Talk:George F. Kennan

Missing image Cscr-featured.png Featured article star

George F. Kennan is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

Template:Onlinesource2005

OK, guys, in less than a month, we get to add this guy to the entry Centenarian.

Annaliese Sorenson is not a Norwegian name. Suggest Anne Lise Sørensen or Anne-Lise Sørensen, or Sørenson. Håkon Rua, Norway

Kennan's NYT obituary uses the spelling "Annelise Sorensen." Kennan uses the spelling Soerensen in his memoirs. Russil Wvong 19:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents

1 polygamy 2 New section on Kennan's influence 3 Long Telegram 4 Article by 172 5 This strange place called Wikipedia seems to work... 6 Problems in Harry491's revisions

polygamy

The article says "Kennan was married to Grace Kennan Warneke", without saying whether this was before or after "he married the Norwegian Annaliese Sorenson", or whether and when he divorced either of them.

Grace Kennan Warnecke is one of his daughters, not his wife. The error appears to have been introduced by a misreading of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel obituary. Russil Wvong 19:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New section on Kennan's influence

Can we discuss the section on Kennan's influence here, before adding it to the article? I have a number of comments:

Trying to summarize Kennan's influence on US foreign policy is going to be a major undertaking, because (a) Kennan was such a prolific writer, and (b) untangling the influence of different individuals on policy is always difficult. Besides the numerous obituaries, a good starting point would be Wilson Miscamble's George F. Kennan and the Making of American Foreign Policy, 1947-1950.

In particular, the first paragraph makes use of a misleading quotation (http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/kennan/quote.html)] from PPS/23 (http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/kennan/pps23.html). It's simply wrong to describe this as Kennan's most significant idea.

I think the reference to "John Gaddes" is supposed to be "John Lewis Gaddis."

Russil Wvong 23:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's kind of bad form to delete wholesale if the addition was made in good faith, which it looks like it was, irrespective of accuracy. It usually works better to prune mistakes and have a sketchier section, than to try and achieve perfection outside of the article and add it all at once. A summary would only be a major undertaking if it were long, and unless you have such a one waiting in the wings, we can just make do with fixing the anon's verbiage. Stan 01:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Stan (I'm new to Wikipedia). I'll restore the section and edit it there. Russil Wvong 18:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Long Telegram

Can the Long Telegram entry be developed - and linked too/from here.

Agreed. Both X article and Long Telegram are too long to be in here as they are currently written. They should be spun off and linked to as "Main article: Long telegram" or whatever. Dave (talk)

Article by 172

Excellent article by 172.

I did notice some minor errors. For example, the X article was signed "X", not "Mr. X". Russil Wvong 01:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This strange place called Wikipedia seems to work...

Even though I did not knew much of Kennan I added some words after reading about his death. Within a few days the article evolved and expanded just like that! This is really impressive - and makes one believe this site can both produce quantity and quality. Ulflarsen 18:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Problems in Harry491's revisions

• You moved up in the intro the note that he later became a leading realist critic of U.S. foreign policy. This part of the intro belongs toward the bottom, as a statement summing up the last phase of his career as a scholar at Princeton.
  • The first paragraph is for what he's known for. He's known for both his early career and his later work. Dave (talk)
    • Yes, but he is known far more for his early work than his career at Princeton. 172 19:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• You removed the reference to the longevity of Kennan and his wife in the intro. But he published well into his 90s, still giving insights into his own career in the foreign serivce, which began in the 1920s. This is a biographical article, so this is certainly worthy of reference.
  • The wording of the longevity issue was poor. I'll put it back in with better wording. Dave (talk)
• That his uncle was also a leading authority on Russian politics in his own era is worthy of note. Following your edits, Kennan's uncle was not mentioned once in the article.
  • The wording "followed in his footsteps" with no explanation was misleading. I'll put a reference to his uncle back in, but without the vague "footsteps" note or with some kind of qualifer. Dave (talk)
• You added the following: "At the 'bottom of the Kremlin's neurotic view of world affairs,' RKennan argued, 'is the traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity' that developed as a result of repeated invasions over centuries. Your addition of "...as a result of repeated invasions over centuries" makes the sentence flat out wrong. It may be your view, but it was not the view articulated in the Long Telegram. Kennan linked the Kremlin's view of world affairs to the nature of the Soviet political system, arguing that it needed the rationale of a hostile external world to legitimate Stalinist dictatorship.
  • Actually, you're "flat out wrong. The "traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity" goes back well past the Soviet era (that's why it's "traditional and instinctive."). I'll add the rest of the quote which explains the reasons for the neurosis: "At the bottom of the Kremlin's neurotic view of world affairs is traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity. Originally, this was insecurity of a peaceful agricultural people trying to live on vast exposed plain in neighborhood of fierce nomadic peoples. To this was added, as Russia came into contact with economically advanced West, fear of more competent, more powerful, more highly organized societies in that area." Dave (talk) (Additionally, he said "they have always feared foreign penetration..." which further supports my version). Dave (talk)
    • No. Calling it a 'traditional sense of Russian insecurity' does not contradict his argument linking their neurotic worldview to the nature of the Soviet politics; he felt that the Tsars also needed a hostile world order to justify their own autocratic world. Can you provide a source supporting your take on Kennan's writing? Otherwise, your original research ought to be reverted again. 172 19:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• It is unclear why you are removing the tenth footnote.
  • I removed the tenth footnote because I also removed the quote that it was associated with. The bit about "few attempts [made] to explain the distinction between Soviet influence and the international Communist movement to the U.S. public" is not relevante to Kennan as written and
    • Yes, it is. Gaddis' comment, made after decades in hindsight, supports Kennan's own view at the time. 172 19:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• You removed the paragraph on engineering a rift in the Communist world, a very important component of his strategy of containment.
  • This is not related to the X article, and is mentioned in the following section, where it is relevant. Dave (talk)

172 18:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the future, please fix issues you see individually rather than deleting dozens of useful additions to get rid of a few problems. Dave (talk)

The other additions were not too helpful. You seem to be changing things all over the place to make them correspond with your own stylistic preferences, but they do not correspond with the style consistent throughout the article. 172 19:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hope I addressed everything. If I didn't, please fix them individually instead of mass reverting dozens of good faith copyedits, wording changes, clarifications, and additions. Dave (talk) 18:45, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've decided to give up this article. You can do with it as you please. See User:172's talk page if you're interested in my reasoning. Dave (talk) 20:57, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)