Talk:Jack Kemp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Jack Kemp has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Add comments

Contents

[edit] older entries

I changed this, which I assume was a mistake: "Because Kemp was a comparatively liberal Republican, running on his record of supporting government welfare programs, he was seen as a means to attract conservative and libertarian-minded voters" Dole was the comparatively liberal Republican, and Kemp was the means to attract conservatives. Tooptoo 16:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am going to add some stuff in here, because this guy was a fairly influential politician and most of his entry is about his football exploits. -- amcalabrese

Why is Bill Clinton's My Life listed in the bibliography? Is it of any relevance to Kemp? -- dynzmoar

How did US soccer players react to the content of Kemp's fatuous comment on their sport, apart from the potential financial losses? -- dynzmoar

[edit] aren't the soccer references silly?

there's so much worthwhile stuff one can say about kemp... how do some comedic remarks about soccer rate even a mention on this page? such silliness...

Why not? As far as I can see it breaks no rules, and doesn't harm the value of the article. Many times people become known for silly things. Lehi (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It reads like a campaign ad...

The part about his political career reads like a Republican campaign ad.

I hope you feel it is now neutral.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This section appears to be written by a partisan supporter of Kemp's, not in NPOV

"As secretary of HUD, Kemp spearheaded the Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere (HOPE) program, an effort to reform socialized housing, by allowing residents of government housing projects to buy their own unit. Likewise, with his Urban Enterprise Zone program, he promoted market-based urban business district reforms by offering tax breaks and reducing the regulatory burdens for businesses in poor neighborhoods. These ideas were fought by welfare proponents, but their immense success compared to public housing and other attempts to control communities through heavy government, they have become the dominant stances of housing and urban development today, giving rise to modern Urban Renewal systems."

I hope someone will clean up this section and add citations to the broad claims of fact before removing the disputed tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.120.84 (talk) 08:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. I think.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a really bad article

this is one of the worst wiki articles--both poorly written and very thin on content.

plus, it is weak on facts and poorly sourced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.147.5.84 (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I would add that the claims the tax cuts are credited for the growth of the Reagan administration are incredibly biased. While Kemp is loved by conservatives, no economist on either side of the aisle could say the tax cuts did what is claimed with a straight face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.193.159 (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me know what you think of the new breadth and depth as it continues to evolve.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] someone needs to rewrite this

Kemp is a really complicated and important Republican. Very conservative, but heterodox too. He deserves much better.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.111.45 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am working on it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Draft citation?

Any source on his receiving a draft notice? Note Kemp had previously served in the Army Reserve, U.S. involvement in Vietnam started in earnest in 1965 when he turned 30, odd time to get a draft notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What was the timeline here? Was the Knee Injury during his athletic career, or at the end of it, or...? DS 14:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Got it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] THIS IS THE MOST BIASED AND DEVIOUS ARTICLE I HAVE EVER READ IN WIKIPEDIA

THIS ARTICLE IS REPLETE WITH CITATIONS OF ARTICLES WHICH ARE EXPRESSING OPINION TO PASS ALONG AS FACT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.213.104 (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

THIS DISCUSSION PAGE IS REPLETE WITH EDITS BY PEOPLE WHO CANNOT FORM COHERENT SENTENCES. Ec- 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ec- (talk • contribs)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  1. It's a very well written and well cited, article, however there are some things that I would like to point out:
    It's too long. I know the Reagan article and others are longer, but Kemp was a congressman, not a president or world leader. It can use some trimming; not a lot of trimming, but some. One of the sections that I would favor removing is "Views on soccer" because it is purely trivial.
    The main parts of the "career summary" football section should be integrated into the rest of the section, and the minor parts removed.
    • I will look at this article more closely. However, WRT length it sounds like you are saying, he is only high or mid importance and therefore can not have an article as long as a top importance person. This is not true. On my current browser the article gets to the notes on the seventh time I hit page down. Featured articleReagan on the tenth although the article still needs a large template added for his cabinet. Good articleHillary Clinton-tenth, Good articleGeorge W. Bush-eleventh, Good articleBill Clinton-tenth, Good articleStephen Harper-ninth, Good articleCondoleezza Rice-twelfth, John McCain-eighth, Featured articleGrover_Cleveland (Buffalo's most important politician)-ninth, Featured articleGerald Ford-tenth, Featured articleEmma Goldman (random person of lesser importance from WP:CHICAGO that I follow closely), Featured article Franklin Delano Roosevelt - thirteenth, Featured articleTheodore Roosevelt-fifteenth. Comparatively, Kemp's article is not too long. The question should be whether the article contains minutia or not. I went through all 368 articles that show up in a Time magazine search for Jack Kemp. I got through the first 130 articles in the New York Times search. This is the article that results from that. I had thought of going through the 111 Newsweek magazine search results. I am guessing doing so may add a page or two. In truth the article might improve via quality rather than be degraded by minutia in so doing. There are few points that have excessive detail and few that are uninteresting to those wanting to know about the subject. I am going to review the article, but don't think I will remove much except for reworking the two sections you mention. Almost every sentence comes from a reliable source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I would argue that the way the football career is sectioned by coaching era certain summary statements are not applicable to any era and should be in a concluding summary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    Without more photos, and with long sections, reading articles like this can get very boring for readers (it's not your fault that there aren't very many images, but the articles needs to be shaped around those and the estimated attention span of readers). I'm sorry if it sounded like I was saying that Kemp is not important, because that's not for me to judge. All that I know is that removing trivial sections, such as views on soccer, can help the readability and the article's overall state. If you don;t want to trim a lot in the football career and political career sections, than I would suggest adding in more subsection headings to break up the text. I would also remove little extra details within those sections. I comend your work on the article, but I do think that some of this needs to occur before I can pass it, especially the removal of trivia. Happyme22 (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    You know what, if you feel that the summary section is best for the article, I'll ablidge because I really don;t have the time to argue against it right now :) Happyme22 (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    I have moved soccer from a separate section to the congress section. I did not take text out, but shortened the length by making it one paragraph. I had intended to request you pass it with the three additional images and the recent changes. I think it will likely get a lot of specific suggestions at a line by line level of what should be removed at WP:FAC. I am hoping to make this my next nominee. I think it meets good standards now. I will try to run through one more time, but I think it is good now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. It is broad in its coverage, focusing well on Kemp's two main fields. But see above for length issues.
  3. It is strikingly NPOV, with numerous mentions of Kemp's good and bad sides.
    Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. It is stable for sure.
    Great--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. It it not well illustrated by images. I understand that not many are available, however a quick google search reveals at least one or two more than are free use.
    One image added.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    Do candidates own the rights to their campaign logos. There are things at http://www.4president.org/ocmi1988.htm and http://www.4president.org/ocmi1996.htm that I am wondering about using.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think so (see Image:McCain2000logo.gif), but you can probably upload it under fair use using the {{Non-free logo}} temp (as the McCain image was). Happyme22 (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    I have added the mag cover because of the story about how they almost missed being on the cover.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Overall, I'm placing this article on hold until the issues (mainly length and images) can be worked out. Thanks to the editor(s) for all his/her/their hard work. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on this list, and requests from the nominator, I am passing Jack Kemp as a Good Article, per the GAC. The editor has done a fine job with it. Congrats! Happyme22 (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article length

I would like to discourage shortening the article merely for the sake of keeping it from being "too long." As Tony pointed out, all statements are well-sourced. One approach that would make sense if it continues to grow, however, is to make spinoff articles (e.g. Football career of Jack Kemp, or Political views of Jack Kemp). Once such articles have been created, the less-vital stuff can be trimmed in this article without any worry of depriving the reader of information.

Specifically on the "views on Soccer" issue -- I think it was better off as its own section. It's a little unusual, to be sure, but since the issue covers both football and politics (both aspects of Kemp's professional life), it's significant. Much of it is not part of his congressional career, that's just where he made his first House floor speech. Also, I don't think the subject should be introduced by saying he's been an "outspoken critic," considering that the seriousness of his "allegations" is called into serious question a couple sentences later. Some rephrasing is in order.

Regardless of these specific comments, congrats on a good article and a healthy review process! -Pete (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jr.

Jr. in his name predated my involvement with the article. His fathers name was not Jack. What gives?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] issues with Cabinet section

In the second paragraph of "Cabinet" is the project opposed by Congress the same as the project opposed by Darman? They have the same description. Also, I do not consider the overall wording of this paragraph to be neutral. Take for example the phrase "welfare reform to correct government offsets". Certainly it is a welfare "change". Whether it's a "reform" or not depends on your pov. Similarly with the word "correct". There are also other wording issues. I edited it once, but was reverted so I'll leave the issue here for discussion. Jpmonroe (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw your note at FAC and will respond there where the most eyes are.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)