Talk:Robert F. Kennedy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Robert F. Kennedy article.
Article policies
Robert F. Kennedy was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: March 21, 2007
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Headline text

Following a serious upsurge in random vandalism by new or unregistered users, this page has been semi-protected following my request to Wikipedia's administrators. This will a)deter random vandalism, and b) allow us to track and ban registered users who consistently vandalise Wikipedia pages. Iamlondon 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CNN ICON REVISIONISM

In a massive attempt to boost Obama (with little or no experience), CNN has launched a huge recent campaign to claim RFK was a god like figure of his day. This simply was never true. He at all times was in the huge shadow of his brother-JFK. (CNN's attempted point is to make RFK a "renewed" icon, esp in civil rights for the masses, to then instantly claim Obama is the same.)

As all these CNN reviews, hour long shows, endless talking head statements about RFK, cite how great an icon he was, then instantly seguay into how similar Obama is, when Obama has never done anything but couple years of strolling about in South Chicago; and recently claimed his grandmother was a racist to garner sympathy.

It appears to me, and I lived through it all as an eye witness, that RFK's impact was much larger but it was all , mostly behind the scenes thru his brother JFK and at the time it was known about, but simply never lionized or trumpeted so that it was NEVER in the public consciousness hardly at all.

/s/ lmk sr 76.216.70.21 (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • What suggestions do you have for improving the article? This is not a place to discuss RFK, it is a place to discuss the article Robert F. Kennedy. It's certainly not a place to discuss your opinion of the Democratic presidential candidate. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • add at the very end of the Civil Rights paragraph, the following two lines that -

"CNN in June 2008 is attempting to create RFK as a major major icon of civil rights during the 1960's that he never was." ("And CNN mentions at the same time Obama as civil rights champion though he never has been (either).")

      • Very well; we'll need some reliable sources making these points, as our personal opinions and observations may not be used in Wikipedia articles. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advice to New Editors

Hi all...

There has been an influx of new blood (mostly welcome, some completely unwelcome) into the article since the release of the film, "Bobby" recently, plus recent evidence that Robert F. Kennedy's death may have had input from former CIA operatives. This has meant both randomly emotive and irrelevant additions. To which end I am posting a quick set of guidlines and points...

1. The RFK assassination has a page all of its own - please see the section in this article and follow the link. There you will be able to contribute on that topic as much or as little as is deemed relevant to that article's editors (who mostly have little to do with this biographipcal article).

2. The persistent myth of RFK's involvement with Marilyn Monroe and others is based on nothing more than the fact of her having briefly phoned the White House in the last months of her life. Schlesinger comments that this was an example of another infatuation she had developed toward the end of a very unhappy life. There is no evidence, written or otherwise, to suggest that any liaison ever existed - with Monroe or other. Moreover, all serious academic biographers assert that disloyalty to family or spouse ran deeply counter to Robert Kennedy's most enduring character traits. Unless some new and incontrovertible evidence comes to light, any allusions to extra-marital affairs will be removed in light of their reliance on popular myth. Those who have contributed constructively to this article feel strongly that it should not be trashed by anti-Kennedy agenda. In the final analysis, private details of any person's life which do not have historical input into a public figure's career are not considered relevant material by any encyclopedia.

3. Non-academic discussion of the lives of other Kennedy family members which is not a) at least supported by a consensus among respected historians, or b) is not pertinent to the article, has no place in an encyclopaedic article.

4. There are a great many areas of RFK's career which still need to be commented upon in the article. Please see an academic text and write summary points if you wish to help expand an already good and improving article.

5. Please ensure any contributions are placed in the correct sections.

6. Please do not randomly delete or drastically edit sections without first discussing such changes - many longer standing editors at Wiki lose their temper over new editors ignoring the work that goes into getting an article toward the highest standard.

7. Please sign all comments you place on the discussion page...if you don't someone will look up your name anyhow (easily done) and assume you contributed in bad faith.

Finally, please help to keep an eye on pointless vandalism - which sadly affects nearly all wikipedia articles. Your help on this is deeply appreciated. If you do not know how to revert an article from vandalism please see the relevant tips on Wiki.

Best to you all,

Iamlondon 00:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby/Jack relationship- early life

It says in the article that Jack had been closest to Bobby during childhood- according to evan thomas's biography, and many other books I've read, that really isn't true. They were seperated by several years, and weren't actually close until Bobby proved himself managing Jack's first congressional campaign in Massachusetts. He was actually pissed off at first when Kenny O'Donnell told him he had called Bobby. But after that, they formed a bond which grew stronger- and by 1961, they were finishing eachother's sentences.

208.68.254.90 (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assassination et al

Guys, the sections on both his own murder and that of JFK are longer than the section regarding his own career as Attorney General. I'd say at least half of what he achieved in office is missing from this page. At some point I'll write it up - do by all means identify areas not covered (bail law, immigrant workers etc). To that end I've drastically reduced the assassination section because the information that was here is ALL in the Robert Kennedy Assassination page already. I've put the 'main article' link to that in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamlondon (talk • contribs). 08:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Who are you? Achilles2006 17:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign Assassinations / Warren Commission

I am very very very very wary of this article becoming another JFK Conspiracy page and, like other editors, continue to keep all such discussions to an absolute minimum as the verifiability of all suggestions is immensely fraught with POVs. Based only on a contributor's desire to have "RFK failed to mention foreign assassination operations to the Warren Commission" (Paraphrased) I've added a sentence and then given the standard references regarding the CIA's control of said considerations. Please ensure that any further discussions re the conspiracy considerations are directed to the page on JFK's Assassination - that is their home and it is a vast and complicated land. Thanks, Iamlondon 22:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What did I tell you? Griot reverted your paragraph without so much as an explanation. Achilles2006 01:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Guess what - I agree with you for once. It is of importance as something that was very much on RFK's mind after his brother's assasination and therefore something which scarred him emotionally - i,e although he wasn't involved in any CIA plans to kill Castro he wondered whether his own attacks against the mafia, Hoffa, support for the Bay of Pigs was in anyway part of JFK's assasination. So althought *I would say that any conspiracy theories must be kept to the absolute bare minimum* I was indeed annoyed that well-supported and useful information was just wiped off. It was a concession to your input here and yet someone else ended up just wiping it off! Dear oh dear.Iamlondon 16:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
What do foreign assassinations have to do with JFK's assassination? Are you implying that a foreign gov't had JFK assassinated as revenge for one of their leaders being killed? By including RFK's so-called "failure" to talk about foreign assassinations before the Warren Commission, you are implying that JFK deserved his end. This is the kind of backhanded POV that Achilles has engages in. I took it out. Griot 16:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem is twofold. Firstly, I had preferred that the Warren Commission mention be left out due to a similar concern that it was mostly irrelevant to RFK's life. But the truth is also that the CIA's considerations to murder foreign leaders was very much part of RFK's grieving process. For a considerable period of time after JFK's death RFK continued to blame himself for his brother's death. He suspected all sorts of people (including the CIA) with whom he himself had had run-ins. What I certainly didn't appreciate was that you did nothing to adapt the paragraph (which took an hour to find relevant citations for) or even first suggest that it was of low importance; your action was more "Overruled, counsel approach the bench" without even the "approach the bench". So I'll leave you and Achilles to discuss it now - I was against the idea from the start but put in that replacement paragraph as it answered the erroneous suggestion that RFK had anything to hide. Again...I'll leave it to you two.Iamlondon 17:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
-"What do foreign assassinations have to do with JFK's assassination? Are you implying that a foreign gov't had JFK assassinated as revenge for one of their leaders being killed?"-- The possibility was never adequately explored, because the people with knowledge of US govt activities (RFK included) kept their mouths shut. The majority of the WC (& the staff) had no reason to think a foreign govt might have motive. Or, that govt activites may have been "turned" back on their own people.
-"By including RFK's so-called "failure" to talk about foreign assassinations before the Warren Commission, you are implying that JFK deserved his end."-- I don't see that. RFK told Schlesinger that he wouldn't be surprised if "gangsters or Castro" were behind the assassination- he was well aware of US govt activities against both of those parties, & the govt/gangster plots against Fidel. It was on his mind, & he didn't mention his suspicions to the investigating body. Why did he fail to fully cooperate?
-I believe it is relevent to the RFK article, JFK Assassination section, to point that failure out. Achilles2006 01:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate your writng the paragraph. A couple of points-- What evidence is there that Howard Hunt ever attended a Cabinet meeting? Do you think Dulles would present covert action plans at a Cabinet meeting? Achilles2006 20:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Three answers...
1. If you want to edit to reflect that Howard Hunt would not have been at a cabinet meeting then do so on the basis of fact - that you know for certain he never attended a cabinet meeting. But bear in mind that this paragraph is a concession and that a quick vote would show that most people who watch this article would probably say it should be removed completely.
2. Of course Dulles could have presented such material if he wanted to.
3. I think you've yet again missed the point. So I'm going to make it clear. This article is NOT an article about who shot John Fitzgerald Kennedy. NEITHER is it an article about the personal and private lives of the Kennedy Family. NEITHER is it an article about Castro, the CIA, The Grassy Knoll, Sam Giancana, Frank Sturgis, Magic Bullets, the Ambassador Hotel, The Democratic Party or any other extraneous detail. It IS, however, an article about one of the most famous men of the 20th century, a former Attorney General key to the history of Civil Rights in the US, a former presidential candidate, a brother of a US President, a key figure of the progressive left in American politics.
I'm officially asking you to either stop editing this page and contributing to pointless arguments about the Castro and exploding cigars or find some useful material to add to this article. No one has yet written about RFK's work on bail law - a vital piece of judicial reform aimed at assisting the poor of the US. Why not write that?! Please please please stop laying into both this article and others by means of subtle inference and removal of single words at times. This article is about the life of Robert Kennedy, I am not interested in these protracted arguments.
The only serious solution I can suggest is that you stick to editing (and I'm not joking here) the JFK assassination and perhaps the anti-Castro CIA articles. There are articles on Dulles, E Howard Hunt etc - men far more intimately involved in the matters that interest you. At some point I'm going to remove or archive this whole thread - it's getting out of hand now. I really don't want to have to ask Wiki to ban your IP from access but it's getting to the point where the number of people complaining is enough to warrant a suggested ban. It really is your call, I would not like to see you completely banned at all. Thanks, Iamlondon 21:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you look at the Thomas Jefferson article. The largest bit is about Sally Hemmings.
I offered one sentence in the JFK Assassination section, & you turned it into a paragraph. I don't think the exclusion of the one sentence (Dulles/Hunt) changes the meaning at all, it only makes it more succinct.
It's not nice to threaten people- try keeping your emotions in check, & just discussing things. Achilles2006 21:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes / Personal Life

I've made minor grammatical changes to Private Life section, added another sentence in re his father, and added a load of new quotes.Iamlondon 04:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


According to http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/rfkasumm.htm rfk was assassined on 1968-06-05 not 1968-06-06 as written. Roedy Green http://mindprod.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roedyg (talk • contribs) 10:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catholicism - Importance of faith in RFK's life / Assassination quotesé

I've added material concerning RFK's faith. Schlesinger, who wrote easily the finest biography on RFK, goes into RFK's Catholicism in some depth. To ignore it is to misunderstand RFK completely...or at least to portray him without reference to a vital element of his personallity. It would be like writing about Picasso without making reference to his classical training as an artist.

I have also included RFK's last words before losing consciousness - "Is everyone alright?"(I was very surprised to see these were not included here as they say everything about the man, in my view).

--Iamlondon 20:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Good quote - good addition. I removed typical to his nature because of wp:npov. I also stripped out Many viewed Ted Kennedy's eulogy as the most poignant moment of the RFK funeral, as it showed one thing: since his father suffered a stroke which left him invalid, he was seen by many as the family patriarch and gave such tributes for the family in times of crisis. Firstly, I honestly can't tell what it is supposed to mean - it was the most poignant moment because Ted gave lots of tributes? Second, many viewed ... is weasely and should have been sourced anyway.Juneappal 20:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. There are some superb references in Schlesinger's biog. Other biogs of RFK claim to be an analysis of RFK's personallity yet the genius of Schlesinger's work is that he lays open the man's nature by simply supplying the facts of his life. I am thinking that the significance of his middle name might be worth including also - named for St Francis of asissi - the most famous 'Catholic Radical' in history...something RFK would have been aware of throughout his life...and (this is wonderful) I recently saw a clip of RFK, Jr saying that his favourite saint was St Francis because of his social action.--Iamlondon 21:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fight against the mafia as attorney-general

Didn't RFK actively fight the mafia when he was attorney-general? David.Monniaux 13:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hard to find section on death

It's hard to find the section on how he died because it is part of the section on his presidential candidacy. Can we do something to give it a heading so it is easier to find?RJFJR 01:13, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Done. :o) Iamlondon 10:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humanitarian efforts ignored!

I just watched a documentary on Court TV about RFK.

http://www.courttv.com/onair/shows/rfk_special/

They talk about his efforts as a humanitarian who wished to bring equal justice under law to the people, whether they are rich or poor. There is nothing about the man's efforts as a humanitarian in this article, and that is something I consider to be a glaring omission. Somebody with a better grasp of the history than I (having only just watched the documentary) should come tell the world about RFK and the equality he stood for.

Done. :o) Iamlondon 00:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JFK death junk paragraph

The paragraph about JFK's death reads like it has been lifted from a tabloid. It would benefit greatly from a rewrite that would leave out all the assumptions about emotion and what not. Divad 10:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joe McCarthy

Dear Wikipedia editor:

I saw the 1964 documentary Point of Order recently -- the one about the 1954 Senate hearings which ended with lawyer Joseph Welch's famous denunciation of McCarthy. Committee co-counsel Robert Kennedy was present for the entirety of those hearings, and is clearly visible in the background.

McCarthy held the hearings to investigate communist infiltration of the US Army. The hearings were not -- as the Wikipedia says -- called to investigate McCarthy. The Wikipedia's article on this is very ambiguous, and implies that Kennedy wasn't there for the Army hearings.

James Bell Houston TX FilioScotia@gmail.com


Didn't Bob work for Joe Macarthy or on the HUAC? Where is this?

Oops, I found it.

BruceW07 06:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC) This has always pissed me off. Bobby Kennedy was the Democratic counsel on the subcommittee. He owed that job to the ranking Democrat, John L. McClellan, a Senator from Alabama. The Republican counsel, who might properly be said to work for McCarthy, was Roy Cohn.

It is a not very subtle slander, and a deception to imply that Bobby Kennedy, a Democrat was working "for" Joe McCarthy, on McCarthy's infamous subcommittee.

No slanders here--Schlesinger (p 101) says McCarthy named Kennedy as assistant counsel in Dec 1952 (at the behest of Robert's father). Kennedy became the Democratic counsel of the committee in January 1954 (ibid p 109). Robert Kennedy "retained a fondness for Mccarthy" (ibid p 106). Rjensen 11:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

According to a number of sources, including Schlesinger, RFK's father, Joseph Kennedy Sr., admired McCarthy and provided him with financial support for his Senate campaigns. This was consistent with the ultraconservative political views the Kennedy patriarch held for all his life, and it probably explains why RFK was sometimes falsely seen as a McCarthy supporter himself. In truth, Robert Kennedy, while a strong anticommunist and hardline Cold Warrior at that stage, was always suspicious of the tactics and motives of Joseph McCarthy. Ken Burch 01:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism or fact in regards to Pretzel?

I reverted the following tonight:

While on the Counsell, Kennedy almost died from choking on a pretzel. Ironically, years later the same thing would happen to President George W. Bush.

If someone can explain why this might be significant, and could take care of {{citeneeded}}, then please do so!  :) --Stephane Charette 06:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] School?

Where did he go to high school?

He attended Portsmouth Abbey for two years, then transferred to Milton Academy. William 20:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby/Robert

Ted Kennedy is listed as such - not as Edward. Why is this Kennedy consistently referred to as "Robert" Isn't he most commonly known as "Bobby?" Juneappal 19:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

RFK preferred to be known professionally as "Robert". Close friends called him "Bob". He tolerated the nickname "Bobby" coming from Jack or the voters, but privately always found it somewhat demeaning, especially by the time he reached the last decade of his life. What grown man wants a nickname that makes him sound like a spoiled little kid? Ken Burch 1:38, 1 July 2007

[edit] Warren Commission

After sometimes heated debate, an agreement was reached to include some info on the WC in the JFK Assassination section. I notice it has been reverted by someone who was not involved in the debate. I invite those who oppose inclusion to make their case here. My case is that RFK knew of US govt plots to assassinate foreign leaders, & if he had testified to that fact, the WC members who didn't know (Dulles, & McCone excluded) might have looked at the 'rumors' of foreign/domestic conspiracies differently. Achilles2006 02:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism regarding grave?

Is this accurate?

Kennedy was buried near his brother, John, in Arlington National Cemetery. He had always maintained he wished to be buried in Massachusetts, but his family believed that since the brothers had been so close in life that they should be near each other in death. His wish that his grave be marked with a simple, white wooden cross and his name, date of birth and date of death was met. On December 28, 1981, the redwood cross marking the grave was stolen by a man named Spike. It was replaced the next day by the original pine cross. Spike called it "the trinket" and carried it around in the trunk of his car, wrapped in a pink towel.

There's no citation for this "Spike" character and it seems somewhat ridiculous. Mitc0185 03:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting us. It's been removed now.Iamlondon 16:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Icon of Liberalism

This paragraph is pov opinion-- "By these comparisons, it is easier to portray Robert Kennedy, instead of President John F. Kennedy, as a truer icon of American liberalism and the modern political ideals of the United States Democratic Party. It is worth mentioning, however, that circumstances had changed in the time between the brothers' assassinations; civil rights legislation had passed through Congress, the Vietnam War had escalated with dubious success, and Johnson had implemented the Great Society programs JFK never lived to see reach full fruition." Achilles2006 20:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French Excistentialist

What French Existentialist did Kennedy read?

Thanks

He read a lot of Albert Camus' writings.Iamlondon 08:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CIA placing spin on coverage of Castro in this topic?

I detect a retrospective CIA spin on the discussion of Castro in this topic - almost as if Langley are trying to set an agenda or promote a particular position. Wiki is a good surreptitious platform on which to begin shaping public consensus for future events (such as invasion).

[edit] Revolting hagiography

The ONLY way to "improve" this article is to tell the bloody truth about the man....

etc etc etc...

Hi - Wikipedia aims to produce articles that reflect known and corroborated fact - not personal prejudice.

Unfortunately, from time to time people come along to articles which have stood for years without vandalism and decide they have the truth. A truth so often based on popular myth and not historical evidence. Cf. the article on JFK.

Please do not come into this article after all this time and start spouting your own divisive conspiracy theories about the man's private life - there are a thousand internet forums you can do that on. I refer you to historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr's assertion that for Robert Kennedy to have been an adulterer would have been to deny every sentiment which resided in him and by which he lived. Direct such accusations with evidence and you would be the first person in history to do so.Iamlondon 00:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1966 Visit to South Africa

I have fleshed out the parragraph concerning RK's visit to South Africa in 1966. It currently sits under "New York Senator" though I think it could and should serve as a short section in its own right, given the social and political impact apartheid was to have on world politics in the 1980's. What do others think?

Agreed, also in view of the impact RK had on apartheid. I've added more detail to the South African visit, based on a first-person account by a journalist published in a South African magazine on 4 February 2008. But the magazine isn't online (yet). Suggest that a trusted South African editor verify the article, if required. 9Nak (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1968

Humphrey wasn't on the ballot in California that year, only RFK and McCarthy. Also, Johnson was on the ballot in most of the states that had candidates finalized before April first. Johnson never annointed Humphrey to be his successor.

Ericl 13:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Ericl.

[edit] 1952? Huh?

"In December 1952, at the behest of his father, he was appointed by Republican Senator Joe McCarthy as assistant counsel of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.[2] He resigned in July 1952"

So, he resigned 5 months before he was appointed?

--Purpleslog 14:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed statement

Religious radicalism would require a direct citation to support, so I removed the following: "Yet his was by no means an unresponsive and staid faith, but rather the faith of a Catholic Radical — perhaps the first successful Catholic Radical in American political history." It's possible there's a grain of truth. so I copied the text here. - Taxman Talk 09:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. That sentence has been in there for an awfully long time. The general consensus has been that it should remain. Personally, my view is that it is vital because of the centrallity of the man's faith to his political life (the life for which he is, of course, remembered). Whole books have been written about RFK's faith and politics but keeping it to this previous minimum was considered a fair median. Both his brother Teddy and son RFK Jr have commented that the fact of the man's middle name being that of St Francis of Asissi was a matter which RFK was very keenly aware of. Also, bear in mind that the sentence removed is in fact qualified with 'perhaps'. It would be generally agreed among most biographers of RFK that he was very much a 'Catholic Radical'. Not in the sense of orthodox allegiance but in the sense of social action along the lines of the Catholic worker's unions, social improvement trusts etc of the 20th century. For all the above reasons I reinstated it. Best, Iamlondon 00:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
If there's that much evidence for it, it wouldn't be hard to cite, per WP:V, a factual statement instead of using a weasel word. Grab the best source that would verify that, including what makes his views "radical" and cite that. Without a citation a statement that strong is unacceptable. - Taxman Talk 13:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Murray Kempton, "The Uncommitted", Progressive, Sept 1960 - Cf. Schlesinger p.191...if you've removed the statement again I'f appreciate if you were to put it back now. Thanks, Iamlondon 13:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It's okay - I've done it now...Iamlondon 13:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I figure by now you've seen I only removed it once and commented here. Also, an additional later source would be a good idea too. A source from 1960 misses a substantial portion of his life. - Taxman Talk 01:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assasination Section

This section states as fact that "Sirhan B. Sirhan ... shot Kennedy in the head at close range." whereas the article on RFK's assasination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_assassination says that this is disputed and that a second gunman may have fired the fatal shot/s. I think these disputes deserve a mention/the statement as it stands needs qualificaton. Does anyone disagree? Tomgreeny 23:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Saw this after I made my change, so I'd guess I agree :) Greenman 01:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
All the reliable sources say Sirhan did it, as did all the eye witnesses. It seems to be disputed by 3 or 4 people who were not there. Rjensen 01:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - the chances that someone other than Sirhan shot RFK are miniscule - even in a packed corridor there would have been at least one person who would have seen another shot go off from a different location to where Sirhan was standing. There were at least 8 people standing directly RFK and not one of them saw anything other than Sirhan blasting away.

Whether former CIA officers supplied Sirhan with support in some form remains another issue.

Yet again though, we want to keep the events of his death to an absolute minimum as there is an entire page elsewhere dedicated to the murder.

Thanks,

Iamlondon 00:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that article clearly needs some help to conform to NPOV, balancing what the best sources say about it. To the point that it should have an NPOV dispute tag on it, but I don't know enough about the subject to dig into it. Anyone game? - Taxman Talk 01:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont know people, i agree in keeping info on the assassination mainly on the assassination page so edit wars about it stay on that page, but it is in fact disputed about just what happened, you cant deny that, many assassinations or murders are undisputed, this one isnt that way, I really think you have to say that "a trial at the time concluded that Sirhan Sirhan shot Kennedy and killed him that night, and he was convicted" + you need to add "there is to this day controversy about just what happened and who was behind the murder"[1]...that is telling the story from both sides as it exists in reality...anything else is speculation from one side or the other, you can argue till ur blue in the face about why it was clearly sirhan, another person can do the same about why it was not. I think for wikipedia to state point blank that he in fact did the murder is not in reality NPOV. Its just not a settled matter, i give a mainstream BBC link on a story just a couple months ago to point this out. Yall are jumping the gun I think. It is both a conspiracy theory to say Sirhan Sirhan did it all by himself, as it is also a conspiracy theory to say someone in the CIA or someone else was behind it, either way you are theorizing as to what happened...all you can state is what the courts at that time found, you cant put a certainty on something not agreed upon, this is no ordinary murder or victim, & in classic times if we read about someone like this in Rome being taken out at a party no-one would even think for a minute it was just some random occurence or lone psycho, as it is modern times people seem to somehow think politics has somehow changed from how it always has been in human history...I just am not certain you can pawn this all off on Sirhan, I see no definitive proof for either side really as to what happened, & from circumstantial evidence we might assume it was a hit, some people didnt like the Kennedys, many people had reasons to take them out, the documents concerning some in the CIA at this time, the politics around this time, plus the soon criminal charges against Nixon that show he and the people around him were willing to commit serious crimes!, the only reason people dont automatically consider both Kennedy assassinations professional hits is because it is modern times and many have a political stake in saying they were not assassinations by Kennedy enemies in powerful positions, I think we can safely tell people in a 1000 years from now that they were most likely organized political assassinations by political enemies, both of them, & just like would occur in classical times, we just arent 100% sure, there is some remote possibility that the seperate murders of these two brothers were both random occurrences committed entirely by lone psychopaths,...its a conspiracy theory to say they were both random murders just as much as its conspiracy theory to say they were organized...I live in Switzerland, & I dont care one way or the other, yet i would teach my american history classes saying it is highly unlikely both of these murders were random occurences, although it is a remote possibility 83.78.181.214 23:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

anyways if you use some sort of wording types as I have suggested you can remove any one side from being able to say "its POV"...83.78.181.214 23:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

CNN.com has just released a video/article entitled: "New evidence in RFK death: Evidence shows that a second gunman was involved in the Robert F. Kennedy assassination." http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/04/19/rfk.interview.cnn -- Flask (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I removed the Senator Infobox and cut the information which had been there into the Attorney General infobox. The former version looked very untidy and included a large repetition of the subject's name without any other pertinent information. Because of the structuring of these separate infoboxes it was impossible to include all the information in one box (a failing of the original formats, in my humble opinion). The more pertinent fact of RFK's career is clearly that of having been Attorney General. If someone knows how to add the dates of his term in the senate to the box please do so. I tried many times but couldn't find a way.Iamlondon 03:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious. Why do you think it is more pertinent that RFK was Atty General than Senator?Tvoz | talk 07:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm also curious why you haven't responded to my question. Atty General was a powerful position, but an appointed one; Senator is an elected position and his last. Can you tell me why you think Atty Gen is more important than Senator? Thank you. Tvoz | talk 07:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm on hols in Ireland hence lack of reply. If you say, "Bobby Kennedy" to any person 9 out of 10 will think of either Cuba, the Bay of Pigs, Jimmy Hoffa, Civil Rights or President Kennedy. RFK's life was lived at its most crucial during the events of his tenure as Attorney General, when he was easily the most powerful holder of that office in US political history. The fact that he was later Senator for New York is undoubtedly crucial, but it is not what he is remembered for and hence the opening page ought not to relegate the AG position. I tried my absolute best to create an info box that would reflect both offices but it was impossible - you simply end up with a mess of broken lines, repeated dates etc. In introducing the article it makes far more sense to state he was 65th Attorney General than to introduce him as a senator. Thanks, Iamlondon 20:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sources

This article has a lot of good material, but needs more sources - for example, the Jimmy Hoffa section, several unsourced quotes throughout, much of the civil rights section, Senator section, etc. Also may be too mcuch reliance on one book (Schlesinger). There is much written about RFK in biographies and contemporaneous newspaper and magazine articles. See Barack Obama, for an example of a well-sourced article. Tvoz | talk 08:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] image

looks faked.

The image looks messed up, but the original is better, I think the infobox has somehow messed up the image... It looks photoshopped, and has a big jagged spot on the lower left (his right) of the picture. User:Pedant 03:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] locked, yet a good article to link into the assassination

but here is a nice article concerning the still to this day debate on what really happened at the assassination, someone else not locked out can put this in that there were 3 CIA there that night, perhaps all three invloved in the whole cuba afair, so out of the part of CIA that might not have been to fond of the Kennedys, including one that has stated "we got the little bastard"[2]...this is from the BBC people, it doesnt get anymore mainstream than the BBC!...83.78.181.214 22:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marilyn Monroe

Marilyn Monroe and RFK had an affair, according to the FBI, and her perhaps played a role in she suicide: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/kennedy-link-to-death/2007/03/16/1173722744304.html zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This subject has been done to death and has no basis in fact whatsoever. For the most impartial response to this gossip (fed by RFK's arch nemesis, J Edgar Hoover)see Schlesinger. Allegations of an affair are not treated with any seriousness by any historian aware of Kennedy's life. Either way, it has no place in a serious biography.Iamlondon 22:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. JFK had an affair with her, but not Bobby. He was a family man. 208.68.253.107 00:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] College schooling

In RFK's biography, it specifically states that Robert attended the officer training program at Harvard University, and transferred two years later to Bates. It is foolish to assume otherwise. The book is called Robert Kennedy, Evan Thomas wrote it. William 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

As I can see, a placement of the nomination wasn't even on this page. This article only has 19 references and a trivial quotes section. WikiNew 19:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The bulk of material is to be found in Evans or Schlesinger...if there were anything disputed or unsupported I would have picked up on it, I assure you - it is custom to cite only statements which rely upon definitive burden of proof to sustain the argument, hence it is not custom to cite every sentence of a piece of writing...such would be classified as pedantic and laborious. The article is 'good' because of its depth and breadth. The Quotations section is hardly 'trivial' under ny analysis of the word.Iamlondon 16:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You make 'pedantic' sound like a bad thing. User:Pedant 03:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of citation boxes

I've removed 3 citation request boxes as they do not take into account 1. That the material is clearly available to anyone possessing a copy of Schlesinger or Evans, and 2. Because the material for which citations were suggested is neither disputed nor challenged, such is the widespred knowledge of their basis in fact. Kennedy's "You are" response is one of his most iconic statements, his statement of purpose in his address on standing for the Presidency is in the public arena, and his statement regarding 'posters on walls' is likewise broadly documented.

It would be better in future to request citations only of material which is disputed or requiring support given a controversial or crucial nature - this is the general usage of a reference in academic mterial; to cite every sentence or statement of a written work defeats the purpose of the said tool.Iamlondon 16:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to check now if there is a gap in our manual of style, but whereever you write something, you need to attribute direct quotations to a source. Even in a newspaper you will usually find a direct quotation worded similar to this: "so and so said this at a pressconference at X". I agree that some quotations maybe well known in the US, but not worldwide. The general usage in academic mterial is to by all means attribute — as best you can — quotations that cite someone verbatim. It's a minor style issue, I will not add the tags again now. I fully agree with what you said on controversial (paraphrased) statements otherwise. --DorisHノート 17:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi...there is a sort of consensus among the longstanding editors of the article that any uncited material is to be found in Schlesinger (the best biog of RFK available). Based on that, a few quotations are not cited. When I am back home I will cite as much as possible (which is curently uncited, that is) for the sake of strengthening the article. Thanks for your observations. Best, Iamlondon 22:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
That may be so, but readers don't know what you'all have agreed to , and you need page references to quotes in any case. Plus, it would be a good idea to use more than Schlesinger alone. Another article with a load of citations is Paul McCartney - that article also leans heavily on one book, but also has numerous other sources listed.Tvoz |talk 03:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Competitive but Loyal Culture?"

The line "While growing up, he was raised amid the competitive yet loyal culture of the Kennedy family." is in the second sentence of the first paragraph of the whole page.

What is a "competitive but loyal culture?" The line sounds like propaganda spewed by some Democratic activist. It is both subjective (as what is competitive and loyal are viewed differently) and its also promoting the Kennedy family in a way that is entirely non-empircal (i.e. this is not a moment in history, talking about an act he performed, AKA his civil rights work which today is viewed as a good thing but whether or not its viewed as a good thing does not change that he worked in civil rights).

I am going to remove that line until someone can come up with a damn good reason that we have to promote Kennedy in an Encyclopedia that does negatively bash Hitler with subjective statements. Scryer_360 19:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

See below. Tvoz |talk 19:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Also

I notice a lot of, well, CRAP, in this article. Weasel words and words of promotion. Some of what is said here seems to be very non-objective, and its also just plain poorly written.

In the Civil Rights section, one whole paragraph is interrupted by "Scheilsger says" inbetween two commas, making it a quote. Yet the line is not in quotations AND its not cited! Worse, for the readers, is that we have NO IDEA who this guy is: he is not mentioned anywhere before hand.

WTF people? Are there really people who feel so politically inadequate that they have to fill this page with propaganda and promotional garbage? I have not yet read a page, be it on Malcom X or Joseph Stalin (whose cult is apparently still around) that is as poorly written and as promotional as this one. I am going to cite it for cleanup and review.

I mean what the hell is next? THIS IS A FUCKING ENCYCLOPEDIA, NOT A SOURCE OF PROMOTION. WE DO NOT WRITE THIS FOR SUBJECTIVE OR PERSONAL REASONS. I happen to be a large fan of John Stossel's work for instance, but even I have questioned some of the things written about him as either being promotional or subjective. Forums, books, magazines and news articles/shows are for promoting someone. Not Wikipedia. This is supposed to be the one place people can come and get the empirical, as-it-is truth. Not someones political truth or any other self-righteous thinkings.Scryer_360 19:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're actually interested in improving the encyclopedia, you might start by not attacking the people who have worked on this article, and not assuming that you know what their motivations are. I haven't read it recently but will do so, and others will also take a look to see if the neutrality & cleanup tags are warranted, but I'd suggest you tone down your commentary when you land on a page that you don't like. Thank you. Tvoz |talk 19:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume that Scryer360 tipped his hand when he said that Wikipedia was too negative towards Hitler. Sorry, but it had to be said Ken Burch 1:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Work is needed

However, further to the comments immediately above this one, and as I said up above back in January, I also think this article needs a lot of work. I think it has a lot of the raw material needed for an excellent piece, but it needs to be much more seriously footnoted, from a wider variety of sources, for starters. RFK had a great deal of press coverage and there have been numerous biographies and sections of works about the 60s that can be drawn upon. I'm disappointed that the ball wasn't picked up on this one - RFK is an important figure of the 20th century and should have a Featured Article about him. The piece as it is, I'm afraid, is far from that - mostly because of its lack of sources. I don't know if there are a regular group of editors here - if so, you ought to take a critical look at this article. If there are not, I hope that some will be recruited to do the job that the subject deserves. Again, for an example of an extremely well sourced article, see Barack Obama's list of footnotes. You may find that you need to fork off more of the article into daughter pieces if the length is unwieldy, but that's totally acceptable. So - I hope this article will get some new energy and start to improve. Maybe tackle it one small section at a time. I hope this helps. I'm going to look around the encyclopedia and see if there are any Wiki projects in addition to Biography who might have people interested in working here - like the Anti-Vietnam War project perhaps, and maybe there is a 60s project. Meanwhile, good luck with it - this will be time well spent. Tvoz |talk 19:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] geneological chart

This is taking up a lot of room, and is not focused only on RFK. I'd recommend it being turned into or merged with a separate article on the Kennedy family. Tvoz |talk 03:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems viewing, navigating or editing article in IE

Just wanted to give a heads up that I can't use IE on this article as my mouse freezes up, and the IE browser is held hostage. I can't move through the article, nor edit it (with IE), though with Mozilla it's fine, not sure about Netscape or Opera as I have not checked the article with those browsers. I think this is a very serious problem, because many users (readers) used IE when browsing the internet. I'm assuming the problem is that the article has too much information (graphics, templates, etc), or fancy genealogy tree graphics, or whatever it is that's causing the hang-up problems. I think this should be addressed, but don't know what to do to help as it is overwhelming to me. I'm sure there are many people reading Wikipedia with IE and an older computer who would never be able to comfortably read this page, if at all, and would not think to change their browser (nor be expected to). JMO. Can someone help with this? - Jeeny 16:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Hmm, I was able to view and edit using IE 6 without any problems. It is a long article, 52K could that be the problem? — MrDolomite • Talk 17:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It's fine now. I think it was the "family tree" template that was the problem. I'm in IE now, and all's well. Editing and navigating. I've seen much larger kb articles though and have not had this type of problem, that's why I believe it was the family tree template. I don't think it's necessary to the article, anyway, if it's going to cause problems for some viewers. What do you think? - Jeeny 17:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sirhan not mentioned until last paragraph???

I was looking for a simple answer to "who assassinated RFK?" I had to spend considerable time wading through the entire article to find "Sirhan Sirhan, a 24-year-old Palestinian," in the last paragraph.

This minimal information should be included prominently in the introductory paragraph. Origen 15:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-life politician

I´m almost totally sure that he was also, like Sargent Schriver, a pro-life suporter, and could have been the leading name in the pro-life wing of the Democratic Party, if he wasn´t killed. I ask someone to show a source for that, so it can be included in this entry. For some reason, he´s considered a real catholic. User:Mistico 22:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

The numerous quotes should be either integrated into the rest of the article for some, or moved completely to Wikiquotes. After all, that's what it's for. --SidiLemine 11:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many quotes

WP:NOT Wikiquote, which is linked appropriately and already has a healthy selection. I've trimmed down to 3, a number I've found to be appropriate in most cases elsewhere. The removed quotes are below, if any are not already on WQ please transwiki them.

  • "Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital, quality for those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change."
  • "The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country."[1]
  • "How do you tell if Lyndon is lying? If he wiggles his ears, that doesn't mean he's lying. If he raises his eyebrows, that doesn't mean he's lying. But when he moves his lips, he's lying." (On President Johnson)
  • "Men without hope, resigned to despair and oppression, do not make revolutions. It is when expectation replaces submission, when despair is touched with the awareness of possibility, that the forces of human desire and the passion for justice are unloosed."[2]
  • "There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not."[3]
  • "Few will have the greatness to bend history; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation ... It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is thus shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."[4]
  • "Like it or not we live in interesting times."[5]
  • "At the University of Natal in Durban, I was told the church to which most of the white population belongs teaches apartheid as a moral necessity. A questioner declared that few churches allow black Africans to pray with the white because the Bible says that is the way it should be, because God created Negroes to serve. "But suppose God is black", I replied. "What if we go to Heaven and we, all our lives, have treated the Negro as an inferior, and God is there, and we look up and He is not white? What then is our response?" There was no answer. Only silence." South Africa, June 1966[6]
  • "Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." From his last speech, June 6, 1968[7]

Deiz talk 12:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message of earlier. I've cut out some of the quotes but reinstated the others. I did so for the following reasons... 1. A lot of people have gone to a lot of effort over the past two years in writing this page and it deserves a little more justification to remove work other than one comment by a poster who is not a regular editor. 2. The quotes are a crucial part of any understanding of who Robert Kennedy was, they illustrate his mindset and his politics. 3. There was absolutely no debate whatsoever on this point other than one comment. As one of three long-term editors of this page I can say with some certainty that the three of us have gone to great effort to ensure it is a good page. I understand you are merely being a good wikipedi-ite and am grateful for your efforts, but insofar as the length of the quotes section is concerned, I don't feel that many would share your concern. Rather, it is most likely that the majority have no problem leaving them in. The worst thing about Wikipedia is ego wars and I trust you understand I would prefer this didn't become one. Hope you're well. DJSM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamlondon (talk • contribs)
I am well, and I appreciate the efforts of any editor who adds substantive content to the encyclopedia, and am pleased when others recognize mine. However, the Wikipedia:Quotations guideline is there for a reason - to summarize a few points therein:
  • Quotes should be worked into an article, rather than a stand-alone section
  • Do not overuse quotes
  • Illustrate quotes with relevant context, rather than just reproduce them
  • Wikiquote is designed to host quotes, too many quotes take away from the encyclopedic feel of Wikipedia
I'd be delighted if the quotes could be worked into the article with relevant context and detail about their significance. However, the stand-alone section with a dump of quotes is not the way quotes should be presented on Wikipedia. Perhaps those interested in this could read the quotations guideline and edit the article accordingly? For the record, this is a routine per policy / guideline cleanup, I have no axe to grind or particular interest in this topic. However, a cleanup being performed by a non-"regular editor" on a given topic is no reason to suggest an article should not be subject to the same considerations as others. It should be noted that there is no "Quotations" section on the JFK article, rather quotations are all integrated into the article with relevant context and information, which is a great model for this and other biographical articles with regard to quotations. Deiz talk 05:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

robert f kennedy was a good president —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.6.161 (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Nervous Tick

Has anyone noticed that in most of the video clips of RFK he usually combs his hair through with his hand? Did RFK have an OCD about his hair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.251.2 (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BIG BIG THANKS

Just taking a moment to thank all of the serious and dedicated new editors to an article I've done my best to put in good shape. A shared interest is a wonderful thing and I thank you for being so diligent regarding nonsense 'editors' and vandals. I'm a busy man and have not been working as much on this as I did way back when as one of the main contributors. Your work is thoroughly appreciated by a gigantic number of people who read this page.

GOOD WORK,

Iamlondon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamlondon (talk • contribs) 00:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sirhan was an Israeli, NOT a Palestinian

Please correct information. Sirhan was born in Israel and was even not Muslim. I do not know what has made him Palestinian in this article. Please correct this information or unprotect the article so that I can correct.

[edit] Assassination references

Over at Robert F. Kennedy assassination I've sourced quite a lot of material for the assassination and would happily knock together a summary for this section of the page - I won't do it just now as I'm about to sign off, but if anyone has any objections, please let me know Fritzpoll (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up

The work at Robert F. Kennedy assassination is winding down now, and this article would be a natural next step, as some of the sources I've acquired when working on that page can be used here. I would anticipate some significant structural changes, with the very short sections being combined into the main body of the text (I will probably do this first) but the most important changes are going to tighten up the text, add significant citations, etc. I also expect that the "quotes" section will vanish almost entirely. I expect to get started slowly on this over the next few days, with a big push on Friday. If anyone objects to this, or would like to make any comments, give me a shout either here or on my talk page! Cheers Fritzpoll (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed structural changes

I've had a read through and there are quite a few very short sections, that might be better off being moved around; here's what I propose:

  • Merge Career until 1960' with Early life... (possibly under a retitled heading)
  • Split Assassination of JFK' between Attorney General (reasons for leaving) and Personal life
  • Merge the Honours' under the assassination heading
  • Eliminate the quotes section, as it doesn't seem to add anything to the article

The text itself needs a bit of work, with some attributions to comments being made, lots of sources to be found. I was going to start looking at this tonight, but I want to give some time for anybody to comment, so I may leave this until tomorrow. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Error report

This article says Kennedy bested Humbert Humphrey in the primary held on the same day as the California primary in Humphrey's birth state, South Dakota.

That's not true. Humphrey was not on the ballot in South Dakota. So there's no way Kennedy could have "bested" Humphrey there.

Kennedy did win the South Dakota primary, though, with 31,826 votes compared to Lyndon Johnson's 19,316 and Eugene McCarthy's 13,145.

This can be verified by contacting the South Dakota Secretary of State's office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethtupper (talk • contribs) 19:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] good source?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/139161?GT1=43002

"What If RFK Had Become President?"

This is a well written, seemingly neutral commentary. Is this suitable? It is a good source. But it is opinion. Please comment if excerpts are allowed. Tack69 (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)