El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.
[edit] New filmGuess what, seems like there's a new film discovery on the assassination. Info has been added. I'll probably add more references to back it up. --Jbanning22 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC) a secret film has been discovered which was taken when john f kennedy was murdered. this foot age has not been shown yet and there has been a an inquest to whether it will be shown to any one to the emotional stress it may cause some people to watch [edit] New image
User:Cathytreks recently added a new image to the infobox. This was reverted, then replaced. I think the new image represents a significant improvement over the previous. I would strongly support using it. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Kennedy's eyes were not closed, it was a photograph with the sun shining on his handsome face..note his sunglass straps hanging around his neck and down?,
JFK was asked by some reporters for a "face/head shot", and he went along with them, took off his shades for a moment kjsvlasdjnfg in the late afternoon sun that day at the Kennedy Compound at the Cape....sigh, it was and is a great picture, because of it's very relaxed and "at home" nature, that last summer before he was murdered and we lost a true icon. (cathytreks 16:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC))
I'm a big fan of black & white, but I agree that a color image as the lead photo for this article is fully appropriate. Here's one that's color, PD, and of much higher quality than the proposed color image: [1] Rklawton 00:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Ach, guys! That third picture is awful! Look at the amount of space above his head, the pained expression on his face...it captures so little of the man. I am certain we need more votes on this - the black and white is far superior. Just because #3 is in colour doesn't mean it deserves preference. I think it's dreadful. Can we please organise a proper vote? Obviously whatever the general consensus is would be perfectly acceptable, but when I clicked on the page today and saw that picture I thought, "Who's the small man with the pained face?" !Iamlondon 01:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The article lost several images recently, including some nice color shots, because of licensing issues and copyvio stuff. Also, there has been some effort to reduce image clutter. Getting a real good color portrait would be great, but rather than simply adding new images, let's continue replacing some of the less-representative ones. Doc Tropics 02:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More photo workingI was a bit disappointed when I saw how many unsourced photos were in the article, so I went through the Kennedy Library website and tried to replace/source them. I also added several more and removed some others. There are, however, three photos that will be deleted because I couldn't find a source for them, but if a source/higher res version can be found, that would be better. --tomf688 (talk - email) 16:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Refused Presidential SalarySee the attached link (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/24/pay.raise/) apparently he refused to take the presidential salary whilst in office. Haven't checked the article thoroughly but couldn't see any reference. If so this should be added to the page I think. ny156uk 23:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC) This is true. He chose to take the route of Washington.A c jacobs 01:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC) [edit] Conspiracy theoriesthere has been loads of conspiracy theories but just one popped into the detectives head why would jack ruby vist lee harvey oswald then a few days later kill him it dosent make sense because the conspiracy therory which was made for this one was that jack ruby was invloved in john f kennedys murder and when lee harvey oswald told jack ruby that he was going to tell the police he knew who really killed john f kennedy jack ruby flipped and made a plan to kill him so that he would keep his mouth shut Chanbabee (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC) [edit] POV statementsIt is also outrageous that the Assassination entry includes what is clearly a POV statement regarding the content of one book!! If any statements regarding 'subsequent findings' following the Warren commission are to be included, then they should all be included. This is, of course, ridiculous therefore there should be no such entry and discussions regarding the assassination should only be included on the appropriate page, not here.90.197.138.176 (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC) [edit] New article proposalsThe "Trivia" section is getting pretty long - in an already long article - and should probably spin off into a separate article. Thoughts? Rklawton 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC) The "Kennedy in film" section is getting pretty long - in an already long article - and should probably spin off into a separate article. Thoughts? Rklawton 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] That's not the only shamefull thing Kennedy did for the USAKennedy also distrusted the military a great deal. This is very well documented. The best book on the subject is Dereliction of Duty by HR McMaster. As a result, he probably never read the CIA's plans for the Bay of Pigs invasion before he aproved it. Kennedy also refused to give any combat support to the cuban refugees either. This is one of the most shamefull things the USA has done, and both the reason for it happening, and the reason for it failing are debatably Kennedies fault. It should atleast be listed as a criticism of him. Not only that, but Kennedy, who really loved the CIA, also used the CIA to put the Ba'ath party into power in Iraq (New York Times, March 14, 2003, Friday, A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making). I had a lot of trouble finding this out. For the longest time, every one I knew said saddam was put into power by the USA, and I couldn't find out why they said that. Only .5% of Iraqs money and arms came from the USA before the 2003 invasion, and of the congressmen and buisiness involved in that gun running all of the ones found where jailed. There was little historical backing so I set out to verify if the concensus was true. If the New York Times is to be beleived then it is, which stings me. I'm a patriotic American and it really stings to find out that the USA was involved in such a shamefull act. I was already displeased with Kennedy, for Veitnam, and the failed assassination attempts in Cuba, for the successfull assassinations of South Veitnamese leaders, for the botched Bay of Pigs, and for recklessly indangering the USA in the Cuban Missile crisis for no better reason than he ignored all of his advisors and experts. It's that kind of crap that is generally not in line with traditional American values and really shames us to hear about, and to think that it was all perpetrated by one man (who became more popular for it) really stings me. Then I find out that HE is the one who put saddam in... well, I can't find the words to describe that. Many criticize Bush, and other American Policies, but if Kennedy didn't do half the things he did we would never have gotten into the mess we are in at all right now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.249.152.15 (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Cuba and the Bay of Pigs ScandalThis sentence needs work, to say the least: I think this important information taken from the Allen Dulles page should be added in the Kennedy page: The failed Bay of Pigs Invasion and several failed assassination plots utilizing CIA-recruited operatives from the Mafia and anti-Castro Cubans directly against Fidel Castro undermined the CIA's credibility, and pro-American but unpopular regimes in Iran and Guatemala that he helped put in place were widely regarded as brutal and corrupt. The reputation of the agency and its director declined after the Bay of Pigs Invasion fiasco; he and his staff (including Director for Plans Richard Bissell and Deputy Director Charles Cabell) were forced to resign (September 1961). President Kennedy did not trust the CIA, and he reportedly intended to dismantle it after the Bay of Pigs failure. Kennedy said he wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds."[3] Ironically, Dulles was later appointed to the Warren Commission, the official government investigation of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Some historians suggest that Dulles and CIA agents may have orchestrated Kennedy's assassination when the president attempted to control the agency's activities. This is important stuff and should definitely be included in the Kennedy page !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "In hopes of overthrowing the leftist Castro regime, Kennedy and his young cabinet drew the Bay of Pigs operation." Letting bad English like that stand, while simultaneously limiting the ability of people to edit the entry, undoes what wiki does best, and coronates wiki's weakness. If the author means to assert that JFK's administration gave birth to the Bay of Pigs plans, he or she is asserting something very controversial in very bad English (shouldn't it read, "drew up plans for"?). And that bad English usage, as is so often the case, points to a weakness in the argument it tries to advance: if I'm not mistaken, plans for the Bay of Pigs invasion were drawn up during the Eisenhower administration. The longer that sentence stands in this article, the more the people at wiki who decide who can, and cannot, contribute to selected articles should be ashamed of what they have wrought. Douglas Barber
[edit] Popular cultureSince this article is about JFK, it seems to make sense to limit this section to JFK's involvement in popular culture - rather than the other way around. That is, if JFK made a guest appearance on some show, then it belongs here. If some show referenced JFK without his actual involvement, then this reference belongs in that show's article and not here - as JFK had nothing personally to do with it. If an editor would like to include a sourced paragraph on JFK's impact on popular culture, that would be great. However, many of the examples currently provided demonstrating this impact actually comprise original research regarding his impact on popular culture and are therefore not appropriate for Wikipedia. Thoughts? Rklawton 03:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC) The Byrds rewrote the traditional folk song "He Was a Friend of Mine" as a tribute to Kennedy. It appears on their album "Turn, Turn, Turn" (1965). -Larry Siegel
[edit] Secret Relation?This: "Recent reports indicate that he had a secret relation with his secretary of state but no more information will be released." is unclear. I don't understand what it is trying to say about JFK and Adlai Stevenson, nor does it cite any references. Zahir13 14:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC) [edit] Bad typing errorI'm not a "native speaker" of English, but I believe my knowledge of the language is good enough to be absolutely sure that in the quotation at the beginning of the biography, concerning Kennedy's rescueing members of his patrol boat crew, it's got to be "effected", not "affected". "Affected" distorts the meaning in a way that makes me suspect that the misspelling may have been brought about by a vandal. Hartwig Molzow GabrielMo 16:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kennedy's religionI seem to remember that Kennedy was catholic; wasn't he even the first catholic president of the U.S.? Like Nixon being the first Quaker president? Shouldn't that be mentioned somewhere at the beginning of the article? Like mentioning that Seymour Hersh and Richard Perle are from a Jewish background? I live in Germany, meaning my point of view is literally far removed from the U.S., so I wonder whether I'm deluded in believing that Kennedy did not do much to create the public image of being a devout man (not like Carter, whose religious convictions I felt to be sincere, unlike Clinton and especially the present president, both of whom - IMHO - tried or try to play the confessional card too ostensibly to be credible). Hartwig Molzow GabrielMo 16:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC) What is going on? I deleted my request for mentioning Kennedy's religion, because it seems that I had simply overlooked the sentence where it is said that K. was the only Roman Catholic president so far. (I had been expecting something about religion in the paragraph about his early life, etc.) Now someone has undone my deletion. Why? I mean, when I realize that I've made a mistake, that my request was pointless, what's the use of putting it up again? GabrielMo 17:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Bart, or whatever your name is, I suppose you meant no harm, but I really think you should leave it up to me if I want to withdraw a request. And I'm even more convinced that it is not advisable to make changes in the texts of this talk unless the texts are sent by yourself. I've just discovered that you made small alterations in the other 2-3 texts I posted, the most remarkable being that you added my name to my user name where I had left it out. (Replacing "so" by "meaning" in order to avoid a repetition is stylistically fine, but the meaning of the original sentence would have been understood all the same.)I really have to tell you that I find it extremely impolite to do such a thing without asking beforehand. Okay, I don't really mind the changes you have seen fit to make, but (except for adding one missing bracket) I'm by no means convinced that they were necessary, and I would find it ridiculous to enter into a discussion as to whose mastery of the English language is more perfect; to be honest, I don't really care! But I would care if someone messed around with letters written by me, rewriting them or whatever, and I do think that the messages sent to this talk page are pretty much like letters. So, please, do cut it out. What you are doing is, in my opinion, alright as far as the text of an article is concerned; here it's nothing but a silly waste of time. GabrielMo 17:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't do it, though, if I were you. (Which isn't the case, I know.) Not all things one's allowed to do are wise things to do.GabrielMo 16:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kennedy image abroadAlso there are many other theory's to Kennedy's assisination that should be included and he is the first catholic president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bballkid6424 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Like most English-language-Wikipedia articles the Kennedy article is obviously written from an exclusively U.S. point of view; understandably, but, in my opinion, not necessarily and not all advantageously so. I find it deplorable that Wikipedia continues the tradition of most printed American encyclopedias and similar works of reference(being a professional lexicographer I know quite a number of them quite well). Frankly, although (or because?)the U.S. are such a big country, there is much parochialism around, which extends to publications issued by large publishing houses and to the mass media, even if they operate on an international scale. There seems to be a widespread, possibly subconscious consensus that the American market is so big that concentrating on satisfying its needs and forgetting about the rest of the world is enough. This may be, if not good, but commercially viable policy of the publisher of a printed encyclopedia, but with regard to Wikipedia it becomes almost grotesque. For it is probably not a bad guess to assume that the worldwide number of users of Wikipedia that are not U.S. citizens is much larger than the number of users who are. There are not just 300 or so million Americans in this world, but billions of non-Americans. I'm sure that part of the problem is that too many Americans can read and write only one language. So only a very small percentage of what is published in the world but not translated into English escapes them. Compare the list of sources in American and, for an example, German encyclopedias etc.: hardly ever a non-English source is cited in an American work, while it is common practice to cite sources in English, French, Italian, Spanish, even Russian, in German works. In the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries this tendency may even be stronger. Having said that I would like to point out that there is practically no trace of what made Kennedy an international figure, so to speak, in the article. From a German point of view: for one thing, it is mentioned that K. visited "Europe" before the war, and the U.K. is singled out as one country he saw. But, as far as I know, he spent quite a while in Germany, even long enough to learn some German and, if I'm not mistaken, start an affair with a German woman. Quite possible that my memory fails me, but I believe there are even pictures of him showing him together with Marlene Dietrich and there has been gossip that there was at least a flirt going on. I mention this because I know from experience that Americans regularly fail to understand how important Kennedy was for German-American relations. There is no other American president who is the name-patron of German buildings etc. (bridges, places, streets) and institutions as often as Kennedy. In fact, I believe he is about the only American president honored in that way. The reason for this is the incredible affection the German population at large had for Kennedy, before and, of course, especially after his famous, yes, one may call it historical, visit to Germany, of which the Berlin-visit stands out. His "Ich bin ein Berliner" has become legendary and his, to my knowledge, even today often (and usually lamely) imitated by others visiting Germany and even other countries. Americans may be surprised to learn that the question "Where were you when Kennedy was shot?" will hardly ever fail to produce a prompt and specific answer in Germany as well as in the States. I personally remember that my sisters cried when they learnt of the assassination, and so did thousands, possibly millions of Germans. Never before and never after, except on 9-11, has there been in Germany such a feeling of closeness and sympathy with the American people. The positive image Kennedy had in Germany had a strong influence on the image of the U. S. in general; Eisenhower had certainly not done much to endear himself or the U. S. to the country where his ancestors stemmed from but which he himself had seen under the most horrible and off-putting circumstances, and later on Nixon wasn't exactly the man whose personal image could do anything to diminish the growing Anti-American sentiments caused by the Vietnam war and other aspects of American politics. - Judging from my personal experience Kennedy's role in the relationship between the U. S. and other western European countries was similar, but not as extreme as in the German case. I believe that there is also evidence that Kennedy - although he couldn't get on with the then German chancellor Adenauer (who could have been his grandfather) very well - had some sympathy with the Germans and knew how to relate to them. His old acquaintance with the country and the people probably helped a lot, and - although this is hard to prove - it was sensed by Germans that this man didn't think of them in terms of "Krauts, Huns, Nazis, Prussian militarists, Achtung and Pickelhaube"... etc. p.p. Unfortunately I lack the time to check whether the central idea of what I've been talking about can be traced in biographies of Kennedy and historical studies of his presidency. I know that there has been a lot about this in German magazines like "Der Spiegel" and similar serious journalistic publications. It would be nice if someone could put a few sentences into the article who would also be able to cite an acceptable printed source. After all, during the Cold War American politics had a lot to do with European politics, and the economically and militarily strongest European partner was Germany (except that Britain and France were also nuclear powers on a very small scale). So the impact Kennedy's presidency had on German-American relations does, in my opinion, has some historical relevance and should be mentioned in the article. Hartwig Molzow GabrielMo 18:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
GabrielMo, why are you here? In fact, why do so many non-native English speakers hang out here and then bitch about the way it's written?? I don't go to the French or Dutch Wikipedias EVER (languages of which I am proficient). Is it because English (under the Anglo-American 'imperial influence') has been forced to the front as the 'language of the world'?? Well, seems to me that would be the exact reason for non-English speakers to avoid it at all costs and make their own versions of Wikipedia stellar. But no, the whole world cares about what the English Wikipedia says and therefore promotes the cultural domination of the UK/US. Ironic, don't you think?? TheQueensEnglish [edit] Make John F. Kennedy article a public domainI feel that the John F. Kennedy article should be a public domain, because people should be able to use the information because there is no other way to describe John F. Kennedy than using the information provided.(Dbag ownage 05:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)) [edit] Berlin governing mayorObviously since I have signed in to the English Wikipedia only recently I'm banned from editing the "Kennedy" article, so I have to ask for help from someone else: for one thing, it would be really nice if that typing error ("affected" instead of "effected") would be eliminated. And: there is a picture showing Kennedy during his visit to West Berlin in 1961 together with Willy Brandt. Instead of "Berlin mayor..." it should read "Berlin governing mayor" or "governing mayor of Berlin", because that is the correct translation of "Regierender Bürgermeister von Berlin". In the Federal Republic of Germany there are the "Länder", which can be compared with American states. Three of these "Länder" are actually big cities: Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen. So the mayors have, as it is laid out in the federal constitution, the status of "Ministerpräsidenten" (comparable to American governors), not of city mayors. That's why they have seats in the German second parliamentary chamber, the "Bundesrat", which, like the American Senate, consists of representatives of the states = "Länder". Willy Brandt would hardly have become chancellor if he had only been a mayor of Berlin; it was the office of "Governing Mayor" = Governor that qualified him to seek being elected into the highest federal office of the executive branch. Hartwig Molzow GabrielMo 17:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Marilyn Monroe's not the only one who sang to JFKIn the book Enchantment by Donald Spoto, he says that Audrey Hepburn sang to the president on his last birthday. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.204.231.155 (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC). [edit] Early educationI am an Academic Counselor, formerly Librarian, at the Canterbury School in New Milford, CT. The link to Canterbury School, which JFK attended for a little under a year, is our school in New Milford, not Florida. This is my first post to Wikipedia, so I hope I will do this correctly. 24.151.18.104 01:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Personal life and criticismHaving read the Seymour Hersh book "The dark side of the camelot", I feel it's not written enough about JFK's rather reckless sexual life. In his book former Secret Service members told how they used to deliver hookers to the president's hotel rooms when he was traveling. And that he used the White House pool for sex activities with among others an East German hooker whom Rober Kennedy had to send home to avoid a scandal. A Secret Service member told how he found the president sitting completely naked at a party in bing Crosby's home, while his aid had openly sex with another woman. Medical records shows he regulary got infected with sexual diseases. Another shocking accusation was that JFK used a shoulder bracelet when he was assassinated, because he had hurt his arm during sex activities a month before. If one studies the Zapruder film, one can see he didn't fall naturally. This unofficial version should also be told in addition to the official heroic one. Thanks. By the way, I will also show the hype JFK got in popular culture. The "cricism" section is not big enough. There is a reference to a more sober view of him at http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/kennedy_celebrity_02.shtml. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ergometer (talk • contribs) 22:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Whatever he did in private didn't really impact on his performance as president, even though some of his contacts (in every sense) in this area were considered security risks. I'd read somewhere that he'd even told Jacqueline that he'd tolerate her having a dalliance or two, as long as it was discrete. He was a person with a strong sex drive since young, and it all reportedly involved adults who consented (though I believe he treated Marilyn Monoro shabbily). He was even secretly pro-choice on abortion (I also read somewhere). Perhaps he'd even had to pay for a woman to have one some time in his life.[edit] Change from Roman Catholic to Christian February 8, 2007Kennedy was a Catholic. To change from the root to an offshoot is a questionable edit. Ronbo76 00:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Was Kennedy a Chrisitian or a Roman Catholic ? Thank you for your observations, re the religion of John F. Kennedy. Please note, previous to my contribution, Kennedy showed a religion of Latin-Rite. It was I who clarified it, by contributing Roman Catholic. However, indeed, even that is insufficiently accurate. All Roman Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Roman Catholic. The religion is, therefore, Christianity. To be Roman Catholic or Protestant is to find differing expression or interpretation or branch of the Christian religion. Although to be a Roman Catholic or to be a Protestant is to be religious, neither functions apart from the tenets of Christ, each is a subset of Christianity - therefore, neither is a separate religion. So, there is no fatal detraction naming Kennedy's religion as Roman Catholic, or I would not have chosen it to begin with. However, this is an encyclopedia where comprehensive accuracy is desired. Is Christianity a religion? Originally, no, of course. It was a Jewish sect. With expanded adherants it developed into a distinct religion; Christianity became a religion. Did Roman Catholicism birth before Christianity? Of course, not. Did it come at the same time as Christianity? How could it? Again, of course, not. Its only when its tenents were developed later did it branch into a distinct expression of Christian thought and the Christian religion, but not separate from Christianity, not as a separate religion. For those who hold Roman Catholicism to be an actual and separate religion from Christianity, how does it differ? With that in mind, Kennedy's religion is more properly named as Christianity (Roman Catholic) showing the "root" to be Christianity, not Roman Catholicism. To do otherwise, is not a blatant error, just a less precise truth. Curiouscdngeorge 01:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC) I feel the proper label is Roman Catholic Christian. To discuss the origin of Roman Catholicism doesnt have any significannce discussing a 20th century president. Your conclusion that the proper label is Roman Catholic Christian is absolutely correct. The noun is Christian, the adjective is Roman Catholic; therefore, the religion is Christianity: label should read for Kennedy's religion: Christianity (Roman Catholic), if accuracy were respected [not always the case among certain editors]. Still, Roman Catholic, the moniker I attached earlier is a good choice, if not the best choice. A brief look at the origins of Christianity and the advent of Roman Catholicism was warranted given the wayward thinking of those who hold Kennedy wasn't a Christian, but he was a Roman Catholic. Moreover, the 20th century is better understood acknowledging its historical-genesis perspectives - certainly, a discussion of events or personages of the 20th century does not, ipso facto, render sterile any earlier centuries' contributions, don't you agree. Please consider signing your contributions to this or other discussions using the four tildes, located below. Curiouscdngeorge 00:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Masalai, for your singular "silly" observation and well-considered to be "ignored" conclusion. May I suggest you reach deeper next time, there might be a meaningful contribution to be had.Curiouscdngeorge 21:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Just one thing. The tenants of Christ would be people who rent houses from him and pay him, the landlord, for the privilege. What I think you're talking about are the tenets of Christianity, ie. its central beliefs. JackofOz 04:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Thank you, JackofOz, for pointing out my spelling error. I appreciate it.Curiouscdngeorge 21:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC) [edit] Another WikicrockThe movie is completely inaccurate, fabricates events, and flies in the face of historical consensus with regards to what is known about the actual shooting. No, don't ask me to provide references; they're out there, and not hard to find I might add. This article is just another example of what the average Wikipedian wants to read about when they search JFK(film). It's a tin foil fest. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Thank you Haizum for your contribution. The movie's perceived inaccuracies are one thing, Wikipedia's JFK article is yet another. What - specifically - is failing in the article ? --Curiouscdngeorge 01:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC) [edit] Another item for the fictional TV References to JFKhttp://en.wikipedia.org/description/Tikka_to_Ride Due to an accident involving time travel, the crew of the Red Dwarf accidentally push Lee Harvey Oswald out of the Book Depository window. They are unable to correct their mistake, which results in JFK's survival, political overthrow and a future in which atomic weapons are placed in Cuba after all. They explain the situation to an alternate future version of JFK who agrees to become the second gunman, firing "...from just behind that little hill over there covered in lawn..." Atomicangelfish 00:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC) [edit] full metal jacketI've been buzzin' around and encountered this article about some new flick which surfaced. Apparently its interesting because: "The film shows the president's coat bunched up on his back - a detail some will see as evidence that the bullet wounds on the president's body did not match those on his jacket." Not sure if this was brought up before? It appears to be fresh revelation, well, thought that editors here might find it relevant/interesting. Lovelight 12:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC) [edit] Assassination: the last two daysAn editor added a considerable amount of unsourced material here recently. It's my thought that this new material makes this section rather disproportionate in comparison to the rest of the article. Considering that another article (presumably) already contains this material, I'm thinking it should be removed. However, I thought I might put this up for discussion first. Rklawton 19:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mary Pinchot MeyerBrief references to Mary are entirely appropriate for this article, it is after all nearing 50 years since these matters, she is dead, he is dead, long ago and within a year of eachother, & both from gunshots to the head, or are yall convinced we need to keep this classified?...Im open for a discussion on whether we should keep mention of Mary classified to the general wikipedia-viewing public...I'm not specifically attached to keeping it in or out of common knowledge as I myself know it, but I'll support a 100 year declassification hold if someone has a good argument. 83.78.160.112 06:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [edit] "spartacus" as sourceWell spartacus is a rather reliable source for Meyer[2] or Kennedy[3], or a slew of other american public figures both right and left. The biggest flaw I see is that they need to focus more broadly, with more chinese and japanese political history for instance, as well as ancient historical empires like greece, rome, egypt etc., and also modern powerful nations, to give more a sense of perspective and balance. As it stands now with their site, it is quite good, rather centrist, very accurate in many cases, a better & more interesting/relevant source than most for info on american political happenings for instance, yet one might get the sense that, when hearing so many of the dirtly details, that these types of things are somehow unique to america or britain or something, at least they have germany & russia & stalin in there presently. So I am willing to reference some of the mary pinchot meyer stuff out to them as source as well. Are there objections to spartacus as a source?...Perhaps someone will suggest they are a conspiracy site or something as they do have some CIA people or intelligence people on the site, booo! mention CIA and its a conspiracy theory!...yet to suggest that political & personal intrigue doesnt happen in america, yet every other nation that has ever appeared on this planet, is something of a conspiracy theory as well, or are americans some new class of homo sapiens sapiens not subject to the common human weaknesses & failings & intrigues? Of course we cant go around copying everything the spartacus site has, yet to bring a few tidbits here and there to various wikipedia pages i am seriously considering 83.78.181.214 21:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC) What's up with the Dr. Feel Good references in the Middle of a historical synopsis of the Cuban Missile Crisis? (unsigned comment)
[edit] Meyer text in Assassination sectionI removed the following text from the assassination section
Prior to restoring it, please consider and potentially address the following concerns:
Thanks - Davandron | Talk 15:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC) [edit] Trivia sectionI noticed that someone flagged the trivia section as needed to be either integrated or removed. Why? I like the trivia section. All those random facts in bullet form. While they may need to be added to the story as a whole, I think the trivia section should stay. vbimp 12:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
