), one of the bullets reads, "The first school in the United States named after had been the Kennedy Middle School, in Cupertino, California, while he was alive." You, as well as me, can guess that this doesn't make sense. I suggest changing it to read: "The first school in the United States named after him, while he was alive, was Kennedy Middle School, in Cupertino, California." Or something along those lines. I changed "had been" to "was" because I felt that "had been" suggests that the schools name has since been changed, in which case, to my knowledge, it has not.

Also, in the third paragraph from the beginning of the page, please change "Lee Harvey Oswald was charged with the crime and was murdered two days later by Jack Ruby before he could be put on trial." to "Lee Harvey Oswald was charged with the crime but was murdered two days later by Jack Ruby before he could be put on trial." Thanks. // Jugis (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I have the correct permissions now. // Jugis (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Family Life

It seems very strange that there is no section on his family, given how important Kennedy's family was, and the iconic status of his wife, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. I'm going to address this. Gacggt (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Inauguration Speech

Need an opinion on adding YouTube links? Found quite a few there...like: Kennedy's Inauguration Address on YouTube. Opinions? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming C-SPAN owns the copyright on it, in which case, no, we can't link it. faithless (^speak) 04:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If CSPAN themselves uploaded it, and we are going to the CSPAN source, why can't we link to it? I don't see that as a copyvio any more than linking to an NYT article (which of course is copyrighted by the NYT). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that I give it a little bit of thought, you may just be right. Links directly to YouTube are generally frowned upon, but sine C-SPAN uploaded it, it may be permissible. faithless (^speak) 05:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Category for Kennedy Administration

There is now a category for his administration as this seemed to be a big gap in the series for 20th century presidents: Category:Kennedy Administration (and it was missing for the "Years in Vietnam" Category).

But it could use some Category:Kennedy Administration personnel names apart from LBJ! Hugo999 (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Page locked.

Stop being silly over this and talk it out here. No comment on the section. Kwsn (Ni!) 20:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Glancing at page history, looks like it's a matter of Big P from one side and Binksternet and Plazak from another. I'm about to restore JFK's tribute to Presidential Medal of Freedom in Domestic politics subsection, as it's widely covered. Brandспойт 23:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have concerns about these portions of the article:

• Regarding Jack Ruby, the phrase "Yet, in an ironic and somewhat suspicious turn of events" should be deleted.
• Regarding Executive Order No. 11110, the paragraph "If enough of those silver certificates were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. That situation would have been catastrophic for the Federal Reserve, while at the same time prove to be a blessing for the actual country" is supported only by a blog-style message board entry. These sentences need either a more expert, published and mainstream analysis as reference or they should be deleted.
• Similarly, the paragraph "Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, as it would have eliminated the U.S. government's need to pay interest on the loans it took out with regards to the national currency. Mysteriously enough, the silver certificates halted in circulation shortly after Kennedy's death." is not supported at all. Buh-bye.
• Following that, the paragraph "Even more striking, is that Executive Order No. 11110 was never repealed by any U.S. President through an Executive Order and is still valid, yet no one has used it to help reduce deficit." is referenced only by a list of JFK's orders by date. This reference supports only that the order was given and that it was never revoked. I think the phrases "even more striking" and "yet no one has used it to help reduce deficit" should be deleted.
• Regarding JFK's changes to the Presidential Medal of Freedom, I have two minor problems with the entry: The placement in the article should NOT be under the heading Civil liberties and the supporting reference should be of higher quality than the blog-style essortment.com essay. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll place it directly in the Domestic politics and there are other sources, such as JFK Library. Brandспойт 08:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Lem Billings

In the section regarding Choate, I think it would be useful to mention Lem Billings and he met there, quickly becoming very close and life-long friends. The page on Lem_Billings as well as mentioned in Dallek's An Unfinished Life (http://www.amazon.com/Unfinished-Life-John-Kennedy-1917-1963/dp/0316172383) Billings was a confidant of JFKs all his life.

From the Billing's wikipedia page is this: Jackie Kennedy, who liked Billings for the most part, commented to a White House usher, "He (Lem) has been a house guest every weekend of my married life." However, the relationship between the two men was friendship. "It’s the story of a really close friendship — and one of the guys just happened to be what we think of today as gay," Pitts said.

I don't necessarily know that the mention of Jackie thinking Lem was gay is necessary or germane to the conversation, but he is worth mentioning as I looked for him in JFK's page while listening to Dallek's book.

Vargob (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Misspelling

hightened (sic) is misspelt.

Fixed! Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

A recent edit misinterpreted the statement, John F. Kennedy became the first President to fly in his own jet aircraft [1] (emphasis added) Previously, propeller aircraft were used to fly the presidents. Jehochman ^Talk 08:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

not very encyclopedic. This particular plane came on duty in Kennedy's term so he was the first president to fly in it? Big deal. If that's what Wiki says he's famous for, it diminishes his stature. Rjensen (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That too! I was pointing out why a statement that had been added, and then removed, was incorrect.Jehochman ^Talk 09:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Executive Order 11110

I think this order and its possible ties with his assassination should be added. Here is some more information: http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.htm Mustanggt5000 (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Mustanggt5000

The order itself is already here in this article. The conjecture about its possible ties to his assassination is not. This is a high profile article! References need to be higher quality than the one you point to—they'll publish anything they like without checking facts. If you find something better to support a quote about conjecture, you would probably want to go over to John F. Kennedy assassination and add it. There's nothing at all about the order over there. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Bay of Pigs

The failure of the Bay of Pig was not, as the JFK article states, because of "The failure of the plan originated in a lack of dialog among the military leadership." The invasions success hinged on three air strikes to take out Castro's meager air force. After news of the first air strike became public, Kennedy panicked because he was afraid the world would find out about U.S. involvement. So, to save his own skin,Kennedy canceled the final two air strikes. This left the CIA advisers and the U.S. trained Cuban insurgents at the mercy of Castro's old planes. The invading forces on the beach had no anti-aircraft guns because they were not expected to be battling air power. Hence, when Kennedy was shot, it was rumored that the CIA might have some involvement. But then again, it was also rumored that the Mafia, Cuban refugees, Castro, Russia, husbands of all the wives with whom Kennedy slept, and all the other people he knifed in the back were involved in his death. Mjpriz1 (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Secret Society Speech

Why they are no mention to this very important speech? http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#Address_before_the_Press_.281961.29 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs5ldP6pRC4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 17:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Addison's disease

It's been argued that JFK's healthy tan could very well be due in part to his Addison's disease. Addison's results in hyperpigmentation and can leave darker skin even if well controlled due to persitent high levels of ACTH hormone. Given that Kennedy's healthy appearance was a big factor in his televisual appeal, maybe this could be an interesting point for a Kennedy-enthusiast to look into (I don't have any articles to hand myself) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.156.90 (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy wasn't shot three times

{{editsemiprotected}}

The John F. Kennedy page, under the assassination section says, "He was shot once in the back, once in the neck and was killed with a final shot to the head." This makes it sound like Kennedy was shot three times. As far as I know, no non-conspiracy version of the assassination says Kennedy was hit by more than two shots. One shot, the first to hit him, struck him in the upper back and exited about where the knot of his tie rested against his throat. He was not "shot in the neck." This all may be a bad choice of words, or it may be intended to support a conspiracy version of events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arizona008 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 3 July 2009

 Done Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the accuracy of this article. Normally, using the {{editsemiprotected}} template requires a "please change X to Y" level of detail and factual changes require a reliable source to support the facts. Since the main article for that section supports your change and has reliable sources, I'll just remove the inaccuracy. If you would like different wording, please suggest one here. Thanks again. Celestra (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting History

Some bits missed of history missed out and some bit written twice, thats what I call rewriting history!

Why not mention his affairs? I don't know if it's true or not but the one thing everyone will tell you is that he was having an affair with Marilyn Monroe, why is it not in the article? If its not true it at least need acknowledging that it has been alleged.

Why does the article inform me twice in two adjacent paragraphs that his first child was still born?

And this little gem is wrong in so many ways: "One of the fundamental aspects of the Kennedy family is a tragic strain which has run through the family, as a result of the deaths of many of its members" I have no Grandparents does this mean my family suffers from a tragic strain? How do you define a tragic strain? And once defined are we sure that it caused the deaths of many of the family members? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.194.27 (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Military service rank

On this article it shows in Kennedy's military service in the info box it says that Kennedy's rank was Lieutenant by shows the insignia for Captain. Is there a reason for this? I'm still pretty sure it's an error. Cheers!--Martin (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In the Navy, that is the rank insignia of a Lieutenant. It is the insignia of a Captain in the Army, Air Force, and Marines. A naval Captain has the full bird insignia. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

search term?

shut up your stupid

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.164.169 (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 

You do. That search term leads you to a disambiguation page, where this article is linked to in the opening paragraph. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam

The current wiki entry on Kennedy in Vietnam contains questionable material on Kennedy's inclination to withdraw in 1963. The text cites National Security document 263, which indicates a discussion about the possibility of removing some U.S. advisors. As a number of scholars have argued, this doesn't provide any compelling proof that Kennedy wanted to limit U.S. troop presence, and in fact the document reasserts JFK's determination to support the Diem government.

As disturbing, the present text uses Fog of War, Errol Morris's terrific film, as proof that Kennedy planned to withdraw. At the least, more evidence is needed beyond Robert McNamara's memories. Better still, however, this section should be removed or rewritten to indicate the nature of discussion. I am also disturbed by the implication that Lyndon Johnson assumed a more aggressive posture in 1963/early 1964 in Vietnam.

This information came to my attention when one of my students used it in a paper. I think we can edit this piece to suggest the more nuanced approach most historians present. Any ideas about this? Anyone agree or disagree? ````mmay89 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmay89 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• The fact is LBJ did "assume a more aggressive posture." First with his own NSAM #273 on November 26, 1963 reversing the minor withdraw considered by JFK. (ofcourse one is only talking about approx. 1,000 so don't "boot-strap" a full withdraw guys from that). Second, after the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" in Aug. 1964 (that was based on a false pretext, as Johnson later admitted), he got passed the "Southeast Asia Resolution" (and away we went on the road to direct combat action). The text is cited; certainly one can always add to it but be objective.Kierzek (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Cabinet/Administration

Please add Robert F. Kennedy as Attorney General 1961-1963 as Attorney General is a Cabinet position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkoling (talk • contribs) 13:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Done...Kierzek (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This link should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Ladd (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A comment needs to be deleted

Some moron wrote the following under the template on the top right of the article:

"Died November 22, 1963 (aged 46) He got his ass shot his head fell over hahahaha lolsz"

I've tried to delete it but I can't access the template through the article's "edit this page." Can anyone who knows how please delete it? 71.84.35.97 (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The comment was thankfully reverted by Tide rolls.--JayJasper (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Affairs

Wikipedia is not a tabloid, yes, but it is odd that there is no mention of his affairs under the Image, social and family section. He's quite well-known for this now. It is odd especially in light of the paragraph under "Children" which talks extensively about a man who may or may not be JFK's son and may or may not be having DNA tests done.--Gloriamarie (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That paragraph has been removed from the Children section- it is an uncorroborated story that the claimant's own family disputes; without corroboration it is not notable as part of this biography. Tvoz/talk 06:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I found it really odd too. His was a known philanderer yet this article doesn't even mention it. Here's a recent article that talks about his sex addition more explicitly:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article6099083.ece JettaMann (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The level of scholarship shown in that Times article doesn't meet the needs of this page. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The section "Image, social life and family" does not mention neither his womanizing nor his constant health problems, although both have definitely played an instrumental role in shaping JFK's life and personality. Without going to extremes in terms of sources, Robert Dallek's very balanced An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963 has many references to both his philandering and health issues. Shouldn't the reader know for instance that JFK has been close to death up to receiving extreme auction three times in his life (1947, 1951 and 1953)? Similarly, his affairs with Mary Pinchot Meyer, Judith Exner or Ellen Romesch should deserve at least a sentence. Any opinion on this before I add some sentences? Alex Zivoder (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If one is going to start mentioning different women he may (or may not) have been with then one would have to do it for Martin Luther King, Jr.; LBJ, FDR, Eleanor Roosevelt and Eisenhower (affair in WWII with his driver, Kay Summersby), etc. Further, would one also have to go into Pres. Grover Cleveland and the fact he may have produced a child "out of wed-lock." Where does one draw the line. This is a slippery slope to go down; and my point is mainly that if you do it for one (JFK), you must do it for all.Kierzek (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)kierzek

here's where people draw the line: A high official puts his official position at risk through secret sexual activities that if discovered would likely undermine his political base and perhaps force his resignation. This covers for example the current (Paterson) and previous (Spitzer) governor or New York (Paterson solved the problem by dropping the secrecy and announcing his affairs when he took office.) Rjensen (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There is more to it then that. I am talking about fairness in entries reported on and an objective balance in reporting (that can be confirmed). The entries made for this web-site are not a tabloid or tell-all book. And if it is about a high official (at some point) engaging in activities for which they may (at some point) be subject to political problems then it could be activities that happen years before they took office or when they are in office. The entries on this web-site are for an overview; people who are interested can read other web-sites noted or any of the range of books cited in the entry for JFK or others related to him. Therein one can learn much more then what is written here (even if the bias or views put forth, may or may not be confirmed as they should).Kierzek (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia this article fails badly. EVERY serious biographer and scholar has dealt with the topic as a major factor in understanding JFK--it is being covered up here simply for POV reasons. Rjensen (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Covered up?" This isn't Watergate. But I leave it to others to further comment and I stand by my points made as to how these subject matters should be handled as far as consideration to all who are featured herein (see examples I name above).Kierzek (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

According to telegraph, a Miss Alford had an affair with JFK. Maybe this is important to mention. [2] --Sarteto (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue should certainly be covered, but without overdoing it, or giving undue weight to every woman looking for 15 minutes of reflected fame. As for articles on other presidents, there is no reason to wait for them to improve before we improve this one. Plazak (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there is no need to list all his afairs, but the important ones and the fact he had many should be mentioned! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.153.179 (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, his image as a philander should be mentioned. Anyone who is old enough knows this. It's not even a question of verifiability. His image was very clear to everyone, and that was as someone who really got around. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 01:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This topic does seem to have been kept off limits in the body of the article itself. The article is fairly sanitized, in regards to the affairs and in other areas. An affair which does seem relevant here, simply because she is named in the article, is the Marilyn Monroe long-term relationship (he knew her well since the late 1940s), which has been documented in many books and articles. It seems to be a fact of history, and to remove it from this historical account of the life of this president may echo the non-reporting of this data in the 1960s, even though most Washington reporters seem to have known of the Monroe affair and of many other affairs in regards to the Kennedy's. I personally find the John Kennedy-Marilyn Monroe relationship to be quite iconic, and maybe enough time has passed now that the attitude of the reporters of the early '60s does not have to be duplicated here. Randy KrynRandy Kryn (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above back in April 2009, it has to do with objective balance and certainly good cited entries. It has nothing to do with how the press used to keep such common ways "off the record" as it did for many besides JFK (see above for a short list). BTW-Randy, I thought the way you wrote it before had better wording but the entry still needs to be cited.Kierzek (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Misspelling

"JFK, Jackie, and the Connellys in the Presidential limousine before the assassination." It should be "Connallys." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.172.249.11 (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your correction has been made to the article. Thanks for pointing that out. Abrazame (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Camelot

Should not this article — somewhere — make reference to the term "Camelot" as the term is applied to Kennedy, his family, his administration, and the time period? If it is in the article, I did not see it. Thoughts? Thanks. (Joseph Spadaro (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

inconsistency

in the intro to the article it says "He was the second-youngest President (after Theodore Roosevelt), the first President born in the 20th century, and the youngest elected to the office, at the age of 43". He was not the youngest elected to office if Teddy was who was 42.--67.86.120.246 (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Teddy Roosevelt was not elected to office for his first term, he took office after McKinley was assassinated. Thus, there is no contradiction, JFK was the youngest president elected to the office. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mark for edit

The third footnote needs it link updated to http://www.pulitzer.org/faq#q21

Unitepunx (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. (Sort of. Design of that site seems to point to the FAQ after the one referenced in the URL, so using http://www.pulitzer.org/faq#q20 points to the correct #21.) Fat&Happy (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The section "Civil liberties" contains a mention of J. Edgar Hoover which I think should link to the article about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PHolder2010 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Abrazame (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead Infobox Image

I think it should be replaced with File:Jfk2.jpg for various reasons. I generally dislike most recolored portraits (as the current one looks to be recolored, and is blurry, with lots of lossy compression artifacts), while the black and white portrait seems to be the best formal portrait of him, and is more detailed. Connormah (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

To me, the monochrome image you selected looks like it has gone through too many changes of format. Its dynamic range is horribly reduced, with the dark areas far too light and a great loss of detail in, for instance, the disappearance of pinstripes from JFK's right shoulder. I'm certain the original photo from that portrait session would be PERFECT, but this version we have has passed through too many hands. It was at one time printed on paper (the Warren Commission report) and then scanned. Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

How could it be improved? I think this one is more suited for the infobox. Connormah (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I jumped over to the Library of Congress website to see what they had, and found only this image with blown out contrast and unsatisfyingly poor detail. I don't know where to find the original high resolution, fine detail, presidential portrait images that should belong to all Americans and thus be in public domain. Binksternet (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Try WHHOPortrait.jpg. I'd do it myself, but haven't ever uploaded any images to WP and spent enough time searching "Help" on other topics today... Fat&Happy (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Above photo was already uploaded to WP. Substituted image in Infobox. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick Bryant

Nick Bryant's in-depth study of Kennedy and race relations has been well received by scholars. For example, writing in the American Library Association reviews, Elliot Mandel says, "Through manuscripts, letters, exclusive interviews, and audiotape recordings, Bryant illuminates the play-by-play between politicians and activists surrounding election campaigns, speeches, meetings, and legislation at every civil rights-related turn of Kennedy's public service....A meticulously researched volume." That means the book meets Wikipedia standards. Furthermore, it is in line with other scholarly studies that show Kennedy's high priority was the needs of white southern Democrats in Congress.Rjensen (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Many books receive good reviews even when authors write from a certain point of view. And, ofcourse, one can cite other authors that would state opposite conclusions. The fact is that Civil Rights was in the early 1960's a very divisive, difficult issue for many Americans; especially for politicians' to deal with and the approach that Kennedy took was the majority approach of the liberals and Democratic party at the time. Did he show hesitancy to push harder and faster on the issue? Yes. However, by 1963 that was no longer the case. If you read historians Dallek and O'Brien you will get a balanced take that differ's from Bryant's conclusions' as to Kennedy's "high priority" in the late spring, onward in 1963 (as to civil rights). One must look for objectivity and consensus which is not shown here, thus far. The point is to have a balanced entry. Kierzek (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your argument supports his book as a valid source and I agree. I am not against using Bryant's book as a reference, what I'm against is stating his name and using a direct quote. There is no need to promote Bryant using this article as the springboard. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

We can use Bryant with his name in the footnote as Binksternet suggests--he should have made that change instead of repeatedly blanking text, which is a close to vandalism. Rjensen (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I never blanked the reference, I only blanked the direct quote which named Bryant overtly. Not at all vandalism—I think of my actions as preventing the thinning dissolution of this article.

Say, as long as we are examining that paragraph, my appreciation of it is that it is written inefficiently, with floppy prose that repeats. Here's the paragraph:

As President, Kennedy initially believed the grassroots movement for civil rights would only anger many Southern whites and make it even more difficult to pass civil rights laws through Congress, which was dominated by conservative Southern Democrats, and he distanced himself from it. As a result, many civil rights leaders viewed Kennedy as unsupportive of their efforts.

If I were to guess at the finer points of meaning as I trim the prose, I would come up with this:

Kennedy believed the activism of the civil rights movement stimulated opposition from conservative Southern Democrats in Congress, making it more difficult to pass progressive laws. He distanced himself from the movement, and many civil rights leaders viewed him as unsupportive.

Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Binksternet has a point that Bryant does not have to be promoted in the article. Anyways I think the issue of JFK and civil rights should be expanded here and sourced with more sources. The article I used as a reference deals with the Meredith enrollment crisis. It shows in very detailed fashion how JFK did not care about the issue at all and became involved only when the issue was medialized and became a "national issue". By the way the ultimate reason why James Meredith decided to apply to Ole Miss was his disappointment over the JFK's inaugural speech, which did not mention civil rights at all. Meredith believed Democrats should stand up for civil rights and by his application, he wanted to pressure the Kennedy government to be active in civil rights agenda. - Darwinek (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well in reading "Robert Kennedy and His Times", the events are covered in detail. Meredeth is said to have been energized by JFK's inaugural speech (but not in a negative way) and ironically is quoted as stating he might not have applied if Nixon had been elected. (page 317).Kierzek (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

He couldn't be motivated positively, as the inauguration speech did not address the black equality issue at all. Both statements are not in contradiction nonetheless. Meredith believed Democrats should embrace civil rights agenda, which was missing in JFK's speech. If Nixon would be elected he would probably not apply to Ole Miss, not believing in possible success of his application. - Darwinek (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Section

Why is the Federal Reserve section even in this article? The events referenced in this section are misrepresented and are only significant to conspiracy kooks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.66 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Retitled and substantially de-fanged by removal of OR. See if anyone thinks what's left is worth keeping. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

it's poor quality OR--originated by the editor and not in any of the Kennedy biographies.Rjensen (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Fat&Happy - your edit was an improvement, but I agree, there is no reason to keep it in the article; adds no real substance. Kierzek (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh,I completely agree. I was just in an uncharacteristically Be Meek! mood today, and opted for a minimalist fix and a wait-and-see attitude. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)