Jump to content

Talk:John F. Kennedy/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Cause of death

They done killed him dead? Since when is "assassination" a cause of death? He was killed by gunshot. Assassination is a type of crime, not a cause of death. Tried to fix it. Got reverted at once. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

When assassination means shooting someone, there's nothing wrong with using that as a cause of death. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
We are supposed to inform readers clearly, not make them guess and wonder. "Assassination" is not (not) a cause of death on its own. Whether or not someone got shot, poisoned, stabbed or whatever doesn't change that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Serge raises a good point. I think "assassination" is being used here simply as a synonym for killing, and should be changed on the basis of WP:YOUDONTSAY (though the issue here is obviousness, not clutter). It also fails to unambiguously identify the cause of death in the medical sense, or the means as shooting. Unfortunately, there is the problem of "consensus" or the convention we seem to have established: all the assassinated presidents (Garfield, McKinley, and Lincoln) also say "Assassination" in the infobox, and the template doc page offers zero guidance on the intent of this field. I think it also results from a "common sense" misappreciation of the true meaning and etymology of the word; it doesn't simply mean "murder", but "murder with stealth or treachery". It refers not simply to someone getting killed, or even just a political killing (though murder of POTUS would qualify as betrayal of the country), but a treasonous betrayal (such as Brutus stabbing Caesar) or like a mob hit. "Assassin" is derived from "hashish" and was originally applied to a hop-headed Muslim zealot who murdered a sultan. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
As defined: Assassination is the act of killing a prominent person for either political, religious or monetary reasons. That is what happened here. It is the definition for a certain type of murder/killing. Kierzek (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I guess I'm really not as concerned about debating the semantics of the word, but the fact remains it does not specify the forensic cause of death, if that is what is intended here. If the intent is simply to distinguish the murdered presidents from the ones who died of natural causes (old age or disease), then that is OK. Is this really an issue for Template:Infobox officeholder?
Alternatively, would "murder" be a better compromise? Though it's not as commonly used as "assassination", it avoids connotations and thus would be more NPOV. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Assassination in the infobox, backed up with more precision in the text. Otherwise the infobox becomes a block of unreadable text as everyone wedges in their "essential" detail. Britmax (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
It's just fine as it is now. Otherwise Cause of death should be changed to Whether or not he died of nartural causes or something like that. Cause of death is not just "assassination". He died because someone killed him. Ooo, that's informative and encyclopedic (not). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
PS If choosing between having just "Assassination" & then explaining in the article text, or having just "Gunshot wounds" and then explaining in text, the latter would be much more appropriate, as long as the item is Cause of death. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Main Image

Consensus to use this image is quite clear, and has already been implemented. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kennedy's official White House photo—Why aren't we using it?

I am of the opinion that the main image of John F. Kennedy for this page should be changed. The current image is sufficient, but there are many other images that could be used, including those of higher quality or those that are in color. If there are any objections to changing the image please let me know. Thanks for your consideration! Bjdj01 (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason why the infobox image should be a painting when we have plenty of photographs. The current image, File:John F. Kennedy, White House photo portrait, looking up.jpg, should stay as it is per this consensus. Also, please don't change the image until we reach a new consensus. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Who said anything about using a painting? And that archived discussion does not settle the issue, or truly establish a "consensus" (which, we often kid ourselves here, can be an elusive concept. Many times only a few people feel strongly enough, and the "consensus" is won by default because dissenters just give up.) That discussion gives no compelling reasons for keeping the B&W one ("more friendly"; "the JFK I remember"; "not natural skin brightness"(?)) These are all subjective; also there is reference to the bizarre concept of "rotation" of Kennedy family photos (there is an older archive discussion of this), which is wrong-headed because: 1) it hurts stability and can lead to edit warring; and 2) it violates our NPOV policy and places undue weight on the Kennedys, feeding into the public image that they're "America's nobility" or some kind of gods. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Using official White House color photos of Presidents of the United States gives us a uniform, encyclopedic quality standard, free of emotional subjective issues ("I remember him; I like his smile; etc.) JustinTime55 (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done as per obvious new consensus. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Who said anything about using a painting? The reason why I brought up the painting was because the original poster replaced the infobox image with Aaron Shikler's painting of JFK without discussing. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

ERRORS NEEDING CORRECTION

First paragraph of the section on PT-109 at the end has two extra words 'their lives' that need to be deleted. First paragraph on PT-59 should read 40MM not 40 caliber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.9.121.18 (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2019

109.181.13.244 (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

minor mistake

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

War in Laos

There is no mention that JFK was instrumental in waging the Secret War in Laos. In fact, in December 1961, he took the unprecedented step of empowering the American ambassador to control U.S. covert military operations in Laos. Eventually, this hidden war would grow to include a 40,000 man guerrilla army run by the CIA. As many as 115,000 communist troops opposed them. Laos would be more heavily bombed than any country in history. Not exactly the minor league scuffle just across the border as portrayed in histories of the Vietnam War.

How about some coverage on this, JFK fans?Georgejdorner (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I recall Ike telling him, Laos "was the cork in the bottle". As far as military operations, I thought they really started in 1964, and the bombing, etc., that came later. But, that is an area I don’t claim to know well. Kierzek (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Are there reliable sources on that? If not, it's a no-go. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

" ... when he visited.

According to this edit it would be appropriate to add "when he visited" to the sentence, though there is no such wording given or implied in the cited source. I do not agree that that should be added. The source, which explains these habits at length, includes hotel rooms during travels & bedrooms kept for Billings & Kennedy to use together in several Kennedy homes, including the White House. I will remove the inappropriate addition again about someone (who, Billings or Kennedy?) visiting unless another source can be cited re: visits. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The wording of the sentence was poorly written and gave the impression that they were sharing a room all the time, which of course is not correct. But your post above is moot now anyway because it’s been re-written to give proper context. Kierzek (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The wording you are criticizing was as per source given. The wording objected to here was not. The wording now is also as per source given and is OK. Who wrote the better wording, as per source, is a matter of taste, I suppose. Whatever motivation there may have been to add apologetic wording like "when he visited" is a question that made me quite uncomfortable. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Agreement is always good. And it was not "poorly written" grammatically, but in relation to context; the information it wanted to convey in the short place allowed. Kierzek (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2019

After 'He took responsibility for the failure, saying, "We got a big kick in the leg and we deserved it. But maybe we'll learn something from it."[133]' please insert the following:

He also commissioned his brother, Robert F. Kennedy, to lead a committee examining the causes of the disaster.[1] Anon52890421 (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Alduin2000 (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hayes, Matthew A. (2019). History. doi:10.1111/1468-229X.12815 https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-229X.12815. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2019

Hi! The image to the left of the Space Policy section of JFK next to the Friendship 7 capsule contains a spelling mistake in the caption. The caption includes the word "Accomplanied," which should, of course, be spelled "Accompanied."

SUMMARY: Change "ACCOMPLANIED" to "ACCOMPANIED"

I'm afraid I don't have enough edits to edit this semi-protected content myself so would appreciate some help from the community.

All the best,

Robin Robin Skibo-Birney (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 03:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Patrick Kennedy and Patrick Joseph Kennedy

I recently removed the middle names of Kennedy's parents, but JustinTime55 has restored the middle name of Kennedy's father and even expanded the name of his grandfather with the explanation that the reversal of the father's and grandfather's first and middle names is relevant. Frankly, I do not see the benefit in referring to Kennedy's father and grandfather as "Joseph Patrick Kennedy, Sr" and "Patrick Joseph 'P.J.' Kennedy". Would it not be far less confusing to the readers to introduce them simply as Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. and P. J. Kennedy, which are their common names (and thus the titles of the articles about them)? Surtsicna (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why it would confuse the reader. It adds a little bit of the flavor of JFK's Irish heritage, which admittedly the user can research if interested. But the article is already quite large so it's not like this will bog the reader down, and he/she can surely filter out this tiny bit of info if not interested. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I am concerned that the similarity between the names "Joseph Patrick Kennedy" and "Patrick Joseph Kennedy" might be confusing to those who are not familiar with these men, and that simultaneously the usage of the full rather than the common name of P. J. Kennedy might confuse those who have heard of him. In other words, pointing to this onomastic curiosity might affect clarity for no clear gain. It's just a thought, though, and I may be reading too much into it. Surtsicna (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
It's a constructive thought, and I agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Family names

This article refers to Senator Edward Kennedy as "Ted" and Senator Robert Kennedy as "Bobby," as if the editors knew these men personally and could refer to them by nicknames. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column, and the senators should be referred to by their actual names, in my opinion.Closedthursday (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I disagree regarding Ted Kennedy because he is universally known as Ted Kennedy. See WP:NICKNAME and compare with Bill Clinton. Surtsicna (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
You have a point. I suggest using "Ted Kennedy" each time he needs to be identified in contrast to JFK, not the nickname alone. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Protected Edit Request September 17, 2019

In the article at reference 266, there is a spelling mistake.

The article is published as follows:

“The instigating subculture at the Old Miss riot, and at many other racially ignited events, was the Ku Klux Klan.[266]”

“Old Miss” should be spelled as “Ole Miss”. Two sentences before this one there is a hyperlink to an article about the “Ole Miss riot 1962”. This reference supports my claim requesting an edit. I would make the correction myself, but the whole article is locked to prevent vandalism. ManilaButton901 (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done JustinTime55 (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Was John F. Kennedy born in Brookline, Massachusetts, or suburban Brookline, Massachusetts?

Like SNUGGUMS said, not a controversial aspect; and Beyond My Ken has explained why suburb is required. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Every biography I have seen of John F. Kennedy gives his place of birth as Brookline, Massachusetts, not suburban Brookline, Massachusetts. I have never seen ANYONE's bio given as "suburban this" or "suburban that" until now. If you insist that Kennedy's place of birth is suburban Brookline, then every person who was born in a small town should have his or her place of birth preceded with the word "suburban" in their Wikipedia article. This is a good example of the argument to absurdity.Anthony22 (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I find the "suburban" bit from "suburban Brookline, Massachusetts" to be a bit much as that's a pretty minor detail, at least compared to what town he was born in. No objections to removing it and just using Brookline, Massachusetts. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I did just that but it was reverted by NEDOCHAN, who reverts all of my edits, which results in a waste of his time and a waste of my time.Anthony22 (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you post a diff showing this revert? NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
In this case, it was actually Beyond My Ken who restored the "suburban" description. Pinging that user for input. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
He was born in Bookline, which is a suburb oof Boston, but almost completely surrounded by the city. Someone looking at a map might get the impression thta he was born in an urban environment, but, in fact, Brookline is very much a suburb, and is almost invariably described as "suburban Brookline, Massachusetts" for that reason. It should be no more controversial than saying someone was born in "suburban Scarsdale, New York" just another data point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Not a controversial aspect. I mainly was looking for your rationale on how it could be worth including. Thank you for elaborating. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Typical Anthony22 edit discussion leading to time-sink for others. Kierzek (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2019

Under the "Commanding PT-59" section, it states that JFK equipped the PT-59 with a pair of "two large automatic 40 caliber... guns" when it should be "40 mm/millimeter" instead, as its states in the "General Characteristics" in the boat's article. Kupferert (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I cannot access the sources used either here or on the Patrol torpedo boat PT-59 article to verify this, and wikipedia cannot be used to source itself. Can you please provide an alternative source or quote from the books used here please? You can re-open this request by changing "|answered=yes" to "|answered=no". Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 17:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The source http://www.navsource.org/archives/12/05059.htm given for the "General Characteristics" for PT-59 it states "Gunboat conversion stripped all armament except the two twin .50 cal. machine guns, then adding / two 40mm mounts and five .50 cal. machine guns." Kupferert (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The article Patrol torpedo boat PT-59 gives the armament details cited to RS source. "She retained two heavy 40-millimeter Bofors cannon anti-aircraft guns now fitted fore and aft. The refit also added six .50-caliber machine gun nests, with three on each side, behind shields. Shielded twin fifty caliber machine guns were placed behind and on each side of the cockpit elevated on circular mounts, and by some accounts, 2 additional thirty caliber machine guns forward of the cockpit in the front of the boat on each side." Hamilton (1992) pp. 608–612. Kierzek (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 Done There were no such things as "40 caliber automatic guns" in the US Navy inventory in WWII. This is an obvious mis-reference to the 40mm Bofors that are clearly visible in contemporary photos. See, for example, File:PT-59 before conversion.jpeg Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 10:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I feel accomplished in helping edit a page. This is a nice community. Kupferert (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Briefly Audited Classes at Stanford

Stanford should be removed from his education list (form the box on the right hand side) because He Briefly Audited Classes at Stanford.

If you want to include all education, London School of Economics and Princeton should be included as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fwefasf (talk • contribs) 21:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

requesting an edit to the assassination section of the article

Don't get me wrong I love what the editors of the article have done, the writing is brilliant and it tells us exactly what you would need to know. but the images in this section of the article are lacking, to say the least, it would be great to add some frames of the Zapruder film (which is a primary source film showcasing the assassination of the 35th president). adding this witness recording would allow the article to be expanded upon by showing the assassination to any people curious enough to watch (which I believe many are). Thank you for taking the time to read, and a great article nonetheless!

Thanks, - Lucas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucasmelomodesto (talk • contribs) 18:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a biographical article about JFK. For more information about the assassination, see Assassination of John F. Kennedy. For more information on the Zapruder film, see Zapruder film. If frames from the Zapruder film were added here, they would likely be removed as duplicative of content contained in those articles, and off-topic for this one, which primarily deals with JFK's life and accomplishments. General Ization Talk 21:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Billings friendship (II)

Re this previous discussion, googling today, we find several statements that Billings and Kennedy actually did engage in limited sexual behavior together. Whether or not any of that is relevant and reliably sourced is something I'll be glad to leave to others to decide. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

No, in reviewing same; not RS sourced and the word "may" is used, which means nothing but rumor and unsubstantiated. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and not a tabloid. Kierzek (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

When exactly did Kennedy die?

Did JFK die on sight,on arrival at the hospital or was he there by 1pm?Specify it. 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:AC (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The answer to your question is in the article. Are you requesting a change to the article? Sundayclose (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Well,see,I am confused because how was he rushed from the site to a hospital in congested Dallas,TX traffic in 30 minutes?Keep in mind it is only 1963 2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:61 (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
The content of Wikipedia is determined by reliable sources, and this information is reliably sourced. Your speculation about travel time is irrelevant, but bear in mind that this was the President of the United States, and there was an immense presence of law enforcement. There was radio communication in law enforcement long before 1963. Automobiles, especially the presidential limousine, were quite capable of traveling at high speeds in 1963. I have no doubt that the travel time was expedited tremendously. The Secret Service and law enforcement always have a plan for handling such emergencies. I know from what I have read about presidential protection that the route was preplanned, and undoubtedly actions were put in place to clear that route. Sundayclose (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

When you think about it. The crowd would have cleared immediately if it meant saving their president from a fatal shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:704:200:16E0:EC6B:1D52:B156:B2E5 (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

harvard

doesn't mention he was part of a final club at harvard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.8.6 (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

New infobox image

I noticed some arguments that the lead image has an odd facial expression. To solve this issue, why not use this image? It’s still pretty clear, it’s still in color, and it mitigates the facial expression issue. The Image Editor (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Jfk2n-2-web.jpg
My new proposal

I agree with this proposal. The current image is a poor representation of Kennedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedianempire (talk • contribs) 01:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@The Image Editor: Could you link or otherwise point to where there are arguments about the facial expression? There was a consensus in 2019 to use the current image. As far as I know there has been little if any discussion since then. Sundayclose (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Getty Images has the rights to this image and requires a license for use (https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-john-f-kennedy-photographed-in-the-daily-news-news-photo/97347150?adppopup=true). It cannot be used on Wikipedia because there are free images available. Sundayclose (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The current image is an official color portrait, I have not read a good reason to change it. Kierzek (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Addison's disease and a suntan advertisement

Healio.com has this regarding Addison's disease: "Ironically, then, President Kennedy’s famous suntan was the sign not of a fit and outdoorsy man, but of something much darker and more dangerous."

An advertisement from back then said "be the man with the Florida tan", and this has me wondering how much of an inspiration JFK was for this. He was president in 1961-1963, ceasing abruptly by assassination. Carlm0404 (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Carlm0404: Are you raising this issue to suggest an improvement to the article? If so, you need to be more specific. But if this is just chat about something that interests you, please be aware that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article. I don't see how the remote possibility of Kennedy's Addison's disease being an inspiration for an advertisement is in any way relevant to this article, even if it was true, which almost certainly it is not. Sundayclose (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
There are cultural references and advertising in some Wikipedia articles, and I do remember that "Florida tan" reference and that it coincided with Kennedy administration. AT THAT TIME, Kennedy's tan would have been known but his having Addison's disease would NOT, so I do not expect Kennedy's Addison's disease to be an advertisement inspiration. Carlm0404 (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
FYI: there are not supposed to be any "cultural references and advertising" in Wikipedia articles unless it is WP:Verifiable with WP:Reliable sources. Articles are not supposed to speculate about questions we find interesting. So you're wasting this discussion space (and our time) by bringing this subject up. JustinTime55 (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Carlm0404: Please answer the question, that I am now repeating. Are you raising this issue to suggest an improvement to the article? If so, specifically what edit are you suggesting? Sundayclose (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Necessity of Friendship inclusion with affairs and extramarital relations

Why did someone feel the need to imply the deceased president may, in fact, have had homosexual relations? This section does not appear necessary, in lieu of some kind of evidence, or is misplaced, and the reference to homosexuality seems unnecessary and superfluous as would statements saying he does not appear to be African-American. A very strange passage that reveals the author's desired intrigue and would constitute a degree of original thinking versus the evidence based examples given for affairs and whatnot. This is wikipedia, not the venue to out a person who lived with no indication of such proclivities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:4381:E60:50D2:4511:5CC7:4C74 (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2021

The spouse name needs to be fixed because the name is wrong it needs to be changed to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnightsnapple (talk • contribs) 23:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Not done The name is not "wrong"; she was not named Onassis while she was married to Kennedy. The consensus is to put a female spouse's maiden name in the infobox. Her page amply covers the fact that she later married and was named Onassis. JustinTime55 (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Metropolitan Opera National Company

I'm not really seeing a good place in the article to add this information, but Kennedy was instrumental in establishing the Metropolitan Opera National Company in 1963; a project he announced and generated the public will to financially support. I just created the article on the company, and it would be nice to include a brief sentence mentioning J.F.K.'s contribution and collaboration with the Metropolitan Opera while President somewhere in this article. Any help suggesting a way to do that would be helpful.4meter4 (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest John F. Kennedy#Historical evaluations and legacy in the "Presidency" subsection. But no more than a sentence, per WP:WEIGHT. Sundayclose (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure that it deserves even a sentence. Although Kennedy endorsed the idea, the company did not begin performances until after his death, and only operated for two years. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I would call it more than a mere endorsement. He was the first to announce the idea to the public, and he was instrumental in securing the financial backing to make it happen. In other words, he actively advocated for it and was involved in negotiating financing. I agree that no more than a single sentence is warranted. However, I think it might be better placed in some sort of section on J.F.K.'s impact on the arts. There is a whole section at the White House website dealing with that topic here. The current article makes no mention of the impact of Kennedys on arts and culture, and to my mind that is a big oversight in the legacy section. 4meter4 (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Sunday close, could be mentioned in a sentence under legacy but frankly it’s not that important in the overall scheme of things. Kierzek (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with 4meter4 that Kennedy's impact on the arts is woefully underrepresented here. I think it's a defect that we only mention the Kennedy Center in a single line under "Eponymous memorials". I think the Kennedy Center should be given a paragraph in Historical evaluations and legacy#Presidency; it would be due weight to mention that he helped get the National Cultural Center (proposed and stuck in Congress since the FDR administration) implemented. We could then give the MONC a mention in John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Number of images

Yesterday I removed what I considered excess files:

Wikipedia does have guidelines regulating image use:

  • MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE
    • "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative."
    • "Too many can be distracting."
    • "Strive for variety."
    • "Resist the temptation to overwhelm an article with images of marginal value simply because many images are available."
  • MOS:IMAGELOCATION
    • "Try not to place an image 'too early' i.e. far ahead of the text discussing what the image illustrates."
  • MOS:SANDWICH
    • "A­void sand­wich­ing text be­tween two im­ages that face each oth­er; or be­tween an im­age and in­fo­box, nav­i­ga­tion tem­plate, or sim­i­lar."

Some of the images I removed may be more valuable than those I did not remove and I will gladly be corrected. But it is highly unlikely that all of these images must be in the article. A picture book article, with as many images crammed in as humanly possible, will never find itself on the Main Page. Surtsicna (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Duplication

John Fitzgerald Kennedy (May 29, 1917 – November 22, 1963), often referred to by his initials JFK, was an American politician who served as the 35th president of the United States from 1961 until his assassination in 1963.

The addition of "in 1963" to the end of the sentence is utterly pointless, since the sentence already says when he died. So why is this being repeatedly added? FDW777 (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

(for whether 'in 1963' should be included in the opening sentence) The year in which a tenure in any position ended is appropriate in an opening sentence, regardless of whether they died in office as in a preview, you cannot see the date of birth/death. This can also apply to other positions as well as executive positions such as president. In addition, all of the other 7 presidents who died in office do have the year of death in the opening paragraph in some form to my knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence 979 (talk • contribs)
Well written prose is not written to appease thumbnail previews. FDW777 (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
This is mostly aimed at FDW777, but can apply to all editors who believe that 'in 1963' should not be included in the opening paragraph.
The reason that I continually add the year of his assassination is because most wikipedia articles (unless someone has changed them and got into editing battles like this one) that feature any individual who served in a specific role (such as a monarch or elected official) until their death/assassination do feature the year of their death in, (possibly because not everyone reads the date of birth/death). In addition, the year of their assassination is included in the opening sentence of the other three presidents who were assassinated, and the year of death is also included in the four presidents who died of natural causes in some form, so it should apply here for consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence 979 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
1963 is included in the opening paragraph, try reading it. There is no need for duplication in this article to maintain supposed consistency with other articles. FDW777 (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Well 1963 isn't included if you are reading from a preview or listening to it from an external source, you should also consider my consistency point, if you need proof, go back and look at the other 7 articles of presidents who died in office or were assassinated (those being William henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William Mckinley, Warren G. Harding and Franklin Roosevelt)
Why does no one understand my consistency point? The three other presidents assassinated all have the year of the assassination in the opening paragraph in some form. I will only stop reverting if someone replies and explains why this article should be an exception to including year of death in opening paragraph despite it being shown at the start. Also If you think that the year of assassination should not be in this article, you should maybe changed the other 3 articles (for Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield and William McKinley) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence 979 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Seeing as there appears to be an intractable disagreement that has been back and forth edit-warring for a while, maybe an RFC is in order? Since it doesn't appear that you are going to resolve it between yourselves. {{u|SamStrongTalks}} (Talk) 19:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree, having been involved with an endless edit war, i am trying to settle it with just that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence 979 (talk • contribs)
So you're trying to settle it by edit warring your preferred version? :Good prose is more important that supposed consistency with other articles. His year of assassination already appears in the lead, twice. So Also If you think that the year of assassination should not be in this article is out of touch with reality. FDW777 (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Lawrence 979 Edit warring for your preferred version is just going to get you blocked, which I don't think anyone here wants. Lookup the correct dispute resolution tools here, things like RFCs. Also, please sign your posts, it makes it much harder to follow the conversation when you don't. {{u|SamStrongTalks}} (Talk) 20:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I personally believe that Having the year of assassination on the three articles for the first 3 assassinated presidents but not for the fourth one is not a normal and useful thing for a reader who may want to look at all 46 (45 if you count Cleveland once) presidents and only wants to know the years that they served and relies on the opening sentence (which for most presidents lists the time that they were in office), not seeing the year of tenure in the opening sentence would be a thing that they would think of as inconsistent, and would think of as weird decision by the editor. The best 2 ways (in my opinion) to fix this inconsistency in articles would be 1) Change this article to include 'in 1963' 2) Change the other 7 articles for presidents so the opening paragraph says 'until their death' or 'until their assassination'

Please leave a comment suggesting which option should be included, or list a different option if you can think of any, as long as it doesn't involve creating inconsistency between presidents that died in office — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence 979 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Written by Lawrence 979 that section, sorry for not signing it BTW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence 979 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The year of assassination does appear in the opening paragraph, as the very first post in this section, and others in it, state. I object to awful, repititive prose written for the sake of supposed consistency or for the sake of thumbnail previews. FDW777 (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I know that it is true that the year of assassination does appear in the opening paragraph, but in that prose (which was my first attempt as one so excuse me if am slightly rubbish at them), 'opening paragraph' was largely referring to the opening sentence, which always comes after the dates in which the individual lived. My point is, should 'in 1963' be added to the opening paragraph, or should the year of assassination be removed from the opening sentence (not the paragraph, which includes date of birth and death from the wikipedia for Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield and William McKinley. Written by Lawrence 979 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence 979 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

My main question to editors involved in this editing war, should 'in 1963' by added to the opening sentence, or 'in [year of assassination]' be removed from Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield and William McKinley, Opening sentence does NOT refer to the opening paragraph, which does not include the date of birth and death. Lawrence 979 (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Correction, the opening paragraph DOES include date of death Lawrence 979 (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Jesus Christ, consistency among articles is the weakest of arguments. Different subjects have different details and different needs, and without deviation from the norm progress is impossible. In this article we don't need to say 1963 twice. Go discuss those other articles with other editors. EEng 13:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    @EEng: At least my goal in creating the RFC was to get everyone talking rather than edit warring. Looks like it is going to be pretty one-sided. {{u|SamStrongTalks}} (Talk) 13:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

His most recent English relatives have been traced to Bristol where they immigrated to from Ireland

Automatic archiving timeframe

Per this edit summary of "Let someone raise an issue and 2 months later someone pick up on it. What's the hurry?" Well, no particular hurry, 30 days/1 month seems like plenty of time to me but if editorial consensus on this talkpage is to keep threads around with no replies for 3 months? Ok...Shearonink (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Really? Really??? You're really opening a thread to debate this? Because the talk page is so crowded it needs urgent pruning? Right now I see several threads more than a month old which, from appearances, might be usefully continued. Do they bother you somehow? EEng 04:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
This is not a debate. I just wanted to respond to your edit summary and doing a null edit with another edit summary didn't seem appropriate. That's all. It's fine - I'll leave JFK alone. If people want to respond later than I thought they would, it's ok - you could be right and I could be wrong/mistaken/whatever. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
If you've been doing this to other articles, please leave them alone as well. Very active articles with many watchers, and new threads arriving frequently, can benefit from relatively short archive times. Otherwise, unless the page is getting unmanageably large what you're doing is shipping people's thoughts and concerns off to oblivion in a hurry for no reason beyond a misguided urge for tidiness. EEng 12:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
"If you've been doing this to other articles..." Doing this. Hmmm. Well, I do not go around trying to force unwanted changes against editorial consensus on talk pages, if it seems to make sense to me, occasionally I might change an automatic archiving timeframe, sometimes longer, sometimes shorter. You think this talk page and other talk pages can benefit from having a 90-day archiving timeframe and that is fine. Peace dude. Shearonink (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Reverted edit

@JohnFromPinckney: Hello, I'm replying per the comment in this diff. The referenced MOS:Repeat link says explicitly that links can be repeated in infoboxes and this was an infobox. It could then be asked why not a have a link? DBpedia is a tool around since 2007 which extracts data from Wikipedia info boxes to be more efficiently query-able. I understand that that may not be of interest to you, but I suspect this is precisely why there is this carve out in MOS:Repeat link. Gettinwikiwidit (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Gettinwikiwidit, thanks for posting. Specifically, MOS:REPEATLINK says if helpful for readers, and while I can see the usefulness of repetition in, say, a sortable table (where you don't know what rows the linked items might land in), I question the usefulness to readers of duplicated links just two lines apart at the top of an infobox.
In regard to DBpedia, I don't see why we should change our styling to satisfy some external scraper of our data. And if it is important, then I think we should establish that consensus publicly and advertise it well. (Otherwise there'll be endless edit warring on multiple pages.) The thing is, I don't know where best to open a discussion. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking, or maybe at a Village Pump? Or (even better), are you aware of some discussion about DBpedia collaborations happening already? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 15:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It's more important linking to Lyndon B. Johnson as Kennedy's successor as president, rather then as Kennedy's vice president. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

RfCs of interest

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. RfCs are underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents concerning the removal or retention of US president series boxes at associated articles and the removal or retention of US vice-president series boxes at associated articles.

RFC on location for year of assassination

There has been spirited discussion on both sides. Those in favour have stated that it is important to give the context of when the term ended, while those opposed to the change—worded as proposed— have cited that it sounds redundant. There is clear consensus against including the proposed wording. It should be noted that EEng included an alternate wording in the article during this discussion ("from 1961 until his assassination near the end of his third year in office") and that it has not been opposed. That appears to be an adequate compromise between the stances of both groups. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the year they were assassinated be included in the prose in the first sentence?

This could be construed as redundant since the date of death is included in the first text of the article John Fitzgerald Kennedy (May 29, 1917 – November 22, 1963)

For context, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Warren G. Harding, William Mckinley, James A. Garfield, Abraham Lincoln, Zachary Taylor, and William Henry Harrison include the year of their death in the first sentence of prose for the article in addition to the birth and death dates.

There doesn't appear to be clear guidance on WP:MOS. Let me know if there is a better way to state each position. {{u|SamStrongTalks}} (Talk) 21:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose As noted, that would be redundant and would also make the prose a little clunky. The date of the assassination is already stated in the fourth paragraph of the lede (as it should be).~ HAL333 22:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • NO as it reads perfectly fine currently ("...served...until his assassination."). It's all very clear already, and for those whose interest is piqued, there's an entire fourth paragraph about the assassination, with the exact date again, and then of course section 7 of the article covers it in details. Using "until his assassination in 1963" would be redundant and clunky and also redundant. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 23:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think as his date of death, and it is stated that he was assassinated, its already obvious. As per above, the secton below on the assassination has more details. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose His date of death appears right after his name, and much later in the lead it says On November 22, 1963, he was assassinated in Dallas. The idea that we need to include this information for a third time in the lead is absurd. FDW777 (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Of coure not. There is no need to state anything twice in one sentence or three times in a section. Surtsicna (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, redundant. Kierzek (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Agree with all the reasons above, especially redundancy.TrueQuantum (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's sufficient to state the year once within opening sentence. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support My point about consistency in opening sentences doesn't just apply to US Presidents, it applies to virtually every single person who died while serving in a role. If you look at them, it always says the year of death in the opening sentence despite the fact it is repeated twice in the opening paragraph (if you count the dates of birth and death). And in addition, another inconsistency is that the opening sentence of nearly every single article on Wikipedia, the years when the individual served in a role are included at some point in the opening paragraph, despite the fact a reader could simply rely on info boxes to find that out. As well as my point about consistency, when looking at any Wikipedia article from external sources such as the amazon echo, the year of death is never read out, and considering someone may ask such a device that for the sole reason of wanting to know when a person served in a notable office, having to then ask when they died just to find the end year of a tenure is not a necessary step to force them to take, particularly when you don't need to something like that for other Wikipedia articles. Lawrence 979 (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
In response to someone's point about the point about the fourth paragraph containing information about the assassination, the kind of people who don't read the dates of death after his name are also the ones who, after finding out small amounts of information such as when they served (1961 - 1963) are unlikely to read on further. This opinion is largely shaped by personal experience when i just wanted to know who the president was and when they served. Lawrence 979 (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Summoned by the bot. I think "from 1961 until his assassination in 1963" would read better than just "from 1961 until his assassination", so on that basis, weak support. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, that alone reads better; but John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1917 – 1963) was the 35th president of the United States from 1961 until his assassination in 1963 does not read very well. I do not see how the lead benefits from stating the same thing twice in one sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    Support: I agree that tacking "in 1963" on the end of the sentence would be a pleasant way to work in a reminder to readers what year Kennedy was assassinated. Lord Dweebington1 (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    A reminder? In case they forgot since reading it at the beginning of that sentence? Surtsicna (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way, for clarity sake, the reason I think 'in 1963' should be added to the opening sentence is largely because it would be read better on its own (excluding the section at the start where it says the year he died) , however, if '(1917 - 1963)' was always read out, then 'in 1963' would be what many opposing claim to be, a redundant repetition. Lawrence 979 (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Support For the same reason that Pincrete now supports the "eminently sensible suggestion by Mx. Granger [above] - "from 1961 until his assassination in 1963". But let me offer an additional explanation. The dates in parenthesis are that: a parenthesis. They are not an integral part of the sentence being read. When I am reading something and I come to dates in parenthesis, I first finish reading and understanding the whole sentence. Only then I may go back and see how the information in the parenthesis fits into the sentence I just read and undestood, no? Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 18:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    So then what you would read is that JFK was "president of the US until his assassination in 1963 (1917-1963)", right? Surtsicna (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    But the sentence says "from 1961 until his assassination in 1963." Where did the "from 1961" part of the sentence go? Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 21:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    Alright. Would "president of the US from 1961 until his assassination in 1963 (1917-1963)" sound good to you? Surtsicna (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    I don't understand the game you're trying to play with me. Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 21:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    It is not a game. You wrote that you first read the sentence without the parentheses and then read the parentheses. I am wondering how you feel about the end of such a sentence then effectively, to you at least, reading "until his assassination in 1963 (1917-1963)". Surtsicna (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    It's a question of logic. You said you save the the parenthetical content until after you've read the sentence, and that the sentence should include "in 1963" at the end. Surtsicna is asking you if you (truly) like the way it sounds when you read it, as you say you do, as in Surtsicna's last formulation. I think it sounds even more repetitive than the original proposal, but you're entitled to your opinion. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    Why would JFK's (DoB - Dodeath), not remain exactly where they are - parenthetically immediately after his name. Like warshy, I tend to skip parenthetical info in article openings, whether alternative name, pronounciations etc EXCEPT when I am specifically looking for that info. It would thus read "president of the US from 1961 until his assassination in 1963." Although the death date is already there in the opening parentheses, it clarifies to link assassination & 1963 IMO. Pincrete (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    Nobody suggested moving the vital dates. Warshy says that they read the parenthetical information after reading the entire sentence, which effectively puts the vital dates at the end for them. In that case, "assassination in 1963" is immediately followed by the dates of birth and death, thus being even more redundant. Surtsicna (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    Pincrete obviously understands what I am trying to say, which makes sense, because I only decided to express my view on the matter here after he got convinced Mx. Granger to change his own view. Surtsicna obviously does not understand us, no mater how much we try to explain. I will try my hand one last time. When I read and understood that he was "president from 1961 until his assassination in 1963," and then I read the dates, it first confirms to me my initial understanding. But, now with the additional benefit that I know the exact date of his assassination, i.e. November 22, 1963. So it is not redundant at all, in my view. The reading of the precise dates at the end reinforces my initial understanding and gives me the exact date of the deed. Be well, warshy (¥¥) 20:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose , A redundant point as has been pointed out by some editors above. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - of the four US presidents who were assassinated. Only the James A. Garfield bio article has a different write up. Of course, that's due to the fact his lasted over (July 2- September 19) two & a half months. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems rather redundant and agree with many of the editors above. TrueQuantum (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Its absurd for that information to be repeated again. Sea Ane (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Look at it this way. Suppose Kennedy had died of natural causes. You certainly wouldn't write John Fitzgerald Kennedy (May 29, 1917 – November 22, 1963) was an American politician who served as the 35th president of the United States from 1961 until his death in 1963, because it would sound dumb. The fact that the death was an assassination doesn't change that. See also WP:MURDERBYDEATH. EEng 23:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    See intros to Zachary Taylor, Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt (for examples) which do use that style. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    And indeed sounds dumb. Looks like I underestimated my fellow editors. EEng 23:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    It might be more deft to say ... his assassination just before the end of his third year in office. That way you're adding a bit of color instead of just repeating the raw fact. EEng 00:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    No one's noticed this suggestion so I've petulantly gone ahead and installed it live for people to see in context. EEng 01:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Why make the JFK article a special case? See the intro of six of the seven other US presidents who've died in office. Garfield gets a slight different write up, per the length of time between his shooting & death. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    In those six other cases the year of death was duplicated after the articles reached GA or FA status. The duplication there does not indicate good practice. Surtsicna (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    "Other articles do it" (paraphrase) is a non-argument, since it disappears into nothing if someone changes those articles. So rather than make non-arguments, perhaps people might want to explain why the addition of "in 1963" or similiar to this article has a positive impact on this standalone article. FDW777 (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: We do have WP:REDUNDANCY: "Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence." Surtsicna (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose it is redundant. Honolulucb (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support the lead sentence for a president of the United States article (or any head of state like article) should always contain the year they started and the year their term ended. It is fundamental, basic infomation for the reader. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
It is not the same information. One is the date he was born in, and the date he died on. The other is the year of his assassination. He did not just die. He was assassinated, and without the specific statement, the opening sentence just lacks basic information for the uninformed reader. warshy (¥¥) 18:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Two dates are given. One is the date he was born on. The other is the date he died on. The sentence says that he was assassinated and that he was president until he was assassinated. The sentence thus states when his presidency ended. Therefore, the sentence does not lack any of that information. Repeating one of the dates does not add anything new. Surtsicna (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Yep. It's the difference between having all the information there, and then letting the beginner reader read, stop, and start drawing his conclusions from all the information that is there; or, on the other hand, spelling out for the reader clearly, out front, the most important conclusion from all the information that is there. The impact the information has when spelled out is what I believe you are trying to avoid. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 20:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
What we are trying to avoid is infantilizing the reader and insulting their intelligence. Surtsicna (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The page you link to does not refer to online encyclopedias' editing. It has, in my view, nothing to do with the basic disagreement we have had for a while here over this issue. It feels to me like just adding an unnecessary and unjustified label to the discussion. But alas... warshy (¥¥) 20:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @FDW777: It only mentions his death date in brackets though not in main, running prose. Moreover, when reading biographical articles I and many others do read especially read over the birth date, death date, native language name, pronoucation, as they are not necessary when just starting to read about the person most of the time unless you are specifically wanting to find that infomation in the first place. The only reason Wikipedia does this stuff in brackets to follow on the tradition with other encyclopedias. Encylopedias did this to begin with to disambuate those with simliar names (as those with the same names are extremely unlikely to have the same birth date and death date). Unless you are trying to look at many other people called John Fitzgerald Kennedy you are unlikely to need to look over the b.d./d.d. In addition, assume you read this way it will not become apperent to after reading the lead sentence that the death date is actually relevant for once and needed for this kind of infomation which is rare for biographical articles, and for president articles in general. Furthermore, dates in brackets do not appear in previews or Google knowledge boxes in prose. Regards (please ping)  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
As above thumbnail previews are irrelevant, good prose is not dictated by those nor Google knowledge boxes. FDW777 (talk) 08:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
If you are trying to boil down my entire argument to just previews I suggest you reread my response as to why I am supporting the proposal. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 12:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
There is no consensus for the change/addition. Kierzek (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Kierzek: That is not a valid argument against my argument. The whole point of an RfC is to determine a consensus, that is what I am commenting my views on this question. If consensus is against me fine, but the comment is "There is no consensus for the change/addition" is in no way a rebuttal to my comment and is unhelpful for the process.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Spy-cicle: I already stated my argument above. My most recent addition is based on the totality of what has taken place. If you wish to keep “beating a dead horse”, that’s up to you. Kierzek (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I am not "beating a dead horse", I was simply replying to those who replied to my comment, including your unhelpful one.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Closure

Over three months later & this RFC still hasn't been ruled on. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I wish this RFC had covered all eight US presidents who died in office. I attempted to bring the Taylor, Lincoln, McKinley, Harding & F.D. Roosevelt article intros in line, with this (Kennedy) article's intro. But, was reverted :( GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

C'mon, you know better than to think all articles of a certain class need to be consistent. Different articles have slightly and subtly different needs. EEng 19:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Sexuality developments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am reluctant to bring this up, due to possible violent objections, but there have emerged several new sources lately that suggest that some form of sexual relations in fact occur between Kennedy and Lem Billings. Might it be a good idea to try to word something balanced and not-too-sensational now to preclude this kind of exaggeration? Just asking. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

"[V]iolent objections", certainly not. The problem is that no main-line historians have ever put forth evidence (and by that I mean, conclusive proof, more that hearsay or something "reported" or 'suggested", which is only speculation, conjecture and WP:Fringe) of anything other than a close personal friendship. I do note that in Billings article it states: "Some historians believe that Billings expressed his sexual interest in Kennedy in writing in 1934 and that Kennedy rebuffed his advances. (Perret, 38, 405n.; Pitts, 22-3.)"
So, biographers of Billings have rejected anything else between them. Now, in reading Billings article it does under the "Personal life" section give some further explanation as to their friendship, some of which could be added. For example (with article attribution for the copy edit, we could add: "Charles L. Bartlett, a journalist who introduced Kennedy to Jacqueline, and friend of both Billings and Kennedy, described their relationship: "Lem was a stable presence for Jack. Lem's raison d'être was Jack Kennedy." Pitts, 207. Something akin to this. Kierzek (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
This section deals with recent developments, not with what we knew and accepted as comprehensive before. Several reliable sources recent ones have it that it should not be ruled out that there were sexual relations or that that exclusion should even be suggested. Recent is the key word under this heading.
Also, please note that I am not suggesting that we try to conclude that there were sexual relations, but that recent suggestions by reliable writers might need to be included. It seems that it might not be fair or accurate to continue to portray Billings as the sad, pining and totally rebuffed man. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
”Recent suggestions” doesn’t mean anything. It’s just speculation and conjecture and not built on proof. So it should not be included. Kierzek (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
How about a smoother rephrasing of that sentence: Though due to lack of evidence it has generally been assumed that there was no homosexual activity between them, Kennedy would often, and even when married, share a bedroom with his lifelong friend.[408] ? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
That is not bad. I would tweak to say, “Though due to lack of evidence it has generally been assumed that their relationship was platonic between them, Kennedy would often, even when married, share a bedroom with his lifelong friend when visiting.” Kierzek (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
This version would need correcting: "... their relationship was platonic between them, Kennedy would often...". Their relationship is already "between them". — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 05:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Um, I'm a little leery of the "even when married, shared a bedroom" bit. You seem to be assuming that's somehow significant. It wasn't that long ago that two men, business associates, attending a convention might share a hotel room. I think you need to be sure you have a source that authoritatively says that that particular detail is in any way significant, in the context of the time. EEng 05:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
The cited source is very clear on that "married" detail & expands on it quite a bit. I'll wait for more possible comments before opining too much on suggestions now made. Suffice to say that their "relationship" does not really fit as "platonic" and the source describes it all as lack of evidence of homosexuality, even to the point of mentioning sheets etc, if my memory serves me right. Their friendship was intimate, though not sexual as far as anyone knows for sure. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
It's the shared a bedroom part I was talking about, not the married. EEng 19:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
"even when married, [often] shared a bedroom" is what's in the cited source (and more and more since then). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
You're still not getting my point. It's hard for readers today to appreciate how routine it was, just 50 years ago, for unrelated adults to share a bedroom, so if you make a point of that fact in the text readers are likely to reach an unwarranted conclusion. Similar issues come up with the word intimate which has gradually become a euphemism for sexual. EEng 01:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I would not agree to using the word "intimate", as is too suggestive (undue weight) and again no evidence is shown other than a close, platonic friendship; and as to use the term "homosexual activity", awkward phasing and outdated un-needed wording. Kierzek (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
"Platonic" is not inferred or cited anywhere. "Intimate friendship" is, in several sources. The two terms do not mean the same thing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I am really amused by this whole discussion. On the one hand, I don't think that the evidence for JFK's amazing feats of heterosexuality (including the so-called famous "affair" with Marilyn Monroe) is any stronger than the evidence being presented here now for his so-called "homosexuality." But nonetheless, it seems that all his alleged amazing feats of heterosexuality are now established, irreversible memes of the general culture. So maybe the push now from the other side can serve to balance the overall picture of the man's sexuality a bit, for the coming 20 years or so. One way or the other, all these memes are based on the exact same amount of concrete evidence, i.e. 0 amount of concrete evidence. warshy (¥¥) 16:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The friendship between Kennedy and Billings was of an extraordinary type. That much has been attested to by many reliable biographers. I agree that nobody actually saw Kennedy having sex except people with him in those rooms, of whom nobody has testified reliably nor taken photos that we know of. I also agree that fair assumptions about a famous person's heterosexual escapades (see e.g. Greta Garbo) are no more noteworthy that those about homosexual activity. -
Suggested sentence (II): Though due to lack of evidence it has generally been assumed that their relationship was not sexual, Kennedy would often, even when married, share a bedroom in his own homes with his lifelong friend.
-SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The cited source is a thorough and respectable scholarly biography of Kennedy's mother. Wikipedia does not do censorship. Remove everything about Monroe et al also? Or is it just the homo stuff we are not supposed to include? Shall we delete Billings completely? Maybe delete Kennedy in his article also? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
And, of course, a mother always knows. EEng 23:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
SergeW, we’re not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We’re talking about one specific thing. So one biographer has this opinion based on speculation and conjecture. That’s not enough. None of the other biographers go that far with whatever their suggestion is. None of the historians do either. And you say this is something “new”, it’s not new, these guys have been dead for years and their friendship has been looked at by biographers and historians over the years. And there’s certainly no new evidence. You still have not named who this biographer is, either. I must assume its not a historian. Kierzek (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
What's not clear? Barbara A. Perry is the biographer long cited already under the article re: this matter. She wrote in detail about it after talking to family members. I found new writers published by Googling more recently and asked a question here, fearing it would raise this kind of a stink or worse. That's all. Look at Greta Garbo for example! Pure speculation, no relatives interviewed. Lots of coverage. It's clear we are supposed to be much more wary here. That's disturbing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Nobody has suggested we state anything as fact, just the too-well-known-and-now too-well-sourced-to-be-ignored speculation. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I think this proposal clearly falls under WP:FALSEBALANCE as it is speculative history. The author is making an extraordinary claim not based in any evidence. There are no eye witness accounts, no letters, no statements by either men or the people who knew them substantiating the claim. There's nothing here but guesswork (made more than 50 years after the subject's death when most of those who knew the subject well at the time are no longer alive to contest such an extraordinary claim). This is frankly not respectable work or professional conduct for a biographer.4meter4 (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I just looked at the Billings page for the first time, trying to identify this source there. I couldn't readily identify it from there. Can you specify the source here please? Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 16:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm just really confused here what sources are in " but there have emerged several new sources lately that suggest that some form of sexual relations in fact occur between Kennedy and Lem Billings" when none of them have been provided? Why so much secrecy about the sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.77.85 (talk • contribs)

Jesus, SW, will you please quote the source, including the source's citations? EEng 18:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Please stop being personal and demanding. This is not about me. Read what I write here, please. She is named under the article and recently above. If you want me to quote everything she wrote about this, I'll have to acquire her book again. I don't own it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
ONUS etc. Like it or not no one's going to even consider this without seeing exactly how the source presents it, and what (in turn) her sources are. It's too WP:REDFLAG for anything less. EEng 19:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Is this a campaign now by one user only who objects to what one of the Kennedy family's greatest experts has written about the unusual & intimate friendship between Kennedy and Billings? Anyone else with feathers that ruffled and claws out? I'll get the book again if needed. It's probably readily available at most major libraries. Not as if the author & book are obscure & unknown. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
    Its not unreasonable to request exactly what is said without paraphrasing. It’s still amounts to speculation and conjecture. And if she’s not a historian, but only at author, then the scrutiny should be even higher. And it doesn’t matter how another article such as “Garbo” is handled. We’re talking about this article. Kierzek (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
    We are talking about Prof. Barbara A. Perry whose link I have posted above already once. If nobody is going to bother to even look at what we're discussing, why bother? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
    I missed the link; but, if you don't want to put in the work (providing the text) as to an addition you want to make, then "why bother"? I have better things to do then waste time on this. Kierzek (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
    Well I didn't miss the link, but the request is for Perry's text and sources, not just her identity. It's like the 8th time you're been asked. If it didn't occur to you to take images of the relevant pages for something like this, it's your own damn fault. Anyway, I'll pick it up next time I'm at the library. EEng 20:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I am asking again that we stop being personal and condescending here and stick to article content. Whoever gets to a library first can easily fix this.
The suggestion (suggestion, not request) that I made here was for a bit more to be added since Google clearly reveals that more is being written about Kennedy and Billings since Perry's book came out. That's all. I can do without it (and without complaints that I do not - and will not - photograph book pages every time I give them in a source citation). The fact again, that this particular citation is being question (and in a manner which infers that I cheated somehow) is disturbing, as to subject matter. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
No one's being condescending or personal (though I can certainly switch to that mode if you'd like -- just give the word) and you need to learn to recognize constructive criticism when it's offered. If you really thought that there was any chance the article is going to say anything remotely like Though due to lack of evidence it has generally been assumed that there was no homosexual activity between them, Kennedy would often, and even when married, share a bedroom with his lifelong friend without the rest of us knowing what the source actually says, your judgment is off. No one's implying you're "cheating" but this isn't a simple factual point which is straightforward to paraphrase.
You should have known you'd need the source at hand for the duration of the discussion. If you weren't going to hold on to the book itself, in this digital age it's not at all strange to expect that you would have taken a snap of the relevant text and its citations. This article requires serious research and that's what serious researchers do. I do it all the time to save myself lugging stuff back and forth to the library. After all, film's really cheap these days. Oh wait, I forgot -- you don't even have to pay for film anymore. EEng 20:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
English is my first language which I've taught for over 40 years, thus, I know what the words "personal" and "condescending" mean. Is it possible to discuss this without these personal comments over and over? And without sarcasm and superciliousness?
Anyone who reads my original question above can see that there has been no need for all this personal scolding. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
But anyone who reads the rest of the thread can see that after everyone told you that only with source quotes could such material even be considered, you kept up with the "one of the Kennedy family's greatest experts" schtick (folding in the bizarre idea that there's "one user only who objects" and that there's something "disturbing" going on about the "homo stuff"), instead of just doing what you needed to do i.e. get the source quotes. And there's no little irony in the "sentence" English is my first language which I've taught for over 40 years, thus, I know what the words "personal" and "condescending" mean being offered as evidence of, um, mastery of English. Now I am being personal and condescending, just in case you hadn't noticed. EEng 15:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It has never been suggested here by anyone that we go against what is described above as "only with source quotes could such material even be considered". This section dealt with the question of possibly expanding the Billings item a bit which already had been added long ago and then sourced to Kennedy expert Perry, and if so expanding it as per new material appearing on Google from recent writers. The fact that the section was not meant to deal with the already well-sourced item in the article but with the idea of a possible expansion, of course well-sourced if done at all, has lead to a misunderstanding here which derailed my original question. I have given up on that above (but continue to be scolded by a user who will not give up on the scolding). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing and EEng might I suggest you both stop swiping at each other per WP:CIVIL, as this conversation is not progressing productively. @SergeWoodzing the conversation has naturally stalled because we lack page numbers and quoted text from Perry to make an informed decision. I would suggest taking the time to produce that content. Without it, the consensus is to not alter the article.4meter4 (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
My suggestion here has never been to alter the article, but possibly expand it, which I have mentioned (now for the 3rd time) that I have given up on. --SergeWoodzee with ing (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
@SergeWoodzing. The proposed expansion is an alteration. And again, we need to see the evidence from Perry. At this point you are exhibiting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, and if you persist it may be perceived as disruptive editing. Please except that community consensus at this discussion is overwhelmingly telling you that we need to have detailed evidence (name of book, publisher, isbn number, page numbers, quoted text) before changing the current text of the article on this particular topic because it is making an extraordinary claim. It's now up to you to produce the evidence or let it go.4meter4 (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I couldn't agree with you more re: the need for good sources, always. I do not wish to change the current text of the article. I don't know how to make that clearer. I asked a question after googling Billings recently. It was an idea I had which I have stated above that I've abandoned. It failed. I can accept that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Ok, then. We’ll close this discussion thread then. I am going to archive it.4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What the sources actually say

I examined every indexed reference to Billings in Perry, Rose Kennedy (2013) (which SergeWoodzing refers to as what one of the Kennedy family's greatest experts has written about the unusual & intimate friendship between Kennedy and Billings) and these were the only passages even remotely relevant:

  • p.203: [W]hile Jack's bachelor status might attract young female votes, in the 1950s' family-centered culture he needed a spouse and children to remain a viable political figure. Indeed, an unmarried man might prompt a whispering campaign about his sexual preference. Jack's longterm friendship with prep-school mate Lem Billings, a confirmed bachelor, didn't help. An endnote (p.362n30) cites Pitts, Jack and Lem (2007) then comments: After gaining access to eight hundred previously closed letters between Jack and Lem, Pitts concludes that Lem was gay but that his friendship with JFK was nonsexual.
  • p.248: [Rose] thought [Jackie] was taking too long to recover from John Jr.'s birth [and] wrote in her journal ... "Jackie had the bedroom downstairs in the extreme corner of the house, which is Jack's old room. She likes to be alone ...." Ten years later, for Rose's memoir, Jackie rewrote [that] passage to say, "Jack and Jackie have the bedroom downstairs ...." [ellipsis in Perry]. In reality Jack had bunked in the same room with his friend Lem, a fact which neither woman bothered to remove from Rose's journal entry.

I went Similarly through Pitts, and here are the only things conceivably relating to either bedrooms or some possible sexual relationship:

  • p.3: Lem fell in love with Jack and sought to have sexual relations with him. Jack rejected the sexual overture, but not the friendship, [which] endured despite the difference in how they felt about each other.
  • p.22: The blunt fact is that [Lem] was sexually attracted to Jack... He felt pretty sure that the feelings weren't reciprocated, but he wasn't sure... [At Choate] Boys who wanted sexual activity with other boys... exchanged notes written on toilet paper [which] could be easily swallowed... Lem finally took the plunge and sent such a note to Jack... When Jack received it, he was angered and upset. There is a record of his response to Lem in a letter he sent.... "Please don't write to me on toilet paper anymore. I'm not that kind of boy."
  • p.192: [Lem] stayed at the White House so often that he was given his own room on the third floor. He would leave some of his belongings there, so it effectively became Lem's room. No one else stayed in it. There are four more pages discussing Billings's comings and goings and presence at the White House, but nothing at all about Jack and Lem bunking together or camping it up or pitching a tent.

Needless to say, none of this comes within 1000 miles of justifying us in telling our readers that Though due to lack of evidence it has generally been assumed that their relationship was not sexual, Kennedy would often, even when married, share a bedroom in his own homes with his lifelong friend. Far beyond distortion, it would be blatant fabrication (even without the word "often", which is the icing on the cake).

I'm going to give S.W. the benefit of the doubt and assume that he never actually saw either of these sources and was relying on derivative sources shamelessly seeking to boost their circulation or clickcounts by pretending there's something here that there isn't. But really – be more careful. This should never have happened. EEng 09:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC) P.S. I invite Levivich to dig up his brilliant Burma-shave on this topic and repeat it here for the edification of all.

Thank you, EEng. Excellent work. Cullen328 (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Fooled you! I made it all up! EEng 18:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Really? Prove it! — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
EEng, excellent work. Post your ideas as to specific changes in line with what the sources say. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I took this silly bit out of this article [1] and the Billings article [2]. As far as I'm concerned that's the only thing that needed doing. There's nothing for either article to say about this. EEng 21:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
WITHOUT MORE SOURCES
THERE'S NO WAY
WE CAN SAY
JFK
WAS KINDA GAY
Burma-shave

Levivich 06:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect statement senate election 1958

The statement in the article that Kennedy's election to the Senate in 1958 hade the largest margin of vicotory in Massachutsetts history is not correct. His brother Edwards margin of victory in 1964 was higher both in regard to margin of votes (1,129,244 votes in 1964 and 874,608 votes in 1958) as well as regarding percentages (48.84% margin in 1964 and a 46.97% margin in 1958) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.62.162 (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Historycorrespondent.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2022

§ Civil Rights Movement:

Historian Carl M. Brauer concluded that passing any civil rights legislation in 1961 would have been futile.

Surely, this should say (emphases for clarity)

Historian Carl M. Brauer concluded that attempting to pass any civil rights legislation in 1961 would have been futile.

Describing the attempt as futile makes sense, given the context supplied by the preceding sentence: it would have failed. Describing the passage of civil rights legislation as futile seems a strange claim, and would require strong justification. I've not actually managed to access the ref, though, so I cannot be completely certain.

- 2A02:560:4215:AA00:48C9:E311:BDA2:94A9 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Frankly, we've got too much (and two is too much: here's one: [3]) of the random opinions of "Historian Carl M. Brauer", who turns out to be "a freelance historian and biographer who works under commission or sponsorship. His subjects include individuals and families, businesses and industries, professional service firms, hospitals and health care institutions, philanthropic foundations, government, and public policy. He also edits memoirs and conducts oral history projects." [4]. Opinions like this should either be the consensus of scholarly opinion (in which case there's no reason to name or quote any particular author, unless for a particularly effective formulation) or prominent, recognized voices representing one POV in a controversial area (which doesn't apply here AFAICS based on the evidence of the article itself). How on earth does Brauer's rather hokey psuedo-psychiatric idea that the public's "fascination with the assassination may indicate a psychological denial of Kennedy's death, a mass wish ... to undo it" merit inclusion in this article? I've removed both references to Brauer, which quite frankly carry a whiff of promotionalism. EEng 23:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. At the very least it seems UNDUE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Nice catch!
- (OP) 89.183.221.182 (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022

Hi there, under the heading Ireland, I would suggest adding the below re his trip to Ireland. [1] [2]

Kennedy himself referred to his Irish visit as “the best four days of my life”. Joyce1959 (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. EEng 00:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20234703.html
  2. ^ https://www.kennedyhomestead.ie/the-homecoming/

Profiles in Courage

Considering how prominently the existing article lists “Profiles in Courage” among JFK’s accomplishments, that the book was ghost-written should not be tucked away deep in the chronology. 108.52.80.126 (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The mention is sufficient. Kierzek (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2022

He swam 0.5 miles to Naru, not .5 miles. 2600:1702:AE0:2F50:259D:78D:BE2F:A0CD (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Hmmm. I'm seeing other sources giving a figure of 1/2 mile. Not sure which source to believe. EEng 20:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC) Just kidding. I made the change you suggested.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2022

Change "marine" to "Marine". Bryanm1971 (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. It appears to be correctly capitalized. Is there a specific usage you're seeing that is incorrect? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Common hypocorism

@Turin07: I agree that JFK being the president with the shortest life span may be a "reaching stat", but it is surely sourceable, and commonly known to the public, that JFK's family called him Jack. I carefully read MOS:NICKNAME several times, and this does not seem to fall into any category of what we should do or avoid. We also need to use "Jack" in the text to disambiguate him from his brother farther down in the paragraph on Choate prep school. Therefore I propose restoring the nickname to the lead:

John Fitzgerald Kennedy (May 29, 1917 – November 22, 1963), often referred to by his initials JFK and by friends and family as Jack, was an American politician who served as the 35th president of the United States from 1961 until his assassination near the end of his third year in office.

JustinTime55 (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 "Too long" tag

It appears that there has not been definitive discussion regarding the size of this article and the "Too long" tag in the heading (placed there in June 2022). Of course, there is a lot to talk about, but does anyone have any suggestions for outsourcing or condensing any of this material? The one section "Journalism and personal diary" seems trivial to me, and honestly seems better placed somewhere else such as Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death, which is what the section predominantly discusses anyway. Other sections could probably be condensed as well. Any suggestions? TNstingray (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree that the entry from the personal diary is extremely trivial and has no real value here. I have removed it accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2022

JFK was the youngest person elected President however Theodore Roosevelt was the youngest person to assume the president. 2600:1004:B051:DE47:AD0C:8EAE:1CDE:116C (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Article already mentions this. "Forty-three years old, Kennedy was the youngest person ever elected to the presidency (though Theodore Roosevelt was a year younger when, as vice-president, he succeeded to the presidency after the assassination of William McKinley in 1901).[136]" Cannolis (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Mr. President

"Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe, and John F. Kennedy talk during the president's May 19, 1962, early birthday party, where Monroe publicly serenaded Kennedy with "Happy Birthday, Mr. President". Change "serenades" to "sang to". 96.248.74.197 (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Why? If ever there was a serenade, that was one. EEng 03:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_F._Kennedy/Archive_10&oldid=1159196987"