Talk:John F. Kennedy/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

2 Chambers of Congress, not 2 "Houses"

This is a small one - at the end of the first paragraph:

_{A Democrat, Kennedy represented Massachusetts in both houses of the U.S. Congress prior to his presidency.}

I think chambers might be more appropriate than houses of the U.S. Congress.

Coloquially I know we'll often refer to "The 2 Houses", but I would imagine chambers is clearer to most. If only because we'll more often hear the House and Senate. We don't say "The 2 Senates" either, although that could also be loosely correct.

Thank you, hopefully this is a quick one. King Alfreid (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Age

Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt (aka "TR") remains THE YOUNGEST POTUS ever — NOT JFK.

The statement made by the White House Historical Association that "At age 43, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was the youngest person ever elected to the presidency," is substantially INCORRECT. (SEE: https://www.whitehousehistory.org/collections/the-kennedy-white-house-1961-1963)

When TR succeeded to office following the assassination of POTUS William McKinley on September 14, 1901, Roosevelt was aged 42 years 10 months 19 days.

When Kennedy was elected POTUS on November 8, 1960, he was aged 43 years 5 months 11 days; when sworn into office on January 20, 1961 he was aged 43 years 7 months 23 days; and when assassinated he was aged 46 years 5 months 25 days.

In NO CASE was JFK the youngest POTUS to be: 1.) Elected as POTUS, or; 2.) Sworn in as POTUS.

The correction should be noted and made in the article's opening paragraph. M.B.D. (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

As you so correctly pointed out, but apparently did not understand, when "TR" took office following the assassination of William McKinley, he was not elected to that office. He assumed the office, per the presidential succession. "TR" was not elected to office until 1904, not 1901. In 1904, when he was elected to office, "TR" was 46. In 1960, when JFK was elected to office, he was 43. Last I checked, 43 is younger than 46. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Ohhh! That's very different! Never mind. EEng 22:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC) P.S. Are you sure 43 is younger than 46?

JFK did his undergraduate at Princeton and then Harvard. Should we include his non degree granting institution?

Yes. We do it for Obama, so it's difficult to under why we would not do it here. @SNUGGUMS: claims WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't convincing here, but that's because he is misinterpreting the essay on when citing that essay is valid and when it's not. WP:OTHERSTUFF is clear that when an editor is citing that essay its validity isn't based on @SNUGGUMS: personal judgment, but rather whether the other thing being cited is in "accord[ance] to consensus or policies and guidelines" or "in violation of them." Simply put, it's not enough that SNUGGUMS personally opposes the Obama precedent, he needs to prove the Obama page is wrong to cite his colleges that are not Columbia and Harvard. That Occidental College needs to be removed because it is wrong to include it pursuant to established rules. His finding my invocation of "similar pages or contents exist and [thus] have precedential value" as unconvincing is irrelevant. Finally, he cites that JFK was not at Princeton for a full semester, but this argument is also defeated by simply noting that over at Abby Elliott her college is cited in her infobox even though she was only at college for a semester. In other words, either the countless other pages are wrong, or this page is wrong and it's this page. When people come to this page and look at the college education of Kennedy, let's not lie to them. We don't when they go to Obama, and SNUGGUMS erroneous arguments should not stand in the way of this. It's a very minor edit at its core. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I wouldn't include Occidental for Obama's infobox either when the field should be saved for places one gets degrees/graduates from. There also is no need to repeat yourself in different ways in this thread. My point was that just because one other page makes a subpar choice doesn't mean we should replicate it here. JFK didn't stay at Princeton for long. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

IIRC Kennedy didn't even finish his first semester at Princeton, so I'd bet Princeton itself doesn't consider him an alumnus. We list education for the influence it may have had on subject. The influence here is tiny at best, and certainly not infobox-worthy. It's not that he didn't earn a degree there so much as he didn't stay long enough to need to change his bedsheets. EEng 18:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I think that's a reasonable view, that the Obama page is erroneous therefore we should not replicate it. I repeated myself because I believe the exact same rationale repudiated both of your points. However, if your argument is that we should not replicate the Obama page because that page has engaged in error, then I support that. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying we shouldn't follow the errors used in that page, and would support amending Obama's infobox as well. EEng is correct that JFK dropped out from Princeton before the end of his one and only semester there. It's very minor compared to the time spent at Harvard. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

CIA Involvement in Assassination

So why hasnt anything regarding the CIA being directly involved in the JFK assassination been added to the page? I mean, the CIA themselves declassified a bunch of documents over the last 12 months that detail their full involvement thoroughly down to choosing a scapegoat. Most of this information has been online for a year now and hasn't been updated, but if I change "Rachel Levine's" name to his real name Richard Levine its manually rolled back almost instantly. 2A02:C7C:BF30:2000:D8FF:1166:CDAA:85B1 (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Probably because everyone's sick and tired of hearing some guy claim they have proof that [not-Oswald] shot JFK. Provide the CIA docs, if they exist. CitationsFreak (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

You can seek consensus about adding specific info that is verified with specific reliable sources that back up the claim. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The CIA involvement was publicly declassified last year on the CIA Docs and Government Docs websites. It made global news, its undeniable at this point.

There are numerous articles, and numerous PDFs available to download directly from CIAdocs. Including this one... which states mostly all of the witnesses involved worked for the CIA https://www.cia.gov/static/9a38d5a70e38c768763718c45d98a092/Lie-That-Linked-CIA.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjMv92648iCAxURTkEAHQZmBvoQFnoECA4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1TjGl8nUwQG38M-X83AOFI

This one that states the FBI and CIA deliberately concealed facts behind the assassination https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/104-10435-10034.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjMv92648iCAxURTkEAHQZmBvoQFnoECBEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0T9Bspji3ksb9QoSlMM9qy

There's also this https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1c.html&ved=2ahUKEwjMv92648iCAxURTkEAHQZmBvoQFnoECBoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2AQiMmP0gSfcwrjT5xPFqR

I mean, the article on here, Wikipedia still lists Lee Harvey Oswald as the shooter. A guy who was under surveillance for months by the CIA beforehand... and they even admitted they couldn't find any kind of link to him and the assassination https://www.newsweek.com/jfk-assassination-files-live-updates-us-release-thousands-documents-1767431&ved=2ahUKEwiksujO5MiCAxUPV0EAHWDjBCg4FBAWegQIDxAB&usg=AOvVaw2DPxiEDuOIFkrIa3FYigQq

13,173 records released in the last year related to the JFK assassination. More than half of which directly detail the CIA involvement... that alongside the legal cases that presided over the situation that directly dictated the CIA were involved after lengthy trial... proves that all you nerds on Wikipedia base things solely off your left wing bias and opinion and not off the facts themselves. I know nobody here read all 13000 documents and pulled the truth because none of this article has been changed... most of the sources linked are directly from US government websites, national archive and CIAdocs mostly... 2A02:C7C:BF30:2000:707D:842D:95A6:6821 (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. There probably should be something further mentioned about the declassified content; but we should only use reliable secondary sources to verify that content and its interpretation given the potential controversy around the interpretation of primary sources. It could be done at Assassination of John F. Kennedy rather than this article; although I hesitate to edit any FA article. The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 would also be an acceptable place to include content, and might be the best place as the document release is tied to that act. There is some quality reporting in New York Magazine, Times of Israel, The New York Times, CNN, BBC, The Guardian, The Washnington Post etc. There's also some discussion by an expert at UVA in UVA News. Opinions appear to be diverse regarding the significance of the declassified documents. There are certainly valid criticisms made over lack of CIA transparency in RS, and that the CIA knew far more about Oswald than what they led the public to believe previously. That is verifiable to the sources above. However, most of the sources also state that direct CIA involvement in the assassination isn't provable; and that CIA involvement, while closer to the event than previously known, was tangential. The New York magazine piece is the most critical of CIA involvement among the RS. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Question About Assassination

Are you quite sure about the wounds JFK sustained during his assassination? The medics who treated him noted only two wounds; one small wound to the neck, which they believed to be the entrance wound, and a massive wound to the back of his skull, out of which part of his brain was blown. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

First President born in the 20th century

I believe the detail should be added in the page that JFK was the first person to take presidential office that was born in the 20th century 2605:A601:AD7B:9200:8CF5:9FD8:A2D9:7B91 (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done this is a very minor detail about him (especially compared to his political views/actions in office), too trivial to include. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Length

At nearly 19k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. See WP:TOOBIG. Detailed content should be condensed or moved to subarticles. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree it's too long to read, but no one seriously proposes that articles are read from top to bottom. I see no problem navigating -- that's what a TOC is for. EEng 21:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Tbh just use a text to speech reader Weegie69 (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hatnote

John Kennedy redirects to this page, even though that name does not unambiguously mean John F. Kennedy, with the junior Senator from Louisiana coming up first for that search term in Google at the present. As such, at the very least, I think we should include a link to John Neely Kennedy in the hatnote, and I'd argue that moving John Kennedy (disambiguation) to John Kennedy would be a sensical move as well.

Is there any consensus for this change? Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The DAB link currently used at in the referral note contains each of these men among other John Kennedys, thus helping minimize clutter at the top of this page, and that search bit might be a case of WP:Recentism. The other guys you mention either way have nowhere near as much historical fame as the president here and he remains the primary topic for that name. I would guess the second most famous one is his son JFK Jr., and the others don't even come close. Chances are any attempt to move the page would be quickly rejected as a result. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I see your point, but I disagree. There is no doubt that JFK is clearly more historically famous and relevant than Sen. Kennedy of Louisiana. But JFK is most commonly known as "John F. Kennedy" -- he is referred to this way so commonly that by just merely saying "John Kennedy" one makes a noticeable deviation from the common-name by omitting the "F" that it can plausibly interpreted that the speaker is not referring to JFK (Kennedy of LA is known nationally as just "John Kennedy"). This is why I think John Kennedy is ambiguous; there is a present-day nationally-known figure who goes by that name exactly, and a more prominent historical figure who went by a variation of that. And John Kennedy of LA is no small fish either; in the absence of his presidential doppelgänger, he would have a compelling claim to be the primary subject, as do most U.S. senators.

Since anyone who stumbles upon this page after being redirected from "John Kennedy" could plausibly be looking for the senator, I don't think it is unreasonable at all to link to John Neely Kennedy specifically in the hatnote, rather than to a general DAB page. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

And I agree the calculus would be different if the 35th potus was known by the common name "John Kennedy". But he's not. The unusual act of removing the F makes Kennedy of Louisiana a plausible target. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Here's my specific proposal. In the hatnote we already have: "JFK" redirects here. For the airport in New York City with the IATA code JFK, see John F. Kennedy International Airport. For other uses, see JFK (disambiguation).

I think we should use the same format and add this:

"John Kennedy" redirects here. For the United States Senator from Louisiana, see John Kennedy (Louisiana Politician). For other uses, see John Kennedy (disambiguation). Peter L Griffin (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, being commonly referred to with a middle initial doesn't negate how he's easily the most famous Kennedy to have a first name of John. I can't foresee his status as primary topic changing without any other John Kennedys even running for POTUS. It feels odd to single out one specific man when the DAB page already lists him and others with similar names. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Since you insist on reverting my edit to the John Kennedy DAB page, I think this hatnote edit here is all the more pressing; with out it, someone would have to read the entire hatnote, click the link, and scroll past 27 other John Kennedies, most of whom are irrelevant and completely marginal characters.

This is a U.S. Senator we're talking about. Imagine if Joe Manchin or Raphael Warnock redirected to another page, you had to find one of three DAB links in the hat note, and scroll past 27 other people before getting to the page about the senator.

Given that we explicitly link to JFK the airport, I don't think linking to John Kennedy the senator is unreasonable in the slightest. Peter L Griffin (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:John Kennedy (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Flight training in 1944

John F. Kennedy received flight training in 1944 at the Embry-Riddle Float School. 10 flights prior to soloing a Piper Cub J-3 on floats on his 27th birthday.

ERAU historian solves JFK flight mystery - AOPA https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2018/may/30/erau-historian-solves-jfk-mystery 57.140.48.28 (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2024

John Freaky Kennedy Johnfreakykennedy (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2024 (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. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 12:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

This is an acceptable and very good edit 208.118.175.250 (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2024

to edit where it says that jfk is the youngest president he was the second youngest my a few months. Doomer100m (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Roosevelt was the youngest to serve as president, but he was sworn in after McKinley's assassination and was not elected until 3 years later. Kennedy was the youngest elected, which is what the article currently says. Jamedeus (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Editing the Health section

There is an awkwardness in this section regarding the three physicians who treated Kennedy.

George Burkley is first identified as Kennedy's "physician" but later as the President's "primary White House physician." I think the more detailed description of Burkley should come first (as should always be the case but sadly is often not, as I've seen in many other articles).

The really needed change is in regard to Burkley's determination that Jacobson and Travell were providing "medically inappropriate" treatments. It says in the article that Jacobson's involvement in treating the President was unknown to the other two doctors. In that case, how could Burkley have made a diagnosis regarding Jacobson's treatment, if he didn't know Jacobson was treating Kennedy?

It must be that Jacobson's involvement eventually came to the attention of Burkley and Travell, or at least to Burkley's attention. If so, simply inserting the phrase "at first" in the fourth paragraph, where Jacobson is first mentioned and his involvement is described as unknown to the other two doctors, could resolve the problem. Rontrigger (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"Material" misspelled

Misspelled material as "materiel", in the third paragraph of "Cuban Missile Crisis", under "Presidency (1961-1963)". Please correct.

"On October 22, after privately informing the cabinet and leading members of Congress about the situation, Kennedy announced the naval blockade on national television and warned that U.S. forces would seize "offensive weapons and associated materiel" that Soviet vessels might attempt to deliver to Cuba." DarthScrub (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

See wikt:materiel. EEng 17:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

You learn something new everyday. Thank you. DarthScrub (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)