![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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
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)
The part about his political career reads like a Republican campaign ad.
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
MINOR CORRECTION NEEDED: Immediately after footnote number 288, the current text reads: "Later, in 2002, when Lott made caustic remarks about Strom Thurmond, Kemp was upset, and he supported Lott's apology," Lott did not get into trouble for making CAUSTIC remarks about Thurmond, the kerfuffle was over the fact that Lott PRAISED Thurmond, saying something to the effect of: America would be better off had Thurmond won the 1948 presidential election. Of course Thurmond was a strict racial segregationist at the time. It was this praise that upset Kemp and cause Lott to apologize. I have not changed the original text. 65.32.96.200 ( talk) 13:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC) William Malmstrom, Clearwater, FL
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)
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)
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)
(Congress: "...The article explained allegations of 1967 Sacramento office Reagan staffer homosexual activity, which apparently did not refer to Kemp who was cleared of all related charges....")
Homosexuality isn't a charge of which one must be cleared. Allegations of homosexuality aren't something of which a person must be cleared.
The text as it stands makes it sound as if he was charged with one or more crimes.
If the allegations were false, say that -- not that he was cleared of possibly being homosexual. If there were other allegations, say what they were.
I agree that would be reasonable -- if it were discussed as you described it. Instead, words like "allegations" and, now, "implicated" have been used. If it's worth mentioning, perhaps the article should simply say what you've said here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.77.155 ( talk) 17:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
FOOT NOTE ERROR? In the section that discusses Kemp's investment in the cabin co-owned with gay Reagan staffers, Esquire magazine is cited, followed by footnote number 12. The link in footnote 12 takes one to a fluff piece on Kemp's college days that was published in LA Daily News, not Esquire. I did a search for the word "Esquire" in the article, found only the one instance in the text, but no "Esquire" in the footnotes themselves. 65.32.96.200 ( talk) 15:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC) William Malmstrom, Clearwater, FL
Probably deserves to be incorporated in post-political material, right? [2] Hekerui ( talk) 18:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm for not putting this in the infobox - it's in the lead, not an elected position were he was "in office", and it doesn't appear necessary for the other VP nominees either. Hekerui ( talk) 11:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Since he's no longer living, could we replace the main picture with one from when he was holding office or running for office? Something from the late-80s to 96? Thanks. DavidRF ( talk) 05:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand that it is Fox News, but surely the quotes are good. I find it rather sickening that he has only just died and Specter is so irreverent as to immediately use him as a political figurehead. Is it worth mentioning that Specter is trying to use him as a rallying call for government-funded cancer research?
-- Pstanton ( talk) 15:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The article says that Jude Wanniski met with Jack Kemp to discuss supply side economics in 1967. Purportedly, this meeting took place in Kemp's Congressional office. Kemp was not in Congress in 1967. While I certainly believe this meeting took place, the year is inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.154.190 ( talk) 15:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
One does not need be an M.D. to know that spending additional money on cancer research might find a cure for various cancers. Senator Specter in a long-serving leader and member of the senator, and his POV should be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten ( talk • contribs) 23:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Should the statement "Senator Arlen Specter claimed that Jack Kemp would still be alive if the federal government had done a better job funding cancer research." be included in the article.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 20:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
If he is the Jack Kemp who received the Truman-Reagan Medal of Freedom (posthumously), please put the info into the article wherever appropriate. - Altenmann >t 01:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Jack Kemp - Library of Congress, Congressional Portrait Collection.gif, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 02:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC) |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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
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)
The part about his political career reads like a Republican campaign ad.
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
MINOR CORRECTION NEEDED: Immediately after footnote number 288, the current text reads: "Later, in 2002, when Lott made caustic remarks about Strom Thurmond, Kemp was upset, and he supported Lott's apology," Lott did not get into trouble for making CAUSTIC remarks about Thurmond, the kerfuffle was over the fact that Lott PRAISED Thurmond, saying something to the effect of: America would be better off had Thurmond won the 1948 presidential election. Of course Thurmond was a strict racial segregationist at the time. It was this praise that upset Kemp and cause Lott to apologize. I have not changed the original text. 65.32.96.200 ( talk) 13:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC) William Malmstrom, Clearwater, FL
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)
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)
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)
(Congress: "...The article explained allegations of 1967 Sacramento office Reagan staffer homosexual activity, which apparently did not refer to Kemp who was cleared of all related charges....")
Homosexuality isn't a charge of which one must be cleared. Allegations of homosexuality aren't something of which a person must be cleared.
The text as it stands makes it sound as if he was charged with one or more crimes.
If the allegations were false, say that -- not that he was cleared of possibly being homosexual. If there were other allegations, say what they were.
I agree that would be reasonable -- if it were discussed as you described it. Instead, words like "allegations" and, now, "implicated" have been used. If it's worth mentioning, perhaps the article should simply say what you've said here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.77.155 ( talk) 17:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
FOOT NOTE ERROR? In the section that discusses Kemp's investment in the cabin co-owned with gay Reagan staffers, Esquire magazine is cited, followed by footnote number 12. The link in footnote 12 takes one to a fluff piece on Kemp's college days that was published in LA Daily News, not Esquire. I did a search for the word "Esquire" in the article, found only the one instance in the text, but no "Esquire" in the footnotes themselves. 65.32.96.200 ( talk) 15:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC) William Malmstrom, Clearwater, FL
Probably deserves to be incorporated in post-political material, right? [2] Hekerui ( talk) 18:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm for not putting this in the infobox - it's in the lead, not an elected position were he was "in office", and it doesn't appear necessary for the other VP nominees either. Hekerui ( talk) 11:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Since he's no longer living, could we replace the main picture with one from when he was holding office or running for office? Something from the late-80s to 96? Thanks. DavidRF ( talk) 05:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand that it is Fox News, but surely the quotes are good. I find it rather sickening that he has only just died and Specter is so irreverent as to immediately use him as a political figurehead. Is it worth mentioning that Specter is trying to use him as a rallying call for government-funded cancer research?
-- Pstanton ( talk) 15:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The article says that Jude Wanniski met with Jack Kemp to discuss supply side economics in 1967. Purportedly, this meeting took place in Kemp's Congressional office. Kemp was not in Congress in 1967. While I certainly believe this meeting took place, the year is inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.154.190 ( talk) 15:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
One does not need be an M.D. to know that spending additional money on cancer research might find a cure for various cancers. Senator Specter in a long-serving leader and member of the senator, and his POV should be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten ( talk • contribs) 23:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Should the statement "Senator Arlen Specter claimed that Jack Kemp would still be alive if the federal government had done a better job funding cancer research." be included in the article.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 20:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
If he is the Jack Kemp who received the Truman-Reagan Medal of Freedom (posthumously), please put the info into the article wherever appropriate. - Altenmann >t 01:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Jack Kemp - Library of Congress, Congressional Portrait Collection.gif, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 02:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC) |