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.
The intro states that Kennedy was the first non-protestant president. However, Jefferson was clearly not a protestant either.
John F. Kennedy's Health
I would like to create a new category on JFK's health. It is briefly mentioned in the introduction that he had health issues, but the article doesn't go on to explain exactly what those issues were. Many sources have come out with substantial evidence that JFK was in very poor health while in office due to his Addison's disease and back issues, among several other ailments that he had struggled with throughout his life. I would like to discuss how his health had been poor since he was a child, and continued to get worse in his adulthood and escalated during his time in office. PBS recently published a transcript on their website with physician Jeffrey Kellman that discusses the various health issues that JFK struggled with up until his assassination.
Price129 (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
It really is not needed, if one reads the article in detail. The article covers it; especially, in the section under "Personal tragedies". The Addison's disease and back issues are covered. Also, health issues are mentioned in the section "Early life and education". Therefore, I must disagree. Kierzek (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I understand, thank you for your response. Perhaps I should have been more clear in my initial proposal. I believe that it would be beneficial to have a separate section for "Health," since it was, in fact, such an obstacle in JFK's his life and something that many people are unaware of. I noticed that President Reagan's and President Clinton's Wikipedia pages both have "Health" sections, and I think it would be fitting for JFK's page to have a similar section that is solely devoted to his health, particularly since he arguably had the most medical issues out of any president, particularly for his young age. I think it would be more appropriate for these health issues to be a category of its own, rather than defined as a "Personal Tragedy."
Price129 (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
A "Health" section or subsection would be good. Too many readers are unaware of JFK's terrible back pain and other health problems that challenged him in school, in the Navy, and for his whole life. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
A separate sub-section, pulling out what is already there so it is not redundant, with some addition, would be okay; as long as it is not overly long and is objective without speculation and conjecture. Kierzek (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
JFK Health Section
Great. Since the page is still locked for editing, should I just add the new subsection in the talk portion that we are utilizing now, or can it be unlocked?
Price129 (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Its not locked but there may be a connection problem going on. I carved out the main Health portion for a separate sub-section from what was already there and it is well cited. You guys have a look. Kierzek (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I'm not sure what sources you are using, but PBS has a great transcript called "President Kennedy's Health Secrets" from a conversation with physician Jeffrey Kelman explaining JFK's health issues throughout his life. I think it is important to include that JFK had been ill since he was 13, and was finally diagnosed with colitis in 1934 (this is currently in the "Early Life" section, but I think it is important to have it in the health section to demonstrate the progression of his health issues from an early age).
I also think that it's important to explain the surgeries in a little more detail. For example, in 1954 a plate was put in his back because he was in so much pain that they needed to stabilize his spine. The next year, it got infected and was removed. In addition, I think that readers should be made aware of the fact that the public never saw that he was on crutches much of the time, or that he couldn't bend down or walk down the stairs. By the time JFK was president, he was on 10-12 various medications per day. I would just like to portray to the reader just how much Kennedy struggled with his health throughout his time in office. Thank you. Price129 (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
A posthumous portrait of U.S. president John F. Kennedy, completed by Aaron Shikler in 1970. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas. Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested that evening for the crime, but was killed by Jack Ruby two days later, before a trial could take place. The FBI and the Warren Commission officially concluded that Oswald was the lone assassin, but conspiracy theories persisted. In 1978, a select committee concluded that both investigations were flawed and that the assassination was probably the result of a conspiracy.Painting: Aaron Shikler
The link is to a specific school in California. There is a more general page - John F. Kennedy High School that should be linked to to show that there are many schools so named - as the sentence states. Locked page, otherwise I'd edit it myself. 99.245.248.91 (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The photo of the family walking down the steps of the Capitol has a caption that says they are leaving the funeral. The funeral took place at Saint Matthew's Cathedral, so this is a photo of them leaving a service at the Capitol Building.
Several references in this article do not appear to meet Wikipedia guidelines with regards to format requirements, such as reference #246. Since this article is protected I will not attempt to resolve this issue, but this issue needs to be addressed. - Mistercontributer (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
United Kingdom is somewhat ambiguous, since it refers to England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and Northern Ireland. Not sure if Joe was ambassador to the other UK countries, but he certainly was for England. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
My point is that I don't think there is any such thing as the "US England Ambassador". Everywhere I've seen him discussed (including [here]), he's referred to as the UK ambassador, or the ambassador to Great Britain or the Ambassador to the Court of St James. The line is also misleading because it implies he was ambassador at JFK's birth (in 1917), when in fact he wasn't ambassador until 1938.
See Court of St James's, and note the spelling. All ambassadors to that country are, formally, to the Court of St James's. But it's more usually seen as ambassador to the United Kingdom (UK). Anything else is plain WRONG.
It's probably in some sources like that because when he was ambassador to the UK, interchangeability of the terms "UK" and "England" was likely to be accepted in most circles, even within the UK itself. It's not accepted any longer though. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
On November 24, 1962, the Department of Defense announced that the $6.5 billion contract to make 1,700 F-111 Tactical Fighter Experimental (TFX) fighter-bombers would be awarded to General Dynamics Corporation, rather than to Boeing. Since 1959, the Department of Defense, under the Eisenhower administration, had planned to build a TFX fighter-jet system that could intercept missiles launched by Soviet submarines and warships. Both the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force sought a new tactical low-flying interceptor fighter aircraft which could carry heavy armament and large fuel loads, achieve supersonic speeds, incorporate twin engines, two seats, and variable geometry wings.
In June 1961, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered that one TFX plane for both armed services would be a collaborative design between the air force and navy. Although this was done to save $1 billion in taxpayers' money, both the navy and air force still desired their own separately designed fighter planes. Both McNamara and President Kennedy had approved of the General Dynamics contract for the manufacture of the TFX fighter-bomber.
According to author Leroy F. Prouty, McNamara and Secretary of Labor Arthur Goldberg mapped out each county of any contested states as to how the TFX funding would be distributed in order to obtain the best swing vote for the Kennedy ticket in the 1964 presidential election. At stake were 69 electoral votes; the Boeing company was based in Washington and Kansas, while General Dynamics was based in Texas and New York.
Controversy ensued because McNamara had overruled a Pentagon Source Selection Board that had approved the Boeing TFX program rather than the General Dynamics one. Democratic Senator Henry M. Jackson, from Washington and a supporter of the Boeing company, started a preliminary inquiry into the matter in December 1962. Two comprehensive Congressional investigations hearings took place in 1963 and 1970.
McNamara defended the selection of the General Dynamics design, stating it possessed greater commonality between air force and navy versions. The Congressional investigation revealed that Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell L. Gilpatric, who was involved in the TFX fighter-bomber decision, had performed legal services for General Dynamics prior to 1961, with a $20,000 annual severance retainer. Secretary of the Navy Fred Korth was found to have retained $160,000 in stocks in a Fort Worth bank that had approved a $400,000 loan to General Dynamics while Korth was the bank's president.
Kennedy defended both McNamara (March, 1963) and Gilpatric (August 1963) in press conferences. In September 1963, Kennedy's Justice Department exonerated Korth of any conflict of interest. Kennedy accepted Korth's resignation in mid-October 1963 and stated there was "no evidence that Mr. Korth acted in any way improperly in the TFX matter". When the investigation concluded in 1970, Gilpatric was castigated by the committee for being "guilty of a flagrant conflict of interest".
The F-111s actual manufacturing cost ranged between $6 and 8 million each rather than McNamara's projected $3.5 million. This was in part due to the addition of computer-controlled Terrain-Following-Radar (TFR). There had been nine crashes during the testing of the F-111 plane. By 1968, six F-111s would go on to serve in the Vietnam War; three never returned. Controversy over the F-111 continued throughout the 1960s as the plane could not equally reach both the demands of the air force and navy. The air force wanted a heavy tactical fighter plane while the navy wanted a lighter, long range, missile to missile Combat Air Patrol (CAP) plane to "ride shotgun" and protect the U.S. fleet from nuclear attack.
and replaced it with a paragraph in the "Presidency" section:
Kennedy approved Defense secretary Robert McNamara's controversial decision to award the contract for the F-111 TFX (Tactical Fighter Experimental) fighter-bomber to General Dynamics (the choice of the civilian Defense department) over Boeing (the choice of the military). At the request of Senator Henry Jackson, Senator John McClellan held 46 days of mostly closed-door hearings before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations investigating the TFX contract from February–November 1963.
In the book, Kennedy supported the conservative Southern view that Reconstruction was corrupt.
University of Mississippi history professor Charles W. Eagles' characterization in one sentence of his 560-page 2009 book The Price of Defiance: James Meredith and the Integration of Ole Miss of one chapter of Kennedy's 1956 book Profiles in Courage does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia biography article about John F. Kennedy. Newross (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
There were a couple instances where the young president got ahead of himself
There were a couple instances where the president got ahead of himself, as when he announced in a cabinet meeting, without prior notice, that Edward Lansdale would be Ambassador to South Vietnam, a decision which Secretary of State Rusk later had Kennedy alter. There was also the case of Harris Wofford, who was summoned to the White House for swearing in without knowing which position he was to assume.
Two unrelated anecdotes from Richard Reeves' 798-page 1993 book President Kennedy: Profile of Power that do not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia biography article about John F. Kennedy. Newross (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
In May 1961 the press ran articles, that Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall had requested an oil executive to solicit $100 contributions at a fund-raiser from oil and gasoline interests. Udall demanded that his name, which was used on material to solicit funding, be withdrawn. A week earlier, Kennedy had proposed that Congress tighten the conflict-of-interest laws. At a press conference, Kennedy faulted the then-current campaign finance laws, rather than Udall. Kennedy stated that he had spoken with Udall and was satisfied with his explanation. Kennedy stated that anyone who contributed to a campaign fund should not expect any favors in return. Udall denied any wrongdoing and stated that the oil executive misunderstood his intentions.
Secretary of Interior Stuart Udall told an old friend, J.K. Evans, a representative of Shell Oil's Asiatic Petroleum Company subsidiary, that he hoped that "he and some of his friends would be at the [Jefferson–Jackson Day] dinner"—as they had done at previous years Jefferson–Jackson Day dinners when Udall was a congressman from Arizona. Evans—without Udall's knowledge or consent—sent a letter to 56 oil and gas acquaintances soliciting their attendance at the $100-a-plate Democratic Party dinner (none of them responded to his solicitation). When Udall learned of the letter from a recipient, he was appalled, flabbergasted and embarrassed, and asked Evans to retract the letters.
This bit of trivia is:
not mentioned in Theodore C. Sorensen’s 783-page 1965 book Kennedy.
not mentioned in Arthur M. Schlesinger's 1,087-page 1965 book A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House.
not mentioned in Ralph G. Martin's 596-page 1983 book A Hero for Our Time: An Intimate Story of the Kennedy Years.
not mentioned in Herbert S. Parmet's 407-page 1983 book JFK, The Presidency of John F. Kennedy.
not mentioned in James M. Giglio's 334-page 1991 book The Presidency of John F. Kennedy.
not mentioned in Thomas C. Reeves' 510-page 1991 book A Question of Character: A Life of John F. Kennedy.
not mentioned in Richard Reeves's 798-page 1993 book President Kennedy: Profile of Power.
not mentioned in Robert Dallek's 838-page 2003 book An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy 1917–1963.
not mentioned in Michael O'Brien's 971-page 2005 book John F. Kennedy, A Biography.
not mentioned in William Manchester's 3,800-word 2000 article "John F. Kennedy" in the Encyclopædia Britannica.
Kennedy had little knowledge of the agricultural sector of the economy, and farmers were not on his list of priorities, at least in his 1960 campaign. After giving a speech to a farming community, he rhetorically asked an aide, "Did you understand any of what I just said in there? I sure didn't."
A throwaway campaign anecdote from Richard Reeves' 798-page 1993 book President Kennedy: Profile of Power does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia biography article about John F. Kennedy. Newross (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
"if I don't have a woman for three days, I get terrible headaches"
Doctors speculated that the drugs the president required for Addison's disease had the side effect of increasing his virility. The president remarked to UK Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, "I wonder how it is for you, Harold? If I don't have a woman for three days, I get terrible headaches."
This was improper WP:SYNTHESIS by Carmarg4/Hoppyh juxtaposing two separate excerpts from Reeves 1993 book President Kennedy: Profile of Power, to imply Kennedy’s cortisone treatment for Addison’s disease caused terrible headaches if he didn’t have a woman for three days. In addition, Diannaa's rewording “Doctor's speculated…” is not supported by the cited source, Reeves 1993 book President Kennedy: Profile of Power. Newross (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Kennedy may have been influenced by his father Joe Kennedy's open affair with Gloria Swanson. According to John F. Kennedy himself, Joe told his sons to get "laid as often as possible".
Wesley O. Hagood's book Presidential Sex: From the Founding Fathers to Bill Clinton is an inappropriate source for an encyclopedia article about John F. Kennedy:
Mazmanian, Adam (Oct. 15, 1995). "Presidential Sex." Library Journal:
Management consultant Hagood charts, in varying levels of detail, the sexual adventures of 13 presidents. He raises the possibility that bachelor president James Buchanan was a homosexual and was deeply involved in an affair with roommate and Pierce administration vice president William Rufus King. He retells the tale of Warren G. Harding "inaugurating" a White House coat closet with longtime mistress Nan Britton. President Kennedy is accused of using LSD to "heighten his sexual pleasure." While sources are provided for many of these tales, many crucial references go undocumented. The chapter on Clinton is the only one that is scrupulously footnoted. For much of its most damning evidence, this chapter relies on Gennifer Flowers's 1995 self-serving memoir. Unscholarly and, failing that, not particularly good trash; not recommended.
Groer, Anne; Gerhart, Ann (Dec 13, 1995). "The Reliable Source." The Washington Post, p. C3:
"Which president repeatedly made love to a young girl from his hometown in a White House coat closet when, on at least one occasion, his wife was prevented from beating down the closet door by a Secret Service agent?" Thus begins a quiz in "Presidential Sex," a cut-and- paste kisstory by first-time author Wesley Hagood of Annapolis. He's tracked the libidos of 12 chief execs (eight Democrats, three Republicans, one Federalist) from George Washington to Bill Clinton. Hagood's sources include stripper Tempest Storm's autobio and several supermarket tabloids. "The American people want to know about this subject," he told The Source. By the way, that was Warren G. Harding in the closet with Nan Britton.
Marcus, Casey (Jan. 1, 1996). "All the President's Women." The Mercury (Hobart, Australia):
The sex lives of 13 United States presidents, from George Washington to Bill Clinton, have been documented in a book about to be released in America... the coming book Presidential Sex by Wesley Hagood, an American mathematician and management consultant who took up the peculiar hobby of researching the sex lives, in office and out, of 13 of the 43 figures who have been US president. Condensed into 268 pages, it reveals that, like many other men, presidents at some stage have failed the fidelity test. Some more than others. Lyndon Johnson liked sex on his desk. George Washington was known as the "Stallion Of The Potomac". And Thomas Jefferson could have been called Thomas Libido. Others in that high office have bordered on the weird, although Hagood's most sensational assertions come without qualification or that important tool of non-fiction: facts to back up claims, or even solid sourcing. That applies especially to John F. Kennedy and his admirer Bill Clinton. Did Kennedy really smoke pot with a mistress in an Oval Office closet and wonder "what would happen if the Russians bombed us now?" Did he take an acid (LSD) trip while in office?... The "fling" was perfected, as the world knows, by Kennedy. And this is where Hagood veers from supporting evidence to a mixture of confirmed fact and abject rumour. The trouble is, the lines are as blurred as Mr McGoo's sight. Hagood has Kennedy in bed with dozens of women, naming 17 of them between 1941 and his death, not including wife Jacqueline. He claims that right after Kennedy made his "Ask not what your country can do for you" speech the new Pres went to a celebration party. There he asked not that but "Where are the broads?" Besides asserting Kennedy bedded actresses Angie Dickinson, Jayne Mansfield and Marilyn Monroe (the latter on board Air Force One) while in office, he makes more amazing claims... But Hagood stretches credibility with claims that Kennedy smoked joints with avant-garde figure Mary Meyer in the Oval Office a week before a major drug conference. He says Kennedy had already sampled hash and cocaine and goes further by stating that JFK had earlier tried LSD with her.
Hagood's relentless drive is rooted in his religion, he says. In the early 1970s, when he was a student at Anne Arundel Community College, he had an epiphany: "I felt God had spoken to me and told me how bad and corrupt I'd been and that I could be moral like Him if I allowed him to teach me. But it would require me to submit to His lordship." He points to a bookshelf filled with titles such as "Eros Defiled"—a Christian perspective on homosexuality—and "The Jesus Factor." He picks out "Sex Roles & the Christian Family," a 1981 book by W. Peter Blitchington that emphasizes the dominant role the father is supposed to play. Throughout the late '70s and early '80s, Hagood was teaching math at an alternative school in Annapolis when he decided he needed additional income. So he taught himself how to make waterfowl jewelry. "It's really hard," he recalls, showing dainty clay pins of mallards and swans he sold for $8 apiece at the Washington area waterfowl arts festivals for four years. But he wanted to capitalize on the master's degree in administration and supervision he received in 1982 from Bowie State University, so he launched a career in management consulting. But the late hours made him want to scale back. So he decided to write a book—but not just any book: It had to be a bestseller. He knew it needed sex. In 1995 he came out with "Presidential Sex: From the Founding Fathers to Bill Clinton," which he said was eventually translated into six languages and sold 40,000 copies. When Monica Lewinsky became news, he found himself on NBC's "Today" show, being interviewed by Matt Lauer.
Hagood's amateur psychoanalytic speculation about Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. and Gloria Swanson cites an 8-paragraph story in the August 1991 issue of the now-defunct women's magazine McCall's—in its "McCall's Tells All" section (just after a short article on: "Jeff Daniels—Is this Hollywood's hottest leading man?") Newross (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
During the Election of 1960, Republican Senator Hugh Scott, at an October 3, 1960 press conference, stated in reference to Kennedy running for the Presidency, "this is no job for a playboy". Scott, a member of the Republican "Truth Squad", was referring to Kennedy riding his yacht in Hyannis Port, absent from the Senate during a vote on medical care for the elderly. Scott stated that Senator Kennedy was absent from voting in the Senate 331 times out of 1,189 times, not including the 36 absences due to Kennedy's back surgery in 1955, during the time period from 1953 to 1960.
An insignificant routine Republican partisan attack (that is not about "Extramarital relationships") five weeks before the 1960 election does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia biography article about John F. Kennedy. Newross (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Events during his presidency included the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Space Race—by initiating Project Apollo (which would culminate in the moon landing), the building of the Berlin Wall, the African-American Civil Rights Movement, and early stages of the Vietnam War. Therein, Kennedy increased the number of military advisers, special operation forces, and helicopters in an effort to curb the spread of communism in South East Asia. The Kennedy administration adopted the policy of the Strategic Hamlet Program which was implemented by the South Vietnamese government. It involved certain forced relocation, village internment, and segregation of rural South Vietnamese from northern and southern communist insurgents.
One sentence including the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban missile crisis, the space race, the civil rights movement, versus three and half sentences about the early stages of Vietnam War, was unbalanced. Newross (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 13 December 2013
Include in Category Civil Rights
Prior to Kennedy's election, he pushed for students from Africa to study in the United States and used his family's private funds to do so. He was extremely interested in the schooling system in Africa and the Third World. This was overlooked by white voters because they were not interested in blacks education. His advisors were worried that a lot of focus on civil rights would be a problem with white voters. During his campaign, he made numerous references to Africa and not so many to civil rights. This shows that Kennedy's true interest lies in International Affairs. For example, he met with more African leaders after he was elected than he met with Civil Rights leaders. [1]
JFK was certainly involved in various civil rights initiatives, but the category Civil rights and liberties should ideally be reserved for those initiatives themselves, not for people. Americans who are involved in civil rights issues get put into the category American civil rights activists, but perhaps that categorization is too strong for JFK. Was he really an activist for civil rights or did he perform politically astute actions when he thought it was necessary to do so? Perhaps a less vigorous category could be created, one that asserts a that this person acted positively for civil rights, without saying anything about whether the person really wanted this change. Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
...Kennedy presented to Congress the most sweeping civil rights legislation since Reconstruction. In September 1963, asked to comment on a Gallup poll reporting that fifty percent of the nation thought he was pushing too fast on integration, Kennedy said, “This is not a matter on which you can take the temperature every week or two… you must make a judgment about the movement of a great historical event which is taking place in this country… Change always disturbs.”
Last week, the jfk redirect (note- different than JFK) was changed to point to the John F. Kennedy International Airport rather than the president. I decided to change it back to this page, as I feel that's the more appropriate usage, but wanted to leave a note here in case anyone wanted to discuss the issue. No big deal either way, but just a heads up. Eric (EWS23) 22:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Catholicism
While the Kennedys are known for being a Catholic family, is it really notable that he was the first Catholic to become President? Not really sure why that is mentioned...... If anybody can explain how/why it is significant, please do so. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
It's as notable as Barack Obama becoming the first black President, and someone in the future becoming the first woman President. Especially for a country where religion holds a great deal of weight and significance AND is predominantly made up of different flavours of Protestantism. --Connelly9010:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
In the figure Mapamundi Foreing trips of JFK during his presidency not include Venezuela (December 1961). Please in honor to History paint of blue that country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.13.221 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2014 -- 3 sentences regarding 1960 presidential election
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
(I will include each sentence, followed by what I suggest be done.)
I find:
"Kennedy overcame this formal challenge as well as informal ones from Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic nominee in 1952 and 1956, Stuart Symington, and several favorite sons, and on July 13 the Democratic convention nominated Kennedy as its candidate."
Please use semicolon, not comma, just after "1956". This is because "the Democratic nominee in 1952 and 1956" is not an additional person, but merely a description of Adlai Stevenson. ALTERNATELY: Remove that comma, put parentheses around what I just quoted, and put a comma after that newly-inserted right parenthesis.
I find:
"Kennedy asked Johnson to be his Vice Presidential candidate, despite opposition from many liberal delegates and Kennedy's own staff, including his brother, Bobby."
Please remove the comma just before "Bobby". John F. Kennedy had more than 1 brother. (Despite Joseph Jr.'s death, John still had 2 surviving brothers.)
I find:
"Another 14 electors from Mississippi and Alabama refused to support Kennedy because of his support for the civil rights movement; they voted for Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia, as did the elector from Oklahoma."
Try removing "Another", because it is not pointed out that there were 537 electors (and only 522 electoral votes going to either Kennedy or Nixon; 303 + 219 = 522.) Also, please change "the" to "a" (just ahead of "elector from Oklahoma"), because there was more than 1 elector from Oklahoma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 4 April 2014
The following paragraph is erroneous. It blames Kennedy for the 1954 coup in Guatemala -- and says it happened in 1963. At first I thought the author was confusing Honduras for Guatemala, but then it goes on to mention Jacobo Arbenz and the United Fruit Company. Completely wrong. There was a coup in 1963 in Guatemala but it didn't involve Jacobo Arbenz. The first sentence may be fair, but the example used to support it is wrong.
"Several historians have criticized Kennedy for what they perceive to be his double standards on the subject of human rights and political freedom. For example, Noam Chomsky finds evidence that the 1963 coup in Guatemala that prevented an election from taking place had the full backing of the Kennedy Administration. Chomsky suggests that Kennedy supported the coup because the chief policy proposal of Jacobo Arbenz, the frontrunner in the proposed election, was a very popular land reform act that was inimical to the interests of the American United Fruit Company.[92] Other scholars have held that Kennedy, and later Lyndon B. Johnson, supported the military regime which conducted a brutal counter-insurgency campaign through the 1960s that claimed tens of thousands of civilian lives.[93]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.196.12 (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Missing from the paragraph describing the grant of arms is a full description of the arms themselves. The existing paragraph reads
The design of the arms strongly alludes to symbols in the coats of arms of the O'Kennedys of Ormonde and the FitzGeralds of Desmond, from whom the family is believed to be descended. The crest is an armored hand holding four arrows between two olive branches, elements taken from the coat of arms of the United States of America and also symbolic of Kennedy and his brothers.
Based on the article at American Heraldry, and in somewhat less detail, the online version of the Encyclopedia Britannica [1], this description is accurate but incomplete. I'd edit the text as follows:
The design of the arms, Sable three helmets in profile Or within a bordure per saltire Gules and Ermine strongly alludes to symbols in the coats of arms of the O'Kennedys of Ormonde (Sable, three helmets in profile argent) and the FitzGeralds of Desmond (Ermine, a saltire gules), from whom the family is believed to be descended. The crest is an armored hand holding four arrows between two olive branches, elements taken from the coat of arms of the United States of America and also symbolic of Kennedy and his brothers.
Both of the cited web sites include emblazons of the arms; the American Heraldry site also includes an image of the actual grant document, including both the blazon and the emblazon.
A correction on the common belief that JFK was the youngest President. Part of that enormous halo effect given to JFK (including lauding him for social programs that were actually started by LBJ & Nixon). However, according to Wikipedia, Teddy Roosevelt was elected at age 42, JFK at 43.
You're correct that Roosevelt was younger, but he wasn't elected. He succeeded after McKinley's assassination. So it is correct to say (as Wikipedia does) that Kennedy was the person elected president. CalidumTalk To Me03:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Economy - "going for broke" quote relevance
Under the Economy section we see the following sentence:
Jack's brother Bobby stated "We're going for broke..... their expense accounts, where they've been and what they've been doing..... the FBI is to interview them all..... we can't lose this."[180]
It doesn't appear to have any context relating to Kennedy's economic policy. It sounds as though Bobby Kennedy is discussing some kind of investigation.
We need to put this sentence/quote into context and explain how it relates to JFK's economic policies, or the quote should be move/removed.
Also, the remainder of the economy section looks like it's been torn out of a more comprehensive section. In its current state it lacks any clear connection to economic policy. It jumps straight into some kind of dispute with regards to steel prices. The entire second half of the economy section looks like it needs a re-write. In its current form it only serves to confuse the uninformed reader.
JFK was known to have been a member of quite a few fraternities, but all that's listed is his membership in the NRA. He was also a member of the {Knights of Columbus}, {Ancient Order of Hibernians}, {Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks}, and {Fraternal Order of Eagles} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.196.31 (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2014
This edit request to John F. Kennedy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I have to agree; I have don't see any one section which is uncited and most are very well cited; I know I have spend a fair amount of time adding them over the recent years. So, SNUGGUMS if you have someplace specific in mind, that can be noted and worked on. Kierzek (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2014
This edit request to John F. Kennedy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There is a link to LBJ right above, where he is mentioned as vice-president. In general we don't repeat a link, especially since these two would be very close to each other (this is called "overlinking"). -DePiep (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
cannot edit page to fix NO LINK to "SUCCEEDED BY"
proper navigation *FROM* Lyndon_B._Johnson ... but this page has no link *TO* Lyndon_B._Johnson (Johnson's page can be corrected, but this one is blocked)
Is the photo of JFK's West Berlin speech backwards? It looks like his hair is parted on his right. If so, the photo is indeed backwards. (I've seen this photo before, and, have had the same question.)
Does anyone know how to "fix" photos that are already uploaded on Wiki, and, then get the "corrected" photo back into the article?
Agree. Good catch. In addition to the hair part, videos on YouTube (ETA: not to mention, the .ogg file in the same section) and most photos of the speech found in a Google search have the white triangular breast-pocket handkerchief in the usual position on his left, not his right.
I'm not sure if there are any tools to edit "in place", but downloading the image, using any of the hundreds of image-manipulation programs to flip it and then clicking the "Upload a new version of this file" link on the image's WP page should be a fairly trivial task as long as you're registered. 2600:1006:B12C:7156:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 03:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for getting JFK's Berlin Speech photo "flip-flopped," especially so fast!! (His hair part, not to mention his breast-pocket handkerchief.) So, I went to the article's edit section (the West Berlin Speech section) and "flip-flopped" the photo in the article, also. Now, I need to see about his photo "facing in."
This time I will thank both DePiep and Kierzek by name. And, I will remember to "sign my post" this time. Sorry about that!! Gee, I hate getting those "Nastygrams!!" (Actually, I think it was my first one. If only SineBot would have given me just a moment!! Good grief!!)
This edit request to John F. Kennedy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I find "as did the elector from Oklahoma" near the end of this article's section about the 1960 election. Please change "the" to "an", because there was more than 1 elector from Oklahoma.
In the Bibliography section, there is a work cited as, "Salt, Jermey (2008). The Unmaking of the Middle East: A History of Western Disorder in Arab lands." The author's first name is misspelled as "Jermey". It is actually spelled, "Jeremy". 70.161.173.90 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
An editor in good faith added this section, but I think it's out of place here because it gives undue weight to a relatively minor speech (most notable because Kennedy made it just before his death), and doesn't really shed light on his space policy. (Some other information needs to be added, like his appointment of Jerome Wiesner and James E. Webb.)
Excerpt from "Cap Over the Wall" speech, 21 November 1963
An excerpt form the 'Cap Over the Wall' speech, with the closing 2 paragraphs from John F. Kennedy:
Frank O’Connor, the Irish writer, tells in one of his books how, as a boy, he and his friends would make their way across the countryside; and when they came to an orchard wall that seemed too high to climb, too doubtful to try, too difficult to permit their journey to continue, they took off their caps and tossed them over the wall - - and then they had no choice but to follow them.
My friends, this nation has tossed its cap over the wall of space - - and we have no choice but to follow it. Whatever the difficulties, they must be overcome. Whatever the hazards, they must be guarded against. With the vital help of this Aerospace Medical Center, with the help of all who labor in this space endeavor, with the help and support of all Americans, we will climb this wall with both safety and speed - - and we shall then explore all the wonders and treasures that lie on the other side.[1][2]
References
^Cite error: The named reference JFK was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
This speech might possibly be best placed as its own article or a "list of JFK speeches" article. I've moved it here for purposes of discussion. (There are also some structural issues with it, like saying "The End".) JustinTime55 (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
"Motor Torpedo Boat"
I checked the archives, and this question hasn't been asked before. The introduction has a wikilink labeled "PT boats" which used to link to Motor Torpedo Boat. That page says it is a British navy term. The corresponding American term is PT boat. The PT-109 article referring to Kennedy's craft is titled "Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109", apparently to disambiguate it from the movie and other things named "PT-109". But I really have two questions: (citations are not given in this article):
Was the (U.S.) training center really called the "Motor Torpedo Boat Squadron Training Center"?
Did the citation on Kennedy's medal really say "Motor Torpedo Boat 109"?
Justin, the answer to this interesting point is yes to both. The "Motor Torpedo Boat Squadrons Training Center" was the name used for the facility at Melville according to U.S. Patrol Torpedo Boats in World War II, 1939-1945, T. Garth Connelly (2010), p. 43 and PT-109: John F. Kennedy in WW II, Robert J. Donovan (2001) [1961], pp. 19, 20; to name two. There are more if one searches Google books (one which uses the name: Mtbstc: Motor Torpedo Boat Squadrons Center), but it is not necessary as the point is made.
As for the citation for Kennedy's medal, the full text is shown here: [2] from the JFK Library. It does use the British term, "Motor Torpedo Boat 109" . Kierzek (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2015
This edit request to John F. Kennedy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This is a very small matter, but I suppose no error is too small not to warrant correction. I don't know how to make the correction, so I'll leave it to others to fix this. I don't know how to document what I've written below. I know it to be true, because I was a student at RCS during the '50's.
"Kennedy attended the River Campus of Riverdale Country School, a private school for boys, from 5th-7th grade."
JFK did not attend the River Campus. Until some time in the '60s or '70s RCS was not really a co-ed school. Girls had their own classes and campus known as "The Girls School" which is now known as the "River Campus."
Boys of all ages attended "The Boys School" at what is now known as the "Hill Campus." The confusion with respect to JFK is due to the fact that the River Campus is now where the lower grades are located, but grades four to twelve for boys in JFK's time were located at the Hill Campus.
I found documentation from the history section of the school's website
click "4"
The Riverdale Country School for Girls opens in 1933 with Miriam Dennes Cooper as the first Principal. Two years later the school moves to the George Perkins estate, an 1870 mansion on the Hudson River, currently the home of our Lower School's River Campus.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.232.77 (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I am confused by the sentence: "The charisma of Kennedy and his family led to the figurative designation of "Camelot" for his administration, credited by his wife, who coined the term for the first time in print during a post-assassination interview with Theodore White, to his affection for the then contemporary Broadway musical of the same name". This sentence jumbles confusingly together a number of ideas and claims. Was the term Camelot invented at that time by Jackie? If so, shouldn't the article simply say so? Or was it invented by White, which is also implied. Royalcourtier (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree, the current wording is confusing, and I believe does not accurately reflect the reality. I don't believe for a minute that Jackie can be "credited" with the term; she simply wistfully told White that "Jack" liked to listen to the recording, and got misty at the final "one brief, shining moment" line. White was the one who decided the word was iconic of his presidency. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I take back part of what I said, after re-reading White's piece. Apparently Mrs. Kennedy was the one who suggested the term be applied, rather than White. I hope it's clear now. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
MOS
For uniformity, after discussion I changed the reference section to Bibliography. It is allowed and not said to be vague under WP:FNNR (Manual of style): "Several alternate titles ('Sources', 'Citations', 'Bibliography') may also be used, although each is problematic in some contexts: 'Sources' may be confused with source code in computer-related articles, product purchase locations, river origins, Journalism sourcing, etc.; 'Citations' may be confused with official awards or a summons to court; 'Bibliography' may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography ('Works' or 'Publications')." They can all be said to have some problem. Bibliography is what is commonly used on GA articles. There is no reason to revert it; but I am open to discuss it. Kierzek (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:APPENDIX (part of WP:Manual of Style/Layout) says "'Bibliography' is discouraged because it is not clear whether it is limited to the works of the subject of the article". Regardless of what WP:OTHERSTUFF uses, "Bibliography" is vague as it could refer to works focusing on a subject as well as works written by said subject. I went with "publications" for now as a more definitive term. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
That is only opinion and no hard and fast rule, as I have shown above in my cite from WP:Manual of Style/Layout. Instead of just reverting me, it should have been discussed herein first. All of the choices above can be said to have some perceived problems but one is not "discouraged" over another. With that said, I will not revert at this time; but, I am not convinced "publications" is better. BTW - at some point this article really should be brought up to GA status. It receives a lot of hits; being rated 381, at this time. If you take it on, I will help out when I have time. Kierzek (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with a rotation of image photos for the subject of an article on a periodic basis as long as there is consensus and there are no copyright issues. We had this discussion on the RFK talk page and the Adolf Hitler talk page. The B&W photo of JFK is a good one and there is no reason not to put it up. I don't know of any copyright problems with it, either. Kierzek (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Lest anyone bring up the darkness of the photo, I have done some lighting correction on it and am trading the current one out for the lighter version. -- WV ● ✉✓03:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for that lighting fix, Winkelvi, it was definitely needed. Out of curiosity, what do you all feel makes the B&W photo better than the colored one? I personally am fine with either one. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
For personal reasons, it looks like the relaxed and friendly - but stately looking - JFK I remember. For encyclopedia reasons, I think it is better because you can see all of his face. And it's more interesting than the other photo, in my opinion. Glad you like the newer version. The other was not natural skin "brightness" for him. -- WV ● ✉✓04:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, the B&W image looks more professional and admirable. Like something you would use for a poster, whereas the color one seems like it's more like an awkward candid picture. Just my opinion anyways. And thanks, Winkelvi, for the lighting correction - great job on that. :) Bitsdotlies (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on John F. Kennedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to 7 external links on John F. Kennedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I am not a wikipedian but was struck by how oddly biased the intro paragraph of this page is compared to other pages of similarly prominent people and topics. I would consider myself very pro-Kennedy overall, but I believe that the issues are much more stylistic than ideological.
-The whole last sentence "Kennedy also avoided any significant increase in the American presence in Vietnam, refusing to commit combat troops and keeping the level of others, mostly military advisors, to only 16,000, compared to the 536,000 troops committed by his successor, Lyndon Johnson, by 1968." provides absolutely no context and seems to be making an editorial rather than factual point. It also is insanely specific for what is, again, the introductory paragraph for a very broad-ranging article.
Again, I never edit Wikipedia, but have come to rely on it and trust it, particularly for very high-profile topics. This was a very jarring bit of text to read for an article that I would assume to be highly refined due to its subject matter. I think the community can do better.
69.130.12.129 (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
You are right on both points. The death penalty in DC was not enough of a major issue to justify placement in the lead. Comparing Kennedy's smaller Vietnam escalation to Johnson's is deceptive, because they were faced with different circumstances. Johnson was also reluctant to commit American troops. LBJ promised in 1964 not to "send American boys to do the job that Vietnamese boys should be doing" (I know, it's not an exact quote). The truth is that no one knows what Kennedy would have done had he not been assassinated. A discussion of what Kennedy might have done is perhaps appropriate down in the body of the article, but not in the lead, and not in such POV terms.
Well, there's certainly not any long-term consensus favoring the bit about Vietnam, which was added by an editor with a history of overt POV-pushing just last month.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Closeness to nuclear war
It's said in this article and several others that proximity of nuclear war had never been greater than during Cuban Missile Crisis. Well, if you'll read about the Madman theory stuff, that statement doesn't seem to be objective and is more of a yellow press stuff. Ibmua (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Early life and military career split
I've thought that in regards to previous presidents having separate articles of their early lives, maybe JFK should as well. I think there's enough content and I certainly could find more. My proposal would be to have a separate article for both his early life and his tenure in the Navy. How's that sound? Informant16 23 April 2016
Fair enough on the Navy, but I think his life before that (1917 -1940) would qualify. There's plenty of content out there about his relationships with his family, his duties relating to his father, the impact of his schooling and early illnesses that I think can suffice an article. Informant16 23 April 2016
It should be pretty easy to put something together from this article; his parent's articles and Kennedy family article and by using RS sources therein. I must say that I don't really see a need for it and it may be a WP:contentfork but we shall see. Kierzek (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm assembling some content in my sandbox. I'll present it to you when I'm done. Informant16 6 May 2016
Something tells me that it would be full of redundancies that could easily be discussed here in the main bio, but I'm willing to at least preview it before making a definitive call. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
You know what? Forget it. You haven't seen it but have already concluded that it most likely will be nothing but trash so I'll cease production. Informant16 6 May 2016
No; I specifically said I would preview it before making a definitive call. In other words, I am willing to give it a chance before saying "create" or "do not create" subarticle. Having suspicions doesn't equate to being certain on something. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Doubtless our article cites its claim. Do you have a cite for yours? While the major powers did some posturing in 1973, they were not directly involved and did not place their arsenals on the highest level alerts, as happened with Cuba. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
1956? Really? A conflict that the two superpowers did not even disagree with each other? When do we get to stop assuming good faith? You've been told to provide reliable sources. Do you intend to do so, or shall I close this discussion? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The US threatened to bankrupt the UK in order to avoid nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Any nuclear attack on the UK and France would have required a nuclear response from all of NATO (although the United States deliberately excluded Israel from this guarantee). (217.42.104.110 (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC))
I am giving you one more chance before I close this discussion. Are you going to present reliable resources for your claim, or not? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
What would one expect him to say after losing face. The missiles were not needed there anyway as they were obsolete and the Polaris missile-equipped submarines were much more of a counter-threat. Kierzek (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
The Cuban Missile Crisis was a much greater victory for Kruschev than the Suez Crisis. And why does the section only say Kennedy removed missiles from Turkey? They were removed from Italy as well. (86.183.30.78 (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC))
Brezhnev and others intended to depose Kruschev anyway. They all knew the truth about the Cuban Missile Crisis - unlike the US public. (86.183.30.78 (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC))
This edit request to John F. Kennedy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the second paragraph under 'Early Life And Education', all of JFK's siblings are listed with links, with the exception of Patricia Kennedy Lawford (listed near the end of the paragraph in plain text as Patricia Helen "Pat" Kennedy). There is a separate article for Patricia Kennedy at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Kennedy_Lawford - it would be great if this URL could be linked to her name in the second paragraph.
Flickyll (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
JFK was a very flawed president. As a man he was amoral, sex-obsessed and egotistical. His extra-marital escapades were legendary. Politically he began the US intervention in Vietnam, nearly caused WW3 through misjudging the Soviets over Cuba. His invasion of Cuba was as misguided as anything the Bush dynasty undertook. He was possibly associated with the mafia. Yet the article is entirely positive about him. Why is there no hint of any criticism or suggestion that he was anything other than the best president the USA ever had? More balance is called for.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
The article is balanced and written in WP:NPOV, neutral point of view. The "Bay of Pigs", "affairs", "intervention" in Vietnam (which did not start with his administration) and Cuban-Missile Crisis are all covered. No where does it state anything of "being the best president"; in fact, I know of no article on Wikipedia which states that about any president. By your comments, clearly you have your opinions. BTW-Wikipedia does not allow WP:OR; original research and our personal opinions, including my own do not matter. Besides npov, what is written must have WP:RS sources and disagreements on content are settled by discussion and consensus by editors on the talk page, herein. I would point to Wikipedia:Core content policies for further information. Kierzek (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
The article should mention how much he was responsible for the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kruschev only put missiles on Cuba after the Bay of Pigs invasion, which failed because Kennedy did not provide air support - unlike Eisenhower in Guatemala. (5.81.222.33 (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC))
Minor Grammatical Errors
I am a very new member to the community, and given the protected nature of the page, I don't feel comfortable editing it. However, I noticed that there is an error in the second sentence of the PT-109 tab, "On the night of August 1–2, PT-109, on its 31st mission, with PT-162 and PT-169, were performing nighttime patrols near New Georgia in the Solomon Islands." Here, I believe using the word "was" would be more grammatically correct than the word "were", as the "PT-109" (a singular noun) is the subject. If someone who has permission to edit this page would be kind enough to fix this, it would be greatly appreciated. (I apologize if this comment is not correctly formatted, I am a new user, and am still getting used to the process.)Davhamil (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Why was the TFX fighter bomber controversy section removed ? A considerable length of time and good faith editing was involved. Reliable references and sources were given. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I have a question about the accuracy of the casual, and completely uncited, claim in the opening section that states Kennedy "avoided any significant increase in the American presence in Vietnam" and then notes that he increased our number of advisors to "only" 16,000 as opposed to LBJ's 536,000. What this statement conveniently ignores is that JFK did increase the number of advisors to 16,000 from Eisenhower's 9?00 or so, and had these advisors participating in occasional combat missions with South Vietnamese forces. A number of historians and journalists who have written about Kennedy and Vietnam, such as David Halberstam, Gary Wills, and Richard Reeves, have certainly written that Kennedy did "significantly" increase our military presence in Vietnam compared to previous presidents, and that's without mentioning the role he played in the military coup to overthrow President Diem in November 1963. Of course, historians have argued whether JFK would have gotten us into Vietnam as deeply as LBJ later did, but the claim that he didn't "significantly" increase our involvement there doesn't seem to agree with what a great many historians and journalists have written. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:691E:5A29:2CEC:3116:4AD3:E88A (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
"Kennedy slightly increased the number of military advisors and special forces U.S. Special Forces in the area, from 11,000 in 1962 to 16,000 by late 1963,..."
Some might consider a 45% increase to be more than "slightly." Why don't we strike the editorial "slightly," and allow the reader to judge the significance of the numbers? Plazak (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see that number as significant in the overall scheme of things, but took out the word "slightly" as it could be said to be more than that and the word is not needed. Kierzek (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Presidential Photo
Unless anyone can come up with a good reason, I'm going to put the Presidential photo of Kennedy up. All of the other Presidents have it except Kennedy.. It seems strange that he wouldn't.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranjin6 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Sentence fragment
Right in the first paragraph, there's this sentence:
"The Cuban Missile Crisis, The Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the establishment of the Peace Corps, developments in the Space Race, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Trade Expansion Act to lower tariffs, and the Civil Rights Movement."
This is an obvious fragment and should be edited slightly to better incorporate it into the surrounding paragraph. Here's a possibility:
"Some key developments of Kennedy's presidency included the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the establishment of the Peace Corps, developments in the Space Race, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Trade Expansion Act to lower tariffs, and the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement.
The missiles Kennedy removed from Italy and Turkey were not obsolete. That was just spin to justify him surrendering to the Soviets. (165.120.184.247 (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC))
First, even the news blog you cite states Turkey was told the "missiles were obsolete in 1961", and NATO was offered five Polaris submarines with one to be stationed "in the Eastern Mediterranean". So it does not state your point. Kierzek (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
There's an inaccuracy in the second paragraph of the Early life and education section.
Thank you to all who contributed to the section regarding JFK's health during the last year of his presidency
The prior version of this article, as I found it in early August 2016, made JFK seem like an amphetamine-dependent nut, reliant on charlatans who gave him hokey injections of illicit substances and animal extracts for his very real medical infirmities. I found a legitimate, NPOV reference that indicated that such treatment was discontinued in 1962. I added a sentence or two about that, along with a citation referencing the source. Several other editors added further clarification and made clear that any improvement in JFK's leadership abilities in 1963 were supposition, i.e. correlation not causation. That is completely reasonable. The fact remains that it is important to avoid OVER-emphasizing JFK's flaws as president (there were many) and not to casually attribute them to inappropriate medical treatment.--FeralOink (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Done I think these all improve clarity, and shouldn't be controversial. Thanks, 128.63.16.20! Storkk (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for spotting the error.--JayJasper (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Not done the image you have linked to is copyright, so we cannot use it - Arjayay (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
