Talk:Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Does anyone know if Bush/Rove used this quote against John Kerry during the 2004 election? And if he didn't, wow, what a great opportunity he missed! I voted for Kerry, but it is kind of funny that he is a senator who tried to compare himself to JFK for having the same initials and being Catholic. And that Quayle was Bush Sr's VP. -Wizard1022 00:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Although others compared Kerry to Kennedy, I don't know of any instance of Kerry doing so. Do you have a citation? Dlabtot 19:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Title?

Is there a reason that this article is title under "you are no" while even the body of the article only uses "you're no"? Wouldn't it be more accurate to move this article to the current re-direct of Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy instead? JnB987 16:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Concur with move. Robert K S 11:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Also concur GracenotesT § 15:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Eh, it seems like some transcriptions are split between "you are" and "you're". However, more use the former, and more references to this line use the former. GracenotesT § 23:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I mean, the latter. I'm going ahead and moving this. GracenotesT § 03:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with footnote

The superscript "1", like for a footnote, about Brokaw and Mike Barnacle, doesn't link to anything.

I heard that statement. It was on the Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate on MSNBC last week (2 weeks ago maybe?). I'm not sure how to cite it correctly or I would. I think it deserves more than a passing reference because, if true, it means that a politician *gasp* lied. -- 12.116.162.162 17:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it actually wouldn't mean that he lied at all. He didn't say he had a personal relationship with Kennedy; he said that he served with Kennedy and knew him. You can know a co-worker without having a personal relationship with them. That's the case of millions of people with their colleagues or bosses and many people in Congress.--Gloriamarie 19:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Bentsen claimed to be "a friend" of JFK. You can't be "a friend" without a personal relationship. There are many pairs of people in congress who are not friends with each other. Jamesofengland 17:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Found the original transcript. It clearly claims that he didn't know him, which would contradict Bentsen's statement that he knew him. Jamesofengland 01:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Based on the number of years they served together in the House, the probability of them not knowing each other approaches the vanishing point. I'd be amazed if they didn't serve together on any committees. Brokaw wasn't merely spreading an unsubstantiated rumor -- he was spreading a lie. Dlabtot 00:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This seems like quite a strong statement. They were together in the House for 4 years, during which time JFK was on two committees, Labour & Education and DC.[1] I don't know if Bentsen was on either of these, but it certainly doesn't seem as if it would be "amazing" if he were not. He was even more junior than JFK. Assuming he matched JFK's achievement of two committee positions, with 18 committees there'd be a roughly 79% chance that they did not share a committee.Jamesofengland 17:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be included at all... it's a second-hand account of an anonymous accusation.... certainly not encyclopedic Dlabtot 06:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've located the transcript. The claim was by Dave Powers, who was a close friend and special assistant to JFK, and who was then in a good place to be able to conduct the research as he was running the JFK library.Jamesofengland 01:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there is no record of Powers making any claim. There is a record of Brokaw making a claim. Dlabtot 01:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brokaw Brouhaha

I've made two alterations in this regard.

  • Removed "perhaps dishonestly". This is editorializing and not proper style in any case. A better way to say this, if it needed to be said, would be to have another sentence beginning, "However, xxx has claimed..." etc., etc. Directly attributable phrasing is easiest to monitor for accuracy.
  • Changed Powers claimed that research confirmed that Bentsen never even knew Kennedy to Powers claimed that his research could not confirm that Bentsen even knew Kennedy. This is simple logic; no amount of research can "confirm" a negative claim like that. However, one's research can tellingly fail to confirm it, and if the research is extensive, such a failure can be taken as the same as confirmation of the negative.

Hope this meets with everyone's approval. Kasreyn 04:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it is an undeniable fact that Bentsen and Kennedy served together in the House for six years. The idea that they did not know each other seems pretty far fetched, don't you think? Let's not forget that this is a third-hand telling of the story - Powers supposedly told Barnicle who told Brokaw who told us... Dlabtot 04:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly why I tried to make it clear that WP was not the one making this (in my opinion ridiculous) claim. That Brokaw himself would even repeat something so ludicrous on the air saddens me. Thank you for adding the information on their service records. Cheers, Kasreyn 01:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Bentsen and Kennedy did not serve together in the House for 6 years, they served together in the House for 4 years. I've talked to representatives who were not familiar with other representatives (my focus is a fairly specialised area of law that most reps don't pay close attention to, which is why I end up talking about some of the more obscure reps more often). There's 435 of them, and most of them spend most of their time away from the house. I don't know if you're basing your claim on an idea that the House was more collegial in the '40s than it is now, but JFK was a socialite Catholic New Englander, Bentsen a relatively socially conservative Presbyterian Texan. It seems entirely plausible to me that they did not have much contact, as it apparently did to Mr. Brokaw. Powers was in a perhaps uniquely strong place to assess the strength of the relationship. While Bentsen would certainly have known of Kennedy by the time that Kennedy won his Senate seat, there is no reason to believe that the reverse is true. Certainly, if a close friend of Kennedy's and one of the foremost archivists of his papers could not find or recall evidence of their having known each other, it seems unlikely that the "friend" part of the claim is true. Obviously, it was true to say that they served together, and the "know" part probably survives Power's scrutiny, but Powers does seem to refute the claim that "Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine."Jamesofengland 13:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Once again - stop saying that Powers claimed something. Brokaw repeated a second hand rumor. There is no citation of Powers claiming anything. And you go on to say: "It seems entirely plausible to me" so what? your POV speculations have no place in an encyclopedia. Dlabtot 16:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Almost everything that Wikipedia cites to in modern political history consists of journalists saying what they have been told by other people. Barnicle and Brokaw are both highly respected journalists, apparently familiar with all parties in that dispute. What do you think is the basis for the statement that 'Bentsen did casually remark in a mock debate with Dennis Eckhart that "you're no Jack Kennedy and George Bush is no Ronald Reagan."'? Since Bentsen apparently denies saying it, it's at least double hearsay, the same as Powers' statement (Speaker: [Bentsen/Powers] -> hearer [Eckhart/Barnicle] -> journalist [Germond & Witcover/ Brokaw]). There may be even more links in the chain to Germond. They're both "facts" within Wikipedia's definition. Jamesofengland 17:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
By all means, take it out. I have no objection. I don't see what it adds to the article, anyway. Dlabtot 17:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
More personally, I've not been editing wiki for that long and I'd like to be a better wikipedian. You claim that Brokaw was "pretty far fetched." Kasreyn says that it's "ridiculous" and "ludicrous". I gather that these were not worth condemning and assume that your own choice of words was the correct one. Why is "plausible" POV, but "far fetched" or "ridiculous" NPOV? Jamesofengland 17:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with having a point of view or expressing it in the course of discussing how to make the article better. The problem here is that you are using a poorly sourced remark to push your particular point of view in the article in some futile attempt to discredit Bentsen. That is pretty transparent. Anyway, we are clearly not headed towards any type of agreement here, therefore I added the NPOV tag, so we can get some help from others in resolving this dispute. Dlabtot 17:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd say Bentsen himself was in an even stronger position to assess the strength of the relationship. Even if you could prove what Powers really said, then it'd be one man's word against another. Kasreyn 12:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
If it were one respectable and informed man (a close friend of JFK's) and it was just his word against Bentsen's, then the issue would just be one man's word against another, the same as Bentsen's word against Eckhart's from earlier in the article. Power's claim, however, is that the statement was not just based on his own familiarity with JFK, but that the extensive documentation of the JFK library supported him.Jamesofengland 17:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Before you proved what he said, you'd first have to prove he said anything at all. Dlabtot 15:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no difference between this statement and the claim that in order to prove that Bentsen said "George Bush is no Ronald Reagan" you'd have to show that he said anything at all to Eckhart. It's true, but meaningless. Heck, unlike the Eckhart claim, if Powers never said anything to Barnicle, it is still useful to understanding the impact of the quote to know that one of the chief TV journalists at the time could get news like that and sit on it. It's not as if Bentsen, or Quayle, were not important and widely interviewed figures for some considerable time after that. Jamesofengland 17:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] added NPOV tag

I've added the NPOV tag for the section that includes the rumormongering by Tom Brokaw. Rumors don't belong in an encyclopedia, even if spread by a Famous Person. Discussion of the issue with Jamesofengland has proven to be fruitless. Dlabtot 17:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

At at least one level, it's not a rumour. Brokaw was a major part of the media response to the statement. You say above that Brokaw is lying about it. If that's true, and I don't know what motive you think Brokaw might have for that, don't you think that that lie is an important part of the context of the statement?Jamesofengland 17:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: is the inclusion of the Brokaw material appropriate and NPOV?

The dispute concerns whether the Brokaw comments in the Aftermath section warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Please see the prior discussion on this page. Tia for your comments.

  • Interesting question. This seems to be a problem in verifiability. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." Brokaw does not seem to be functioning as a fact-checking news source, but rather as someone passing on hearsay evidence. That's not unethical on his part, but it's not great data for an encyclopedia. The idea that Bentsen didn't know Kennedy certain is an "exceptional claim" (per the above WP policy quote). It seems to me that there is a burden of proof to back up the Brokaw (reporting Barnicle reporting Powers ?!) claim. With all the attention on Bentsen's statement, it seems odd that you all haven't yet found a more reliable source to back up the statement. So, at this point, I would say that one should not put undue weight on a fringe claim with little plausible traction. Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 01:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
If the article said "Bentsen did not know JFK", it would be poorly sourced. Instead the article claims that Brokaw made a particular statement. This is verified by an unimpeachable source, the transcript of his saying so on a national TV program, published by the broadcaster with no interest in falsifying it (there's also a commenter here who claims to have seen it, but I admit that I did not see it). There is simply no way in which the claim that the statement was made is poorly sourced. If it is wrongfully included, then it is wrongfully included for another reason.
The significance of the statement being made is twofold. The first and clearest of these is that it means that Brokaw believed that the statement was questionable. This is a story about a debate moment that was significant because of its impact, because of the politicking, not because of its truth (apart from a couple of sentences, the article is not about how similar or dissimilar Quayle and JFK were). The fact that Brokaw (and Barnicle) had doubts and kept them quiet until Bentsen's death is an important part of the media context of the statement. With regard to the claim of "hearsay evidence", this would fall into the "effect upon the hearer" exception. Jamesofengland 18:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this later insert. Anyway, I believe you are confusing several things. (1) Only the statement by Powers is truly notable in regards to the debate moment. This statement is vague, indirect, and poorly sourced. Only Powers is supposedly calling into question Bentsen's veracity, Brokaw is merely passing on the claim d/b/a rumor. (2) Then you say the Brokaw statement is significant because it's part of the "media context" and how they "kept quiet" about the claim/rumor. That's a smart and fascinating inference! However, it is purely your own original analysis, it's what we call original research. If you can't find a source that deals with Brokaw/Barnicle hushing up the claim, then it's a non-starter. Otherwise, Brokaw is merely a very poor and unreliable source of a vague statement by Powers. Pls continue w/me below, if you wish. Thanks! HG | Talk 20:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Drat, this RfC is still on my mind. Another problem with exclusion is that the rumor-via-Brokaw is so vague. What does it mean that Bentsen didn't "know" Kennedy? Obviously, he knew Kennedy in various ways, observed him on various occasions, almost certainly was in the same room on multiple occasions. So what's the point of the rumor or exceptional claim, that (librarian?) Powers had no verifiable source for their friendship? The absence of a verified source, delivered as hearsay through Mike Barnicle (of all people!), is hardly an adequate reliable source of the article text. Sorry, it would be a fabulous little insight if you could document it. HG | Talk 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It is difficult to know precisely what he meant, but I'm not certain that the vagueness goes as far as you suggest. Being in the same very large room as someone seems like a very weak ground for claiming to know them. I've been in the same room as Menzies Campbell on multiple occasions and observed him on various occasions, but the suggestion that I "know" him would be absurd. Powers was a good friend of JFK's and his chief archivist. Powers couldn't (no one could) prove a negative, but he was probably the person in the best place to cast doubt on Bentsen's claim. Brokaw's claim is no less rigorously sourced than Bentsen's claim. Perhaps in the future someone will be able to come up with a photograph of them together or some link that they held. They don't appear to have shared a committee or social circles or a religion, or have come from similar parts of the United States, but there may be a link somewhere. Perhaps someday, it'll be found. Apparently, the link isn't in the expansive JFK library. The possibility that Bentsen was lying is not obvious, as most people would assume what Dlabtot did about congressional committees and such providing some verifiable link, since JFK's life was very well documented. It is fairly easy to discover that this is unlikely, but people would have no reason to believe that even a minimal amount of research was justified. The article gives supporting evidence for Bentsen's statement (four years working in the same large organisation), makes the degree of attenuation (Brokaw, Barnicle, Powers) clear, With regard to the claim of "hearsay evidence", this would fall into the "statement against interest" exception, as if Powers were correct it would mean that Brokaw was admitting to a fairly major failure of the news media and, specifically, himself and his friend. This is much less important than the idea that key media figures failed to investigate and further cover what they were led to believe was a potential major story, but it is something that readers should be given the information to make up their own minds about. Jamesofengland 18:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
You've made your viewpoint known. There is no reason to keep repeating yourself over and over and over and over. Are you going to keep repeating the same arguments to everyone who replies to the RfC? Dlabtot 19:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Dlabtot, hi. Personally, I don't mind James conversing with me about my outside opinion, as long as he is responsive to my questions/argument and isn't repetitious with me. RfCs are often discussions. HG | Talk 20:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I wish you good luck. Dlabtot 20:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi. Thanks for your feedback. I see you're (James) a party to the dispute. Follow-up questions. (1) If you don't think it's vague, then what does it mean that Bentsen didn't know Kennedy? Please supply me (and our readers) a non-vague, non-misleading, meaning of the Powers-Barnicle-Brokaw claim. (2) You say "Brokaw's claim is no less rigorously sourced than Bentsen's claim." Does this mean you'll drop it if enough 3rd opinions, or RfC on the sources, say otherwise? Bentsen's claim was made on national TV and covered by unimpeachable secondary sources. Powers opinion, is filtered by Mike Barnicle, a reporter forced to resign for fabricating one if not more sources (and who settled a Dershowitz lawsuit over a misquote), and ends up in a vague and casual mention (no direct quote) by Brokaw. (3) There's no big concession about media failure by Brokaw. At most, I might infer (but it'd be original research) that Brokaw implies that Barnicle dropped the ball in 1988 because he was loyal to Democrats. What evidence do you have for when Brokaw was told this rumor? Look, I admire your persistence. But you admit "The possibility that Bentsen was lying is not obvious" (yes, Bentsen's lying is farfetched and not reported elsewhere) -- and yet you'd supply a hearsay statement that implies he's lying, without even specifying the nature of the lie. I'd advise that you all remove the item because the burden of proof must be with those who seek a reliable source on Powers claim. HG | Talk 19:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with HG in all particulars; he's said it better than I could have. It just doesn't seem like something we'll ever be able to verify by WP's standards. Kasreyn 17:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC closure

I guess this RFC can be closed. Eiler7 21:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion. Only one person has commented. You yourself have not even commented. Do you believe a consensus has been reached? What was that consensus? HG has asked Jamesofengland "Does this mean you'll drop it if enough 3rd opinions, or RfC on the sources, say otherwise?" and Jamesofengland has not responded. Your closure of the RfC seems to me to be extremely premature and unwarranted. Why do you you think the RfC should be closed? Dlabtot 22:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you had actually closed it; I see that you haven't. So I apologize if I had a scolding tone in my prior comment. But my questions remain. And, btw, I'm kinda new and I don't really understand what the procedure is for closing an RfC. Dlabtot 23:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. It looks like Jamesofengland is an intermittent user. So I'm not sure we should await his response before moving forward in editing the article. Of course, I tend to think my concerns about the source/rumor are valid and cannot easily be dismissed. For this reason, I think the burden of proof now stands with (or must shift to) those who need to demonstrate more reliable sourcing for the rumor. Therefore, I would suggest deleting the Brokaw/Powers item at this juncture. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I tend to apply the rule that an RFC can be closed when no more comments are desired by those who frequent the talk page. As you objected, I will not close the RFC for now. Eiler7 22:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I feel it is appropriate for me to follow-up on the Brokaw-Barnicle-Powers text, based both on my own thinking and various other editors (above). For this reason, I'll delete the text as insufficiently sourced and await reactions. (In the event of a revert, I'd even be grateful for a courtesy note on my talk. See WP:BRD) This also is a reasonable way to see if we can close the RfC. Thanks. HG | Talk 01:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I too feel the RFC shouldn't be closed yet. What's the rush? Kasreyn 17:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)