Talk:John F. Kennedy/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about John F. Kennedy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

wrong link

sorry I would have edited myself, but I don't have an user.

Please edit the link in the 2nd cite note.

http://www.pulitzer.org/faq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.250.44.113 (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the link. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sense?

In the "Memorials" section (ref. 62), one of the bullets reads, "The first school in the United States named after had been the Kennedy Middle School, in Cupertino, California, while he was alive." You, as well as me, can guess that this doesn't make sense. I suggest changing it to read: "The first school in the United States named after him, while he was alive, was Kennedy Middle School, in Cupertino, California." Or something along those lines. I changed "had been" to "was" because I felt that "had been" suggests that the schools name has since been changed, in which case, to my knowledge, it has not.

Also, in the third paragraph from the beginning of the page, please change "Lee Harvey Oswald was charged with the crime and was murdered two days later by Jack Ruby before he could be put on trial." to "Lee Harvey Oswald was charged with the crime but was murdered two days later by Jack Ruby before he could be put on trial." Thanks. // Jugis (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I have the correct permissions now. // Jugis (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Family Life

It seems very strange that there is no section on his family, given how important Kennedy's family was, and the iconic status of his wife, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. I'm going to address this. Gacggt (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Inauguration Speech

Need an opinion on adding YouTube links? Found quite a few there...like: Kennedy's Inauguration Address on YouTube. Opinions? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming C-SPAN owns the copyright on it, in which case, no, we can't link it. faithless (^speak) 04:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If CSPAN themselves uploaded it, and we are going to the CSPAN source, why can't we link to it? I don't see that as a copyvio any more than linking to an NYT article (which of course is copyrighted by the NYT). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that I give it a little bit of thought, you may just be right. Links directly to YouTube are generally frowned upon, but sine C-SPAN uploaded it, it may be permissible. faithless (^speak) 05:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Category for Kennedy Administration

There is now a category for his administration as this seemed to be a big gap in the series for 20th century presidents: Category:Kennedy Administration (and it was missing for the "Years in Vietnam" Category).

But it could use some Category:Kennedy Administration personnel names apart from LBJ! Hugo999 (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Page locked.

Stop being silly over this and talk it out here. No comment on the section. Kwsn (Ni!) 20:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Glancing at page history, looks like it's a matter of Big P from one side and Binksternet and Plazak from another. I'm about to restore JFK's tribute to Presidential Medal of Freedom in Domestic politics subsection, as it's widely covered. Brand спойт 23:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have concerns about these portions of the article:

Regarding Jack Ruby, the phrase "Yet, in an ironic and somewhat suspicious turn of events" should be deleted.
Regarding Executive Order No. 11110, the paragraph "If enough of those silver certificates were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. That situation would have been catastrophic for the Federal Reserve, while at the same time prove to be a blessing for the actual country" is supported only by a blog-style message board entry. These sentences need either a more expert, published and mainstream analysis as reference or they should be deleted.
Similarly, the paragraph "Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, as it would have eliminated the U.S. government's need to pay interest on the loans it took out with regards to the national currency. Mysteriously enough, the silver certificates halted in circulation shortly after Kennedy's death." is not supported at all. Buh-bye.
Following that, the paragraph "Even more striking, is that Executive Order No. 11110 was never repealed by any U.S. President through an Executive Order and is still valid, yet no one has used it to help reduce deficit." is referenced only by a list of JFK's orders by date. This reference supports only that the order was given and that it was never revoked. I think the phrases "even more striking" and "yet no one has used it to help reduce deficit" should be deleted.
Regarding JFK's changes to the Presidential Medal of Freedom, I have two minor problems with the entry: The placement in the article should NOT be under the heading Civil liberties and the supporting reference should be of higher quality than the blog-style essortment.com essay. Binksternet (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll place it directly in the Domestic politics and there are other sources, such as JFK Library. Brand спойт 08:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Lem Billings

In the section regarding Choate, I think it would be useful to mention Lem Billings and he met there, quickly becoming very close and life-long friends. The page on Lem_Billings as well as mentioned in Dallek's An Unfinished Life (http://www.amazon.com/Unfinished-Life-John-Kennedy-1917-1963/dp/0316172383) Billings was a confidant of JFKs all his life.

From the Billing's wikipedia page is this: Jackie Kennedy, who liked Billings for the most part, commented to a White House usher, "He (Lem) has been a house guest every weekend of my married life." However, the relationship between the two men was friendship. "It’s the story of a really close friendship — and one of the guys just happened to be what we think of today as gay," Pitts said.

I don't necessarily know that the mention of Jackie thinking Lem was gay is necessary or germane to the conversation, but he is worth mentioning as I looked for him in JFK's page while listening to Dallek's book.

Vargob (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Misspelling

hightened (sic) is misspelt.

Fixed! Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

A recent edit misinterpreted the statement, John F. Kennedy became the first President to fly in his own jet aircraft [1] (emphasis added) Previously, propeller aircraft were used to fly the presidents. Jehochman ^Talk 08:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

not very encyclopedic. This particular plane came on duty in Kennedy's term so he was the first president to fly in it? Big deal. If that's what Wiki says he's famous for, it diminishes his stature. Rjensen (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That too! I was pointing out why a statement that had been added, and then removed, was incorrect.Jehochman ^Talk 09:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Executive Order 11110

I think this order and its possible ties with his assassination should be added. Here is some more information: http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.htm Mustanggt5000 (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Mustanggt5000

The order itself is already here in this article. The conjecture about its possible ties to his assassination is not. This is a high profile article! References need to be higher quality than the one you point to—they'll publish anything they like without checking facts. If you find something better to support a quote about conjecture, you would probably want to go over to John F. Kennedy assassination and add it. There's nothing at all about the order over there. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Bay of Pigs

The failure of the Bay of Pig was not, as the JFK article states, because of "The failure of the plan originated in a lack of dialog among the military leadership." The invasions success hinged on three air strikes to take out Castro's meager air force. After news of the first air strike became public, Kennedy panicked because he was afraid the world would find out about U.S. involvement. So, to save his own skin,Kennedy canceled the final two air strikes. This left the CIA advisers and the U.S. trained Cuban insurgents at the mercy of Castro's old planes. The invading forces on the beach had no anti-aircraft guns because they were not expected to be battling air power. Hence, when Kennedy was shot, it was rumored that the CIA might have some involvement. But then again, it was also rumored that the Mafia, Cuban refugees, Castro, Russia, husbands of all the wives with whom Kennedy slept, and all the other people he knifed in the back were involved in his death. Mjpriz1 (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Secret Society Speech

Why they are no mention to this very important speech? http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#Address_before_the_Press_.281961.29 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs5ldP6pRC4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 17:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Addison's disease

It's been argued that JFK's healthy tan could very well be due in part to his Addison's disease. Addison's results in hyperpigmentation and can leave darker skin even if well controlled due to persitent high levels of ACTH hormone. Given that Kennedy's healthy appearance was a big factor in his televisual appeal, maybe this could be an interesting point for a Kennedy-enthusiast to look into (I don't have any articles to hand myself) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.156.90 (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy wasn't shot three times

{{editsemiprotected}}

The John F. Kennedy page, under the assassination section says, "He was shot once in the back, once in the neck and was killed with a final shot to the head." This makes it sound like Kennedy was shot three times. As far as I know, no non-conspiracy version of the assassination says Kennedy was hit by more than two shots. One shot, the first to hit him, struck him in the upper back and exited about where the knot of his tie rested against his throat. He was not "shot in the neck." This all may be a bad choice of words, or it may be intended to support a conspiracy version of events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arizona008 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 3 July 2009

Done Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the accuracy of this article. Normally, using the {{editsemiprotected}} template requires a "please change X to Y" level of detail and factual changes require a reliable source to support the facts. Since the main article for that section supports your change and has reliable sources, I'll just remove the inaccuracy. If you would like different wording, please suggest one here. Thanks again. Celestra (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting History

Some bits missed of history missed out and some bit written twice, thats what I call rewriting history!

Why not mention his affairs? I don't know if it's true or not but the one thing everyone will tell you is that he was having an affair with Marilyn Monroe, why is it not in the article? If its not true it at least need acknowledging that it has been alleged.

Why does the article inform me twice in two adjacent paragraphs that his first child was still born?

And this little gem is wrong in so many ways: "One of the fundamental aspects of the Kennedy family is a tragic strain which has run through the family, as a result of the deaths of many of its members" I have no Grandparents does this mean my family suffers from a tragic strain? How do you define a tragic strain? And once defined are we sure that it caused the deaths of many of the family members? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.194.27 (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Military service rank

On this article it shows in Kennedy's military service in the info box it says that Kennedy's rank was Lieutenant by shows the insignia for Captain. Is there a reason for this? I'm still pretty sure it's an error. Cheers!--Martin (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In the Navy, that is the rank insignia of a Lieutenant. It is the insignia of a Captain in the Army, Air Force, and Marines. A naval Captain has the full bird insignia. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

search term?

Why don't I get this page, or a link to this page, when I type in "kennedy"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.164.169 (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You do. That search term leads you to a disambiguation page, where this article is linked to in the opening paragraph. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam

The current wiki entry on Kennedy in Vietnam contains questionable material on Kennedy's inclination to withdraw in 1963. The text cites National Security document 263, which indicates a discussion about the possibility of removing some U.S. advisors. As a number of scholars have argued, this doesn't provide any compelling proof that Kennedy wanted to limit U.S. troop presence, and in fact the document reasserts JFK's determination to support the Diem government.

As disturbing, the present text uses Fog of War, Errol Morris's terrific film, as proof that Kennedy planned to withdraw. At the least, more evidence is needed beyond Robert McNamara's memories. Better still, however, this section should be removed or rewritten to indicate the nature of discussion. I am also disturbed by the implication that Lyndon Johnson assumed a more aggressive posture in 1963/early 1964 in Vietnam.

This information came to my attention when one of my students used it in a paper. I think we can edit this piece to suggest the more nuanced approach most historians present. Any ideas about this? Anyone agree or disagree? ````mmay89 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmay89 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact is LBJ did "assume a more aggressive posture." First with his own NSAM #273 on November 26, 1963 reversing the minor withdraw considered by JFK. (ofcourse one is only talking about approx. 1,000 so don't "boot-strap" a full withdraw guys from that). Second, after the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" in Aug. 1964 (that was based on a false pretext, as Johnson later admitted), he got passed the "Southeast Asia Resolution" (and away we went on the road to direct combat action). The text is cited; certainly one can always add to it but be objective.Kierzek (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Cabinet/Administration

Please add Robert F. Kennedy as Attorney General 1961-1963 as Attorney General is a Cabinet position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkoling (talk • contribs) 13:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Done...Kierzek (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This link should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Ladd (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A comment needs to be deleted

Some moron wrote the following under the template on the top right of the article:

"Died November 22, 1963 (aged 46) He got his ass shot his head fell over hahahaha lolsz"

I've tried to delete it but I can't access the template through the article's "edit this page." Can anyone who knows how please delete it? 71.84.35.97 (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The comment was thankfully reverted by Tide rolls.--JayJasper (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Affairs

Wikipedia is not a tabloid, yes, but it is odd that there is no mention of his affairs under the Image, social and family section. He's quite well-known for this now. It is odd especially in light of the paragraph under "Children" which talks extensively about a man who may or may not be JFK's son and may or may not be having DNA tests done.--Gloriamarie (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That paragraph has been removed from the Children section- it is an uncorroborated story that the claimant's own family disputes; without corroboration it is not notable as part of this biography. Tvoz/talk 06:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I found it really odd too. His was a known philanderer yet this article doesn't even mention it. Here's a recent article that talks about his sex addition more explicitly:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article6099083.ece JettaMann (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The level of scholarship shown in that Times article doesn't meet the needs of this page. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The section "Image, social life and family" does not mention neither his womanizing nor his constant health problems, although both have definitely played an instrumental role in shaping JFK's life and personality. Without going to extremes in terms of sources, Robert Dallek's very balanced An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963 has many references to both his philandering and health issues. Shouldn't the reader know for instance that JFK has been close to death up to receiving extreme auction three times in his life (1947, 1951 and 1953)? Similarly, his affairs with Mary Pinchot Meyer, Judith Exner or Ellen Romesch should deserve at least a sentence. Any opinion on this before I add some sentences? Alex Zivoder (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If one is going to start mentioning different women he may (or may not) have been with then one would have to do it for Martin Luther King, Jr.; LBJ, FDR, Eleanor Roosevelt and Eisenhower (affair in WWII with his driver, Kay Summersby), etc. Further, would one also have to go into Pres. Grover Cleveland and the fact he may have produced a child "out of wed-lock." Where does one draw the line. This is a slippery slope to go down; and my point is mainly that if you do it for one (JFK), you must do it for all.Kierzek (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)kierzek

here's where people draw the line: A high official puts his official position at risk through secret sexual activities that if discovered would likely undermine his political base and perhaps force his resignation. This covers for example the current (Paterson) and previous (Spitzer) governor or New York (Paterson solved the problem by dropping the secrecy and announcing his affairs when he took office.) Rjensen (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There is more to it then that. I am talking about fairness in entries reported on and an objective balance in reporting (that can be confirmed). The entries made for this web-site are not a tabloid or tell-all book. And if it is about a high official (at some point) engaging in activities for which they may (at some point) be subject to political problems then it could be activities that happen years before they took office or when they are in office. The entries on this web-site are for an overview; people who are interested can read other web-sites noted or any of the range of books cited in the entry for JFK or others related to him. Therein one can learn much more then what is written here (even if the bias or views put forth, may or may not be confirmed as they should).Kierzek (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia this article fails badly. EVERY serious biographer and scholar has dealt with the topic as a major factor in understanding JFK--it is being covered up here simply for POV reasons. Rjensen (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Covered up?" This isn't Watergate. But I leave it to others to further comment and I stand by my points made as to how these subject matters should be handled as far as consideration to all who are featured herein (see examples I name above).Kierzek (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

According to telegraph, a Miss Alford had an affair with JFK. Maybe this is important to mention. [2] --Sarteto (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue should certainly be covered, but without overdoing it, or giving undue weight to every woman looking for 15 minutes of reflected fame. As for articles on other presidents, there is no reason to wait for them to improve before we improve this one. Plazak (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there is no need to list all his afairs, but the important ones and the fact he had many should be mentioned! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.153.179 (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, his image as a philander should be mentioned. Anyone who is old enough knows this. It's not even a question of verifiability. His image was very clear to everyone, and that was as someone who really got around. --Rabid Monkeys Eat Grass 01:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This topic does seem to have been kept off limits in the body of the article itself. The article is fairly sanitized, in regards to the affairs and in other areas. An affair which does seem relevant here, simply because she is named in the article, is the Marilyn Monroe long-term relationship (he knew her well since the late 1940s), which has been documented in many books and articles. It seems to be a fact of history, and to remove it from this historical account of the life of this president may echo the non-reporting of this data in the 1960s, even though most Washington reporters seem to have known of the Monroe affair and of many other affairs in regards to the Kennedy's. I personally find the John Kennedy-Marilyn Monroe relationship to be quite iconic, and maybe enough time has passed now that the attitude of the reporters of the early '60s does not have to be duplicated here. Randy KrynRandy Kryn (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above back in April 2009, it has to do with objective balance and certainly good cited entries. It has nothing to do with how the press used to keep such common ways "off the record" as it did for many besides JFK (see above for a short list). BTW-Randy, I thought the way you wrote it before had better wording but the entry still needs to be cited.Kierzek (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Misspelling

"JFK, Jackie, and the Connellys in the Presidential limousine before the assassination." It should be "Connallys." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.172.249.11 (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your correction has been made to the article. Thanks for pointing that out. Abrazame (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Camelot

Should not this article — somewhere — make reference to the term "Camelot" as the term is applied to Kennedy, his family, his administration, and the time period? If it is in the article, I did not see it. Thoughts? Thanks. (Joseph Spadaro (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

inconsistency

in the intro to the article it says "He was the second-youngest President (after Theodore Roosevelt), the first President born in the 20th century, and the youngest elected to the office, at the age of 43". He was not the youngest elected to office if Teddy was who was 42.--67.86.120.246 (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Teddy Roosevelt was not elected to office for his first term, he took office after McKinley was assassinated. Thus, there is no contradiction, JFK was the youngest president elected to the office. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mark for edit

The third footnote needs it link updated to http://www.pulitzer.org/faq#q21

Unitepunx (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. (Sort of. Design of that site seems to point to the FAQ after the one referenced in the URL, so using http://www.pulitzer.org/faq#q20 points to the correct #21.) Fat&Happy (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The section "Civil liberties" contains a mention of J. Edgar Hoover which I think should link to the article about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PHolder2010 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Abrazame (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead Infobox Image

I think it should be replaced with File:Jfk2.jpg for various reasons. I generally dislike most recolored portraits (as the current one looks to be recolored, and is blurry, with lots of lossy compression artifacts), while the black and white portrait seems to be the best formal portrait of him, and is more detailed. Connormah (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

To me, the monochrome image you selected looks like it has gone through too many changes of format. Its dynamic range is horribly reduced, with the dark areas far too light and a great loss of detail in, for instance, the disappearance of pinstripes from JFK's right shoulder. I'm certain the original photo from that portrait session would be PERFECT, but this version we have has passed through too many hands. It was at one time printed on paper (the Warren Commission report) and then scanned. Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

How could it be improved? I think this one is more suited for the infobox. Connormah (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I jumped over to the Library of Congress website to see what they had, and found only this image with blown out contrast and unsatisfyingly poor detail. I don't know where to find the original high resolution, fine detail, presidential portrait images that should belong to all Americans and thus be in public domain. Binksternet (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Try WHHOPortrait.jpg. I'd do it myself, but haven't ever uploaded any images to WP and spent enough time searching "Help" on other topics today... Fat&Happy (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Above photo was already uploaded to WP. Substituted image in Infobox. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick Bryant

Nick Bryant's in-depth study of Kennedy and race relations has been well received by scholars. For example, writing in the American Library Association reviews, Elliot Mandel says, "Through manuscripts, letters, exclusive interviews, and audiotape recordings, Bryant illuminates the play-by-play between politicians and activists surrounding election campaigns, speeches, meetings, and legislation at every civil rights-related turn of Kennedy's public service....A meticulously researched volume." That means the book meets Wikipedia standards. Furthermore, it is in line with other scholarly studies that show Kennedy's high priority was the needs of white southern Democrats in Congress.Rjensen (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Many books receive good reviews even when authors write from a certain point of view. And, ofcourse, one can cite other authors that would state opposite conclusions. The fact is that Civil Rights was in the early 1960's a very divisive, difficult issue for many Americans; especially for politicians' to deal with and the approach that Kennedy took was the majority approach of the liberals and Democratic party at the time. Did he show hesitancy to push harder and faster on the issue? Yes. However, by 1963 that was no longer the case. If you read historians Dallek and O'Brien you will get a balanced take that differ's from Bryant's conclusions' as to Kennedy's "high priority" in the late spring, onward in 1963 (as to civil rights). One must look for objectivity and consensus which is not shown here, thus far. The point is to have a balanced entry. Kierzek (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your argument supports his book as a valid source and I agree. I am not against using Bryant's book as a reference, what I'm against is stating his name and using a direct quote. There is no need to promote Bryant using this article as the springboard. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

We can use Bryant with his name in the footnote as Binksternet suggests--he should have made that change instead of repeatedly blanking text, which is a close to vandalism. Rjensen (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I never blanked the reference, I only blanked the direct quote which named Bryant overtly. Not at all vandalism—I think of my actions as preventing the thinning dissolution of this article.

Say, as long as we are examining that paragraph, my appreciation of it is that it is written inefficiently, with floppy prose that repeats. Here's the paragraph:

As President, Kennedy initially believed the grassroots movement for civil rights would only anger many Southern whites and make it even more difficult to pass civil rights laws through Congress, which was dominated by conservative Southern Democrats, and he distanced himself from it. As a result, many civil rights leaders viewed Kennedy as unsupportive of their efforts.

If I were to guess at the finer points of meaning as I trim the prose, I would come up with this:

Kennedy believed the activism of the civil rights movement stimulated opposition from conservative Southern Democrats in Congress, making it more difficult to pass progressive laws. He distanced himself from the movement, and many civil rights leaders viewed him as unsupportive.

Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Binksternet has a point that Bryant does not have to be promoted in the article. Anyways I think the issue of JFK and civil rights should be expanded here and sourced with more sources. The article I used as a reference deals with the Meredith enrollment crisis. It shows in very detailed fashion how JFK did not care about the issue at all and became involved only when the issue was medialized and became a "national issue". By the way the ultimate reason why James Meredith decided to apply to Ole Miss was his disappointment over the JFK's inaugural speech, which did not mention civil rights at all. Meredith believed Democrats should stand up for civil rights and by his application, he wanted to pressure the Kennedy government to be active in civil rights agenda. - Darwinek (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well in reading "Robert Kennedy and His Times", the events are covered in detail. Meredeth is said to have been energized by JFK's inaugural speech (but not in a negative way) and ironically is quoted as stating he might not have applied if Nixon had been elected. (page 317).Kierzek (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

He couldn't be motivated positively, as the inauguration speech did not address the black equality issue at all. Both statements are not in contradiction nonetheless. Meredith believed Democrats should embrace civil rights agenda, which was missing in JFK's speech. If Nixon would be elected he would probably not apply to Ole Miss, not believing in possible success of his application. - Darwinek (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Section

Why is the Federal Reserve section even in this article? The events referenced in this section are misrepresented and are only significant to conspiracy kooks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.66 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Retitled and substantially de-fanged by removal of OR. See if anyone thinks what's left is worth keeping. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

it's poor quality OR--originated by the editor and not in any of the Kennedy biographies.Rjensen (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Fat&Happy - your edit was an improvement, but I agree, there is no reason to keep it in the article; adds no real substance. Kierzek (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh,I completely agree. I was just in an uncharacteristically Be Meek! mood today, and opted for a minimalist fix and a wait-and-see attitude. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Civil Rights Act of 1957

Fat&Happy and I been looking into this for more detail as to JFK and LBJ. The NPOV info is pretty sparse. Schlesinger, who I cited from his RFK book states that JFK voted with LBJ on the bill. LBJ saw that the bill passed but it was a compromised one (as are almost all bills). The bill itself was seen as pretty weak overall and more needed to be done. The JFK library provides the section below but it is not detailed enough. I did find the cites of the editor who wanted to change what was in the article to be suspect. More input, guys, is needed. Kierzek (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Civil Rights – Immigration" section from the JFKlibrary.org.:

1960 – Motion to limit debate by invoking cloture on the Civil Rights filibuster (two-thirds majority required). Rejected 42-53 (D 30-33; R 12-20) March 10. Kennedy FOR.
1960 – Motion to table (kill) an amendment to civil rights bill to add Part III, empowering the Attorney General to seek injunction to protect any civil right. Tabling motion agreed to 55-38 (D 34-28; R 21-10) March 10. Kennedy AGAINST.
1960 – Motion to table (kill) an amendment to the bill to provide for court-appointed referees or Presidentially appointed enrollment officers to register voters after a court has found a pattern or practice of discrimination. Tabling motion agreed to 51-43 (D 27-35; R 24-8) March 24. Kennedy AGAINST.
1959 – Extend life of Civil Rights Commission for two years and appropriate $500,000 to it. Agreed to 7l-18 (D 43-17; R 28-1) Sept. 14. Kennedy FOR.
1957 – A point of order against a move to bypass the House-passed civil rights bill around the Senate Judiciary Committee. Rejected 39-45 (D 34-11; R 5-34) June 20. The rejection permitted the bill to go straight on the Senate calendar. Kennedy FOR.
1957 – Eliminate section of civil rights bill authorizing Attorney General to institute civil action for preventive relief in civil rights cases under the 14th Amendment. Agreed to 52-38 (D 34-13; R 18-25) July 24. Kennedy AGAINST.
1957 – Guarantee jury trials in all cases of criminal contempt and provide uniform methods of selecting federal court juries. Agreed to 51-42 (D 39-9; R 12-33) Aug. 2. Kennedy FOR.

After reading sections from three bios by historians: Dallek, Schlesinger, Jr. and O'Brien, I have written a section that explains the Act; votes in the Senate on sections of the bill by JFK and cleared up JFK's final vote which was FOR the compromised bill (with cites). Kierzek (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe LIES

Please delete the added Marilyn Monroe, "with whom Kennedy likely had a long-term relationship" -- for this is "likely" a LIE spread by the enemies that the Kennedy's made when they declared war on the mafia.

It is a fact that Marilyn Monroe had a relationship with Sam Giancana, a top mafia boss, and she even had a dog named 'maf' - short for mafia -- that he had given to her. If Monroe had an affair with Kennedy, there would be some sort of evidence, for the Mafia were trying to destroy their political career and looking for any dirt. No tapes, no video, nothing! Because it never happened. The only person who allegedly saw them together was Jeanne Carmen who had to move to Arizona after her life was threatened by the mafia (source: her wiki page). There is also a rumor that the Kennedy's had an affair with Judy Exner, Sam Giancana's long time girlfriend. That is very "unlikely". Do you make mention of every "likely" lie spread to smear the Kennedy's? Why stop at Marilyn Monroe? In an interview before her death, she even stated that she was surprised that they asked her to sing for the President.. "why would they want me?" She sure didn't sound like a woman who was having an affair with the President. I doubt the Kennedy's were stupid enough to have an affair with a woman who was being handled by the mafia and CIA to woo leaders from foreign countries. Nothing but lies. "Likely" Lies -- that is.

Very clever using the word "likely" but still very wrong and very misleading. There is no proof no evidence, nothing. It is LIKELY that there was no affair. There should be no slurs made about any Kennedy unless you have PROOF. Otherwise it is LIKELY a smear tactic and right wing lies, so just do away with that sentence please. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.206.13 (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

First Irish American President?

How can Kennedy be the first Irish-American President as the article states when Andrew Jackson's parents (and grand-parents) were actually born in Ireland? James Polk's ancestors also came from Ireland as did William McKinley's, U. S. Grant's, and even some of Theodore Roosevelt's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.192.176 (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Having checked only Jackson and Polk, who are both described as Scotch-Irish, my guess would be that "pure" Irish might view Prods from Ulster as not being Irish, but rather oppressive foreign invaders, so only a Catholic of ancient Irish descent would be considered an "Irish American". Currently, I have no comments as to whether this is accurate or NPOV, just hazarding a guess on the possible reasoning. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be more compelling to emphasize Kennedy being the first Catholic to hold the office - especially considering the inflammatory identity issues already mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogan53 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Only Roman Catholic President

Does the Article mention somewhere that he was the only Roman Catholic President so far? It should say that briefly at least. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

About two-thirds of the way through the second paragraph in the lead; nowhere in the main article (probably an MOS Lead violation), though the effects of his Catholicism on the campaign are discussed. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Too Long

I would recommend that the Biography of JFK and his Presidency be moved into seperate articles in order to shorten the article and make it easier to navigate. Jpatros 14:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpatros (talk • contribs)

Eponyms

Does the Kennedy Space center fit under the Eponyms section? Or do eponyms need to be full names? Lagomen (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Added Fat&Happy (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Illness?

Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but what about JFK's long degenerative illness? How it affected him during (according to Oxford Press' "From Colony to Superpower," US Foreign Policy Since 1776) his Vienna Summit seems like something Wikipedia should remark on. I see a short sentence remarking on childhood illness, and another short sentence on being diagnosed. Yet this was an incredibly important part of his life and what mistakes it caused JFK to make, well, who knows? Yet, at the very least, there's something there deserving of its own heading. Especially considering the irony, when JFK was presumed to be the healthier of the two in the Kennedy-Nixon debates but it was quite the opposite. So much to discuss, I feel, that isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.205.20 (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It was his back that he threw out just prior to the trip that really was the problem. Kierzek (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The "illness" I assume you mean is stated: "Years after his death, it was revealed that in September 1947, at age 30 and while in his first term in Congress, Kennedy was diagnosed by Sir Daniel Davis at The London Clinic with Addison's disease, a rare endocrine disorder. In 1966, his White House doctor, Janet Travell, revealed that Kennedy also had hypothyroidism. The presence of two endocrine diseases, Addison's Disease and hypothyroidism, raises the possibility that Kennedy had autoimmune polyendocrine syndrome type 2 (APS 2)." He would at times have to have injections or take pills for the Addison's which is still debated by some as to whether he truly had it or if he did, what affects it did or would have. Remember, this is an encyclopedia and NPOV is to be maintained as far as reasonableness of entries. Kierzek (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw that and thought it should be, at least, its own (expanded) section. Clickable from the top of the page? I understand the restraints Wikipedia faces with regards to NPOV, but I believe not having its own entry is regrettable. It's usually Wikipedia policy to include long, degenerative, life-long illnesses as its own section on bio pages. Especially when it comes to diseases whose affects could, obviously, alter decision making abilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.205.20 (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Is the coat of arms by User:Xanderliptak appropriate for this article? I understand that heraldry is more about the abstract symbols than the visual design, but Liptak's interpretation seems like quite a stretch thematically from the coat of arms actually presented to Kennedy. In accordance with WP:OR, any original art we use should be based on published material, and I think if we're going to include an illustration it should be comparable to the more authoritative examples. The goal is to provide the readers with the information (the visual meaning of the blazon), not impress them artistically. —Noisalt (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of Xanderliptak's other "creations" are under discussion at WikiProject Heraldry and at Talk:Pope Leo XIII#Arbitration. I haven't yet seen any article where his images of coats of arms have been welcomed by editors. It seems to be a massive exercise in massaging his own ego. I will not remove the image because that could be viewed as editwarring and wikistalking, but I would encourage its removal on OR (not to mention aesthetic) grounds. Scolaire (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Page Edit

{{editsemiprotected}} I recommend changing "The results of this investigation are disputed by many." to "Many dispute the results of this investigation." It's just better.

Not done: Actually, that makes it sounds like it is a one person claiming it, not the original which indicates multiple people have inputed. Thanks anyway. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 12:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The words under the photo "Portrait Of Jackie Kennedy" should be changed to "Photo Of Jackie Kennedy taken before the assassination on November 22, 1963" because that sad photo is not a portrait.

As to the official White House portrait of John F. Kennedy, a link to the official portrait site with additional information about the portrait would be helpful. Here is one suggested site: http://www.whitehousehistory.org/whha_pictures/presidentshouse_kennedy-01.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzhuh (talk • contribs) 10:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

His speech about global conspiracy (quoted in full) should also be here

His speech about global conspiracy (quoted in full) should also be in presidency section, as should be mentioned directive 001111 and all his actions towards freeing USA from FED, as those are likely reasons for which he's been assassinated. It is too important to be omitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.205.203 (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So long as the peech is accurate, feel free to add the transcript, whilst citing your sources of course.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Autopsy photos

A few autopsy photos are present over the internet. Should they be uploaded? Might help answer conspiracy theories, bullet impaction questions, why the shots killed him. The autopsy photos are mostly headshots, but wikipedia isn't censored--Cymbelmineer (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC).

First of all, you can't just upload any picture you find on the Internet; that has nothing to do with censorship, but rather copyright. Second, we are NOT here to "answer conspiracy theories, bullet impaction questions, why the shots killed him". We are here to publish an encyclopedic article which covers reliably sourced information that is published elsewhere. If you have a a specific image and/or a specific edit you'd like to add to the article, it's a good idea to propose it on this talk page. Finally, although it's true that Wikipedia is not censored, there are many other things it is WP:NOT, and putting a particular photo just because the encyclopedia isn't censored doesn't strike me as a valid reason to add it (copyright issues aside). If it adds to the article, that's great. If it doesn't...let's not go there. 03:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There are theories about JFK's death that aren't conspiratorial in nature or in theory. They are asked by large sections of the US population. Wikipedia might find consider it prudent to add it as part of the assasination article instead. (From which to my mind some of the info needs to be merged anyway, however, that's another story entirely).--Cymbelmineer (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

For starters, we need citations from reliable sources. We also need to be mindful of WP:FRINGE; just because citations exist doesn't mean they need to be in this (or any) article in Wikipedia. Frank | talk 14:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, the minutiae of Kennedys assassination, include the bullet to his head's pathway, and the tract of such a bullet is difficult to illustrate. Any fringe theories are, of course, chiefly able to be relegated to the footnotes and the margins of the article. I think that two autopsy photos could prtray the pathway of the bullet that killed Kennedy, IMHO, without supporting low-quality opinions, such as fringe or self-published theorems.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

First to include them in any article runs into several problems. First, the assassination is NOT the main topic of this bio article. Second, is the use of probably "non-free photos" which is a big thing here on Wikipedia (I have been on the losing end of that one). Third, WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY would come into play as to any addition as to both assassination and conspiracy wanted; along with consensus needed for the additions and photos wanted, as well. Remember, the burden to get consensus on controversial inclusions exists with the people wishing to include it. Kierzek (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ximmus, 16 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} There is an error under the military service sidebar. The listed rank held is Lieutenant, but the insignia picture to the left is Captain. The correct insignia should be one silver bar.

Ximmus (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done That is the correct insignia for a US Navy Lieutenant. Navy ranks are different from Army, Air Force and Marines. A Captain in the US Navy is an O-6. ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Southeast Asia Section - Paragraph Deletion

Please look at the 4th paragraph of this section; the topic is the hypothetical question of what would have developed in Vietnam if Kennedy had lived and been re-elected. Query - Should this remain in the article ? Isn't it more appropriate for inclusion in a Vietnam War article?Carmarg4 (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be mentioned here but as with other sections it can be trimmed. You have made some good additions to this article, Carmarg4, but we should go through and edit down portions. Given the many cites, references and footnotes readers can go on further in reading (research) if they are interested. I had a go at some tighting up of the section and moved some details to footnote status. Have a look. Kierzek (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this section, and for your compliment about the additions. I am 2/3 thru the Reeves book and once I finish filling in substance gaps, I was thinking of going back thru with an edit. Also, are you familiar with the c/e Guild ? (My own judgement is still under advisement.)Carmarg4 (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Some editing is a good idea. I made a trim as to some facts not really needed; and some detail I moved back to footnote, for flow. It was basically redundant with the summary sentence at beginning of the next paragraph therein. Kierzek (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the claim that the SV govt was installed by France. Diem was installed by Bao Dai and many leading French officials denounced him, and tried to take him out. The comment about SV being unstable is dubious as there were no changes in power except for a failed coup in 1960 and two failed assassinations of Diem. And about Diem not being much of an anti-communist, well he captured tens of thousands of them and put them in prison camps and made a law to make communism punishable by death "Law 10/59" and plenty were executed without a proper trial YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong word used

In the part of the article about Kennedy's military service, one sentence reads,"Kennedy was thrown across the deck, emasculating his spinal problems." I am sure that emasculating is an error. It should have been exacerbating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fresno61 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Article Length

Lincoln just completed an [failed] FAC and we got no concerns expressed about length at 130kb. Carmarg4 (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

See thoughts below. Kierzek (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Substantial but (hopefully) concise edit completed, concurrent with reading of Reeves biography, with sensitivity to the large size of the article. Suggestions on possible efficiencies...less detail in early life & education, in military career, and in early politics. Also, look at moving to Vietnam article the discussion in Southeast Asia section, of what hypothetically would have transpired there if JFK survived and re-elected.Carmarg4 (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I have done some cutting as to adjectives, etc. the last few days. I would not cut the military section, nor the hypothetical discussion section as to Southeast Asia as they are important and not that long. I would suggest trimming some of the Southeast Asia section beginning at paragraph: "In April of 1963..." through Forrestal's surmise. I did add (recently) the part as to Cable 243 (DEPTEL 23), which I thought was important; along with some explanation as to that timeframe. With that said, consider trimming some of that section and some of the lesser direct quotes in the article. For example, I added K was impressed with MLK, Jr.'s speech; added to it was a quote that is not really needed therein. Further, some details as to early life and education, I would agree could be trimmed. Kierzek (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal life redux

This has been discussed here before as it has on other talk pages, such as, MLK, Jr. Herein, I still have a problem with some of the wording recently put forth in part of that section. First, as it is now it is awkwardly placed together; it does not have good flow. Further, the subject matter in the end is allegations; some certainly are probably true; others possibly; but it cannot be quantified. In other words, there is no need to over-state the points; nor to include speculation and conjecture. The matter is generally accepted history as it is now with others, such as: Martin Luther King, Jr.; LBJ; FDR; Eisenhower, etc. The section as edited still conveys the points that are desired and in the end, it certainly can be said it was not the president's "finest hour". So, the issue should be covered but without giving undue weight to every possible number or person (and their "15 minutes of fame"). Kierzek (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

One thing missing here is that JFK's virility was a decided side effect from all the meds he was (legitimately) taking for his illnesses; but that said, the activity is factual from what I've read and K's own words on the topic deserve to be up front in the record. It's hard to conclude this is overstated based on the priority K gave it. I do think it's important to stick to the facts.Carmarg4 (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The whole truth of the matters asserted will never be totally known; facts are mixed in with allegations, speculation, conjecture and surmise. Just this week as you may have read, the new book (as of this writing): "The Kennedy Detail: JFK's Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence," co-authored by the former agent, Gerald "Jerry" Blaine, states JFK never had an affair with Marilyn Monroe. Now others "report" they did. As for JFK's off-hand remark, it can't be taken that serious; but is still there, as a footnote. Kierzek (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the ref to LSD supplier (no mention that K was recipient). I have also added the ref for drug side effects and re-instated K's only words on the subject, which should be part of this paragraph. Based on the space Reeves devoted to the topic (he's widely considered a balanced bio) five lines devoted to it in the article is not overweighting it. If these changes are objectionable, I don't feel the need to provide further input beyond this. The Reeves book has been a good read and I recommend it (not for those interested in the assassination as the book ends when the shots are fired in Dallas) RIP JFKCarmarg4 (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The mere volume or "space" an author or anyone devotes to a subject does not add to the substance of a subject matter. As for Reeves book, I rate it as "fair to middling" overall (three and 1/2 stars). The author does put forth some POV in speculation and conjecture as to K's thoughts/actions. As to this case, and the weight given to an "off-the-cuff" remark, I would restate what I wrote in our recent exchange of writings; my thoughts on Wiki editing are: do those quotes/additions add to the overall summary of the article or does it present undue weight of what is really a minor point; or undue weight that causes over emphases and a certain perception of what is being conveyed to the general reader. As re-written, the section does have better flow now and I agree as to the removals you made. For now, I will let the section stand as is but may re-visit it in the future. You know us Wiki editors, always tweaking things. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this going for a GA/FA?

Is it? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 23:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't say really, but the main editor is helping/taking the lead on the Abraham Lincoln GA/FA process, and I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes another candidate. It's User:Carmarg4, and he's a heck of an editor. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Pal; you are being very charitable. You are the lead man on the presidential nominations around here. Anyway, I am finished with adding substance here and almost done with my attempt to fix cites. User:Kierzek has been working hard on this article for a long time and may have an opinion on your question. See my comments above in "Article Length" section. I don't think I am a very good judge of whether a nom. is appropriate, so I will leave that to others.Carmarg4 (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. The article is generally done as far as substantial text; it just needs some clean up, tightening up and cite fixes (which, as you know, Carmarg4 can be quite time consuming). With that said, if you guys want to (thereafter) send it up through the process, its okay with me. Kierzek (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Location of physical addresses in Early Life and Education

Early Life and Education states that JFK was born at 83 Beals Street in Brookline, Massachusetts. I recently added his Riverdale address as 5040 Independence Avenue. I also added his Bronxville address as 294 Pondfield Road. Carmarg4 deleted "5040 Independence Avenue" and also deleted "294 Pondfield Road". This constitutes a destructive edit, because Kennedy actually did live at those physical addresses. I did not source the information, but the information is correct. Some people have a habit of deleting unsourced information that is true, meaningful, and correct. It's unfortunate that these incidents occur. It cases like these, editors should attempt to verify the information before arbitrarily deleting it. It's a waste of my time to make a good edit that is deleted. It's also time consuming to add a new section to a talk page as a follow-up to an improper edit. Anthony22 (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I can assure you that the edits Carmarg4 made were in good faith for concision purposes. He and I have been working on the article this past month to try to improve it and also tighten it up. If you feel strongly about the addresses, I would suggest putting them back in. Kierzek (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for deleting that hard work. I was indeed attempting to be judicious in making the size of the article more manageable. We do appear to have a legitimate issue on the size of the article raised by the tag at the top of the it. Perhaps In the future I should propose the deletion on the article talk page and then transfer the text to there if later deleted. Carmarg4 (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Jack vs John

In several places the article text refers to John F. Kennedy as "Jack", for example.

  Jack spent his first years at Choate in his brother's shadow.

Perhaps it is common to refer to JFK as Jack in the United States but I think it is confusing for international visitors, and being as it is a nickname, not a given name, it seems inappropriate to refer to Mr Kennedy in this fashion in an encyclopedic text.

202.78.155.23 (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms

The addition of a version of the coat of arms presented to Kennedy by the Irish Ambassador in 1961 was previously discussed in June this year. It was pointed out that the image added was so different from the original as to make it OR. Nobody disagreed at that time. I am removing it now, from this and other Kennedy articles. Scolaire (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Good. —Noisalt (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Bigamy allegation

Removed again as the source is unreliable. The British so-called "newspaper" freely admits it is a "Sunday tabloid newspaper"; not to mention the so-called facts of the "discovery of the documents" seem very far-fetched. The matter in the end has: WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY problems. Footnote: It should be noted this addition was first removed on July 14th by another editor for lack of a reliable source for the content and the policy of verifiability. Kierzek (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the removal completely. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources DC T•C 16:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal completely, and have undone it. Again. The Sunday Mirror is a 95 year old national Newspaper with a strong tradition of investigative journalism often besting the broadsheets. The journalist who wrote the article Terry O'Hanlon died in 2006 after a long and distinguished Fleet street career.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a fuller version of the article http://www.thefreelibrary.com/JFK+THE+BIGAMIST...+THE+TRUTH+AT+LAST%3B+Kennedy+was+already+married...-a061139564

--Tumadoireacht (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph again, as it is from a single source, a tabloid. Please do not add it again, as the source seems dubious, because no other references out there are supporting the allegation. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I support the removal. I've just completed the Reeves biography in conjunction with editing here; Reeves indicates Ben Bradlee (then at Newsweek) had heard the rumor about the marriage, accepted an invitation to inspect FBI files on it, and was convinced there was nothing to the rumored marriage as a result. I note also there is a history in this instance of consistently using sources thought to be unreliable. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with me!! Funandtrvl (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The US journalist Hersh also ran the story, but the UK one has much more than the Bigamy -the finding of the papers, the annulment Bishop named, Monroe/Mafia etc. --Tumadoireacht (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Bradlee you say ? ex CIA Bradlee ? and close pal of JFK lol - reliable sources? -get a grip lads--Tumadoireacht (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Found article about Hersh--but it says that Durie Malcolm herself says the marriage rumor wasn't true, even though Hersh insisted he had proof. (Has anyone ever seen it?) Sounds like Hersh was only trying to sell his book. See: [3] --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Found obit of Durie Malcolm from 2008, it says she spent her lifetime saying the story wasn't true. Article tells how the rumor started got started in the 1st place. See: [4] --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I stuck in the Bradlee denial.Perhaps Camarg4 can number the page reference.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It would have been nice if you had cleaned up your grammar, and added some refs, instead of leaving it for others to do. --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The statement still needs to be removed. Biographer Michael O'Brien (see ref. list) verifies with detailed research, including statements under oath from the woman in question, that the rumor of the marriage was false and baseless. This in addition to biographer Reeves (see ref. list), who again indicates Ben Bradlee (then at Newsweek) had heard the rumor about the marriage, accepted an invitation to inspect FBI files on it, and was convinced there was nothing to the rumored marriage as a result. Carmarg4 (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that it should be removed, or moved to a JFK conspiracy page? --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A conspiracy page might be good. Until then, this kind of thing needs many very high quality RSs, which apparently don't exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is how cited paper, "The Sunday Mirror" lists itself: "Read the latest news, celebrity gossip and rumours, and football news and transfers from the Sunday Mirror Newspaper at SundayMirror.co.uk." But I see while I was gone today, the matter has been dealt with and put to rest; good. Kierzek (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The current mention is a good compromise-Wikipedia at it's cooperative best. Tumadoireacht (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The item has not been removed, and no reliable sources have been added to support it, yet reliable sources have been produced refuting it. I have therefore removed it and placed it in the footnotes including the references. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There is consensus for removal based on the strong evidence given, but since some reader in the future may read about it somewhere else and want to check on it here on Wiki, then maybe it is good to keep it, as is, as a cited footnote (on the matter). Kierzek (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It is amusing that second hand hearsay accounts from a CIA staffer and close friend of K of his reading of an unknown and likely incomplete FBI file are gleefully accepted over the work of 2 award winning journalists! references my arse !--Tumadoireacht (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Call of Duty hogging Other media section

Kennedy has probably appeared in a thousand fictional incarnations, and this page rightly mentions the big ones such as the Oliver Stone film and Superman comics. It also mentions - for over half the section - one video game, Call of Duty: Black Ops. It makes sense that a recent, popular piece of media gets a spot, but it doesn't make sense that it should get more of a spot than everything else put together.

I wouldn't suggest adding more clutter to balance, or removing the game's name entirely - I would just suggest mentioning it in a more objective, less fanboyish way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.190.212.150 (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I made a minor edit to the section. Kierzek (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Full marks to Abrazame for the latest edit to this section. I have another couple of questions, though. Does it need to say "his likeness" appeared in JFK and Forrest Gump? This is not standard in "Popular culture" sections. On the other hand, "he/she appeared in The Simpsons" is usually reserved for celebrities who voice their own characters. Should this not also be changed? Scolaire (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed "His likeness" to "Footage of him" in regards to the movies (feel free to improve on that if a better phrasing comes up), keeping the "likeness" phrase for the video game.

The Simpsons based a whole episode on the absurd premise of George H.W. Bush moving in across the street, and an episode of King of the Hill featured a more characteristic representation of Jimmy Carter arriving to build homes for Habitat for Humanity, though I wouldn't argue that either's bio would be improved by a mention of those episodes. Frankly, while the statement that Kennedy figures in American pop culture to a much greater degree than most other presidents seems legitimate and of sufficient weight to remark upon in his Wiki bio—and that this was true both before and after the anomalous tragedy of his assassination—I think this section does a very poor job of supporting that assertion; I would happily see half a dozen more relevant examples briefly noted, rather than The Simpsons, which I took the liberty of removing. I enjoy that show, but the few seconds of his representation in that clip seems not to be meaningfully representing or satirizing JFK or his image, but rather using the mangled memory/hallucination of the Grandpa Simpson character's hair-trigger vengeance over a misinterpretation to satirize any number of things about that character and people like him in that regard. Abrazame (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with removing the mention of a few seconds of one episode. Actually, I have a feeling that the previous text, "His voice,accent, and speeches are frequently parodied in the Simpsons cartoons", was originally meant to refer to Joe Quimby. There is a reference to that in the Joe Quimby article (Groening, Matt (2005). Commentary for the episode "Sideshow Bob Roberts", in The Simpsons: The Complete Sixth Season [DVD]).

I've done a further edit on the movies/games paragraph. Scolaire (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Bay of Pigs Invasion

Hi, JFK watchers. I'm planning edits to the BoPI article, some related to JFK. First, a structural change to try to explain casualty and prisoner numbers. Currently chasing references, and I believe other stuff needs correcting or clarifying. I've got text extracts from Dallek and Schlesinger, and today got a loan copy of Reeves book. Promising new insights eg NSC 5412, Jacksonville hijacker, prisoners deal, etc. Problem is, I can't seem to get any responses on the BoPI talk page. If any of you can help there, even a token yay, nay or grunt, I'll be grateful and more confident in going ahead. If you think this is off-topic here, I won't complain if you delete this after a week. MTIA, PeterWD (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Peter, you will see where Reeves has been cited in this article to some degree as to the BoPI; for quick reference for your purposes, see pages cited; As for Schlesinger, he goes into more detail as to the BoPI in his tome on Robert Kennedy, so you should check that work, as well. Kierzek (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Kierzek. I've now got loan copies of Reeves, Dallek, Schlesinger Thousand Days, and Schlesinger Journals 1952-2000, next targets are May 'The Kennedy Tapes ... Cuban missile crisis', and Schlesinger 'Robert Kennedy ...' It would be amusing to add the "fruit salad" alleged quote, but I suspect it might have been in 1962, as it's reputed to be in Kennedy Tapes. JFK issued a number of colourful quotes, but mostly unofficial, so can be difficult to source accurately.PeterWD (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Splitting into new articles

I strongly agree that this article needs to be split into new articles. After I saw the page that this article is too long, I feel that it's necessary. Discuss. I'll be checking accordingly. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 19:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It could use more tightening up (especially the Southeast Asia section, where some might be transferred over to another related article) but I oppose it being split up further. The article covers a lot of ground but, this is an article on a President and JFK both lived (and later was in office) during a time when many historical and complex events occurred. Further, this was recently discussed with little interest shown. Kierzek (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's all right. Just remember, I'll be checking accordingly. I strongly feel that we need to shorten this article. Please remember to discuss where you need to split up due to length. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 01:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

JFK's dirty trick

Read this. Tweedledee2011 (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

We have much better sources than this. A scholar writing for the WaPo does not benefit from the usual respect given to scholars—such a piece is not peer reviewed for accuracy. Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

1) observers at the time did not think it made much difference because the Hughes story had been around since 1952; 2) the "dirty trick" angle is unclear--it was a well-known story; 3) the Kennedy involved was doubtless the father, Joe Kennedy, not Jack. Rjensen (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

HSCA

HSCA conclusion to a "probable conspiracy" was mainly based upon other evidence including an investigation of Ruby's underworld connections and the fact that he was actively related to Nixon, being part of his Senate campaign in 1947. Then there are two visual evidences : 1. president's head flying back, hit by a bullet shot from the front 2. all the people present around the path of the motorcade running towards the grassy knoll. Then the ballistic evidence : 3. The magic bullet theory, debunked by some major experts 4. Two crack shots from the Marines tried to reproduce Oswald's feat (3 bullets in 6 seconds) and never could. And so many circumstantial evidence… Same for RFK and the main problem in that instance : 12 bullets were recovered by LAPD. Shiran's gun had only 8 rounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantx (talk • contribs) 23:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Kennedy is ...first Irish American president

Kennedy was the Great-Grandson of an Irish emigrant. Andrew Jackson's father & mother were Irish emigrants. 24 US presidents could claim to be "Irish-American". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.2.26 (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Where IS Joe Senior???

To not mention Joe Kennedy Sr. by name or as instrumental to JFK's political ambitions and successes is a Glaring Omission - which ought to be corrected by an informed JFK scholar.Jsusky (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Domestic Policy

“The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizens of this plight.” Shouldn't this be included? The fact that he was killed 10 days after he declared this statement should be included on the main wiki page. This is very important circumstantial evidence that points to something being not right with the official account of his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blustreeak (talk • contribs) 08:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. But anything relating to the truth wont make it there. Government disinformation.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.77.101 (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

First Irish American president?

JFK was the first Irish-Catholic - but also the only such. However, Jackson, Polk, Buchanan, Lincoln, Johnson, Grant, Arthur, .... all have Irish heritage. Mostly those were from Northern Ireland, but some from both parents. See Irish-American#American Presidents with Irish ancestry and http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2011/03/us-presidents-with-irish-ancestry.html

I suppose Reagan was the 2nd from non-northern Ireland - but Ireland was not partitioned until 1921. I cannot see that having this in the lede is informative -- nor is it mentioned (no less explained) in the body of the article - nor does the link to Irish-American really help. (This differs from the remark about his being the first president born in the 20th Century, which indicates that until 1960, all presidents were born in a previous century & thus were less "youthful" - but this also might need to be explained. Every president following TR was at least 50 when inaugurated, the preceding 2 being at least 60, and FDR being very frail by his last election ) --JimWae (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

We do not note which president was the 1st Dutch (VanBuren) one, or 1st German (Ike?) one. There were several previous presidents with ancestors FROM the island of Ireland --JimWae (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson's supporters made a great deal of his being the first Irish president. Jackson was especially proud when the mayor of Belfast said, "We always speak of him as 'the great Irish President of the United States" citation Rjensen (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Check the archives for some past discussion on this. Basically, those previous presidents were "Scots-Irish," descended from people that had colonized Ireland from Scotland, and then moved on to North America. Basically, they were Scottish, with a short stopover somewhere else. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

OuroborosCobra suggests you have to live a couple hundred years in a place to become a native. That suggests the Kennedy family has another 50 years to go before they become American. Rjensen (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggested no such thing. The Scots-Irish were treated as a distinct group. I suggest you read the archived discussion before throwing stones and making personal attacks. I hope that your further discussion is more professional. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Professionalism is about RS, which OuroborosCobra has been unable to cite. Nobody called Andrew Jackson "Scots-Irish"--they called him Irish and he called himself Irish. (the term "scots Irish came after his death) See The passions of Andrew Jackson (2003) by Andrew Burstein p 4. For contemporaries see Cobbett in 1834. Rjensen (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks does not say that your decorum when interacting with other editors has anything to do with what sources they have provided. If you wanted a source, ask for one. Instead, you made a personal attack. Continue on this line and I will ask for administrator mediation. Make your complaints about content, not me, per the policy. I do not think that is a difficult or unreasonable thing to ask, especially since it is required by Wikipedia policy. I have been pointing to archived discussions specifically because this is not a new issue, and those past discussions may have sources that this late at night I didn't want to dig threw. As for some sources, there's the Andrew Jackson Center in North Ireland, which doesn't even call him Irish. "Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times" describes the colonists living in North Ireland as Scots, English, or at best Ulsterman, and very much distinguishes them from the "Irish," who are described as the native population that opposed the plantation founded by James I. Also, being founded by James I, that means this was not "a couple of hundred years" as you asserted, but at best around a single century. Now are you willing to debate this professionally, or do I need to get mediation? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I argued that OuroborosCobra invented his own criteria for being "Irish" that the Kennedys would fail in terms of being American. That makes his criteria unsatisfactory. The point is that Americans identified Jackson as the first Irish president and he is included in standard reference books such as Glazier, Encyclopedia of the Irish in America (U of Notre Dame Press 1999) which explicitly states (p 481) "Old Hickory was the first Irish President of the United Stats of America." Rjensen (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not helping the matter. From a purely objective standpoint, it seems undue and unbalanced that Wikipedia covers Scotch-Irish American, who are essentially Protestant Irish Americans, with such detail, yet we have no article about Catholic Irish American, and in fact merely a stub for Irish Catholic, with no inline citations, when there are 1/10th the number of Scotch-Irish Americans as there are Irish Catholic Americans. Ironic that the Irish minority is the group that spawned the most U.S. presidents. We do have a good-sized Irish American article, which I'm guessing is primarily about Irish Catholic Americans with a small section specifically about Scotch-Irish Americans.

Rjensen, obviously if OuroborosCobra is restoring the term "Irish American" into the article, he is conceding that the Kennedys do not fail in terms of being American. And whether Scotch-Irish were considered a group or not at the time doesn't mean one can't refer to them historically in the way reliable sources perceive things to be today. But OuroborosCobra, it seems to me that the fact is that what Kennedy was the first of was not Irish American President, but Irish Catholic American President. And it bears noting adjacent to this that he was the first Catholic president, as of course if one didn't know anything about America one might presume it might have been possible to have an Italian Catholic or a Greek Orthodox president. And to the OP, if Van Buren was the first Dutch president, then we can cite him as such here. That we don't is probably a factor of nobody being alive today who identified with Van Buren as a fellow Dutch American, and so few reliable sources taking pains to point that out or editors with whom it resonates. Or is there some element to this argument I'm missing? Abrazame (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Several presidents had ancestors in what is now called Northern Ireland, but at the time of their presidency was just another part of an unpartitioned Ireland. Are people suggesting that No true Irishman lives in Northern Ireland? If there is some ethnic purity involved here, it is not explained in the article (nor ever again even mentioned) --JimWae (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's really important that Kennedy was Catholic. The Irish bit is much less central to American history. Take Obama--the first president from Hawaii, true, but much more important the first black president. By the way as Andrew Greeley showed years ago using NORC survey data, there are more Protestants than Catholics among Americans (in the 1970s) who said they were of Irish descent. see this cite for details Rjensen (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Medical Conditions??

It is my understanding that JFK had quite the medical record yet I don't quite see any specific heading dedicated to this particular topic. I think if a politician of his status is hospitalized 30+ times in his life that it's probably remarkable and relevant enough to receive at least a short mention on its own, especially since this would've significantly interfered with his already busy life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.69.125 (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

His medical conditions/problems are mentioned throughout in different sections of his life when relevant. There is no need for redundancy. Kierzek (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It's more appropriate to maintain the current chronological context. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Are stamp images sufficiently significant to be included

This issue has been the subject of lengthy discussion at Lincoln. The consensus has been reached there that stamps are not of sufficient significance and do not inform the reader to the degree appropriate for inclusion. Space limitations need to be considered here as well. I have deleted the image inserted here, and a link to the stamps is provided. User Gwillhickers disagrees. Please comment. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree Carmarg4; due to trying to edit the article down a bit, for space consideration, it can be left out of the main article page as to JFK. The stamp should be left on the Memorials to John F. Kennedy article page. Kierzek (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There are currently no images in the legacy section. Including e.g.JFK's first stamp image would not impact overall page length at all. Being honored on the nation's postage is certainly a noteworthy advent and in all fairness this image should not have been removed without a discussion and established consensus, per Wikipedia guidelines. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

First president born in the 20th century

I agree that the current wording is incorrect. Let's bypass the grammar lessons below, and just say "While elder presidents would later take office, Kennedy was the first elected president born in the 20th century." 70.138.169.224 (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the current wording ("and the first president to have been born in the 20th century") is sufficiently clear, and there's no need for any change. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I do agree the wording saying that Kennedy was the first president to have been born in the 20th century. However, I prefer saying that Kennedy was the first 20th century born president. It's better because four other presidents born in the 20th century were born before him. You saw this in 2008, with the LBJ centennial, that Lyndon B. Johnson was the first president born in the 20th century (chronologically). That's why I prefer to say that Kennedy was the first 20th century born president and LBJ was the first president born in the 20th century (chronologically).

This at least avoids confusion for anyone who says that Kennedy was the first president born in the 20th century. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 15:22 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That would have to be "the first 20th-century-born president" (which is quite a mouthful) since "century" and "born" are not adjectives. LBJ was the first (person) born in the 20th century to later become president; JFK was the first (to become) president (of persons) born in the 20th century. JFK was first president...; LBJ was first born...; LBJ was the president born first...--JimWae (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I've used "first to become president of presidents born in the 20th century." Saying that Kennedy was the first president born in the 20th century is vague and confusing as four other presidents were born before him. This was what made evident during the LBJ Centennial in 2008. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 12:37 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The wording, as have been all the other attempts at clarity, is clumsy and unnecessary. "Kennedy was the first president to have been born in the 20th century," as I corrected it to some time ago, is not at all vague. Actually think about the structure of that sentence for a moment, and you will see that we are presenting a chronicle, not cobbling together random bits of trivia, in saying that at the time Kennedy became president, no other man born in the 20th century had yet become president. There is nothing remotely misleading or erroneous, and one could not possibly say that phrase about any of the later presidents who had been born earlier in the 20th century than Kennedy.

Your wording frames it in the irrelevant context of where he falls in the order of later presidents who were also born in the 20th century, when the whole point is that the context is of earlier presidents who were not. The metric here is not 20th century president born closest to the beginning of the 20th century, which is particularly arcane trivia, it is the first president in history to have been born in the 20th century, which — given that this paragraph notes that he was born 17 years into that century — is a point about his youth and relative modernity in a year the presidency was passed on not merely to someone a bit younger, but to someone of the next generation (nearly two generations later), a full 27 years younger than his predecessor Eisenhower, who was born in 1890. Eight-year president Eisenhower's predecessor, Truman, was born six years earlier than Eisenhower, in 1884. Eight-year president Truman's predecessor, Roosevelt, was born a mere two years earlier than Truman, in 1882. And twelve-year president Roosevelt's predecessor, Hoover, was born only eight years before Roosevelt, in 1874. Hoover's predecessor, Coolidge, was born two years earlier, in 1872. That Johnson and Nixon (and Reagan and Bush) resumed the more typical old-guard is not exceptional, nor relevant to Kennedy's bio, and 2008 has nothing to do with it, this is about 1960/'61. Abrazame (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There's only one reason why I bring up 2008: that was the year that the LBJ centennial was marked and it was the first presidential centennial since Eisenhower's in 1990. The LBJ Centennial made clear that Kennedy was the first president of all presidents to have been born in the 20th century, and LBJ was the first president born in the 20th century (chronologically). That's why I word it this way, because Johnson and three other presidents born in the 20th century were born before Kennedy. – SNIyer12 (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not American so admit I may be missing something but is the fact that JFK was born in the 20th Century significant enough to mention in the opening paragraph? I came to the talk page to ask this question and found the this topic so am quite willing to accede I'm wrong - But it seems insignificant to me (as compared to other details of his life). I'd appreciate other opinions. Regards Basiclife (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've always made this clear: Kennedy was the first 20th century born American president. Saying he was the first president to be born in the 20th century is confusing and I view it that way, because four other presidents born in the 20th century were born before him. That's why I say that Kennedy was the first 20th century born American president and LBJ was the first president born in the 20th century (chronologically). This was mentioned in 2008 during the LBJ Centennial. – SNIyer12, (talk), 13:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That should be written first 20th-century-born president (and reflects the shorter space between the words when said). This discussion has been going on for more than 6 years here. I think I detect a block universe view of time in this discussion. What does "first" modify in "first president born in the 20th century"? It modifies "president", not "born". LBJ was the first born of (US) presidents born in the 20th century (which is completely un-noteworthy). Also true: JFK was the first (US) president of presidents (as well as persons) born in the 20th century. But we do not want to write "president of presidents", for that is too confusing. Saying "JFK was the first (US) president born in the 20th century" is actually pretty clear. Btw, What does "first" modify in first 20th-century-born president? Is it the same as with first black president? --JimWae (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

LBJ was the first born of 20th-century-born presidents, JFK was the first president of 20th-century-born presidents.--JimWae (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

JimWae, that seems better, saying that JFK was the first president of 20th-century-born presidents and LBJ being the first born of 20th-century-born presidents. This was mentioned in 2008 during the LBJ Centennial. They said the same thing: LBJ was the first born of 20th-century-born presidents. – SNIyer12, (talk), 14:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

But "first president of 20th-century-born presidents" is pretty unremarkable. The point is not about which of the 20th century-born-presidents was first to become president, but that there was no president was born in the 20th century until 1961. JFK was the first president born in the 20th century. The first president born in the 19th depends on when one considers a century starts. Fillmore, born in 1800, took office in 1850 (by succession). Pierce, born 1804, took office in 1853 at age 48. It is only significant because Ike was 70 when he left office & had some heart attacks. Truman was 67 when he left office. FDR died in office - at age 63. "JFK was the first president born in the 20th century" is fine -- "first" modifies "president" not "born".--JimWae (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)