Jump to content

Talk:John F. Kennedy/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Assassination

Was he assassinated because he had surrendered to the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis? (81.153.133.147 (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC))

There are many theories on his assassination, but it's hard to say for sure why he was shot. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Some sources state Johnson knew Kennedy would be assassinated after he agreed to remove US missiles from Italy and Turkey. (81.153.133.147 (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC))
And what sources would those be? clpo13(talk) 16:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Castro knew Kennedy would be assassinated for losing the Cuban Missile Crisis: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/cuba/9151787/Fidel-Castro-knew-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-would-assassinate-John-F-Kennedy.html (81.153.133.147 (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC))
He did not lose the CMC and there is not reason to discuss such subjective fringe theories. Kierzek (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
He surrendered to the Soviet demands and removed the missiles Eisenhower had put in Italy and Turkey that were aimed at Moscow. He also agreed the US would never invade Cuba again. General Le May called the Cuban defeat the greatest in American history. (81.153.133.147 (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC))
You keep coming back and posting this same old tired line. The missiles were obsolete and replaced by the Polaris submarines. And Le May wanted to invade where the Cubans had tactical nukes under their control; yeah, good idea. And Khrushchev fell from power in the aftermath. Kierzek (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
The missiles were not obsolete and Kennedy should never have allowed the Soviet missiles to reach Cuba in the first place. Kruschev fell from power two years later for reasons that had nothing to do with his great victory in the Cuban Missile Crisis. (81.159.7.200 (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC))

Photo

That is not a presidential portrait. That is a photo from the 1960 Presidential Campaign. Someone keeps changing it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranjin6 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Name

Twice now I have tried to clarify in the lead what he is actually known as. Twice it has been reverted. I am puzzled as to why added clarity is obviously considered to be a bad thing by the self-appointed "guardians" of this article. The current construction (John Fitzgerald "Jack" Kennedy) clearly implies he was and is commonly known as Jack Kennedy to the world. Whereas in fact he was only known as Jack to his family and friends and the world at large knows him as John F. Kennedy or JFK. Perhaps someone would like to explain what the problem with added clarity actually is? Because in all my years of editing Wikipedia I have rarely seen such weird and poorly justified reverts on what seems to me to be a sensible and beneficial edit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking through your addition, "Jack" is justified in that placement when he used it himself and others called him that. It might not be in every nation, but the US public certainly has often referred to him as Jack; he and his wife otherwise wouldn't be known as "Jack and Jackie". The "known as John F. Kennedy" bit is also repetitive as the article title already indicates that. I didn't make the reverts and can definitely see you mean well, but the more concise version is overall better as yours as overly wordy. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Necrothesp, there are no "guardians" of this article. You should have taken it to the talk page after the first revert by a long time editor; and I explained my revert the second time you changed it, per BRD. Jack is correct, as Snuggums also has stated above. Kierzek (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
All I can say is, what a load of old rubbish. The "long time editor", as you call them, reverted with the ludicrous comment "Sorry, how do you know this?" The article as is clearly implies that his common name was Jack Kennedy. We all know it wasn't (he's far, far more commonly referred to as John F. Kennedy or JFK), but I'll leave it to you guardians. Long experience has shown me that there's no point in trying to improve an article when a small group of editors have already decided what they think it should say. Sad but true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I will say that he could have phrased it in a better way, but the point is still valid. As for your other perceptions stated, no reason for me to address that. Kierzek (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Guyana

There needs to be mention of his support for the illegal coup in Guyana: http://markcurtis.info/2007/02/12/the-coup-in-british-guiana-1963/ (81.132.49.250 (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC))

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John F. Kennedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Move relating to JFK's sister

see Talk:Kathleen Kennedy (producer) In ictu oculi (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Camelot era redirects here, so a hatnote needs to exist to point to Camelot about King Arthur's era.

"Camelot era" redirects here. For British mythology, see Camelot and King Arthur.

{{redirect|Camelot era|British mythology|Camelot|and|King Arthur}}

-- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done now included Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggested changes

W/r to World War II, I find "asked that he be reconsidered for the Silver Star Medal for which had been recommended initially". SUGGESTED EDIT: insert comma after "Medal", and, assuming I have the correct meaning, insert "he" just before "had". The next sentence is in parentheses; SUGGESTED EDIT is putting that sentence's closing period inside the right parenthesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.56.146 (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Durie Malcolm, alleged first wife

[1]

Is this worth mentioning? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

User:JackofOz if it is confirm that she was his first wife, then it should be mention. If it is just an allegation then i think we shouldnt add it. usernamekiran (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Dailymail is not a reliable source as per the recent consensus. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
That is only disproven rumor and not RS; would be a WP:Fringe contention at best. Kierzek (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Lede needs to be changed

The Cuban Missile Crisis was not the closest the world came to nuclear war. That was the Yom Kippur War in 1973. (MikeyFinn (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

That is true. We now know DEFCON 2 was secretly enacted as the Soviets began moving nuclear missiles into Alexandria harbor. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:A8CE:9EC9:E0D2:3032 (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC))
No, should not be changed; the lede is a summary of the cited body text. Already been discussed and we go by the cited sources. Kierzek (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

“I will splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the wind”

Three months later, he was killed. I think we should include this in the article. --Rævhuld (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Where would you suggest including it? Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Not good enough. This is a biography of someone else and does not cite any source. We have LOTS of Kennedy biographies where authors have done the research and give the cites. so start looking there. For a convincing denial he ever said anything like that about the CIA see Vincent Bugliosi (2007). Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. W. W. Norton. p. 1189. Rjensen (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. Bugliosi says there that the NYT reported this quote. The NYT did so on April 23, 1966.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Kennedy was dead in April 1966 so they did not get it from him. NYT does not say who when where or why they got the quote. No biographer I have seen uses it--it appears in conspiracy books to prove CIA murdered Kennedy. Kennedy never talked in that sort of metaphor to anyone else. He is not known to have attacked the CIA so brutally in anyone else's hearing. He did not in fact try to break up or reduce or minimize the CIA. It's what rumor looks like. Rjensen (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Here's the NYT piece: Wicker, Tom et al. "C.I.A.: Maker of Policy, or Tool?; Survey Finds Widely Feared Agency Is Tightly Controlled", New York Times (April 24, 1966): "said to one of the highest officials of his Administration that he wanted 'to splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.'"Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
This quote is used in the Wikipedia articles "Bay of Pigs Invasion" and "JFK and the Unspeakable". I think that's adequate. It doesn't seem significant enough for this article too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It's kind if moot, because I'm not supporting inclusion of the quote here in this article. Half the juicy stuff in the NYT is sourced anonymously, but we still consider it reliable AFAIK.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I believe including it would be WP:undue weight even if it is found to be an RS cited statement. Kierzek (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

JFK's infobox photo

User:Searingjet Kindly do not engage in "Edit War". Your explanation on revert is not encyclopaedic. As User:SNUGGUMS said, the white house portrait was decided to be used by the talk page. usernamekiran (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC) usernamekiran (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The thread discussing it can be found at Talk:John F. Kennedy/Archive 8#Infobox image. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
@FabianSandvold: thank you for your goodfaith edit. But as snuggums has mentioned above this comment, the white house portrait, looking up; has been decided by consensus. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Rmichaelrugg: thank you for your goodfaith edit. But as snuggums has mentioned above this comment, the white house portrait, looking up; has been decided by consensus. If you still think the image should be changed, kindly start a discussion on the talkpage, and follow the consensus. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Diaries

Should we write about his diary?

?--Rævhuld (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No, just trivia. Just because text may be "sourced", does not automatically equal notability. Kierzek (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on John F. Kennedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Did Joe Kennedy's plane explode over the English Channel in 1944?

There seems to be some confusion and debate concerning the destruction of Joe Kennedy's aircraft during World War II in 1944. Some reports say that the aircraft exploded, but this is not the case. The following is a quote from a news article:

"On August 12, 1944, Kennedy and Lieutenant Wilford John Willy took off in a converted B-24 Liberator (the drone versions were designated BQ-8) from Royal Air Force Station Fersfield, near Norwich. Their target was a massive underground military complex called the Fortress of Mimoyecques that had the potential to launch devastating attacks directly at London. Several minutes short of the planned bail out, an electrical fault in the Liberator caused the Torpex to detonate. In a thunderous instant, the plane and both men flying it simply ceased to exist."

The plane did NOT explode. The Torpex explosive was ignited and detonated prematurely. The bomb went of and destroyed the aircraft. The plane did not explode on its own. I don't care what Jimmy Doolittle said. Anthony22 (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

There was still an explosion, which caused the aircraft to be destroyed and caused the death of the pilots. "Destroyed", in and by itself, is a vague term to use. Kierzek (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
A quote from "a news article" is little use to us here without a citation of the source. General Ization Talk 14:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

If you go to the article on Joe Kennedy, you will see the Section where he was killed during World War II. The following quote appears: 

"the Torpex explosive detonated prematurely and destroyed the Liberator, killing Kennedy and Willy instantly"

The explosive device (bomb) detonated prematurely. This destroyed the aircraft and killed the two occupants instantly. To say that the plane exploded is false and misleading information. It was the BOMB that exploded, thereby destroying the aircraft and its occupants.

I know an example of a plane that DID explode. TWA Flight 800. Anthony22 (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

"His explosive-laden plane was destroyed when the plane's bombs detonated prematurely as the aircraft was flying over the English Channel." I do not find this sentence, which is what currently appears in the article, to be at all ambiguous or inaccurate. General Ization Talk 15:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Anthony22: The article is accurate. It reflects what you want to say. So I am not sure what your point is. The article says (I'm copy-pasting):

On August 12, 1944, his older brother, Joe Jr., a Navy pilot, was killed after he volunteered for a special and hazardous air mission. His explosive-laden plane was destroyed when the plane's bombs detonated prematurely as the aircraft was flying over the English Channel.

As you can see, it clearly mentions "his explosive-laden plane was destroyed when the plane's bombs detonated prematurely".

  • I also checked with the sources provided in the article, and some other sources.
  • If you still want the content to be changed, please put a proposal here on the talkpage, in the format of "Change A (current content) to B (new content)" with a reliable source. Cheers —usernamekiran (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree; as the sequence of events and what "destroyed" the aircraft is explained. Kierzek (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Stanley Levison made the Kennedys suspicious of MLK

The King Encyclopedia at Stanford University notes this to be true. I'm afraid the folklore about the Kennedys being civil rights heroes needs to end. Sometimes the truth hurts, even though we must accept it.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The "King Encyclopedia" states 1963 not 1962 and much of what you added in already in the article under "Civil Liberties" section as I noted in the edit summary and it is well WP:RS cited; our opinions do not matter and your opinion "the folklore needs to stop" is WP:OR in this case. Per WP:BRD you are to discuss it further here. It is not my job to sort out the redundant addition. Kierzek (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring

www.sparknotes.com

I note that a few recent additions are cited to: http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/jfk, which appears to be a blog put out by Barnes & Noble (B&N). I don't believe it would be considered an WP:RS source; the part I reviewed that was used for the "early life" section herein is not source cited in the text and we don't know the editorial over-site for the blog. All there appears to be is a listed "Further Reading" section for the blog. If the article is ever put up for GA I am sure better RS cites for the sentences will be needed. Looking for others opinion. Kierzek (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Sparknotes seems to be fine for summarizing books and such (I remember using it often as a student), but I'm not sure how accurate they are when it comes to biographical content. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Length

This article is getting a bit long. I propose either a spin-off article of the Early life and career of John F. Kennedy (perhaps up to 1960?) and/or the shortening of the presidency section now that there is a presidency of John F. Kennedy article. I also think we could get rid of the coat of arms and ancestry sections (move them to the Kennedy family article). Any thoughts or objections? Orser67 (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Well I see you added quite a bit to the section on the 1960 election; frankly, some of that could be moved to the article on the 1960 presidential election, if it is not covered there already. An article of the early life is a possibility, I await the thoughts of other editors. Kierzek (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
No. Instead of creating new article, we should move excessively detailed content to related article(s). Ancestry, presidential elections of 60, his presidency are some articles that come to mind where Jack is a major topic. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Thinking about it further, I agree with Usernamekiran. I remember when this same subject same up on the Marilyn Monroe article and a "Personal Life of Marilyn Monroe" sub-article was made and sections split off to there. Well, if you look for that article now, you won't find it because it was subsequently decided to move back sections/parts to the main article and the sub-article on her death. The main article was worked on and taken up to GA and is now a FA rated article. So, really some copy edits and edits for concision should be made herein and where possible, move greater detail to current sub-articles on JFK (and related subject articles on him), as Usernamekiran suggests. Further, it would help if this article was taken to GA so it is stable and more finished and complete in form for presentation. I would be willing to help on that. With all this said, I still await imput from other regulars herein. Kierzek (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I disagree that the presidential election of 1960 section should be shortened. I think it's as short as it could reasonably be given its huge importance to JFK's career and historical standing. I argue that we should instead focus on shortening everything prior to his congressional career, as well as the presidency section (which has a subarticle) and the numerous sections after his assassination. Orser67 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Orser67: hi. I didnt mean to say that we should shorten these particular topics. I was giving a generalised example. :-) What I am trying to say is, instead of creating a new/other article; we should try to consolidate this one wherever it is posible without losing the imprtat content, and meaningfulness of the article. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 20:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I agree with you that we don't need to create a new article. Orser67 (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I think we all agree at this point that a new article is not what is needed. Kierzek (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I moved the "coat of arms" section to the Kennedy family page. Orser67 (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John F. Kennedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Coup in South Vietnam

Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The lede should mention the 1963 South Vietnamese coup, as Kennedy and his administration welcomed it. (FarnuBak (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC))

This cannot go in the lede unless it is well sourced to reliable sources in the body of the article. Even if it is, it may not deserve to be in the lede. warshy (¥¥) 12:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Even if RS sourced it is something that is not notable enough for the lede. Kierzek (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Agreed 100%. It was removed. warshy (¥¥) 13:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't "welcomed". The administration simply didn't get involved in it even though they were aware about it. Neither supported nor opposed. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, they were aware "of" it, not "about" it. And yes, it was not "welcome" by any means, that would be an unwarranted editorial judgment that is completely unsourced. But again, it was not welcome, not "it was not welcomed". Sorry for the grammatical nitpicking. warshy (¥¥) 16:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@Warshy: your comment lol'ed me.
But it is accurate as per Indian English. Also, here "revert" means "reply". —usernamekiran(talk) 18:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there an 'Indian English' WP also somewhere? I wouldn't be surprised... :) warshy (¥¥) 19:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

lol nope there isnt, but there are many others like Sanskrit, Hindi, Marathi, Malyalam, Telugu and few others ;-) —usernamekiran(talk) 19:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Kennedy considered supporting the coup as early as August 1963: http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB302/ It needs to be in the lede as it showed how the Vietnam War developed during his presidency. (FarnuBak (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC))
The supposed "development" of the Vietnam War during Kennedy's short presidency is a controversial issue. But as Kierzek (talk · contribs) already stated above, it is a background issue and it is "not notable enough for the lede" for Kennedy's main page. warshy (¥¥) 13:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Kennedy massively increased the illegal US involvement in Vietnam, so it is certainly notable. (FarnuBak (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC))

As I said, this is Kennedy's main biography article. The Vietnam issue under his Presidency, may be expanded upon in the Presidency/policies section, not in the lede. warshy (¥¥)

The Southeast Asia section mentions that Kennedy welcomed the coup, and had instructed Lodge to offer full assistance in every way except assassination. The coup was as important a part of Kennedy's presidency as the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis. (FarnuBak (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC))
No, it was a background issue, and certainly not as important to his Presidency as the Cuban issues. It can definitely remain the Southeast Asia section amd does not belong in the lede. warshy (¥¥) 14:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Bay of Pigs invasion

Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Kennedy personally authorized the invasion on 4 April 1961. (FarnuBak (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC))

All the plans were already in place long before the end of the Eisenhower Presidency, and they were only left over for approval. All this is developed already in detail in the main Bay of Pigs Invasion. The original articulation in the lede here was goon enough, and so I will revert your accusatory language change. warshy (¥¥) 13:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Kennedy could have either cancelled the invasion, or provided air cover. The previous version makes it sound as though the invasion went ahead without his involvement. (FarnuBak (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC))
Nobody without a blatant POV can simply assert that he could have "cancelled the invasion". Administration policies and general geopolitical trends are always much more complex than that. There is also extensive literature on this, besides the one sided sources you are trying to insert here. It seems to me that you are here to edit-war from a very specific POV and I hope other Users chime in on this too, soon. warshy (¥¥) 14:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I am only interested in the lede providing an accurate summary of Kennedy's presidency. That he did not immediately cancel the Cuban invasion plans in January 1961 is often cited as the worst mistake of his presidency. (FarnuBak (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC))
In your POV. I know enough reliable sources that dispute it. But in any case, the dispute is not going to be "settled" in the lede of President Kennedy's main biography article. warshy (¥¥) 14:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Cuban Missile Crisis

Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The lede should not state the crisis almost led to nuclear war as though it is fact. Some historians believed Khruschev was not really willing to use nuclear weapons over Cuba. (FarnuBak (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC))

You seem to have your own POV agenda here; we go by WP:RS opinion by main stream historians and respected authors. When you added "may have" to the lede that is WP:Weasel words, and is vague and ambiguous. It is discussed and cited in the body text. The lede is only an NPOV overview of the body text. Kierzek (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Khruschev may have just wanted the US missiles that were aimed at Moscow to be removed from Italy and Turkey. He admitted in his memoirs that he was not seriously thinking of going to war in November 1956 over the Suez Crisis. (FarnuBak (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC))
The Cuban Missile Crisis wasn't in 1956. His memoir opinions on Suez are not germane to this conversation --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

personal/family tragedies

I tried to make this more objective by changing this to "a number of family tragedies." This was reverted. First, it is less credible to use two adjectives to describe the same thing; not KISS. Second, everybody dies in the end; if you are the last child remaining, I suppose you have experienced a large number of "tragedies." These seem to be confined to mostly "family" tragedies. Personal being confined to his physical condition which is described later and rather extensive. As editors, we should not be exaggerating, using subjective terms, other people's normal life experiences. We report them accurately and let the reader decide. Student7 (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

One a day

The country was able to discuss President Harding's deficiencies easily enough 20 years later. We don't seem to have reached the ability to discuss the Kennedys yet with any degree of frankness, despite their being no further need for whitewashing: no Kennedy eligible for the Presidency, for example, Kennedy's "one woman a day" experience, as related to Harold MacMillan. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2725363/EXCLUSIVE-How-Harold-If-I-dont-woman-I-terrible-headaches-They-gossiped-sex-wives-world-affairs-bizarre-friendship-President-Kennedy-Prime-Minister-Macmillan.html. Lawford is described as "chief procurer" for Jack (and Bobby). See https://www.amazon.com/Kennedys-Hollywood-Lawrence-J-Quirk/dp/B008SLZ5XA and elsewhere. Other people share that title, it seems. A reliable citation would, of course, be required. The MacMillan quote is undeniable, however.

I'm only writing this because, their appears to be a cadre who want the truth to remain hidden, for some reason. Student7 (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

You offer your personal opinions and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, is what is coming through. You have been around long enough to know our personal opinions are not what matters here. There has been no "white wash" here. It is dealt with with WP:RS citing and by consensus, just like for Martin Luther King Jr. There is a section which covers a part of the man's life; it is not the central focus of the article. Now I will admit, I always wondered why Lyndon Johnson's article never had a similar section, but frankly I don't have the time to work on that. Kierzek (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
President Harding's "deficiencies" led to this. The most significant repercussion of President Kennedy's personal indiscretions was that Jackie went to a farm in Virginia for a while with the kids. For why this suggestion is not acceptable content within the article, see WP:N. For more on why this topic would be a nonstarter even if it was notable (which it's not), see WP:NOT. - Sleyece 06:15:56, July 6, 2017 (UTC)
The article already discusses his sexual promiscuity.
Are you saying that Harold MacMillan is WP:NN? Or the Daily Mail? In what way is the quote not WP:RS?
Kennedy's fooling around with other women led to the Cuban Missile Crisis, a real crisis, BTW. It was perilously close to WWIII. All because Nikita Khrushchev didn't take Kennedy to be a "serious" leader.
If Lyndon Johnson should have an article, why can't Kennedy's article be more robust? Student7 (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what to say about The Kennedys in Hollywood, but Daily Mail is a terrible source as they're notorious for often making things up and should be avoided, especially for contentious claims. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a tabloid (like the Daily Mail). Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. Further, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or hearsay. And it leading to the CMC is OR. Kierzek (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay on the Mail.
How about the New York Post? See http://nypost.com/2013/11/10/all-the-presidents-women-3/
Washington Post? See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/11/22/americans-think-john-f-kennedy-was-one-of-our-greatest-presidents-he-wasnt/?utm_term=.3ebdea23c111 Student7 (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The Washington Post is a much better basis. The question now is how much detail from that should be implemented into this article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The article covers the subject's mentioned, without getting into WP:Undue; no, you have your personal reasons, Student, there is no truth being hidden here. The Post article is a writers opinion piece with a bias to a certain side, we should stick to the RS historians for a balanced view; and the article talks about all those events. And I am not saying tweaking should not occur, as most any article can use that from time-to-time; I have a problem with OR, POV pushing and poor sources. I will need to dust off my Dallek bio book to cross check proposed additions. For one example, the Post writer states RFK said in 1964, "JFK never considered withdrawing"; but that is not correct, he said: "We'd face that when we came to it". Did he skirt around the question a bit, yes, RFK did, but it is still not the same as stated by the Post writer. JFK did consider withdrawing or looking (or hoping) for a way out (as LBJ and Nixon ended up considering, as well), but would that have happened, we don't know in the end, as the RS cited text in the article states. Kierzek (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

JFK: Health

Under the JFK Health article, it states JFK, use of steroids & pain meds as inappropriate. Kennedy had Addisons disease as I do. It is an adrenal insufficiency to produce adequate levels of cortisol. If you have Addisons & your cortisol levels drop too low, you will die. It is called a fatal Cortisol crisis or Addisons crisis & requires immediate injections of hydrocortisone to avoid going into fatal shock. I just battled with a pharmacist over these very injections because she had never heard of it. Her lack of education in this disease & interference could have cost me my life. Ignorance is a terrible thing when misused as a basis to judge or interfere with others. It was not her business to judge need when she had no knowledge of my medical history or this condition. Addisons requires twice daily doses of oral cortisones on a regular basis for life and injections of 100 mg hydrocortisone for adrenal crisis episodes. I know this from personal experience & you can also find it on the internet. So anyone who says the use of cortisones (steroids) was inappropriate for JFK who had Addisons disease, has no knowledge of this disease. Secondly, low cortisone causes chronic pain to the extreme requiring cortisone & pain meds to treat it. Kennedy also had a severe back injury & surgeries on top of this problem. This can cause onset of Adrenal crisis. Allowing someone to suffer untreated excruciating pain is inappropriate. I also have severe fibromyalgia pain which is crippling when untreated. Anyone who has never experienced either Addisons or chronic excruciating pain is not qualified to judge JFK's need for those medicines. That includes doctors whom have never experienced these conditions. You have to live with it before you can judge it appropriately. In the case of Addisons, the cortisones (steroids) are life & death. Without them, you die. A fatal condition without cortisones. So it would be inappropriate Not to use cortisones for Addisons. How many of these people claiming cortisones & pain meds as inappropriate are themselves inappropriately using street drugs, alcohol, smoking or unsafe sexual practices? However, mixing amphetamines with pain killers or tranquillizers is a deadly cocktail of drugs. They may have been trying to alleviate the drowsiness from pain meds but the strain on the heart from combined amphetamines & barbiturates is deadly. My mothers boyfriend died from this combination of tranquillizers & amphetamines. Kennedy was over 40 and a candidate for heart attack or stroke from amphetamines, smoking & cholesterol. Not to mention unsafe sex. So that is an inappropriate combination.

But any reference to cortisones (steroids) or pain meds as inappropriate should be removed from the article. These are appropriate treatments for Addisons & chronic pain. When pain is chronic, severe & incurable, it still must be treated with medicine to alleviate that pain, even if it is lifelong. We cannot expect anyone to suffer from untreated pain just to appease someone else's erroneous misguided opinion. In fact, to allow someone to suffer from untreated chronic pain is inappropriate. There is no reason why anyone should suffer from pain. Once you have taken pain meds for over a year, you no longer feel drowsy or drugged as a side effect. So there is no "high" from taking the meds long term. Just pain relief. Anyone who takes blood thinners as I do, cannot take NSAIDS. Many are allergic to alternative meds & can only take opiates. It is not an issue as to whether the body has become dependent upon a needed medicine. The issue is whether the person is taking the medicine for a genuine medical need or just to get high. If they only want to get high, then they are an addict. However, if the medicine is treating a genuine medical condition they are not addicts and are appropriately using medicines to treat valid conditions & alleviate suffering. To allow someone to suffer needlessly would be inappropriate. I spent 8 months completely bedridden suffering in excruciating pain until I was treated with pain meds. That was 9 years ago. Now I can walk & function without such suffering or drug side effects. To believe JFK should have died without cortisones for his Addisons disease or that he should have suffered excruciating pain without pain medicine is cruel & inappropriate expectations from those whom have no idea what it is like to suffer from either condition. Much less both. There are also other issues such as gastrointestinal which are involved so medicines to treat those conditions may also be required. As we get older, our BP, GI tract, heart, circulation, kidneys & other conditions such as diabetes, CAD, blood clots, lungs, immune system, osteoporosis, cancers, etc., may also require treatment. So the numbers of drugs increase as our ages & infirmities increase. It is a fact of life beyond our control. No one can sit on the sidelines & judge what another person may need. ExecPE (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@ExecPE: Thanks for the essay. However, it's unclear from this how you'd propose to change the article. I do not read anything at John F. Kennedy#Health that suggests that his having used, or his having been prescribed, corticosteroids or pain medications was inappropriate. Can you be specific about what you would change and how you would change it? General Ization Talk
If you are referring to this:
"The President's primary White House physician, George Burkley, realized that treatments by Jacobson and Travell, including the excessive use of steroids and amphetamines, were medically inappropriate, and took effective action to remove the president from their care. It was later observed that President Kennedy's leadership (e.g. the 1962 Cuban Missile crisis and other events during 1963) improved greatly once the treatments of Jacobson had been discontinued and been replaced by a medically appropriate regimen under Burkley."
That is reliably sourced content, and accurately reflects what the sources said concerning the opinions of the physicians present at the time. We cannot change what our sources say or the opinions that were expressed contemporaneously by Dr. Burkley and others. Also, please note the term excessive in the text. An otherwise appropriate medical treatment can easily become inappropriate in excess, especially when pain medicines and steroids are involved. General Ization Talk 02:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Rosemary

Rosemary was never really diagnosed by a competent specialist. A Kennedy descendant, Patrick, has been diagnosed by a professional, and is not shy in attributing problems within the family (not confined to Rosemary) to bi-polar. See http://people.com/books/patrick-kennedy-mental-illness-caused-family-tragedies-not-kennedy-curse and others of the same caliber. I will stipulate that Rosemary was "not as bright" as your average Kennedy, which made her stand out even more. Nor with as much common sense/

I will stipulate that looks can be deceiving. Having said that, a number of low IQ people can be identified by just looking at them. Can you find any picture of Rosemary where she doesn't look bright-eyed and responsive? She was presented to the Queen! Why would they bother with someone so stupid they wouldn't remember it later? Or someone that might embarrass the very PR conscious Kennedys?

If you had a child with "low IQ," pick one of the following as a treatment: a) do nothing physical to her brain or b) take a needle and run it into her brain, the only reason being to diminish something. Why would you want to diminish anything in a person with diminished IQ? It makes no sense.

Third, the diagnosing doctor had no qualifications for either diagnosing nor treating a brain or mental condition. Never mind in retrospect, even at the time, he shouldn't have been diagnosing nor treating her at all. It cannot be reliable to use his diagnosis here. A bi-polar person can be very unresponsive and "stupid" during their "depressive" stage.

When I tried to improve this by replacing "intellectual disabilities" with "mental health issues", it was reverted. Student7 (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

You removed properly sourced information in the article that Rosemary had an intellectual disability and you provide no evidence to the contrary, including the link you provide above. You offer your personal opinions that she wasn't intellectually disabled based on the absurd claims that she looked "bright-eyed and responsive" and "a number of low IQ people can be identified by just looking at them", your personal speculation about why her parents had her lobotomized, and your completely unfounded claim that "the diagnosing doctor had no qualifications for either diagnosing nor treating a brain or mental condition." You have violated so many of Wikipedia's policies that I don't know where to begin listing them. You removed sourced content. You make bold claims without a shred of evidence. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog for unsubstantiated fringe theories or your personal website to tell everyone your personal opinions. You have edited here for eleven years. You have a template on your user page stating that you "recognize the importance of citing sources". You should know better. But maybe you need to go back and review some fundamental Wikipedia policies. I suggest that you start with WP:5P. And by the way, please have a little more sensitivity and not make comments about intellectually disabled people as "so stupid they wouldn't remember it later". This is the 21st century. You clearly have a lot to learn about disabilities. Sundayclose (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
@Student7: Hi. In 1940's there was a CIA employee active. He was also a bacteriologist, and biological warfare scientist by the name Frank Olson. In 1953 he passed away. Some say it was suicide, some say it was murder by CIA. As per CIA's official documents, Olson was drugged heavily with LSD by CIA without his knowledge. This happened 8-9 days before his death. There is also a debate if it was a suicide or agency ordered murder. Would you please take a look at his photos, and tell me whether Olson had the guts to commit suicide by jumping off through a window of 13th floor?
And just like Rosemary's doctor, Olson's doctor (Harold Abramson), had no qualifications for either diagnosing or treating brain or mental condition (Olson was having paranoia = mental; and he was on high doses of LSD, must have messed up his brain). Abramson was an allergist-pediatrician! Never mind in retrospect, even at the time, he shouldn't have been diagnosing nor treating her Olson at all. It cannot be reliable to use his diagnosis here.
All these years, the Olson death mystery has been puzzling me. I really need to truth. Kindly help me with your face reading photo observation skills. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for my wording which has distressed at least two editors. The above remarks could certainly have been worded much better.

In the meantime, I have made a slight change to the article wording, which I assume is non-controversial.

I (now) think the controversial part should be changed because it is non-WP:TOPIC. The extra words about Rosemary's condition are not relevant to Jack Kennedy. He was one year old when Rosemary was born and was raised with her "condition" whatever it was. Children readily adapt to their environment, and it was "no problem" for him. It was a major concern to his parents, doubtless. I think that we can agree that all parties were horrified at the outcome of the lobotomy. Joe Sr. bio reads "Kennedy requested that surgeons perform a lobotomy (one of the earliest in the U.S.) on his eldest daughter Rosemary in 1941. Various reasons for the operation have been given, but it left her permanently incapacitated [cites]". I suggest we change the material to "Kennedy's younger sister Rose Marie "Rosemary" Kennedy was born in 1918 with intellectual disabilities and underwent a prefrontal lobotomy at age 23, leaving her permanently incapacitated." These leaves it non-controversial, strikes at the heart of the matter and does not distract from the JFK article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 (talk • contribs)

Oppose. Student7 you're simply trying to force your opinion that she was not intellectually disabled into the article despite the fact that it is properly sourced information and you have zero evidence to the contrary. There is no "controversy" except in your personal thinking. Her disability is as notable as much of the information about the Kennedy family in the article. Please drop this and move on. One more point: Your callous and profoundly misguided comments did a lot more than distress two editors. They insulted a very large group of people and those who know them. They are the ones to whom you need to apologize. Sundayclose (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The wordings suggested by Student7 hides/excludes well cited truth. It is not just a random fact, but it is the very reason why she underwent lobotomy.
    @Student7: I apologise for my previous comment. It was too much. After looking back at it, it feels anappropriate. Sorry. But all of it is true. I didnt make up anything/anybody. Truth behind Olson's death is disputed, Abramson was allergist-paediatrician. The only reason i know all this is: I studied everything connected with JFK. Including Rosemary. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Please! WP:AGF, WP:PERSONAL.

In Joseph P. Kennedy Sr.'s bio, it quotes a director of the National Institute of Mental Health as saying that "Joseph called his daughter Rosemary retarded rather than mentally ill in order to protect John's reputation for a presidential run, and that the family's 'lack of support for mental illness is part of a lifelong family denial of what was really so.' "

Wikipedia likes to use secondary sources for citation. See TM:ONES. This is not possible here. We only have Joe's word. All else is WP:MIRROR of what Joe said, refuted by the the NIMH director and Patrick Kennedy.

Rosemary Kennedy has a separate article. Diary entries are reported there (q.v.). She received a two-year diploma from a Community College.

There are indications that she was dyslexic, not understood at the time.

All of the above, of course, is irrelevant, as Rosemary's IQ, whether 60 or 260 would not have made an impression on JFK, one year older than his sister. She was the way she was.

The lobotomy itself was relevant and is repeated in all Kennedy bios.

We try to retain WP:TOPIC to a group of relevant articles (like Rosemary's and Joe Sr.'s). If there are changes to info, there are a minimum of articles to change.

Rosemary's IQ issue is not relevant to JFK's presidency or bio. Therefore, it should be removed. Student7 (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a lot more than "Rosemary's IQ". A brief summary of the events in Rosemary's life is as relevant as much of the information about the Kennedy family. It had a major impact on the Kennedy family as a whole, and thus JFK. Her life, including her intellectual disability, affected the agenda of the Kennedy family, including issues related to intellectual disability. Her intellectual disability is well sourced, as you have been told repeatedly. It is not up to individual Wikipedia editors to draw conclusions about her intellectual disability, so mentioning that she obtained a diploma from a community college is irrelevant (i.e., we can't synthesize a conclusion: "She got a diploma, therefore she was not intellectually disabled"). That is not for you, or me, or any Wikipedia editor to conclude. A brief mention of her intellectual disability is quite appropriate in this article. You are the only person pushing this change. Please drop the stick and move on unless you can find sources that unequivocally refute all of the other reliable sources that she was intellectually disabled and that her life is irrelevant to JFK. You have not done that; you haven't even come close. Sundayclose (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't see how it's worth adding Rosemary's mental conditions here. It's not like JFK himself was involved with the labotomy or (unlike sister Eunice with the Special Olympics) did anything in his career that was specifically influenced by her state of mind. Joe Sr.'s page (for obvious reasons), the Kennedy family page, Eunice's page, and maybe mother Rose's page would be more appropriate places outside of Rosemary's own article to mention it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for joining the discussion, Snuggums. My only additional comment is that if we remove mention of her intellectual disability, then we should remove all mention of her (which I oppose of course). Removing only that facet of her life and leaving the other details (including the lobotomy) without proper refutation of the sources confirming her intellectual disability is unacceptable because it is a well sourced and important aspect of her life. We should not talk about her lobotomy and pretend that she wasn't intellectually disabled. Sundayclose (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The only instance we really need to mention her at all in the article is the "Early life and education" section when listing all of JFK's siblings. I feel the whole "Personal tragedies" section should be removed (or at least not lumped all into one section) since calling things "tragic" is POV (even if people feel these were sad occurrences). As for the other content in that section, Jackie's miscarriage, Arabella, and Patrick are better for "Wife and children" (surprised they aren't already there instead), Joe Jr.'s plane crash and it prompting JFK to pursue Presidency has already been noted earlier, and I'm on the fence about sister Kick's plane crash. While the two were close (especially after Joe Jr. was killed), I don't know if this was an influential part of his career or anything. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, he did advocate for and signed the The "Community Mental Health Act" of 1963 (CMHA) (also known as the "Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act", "Mental Retardation Facilities and Construction Act", "Public Law 88-164", or the "Mental Retardation and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act of 1963") that was an act to provide federal funding for community mental health centers in the United States. See: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKPOF-047-045.aspx. I recall reading that he was influenced by his sister Rosemary, in this matter. Kierzek (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Definitely didn't know about that. If possible, it would help to know where you read that she influenced this. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
One place is O'Brien's book. On page 576 he writes, that with JFK's permission, his sister Eunice wrote an article for the "Saturday Evening Post" magazine in Sept. 1962 as to Rosemary's condition, to raise awareness; Eunice wrote in part that, 'Rosemary was mentally retarded'. Eunice also pressed JFK to do more on behalf of the disabled. He assigned Myer Feldman to oversee the legislation and JFK attended receptions and spoke to several groups about it.
I recall reading about it somewhere else, as well, but cannot recall where at the moment. Also, JFK on February 5, 1963, gave a "Special Message to Congress on mental illness and mental retardation", see: https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKWHP-AR7698-A.aspx. Kierzek (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I read, possibly on Wikipedia, that Rose Kennedy said she was told to squeeze her legs together & prevent the delivery of Rosemary until the medical personnel arrived to deliver her. Rose said she squeezed & held her back for a couple hours, if memory serves. Rose believed this was the cause of Rosemary's condition. It very well could have been if Rosemary suffered lack of oxygen in the birth canal; even with the umbilical still attached. There are a variety of infant injuries which can occur during a pregnancy or delivery. I recommend someone should look for her statements on this issue. ExecPE (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Propose moving of section & keeping in a edited shorter version

Someone put a drive-by tag on the article stating the Southeast Asia (mainly Vietnam) section was overly long and detailed. I helped re-write and edit that section several years ago. I was thinking of moving it in-bulk over to the Foreign policy of the John F. Kennedy administration article as is and keeping a slightly shorter version in the JFK main article herein. Also, frankly what is under the Foreign Policy article for Southeast Asia/Vietnam at this time is very inadequate. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Just noting here that I support this proposal. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I moved the bulk of the section with cites over to the "Foreign policy of the John F. Kennedy administration" sub-article and made edits for concision to the section herein. Kierzek (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

President Donald John Trump`s DECISION to allow diclosure of secret JFK files

Not a forum or a conspiracy site
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Very excited about upcoming disclosure. The article may need a complete overhaul, in due time. My theory is that several wikipedians will be obstructive to accurate presentation of the facts. Keep up the good work! 126.209.23.138 (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It depends on what such disclosures involve. Too soon to say how much changing will be necessary. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I note that I wasn't the only person to remove the OP's comment, as it appears to be mostly trolling, especially given this edit summary [2]. Maybe the OP can point to the policy that backs up their assertion. Otherwise, they appear to be stating the blindingly obvious. Acroterion (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I have been following this since years. I even heard Yuri Nosenko's interviews which were released in July 2017 batch. We dont have crystal ball. After disclosure, if someone finds new information, then it should be updated along with a reliable source. As long as reliable sources are provided, no editor will be obstructive. No need to panic over obstruction or the release, and no need for OP's post either. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Acroterion and usernamekiran. This is un-needed verbiage about something that has not even occurred; WP:Crystal and WP:NOTFORUM, both apply. Again IF any new and useful information comes out and is WP:RS cited, it will be added accordingly; at this point it is a non-issue, to say the least and a waste of time to discuss. Kierzek (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

new sources

please add source location. Is absent now on the main page. The coverup page is located at https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/2017-release

to get all 18 zips ~ 1G each i found ed this oneliner: 

for i in {18..1}; do  wget "https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/2017release/jfk-july_2017_release-formerly_withheld_in_full-"$i"of18.zip"; done

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Please remember that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so Wikipedia's sourcing will comprise what is written in reliable sources about what is linked above, not pulled directly from the primary source. Acroterion (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Primary sources and reliable sources aren't mutually exclusive, though secondary sources are preferred when available. When primary sources are used, they should be done so with care and probably not for any contentious claims. Anyway, the IP is saying this link should be implemented into the article, but I'm not sure where an ideal place would be. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

JFK Files - Operation Bounty

Bounty for killing communist leaders - http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/10/29/jfk-files-u-s-government-planned-offer-cubans-2-cent-bounty-castros-assassination/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.6.232.94 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This isn't pertinent to JFK so much as it is the administration's Cuba policy. Also Breitbart is generally not viewed as a reliable source here. -Indy beetle (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Breibart is not an RS source and it was a "scrapped proposal", anyway. Kierzek (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
A simple search for Operation Bounty in the actual news articles would show many more source, even reliable for political views of any color. Let it be scrapped, so it shows how this administration was thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.6.232.94 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
It's better to include plans here that actually came to be. Scrapped ones are probably better for Presidency of John F. Kennedy if any JFK page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John F. Kennedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2018

toawrd the end of the page there is a picture of jfk that captions "this is the picture of jfk hanging in the white house" and that picture isn't of him, it is a painting of his brother (i believe Robert) looking down at his grave thanks rkarf Rkarf (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any such image, at least none with that caption. —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2018

Change Cause of death from assassination to Gunshot wound, skull. [1] Ram Peri (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

Hi there, I've no idea how to go about it, but the link in the article that links to the JFK Memorial Park in Ireland (under the See Also section) links to the wrong place.

At the minute, it links to a place in Galway, Ireland, but JFK Memorial Park and Arboretum is in Wexford, Ireland, here - http://www.heritageireland.ie/en/south-east/thejohnfkennedyarboretum/

83.136.45.185 (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

We do not have an article here concerning a "JFK Memorial Park and Arboretum ... in Wexford, Ireland"; consequently, we cannot link to it in the the See also section. Eyre Square, also known as the John F. Kennedy Memorial Park,[3] is correctly linked there. General Ization Talk 00:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"Commonly known as"

My main object to this wording is that the literal meaning is something like: The "common people" call him JFK, while educated people call him by his name. "Often" gives the (I'm sure) intended meaning without the unintended implication. See: FDR and LBJ. PopSci (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Reading too much into it. It’s commonly used by anybody and everybody. Kierzek (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the word refers to how common the use is and does not refer to the person at all. And that would be "my main objection", by the way. Britmax (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
See wikt:commonly. Your perception of classism in the use of the term seems to be uniquely yours. General Ization Talk 23:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
OK. I'm out voted. However this sentence from Cleomella: "Cleomella species are known commonly as stinkweeds." still gives me the impression that it's the educated people who call the plants cleomella while common people call them stinkweeds. PopSci (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I will not edit this sentence again, or probably the article at all. However I do think the most common way for Americans to refer to him is "President Kennedy." While in other English speaking countries it would be just "Kennedy." PopSci (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
You're quite welcome to go on thinking that, but not to write it as a fact in an encyclopedia without citing a reliable source. General Ization Talk 02:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • As I said, I have no plans to edit the article again. I am curious to know if people think it is more common to refer to him as JFK than by his name. At one time it might have been but I'm not seeing that so much anymore.PopSci (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I suspect that those of us who were Americans and alive during the Kennedy administration still know and think of him as JFK, and may be more inclined to do so than younger editors who only read about him in a textbook. However, it doesn't matter whether I think (or any other editor thinks) it is more or less common, unless someone has actually studied this question and collected and published the results of the study, and therefore there is a reliable source to cite for the claim. General Ization Talk 02:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@PopSci: I am from the field of computer science. Once I had to work for two-three weeks at a government facility. The facility was about DNA barcoding, and some more stuff. Most of them were PhD holders, others were at least PG holders. And all of them referred to the insects/animals with their common names. They used scientific names rarely, only when there was scope for confusion. Here, "commonly" generally means "more often than other", "by who" or "where" is sort of immaterial :) —usernamekiran(talk) 09:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. My suggestion was to replace "commonly" with "often." PopSci (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
No-one has said which is more common, as that would need extensive surveys and there are better things for people to do. "Commonly" means widely used, with no claim that one variation is more common than any other. Britmax (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying that "commonly" is a terrible word, but if the article said that he was "often referred to by his initials JFK" that would not be incorrect either.PopSci (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Please drop the stick. General Ization Talk 16:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I already said that I will not be editing the article anymore.  :-) -PopSci (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. You are right. PopSci (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2018

2601:CB:4002:B8B5:4141:37A8:97E2:C10F (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Eskiiitttiititiiitttttt
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sakura CarteletTalk 22:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources

When we are not careful in the quality of the sources we choose, our quality suffers. It appears that a significant amount of material about the 1960 debates is coming from jargonized and poorly written information at http://www.museum.tv/eotv/eotv.htm While not completely inadequate, the text seems to be either copied or poorly synthesized from the source. I took a little time to clean up, but it could use more work. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

"army" should be capitalized, as it is referring specifically to the US Army.

The term "army" should be capitalized, as it is referring specifically to the US Army.

148.74.58.2 (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Leading a reaction?

Undersecretary of State Chester Bowles led a cautious reaction by the nation

Someone please straighten out the wording here? I would do it myself, but I'm puzzled about the meaning of this "sentence". Should this be "[he] led the call for a cautious reaction"? Also, did he do it in his official capacity and did he do so publicly or did he simply advise the president in the matter?

The above version of this "sentence" seems less relevant to the political issue at hand and more relevant to setting up the next sentence, remarking on the president's brother insulting him. Which I think is completely irrelevant to the issue, unless Robert Kennedy's insult became part of the discussion. ForgetfulMe (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2018

Add a mention of Jack Kennedy to the opening sentence. The name is mentioned in the article without ever being introduced, it's mentioned in a hatnote, it redirects here, so it should be mentioned in the article's opening sentence. 151.132.206.26 (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Per the guidelines at MOS:NICKNAME, I could go either way on this so I'm leaving it as is for the moment (and leaving this request open to hopefully get more opinions). Pinging User:Sunshineisles2 who removed this recently. The question from that guideline is whether Jack is considered a common hypocorism for John. That article lists it both as a shortening of the name (which confuses me since they're same length and syllables) and as a short form that differs significantly from the name (which seems more accurate). As the former the MOS recommends leaving it out, but as the latter the MOS recommends adding it. The idea that "John = Jack" never made sense to me personally so I would be inclined to add it back. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@ElHef: Thanks for paging me in on this. Actually, the more that I think about it, I don't have a strong opinion either way about this. I simply removed the nickname because the MOS guidelines seemed to favor its removal, and I had assumed that the John = Jack nicknaming, especially for JFK, was common enough knowledge. But if there's more discussion here and the consensus breaks differently, then that's just how it is. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Is JFK well-known enough outside of the U.S. for his nickname to be equally well-known? (That’s not a rhetorical question; I honestly don’t know.) —67.14.236.193 (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that he's well-known enough outside the US, but that's more or less because he was the President of the US, not the President of, say, Singapore. That kind of question could be brought all the way through an RfC. My point being, there's no way to establish if he's "well known", because short of going and conducting a scientific poll on who knows him, you can't really establish that. EggRoll97 (talk | contribs) 01:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
It could be difficult, but one could look for "Jack Kennedy" in non-American press and media and see how often it is used. I would doubt its use would be very frequent, since "Jack" seems to have been more common from his Senate days, before he was known internationally. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
With that in mind, I (same user as OP) reiterate my request to add the nickname to the lead—and/or to remove “Jack” from the image captions. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 Done The listing of "John → Jack" in Hypocorism#English was confusing as ElHef pointed out, being listed both as a "shortening" and a "short form that differs significantly from the name". It's clearly the latter, consistent with other names in that category. I made this edit to fix it up; using the name in the lead sentence would now be in line with MOS:NICKNAME. The whole list is rather inconsistent and needs work. As opposed to e.g. "Jim" for "James", I don't think "Jack" as a nickname for "John" is common enough to assume it would be understood, even among Americans, nor that the fact it was Kennedy's nickname is common enough knowledge not to require explanation. Also, Jack (given name) on its own is extremely popular, having been in many years the most common name given to baby boys in the UK, Ireland, and Australia. It's quite reasonable to think that a significant number of people would be confused by its unexplained usage, and think that "Jack Kennedy" was a different person than "John Kennedy". Therefore I've gone ahead and made the requested edit, by reverting Sunshineisles2's edit to the previous version. --IamNotU (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Jack Speiden/Kennedy

The 1931 family photo (with Jack at top left in white shirt) is, on my screen, directly next to a mention of Jack Speiden. Does this strike anyone else as confusing? —67.14.236.193 (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Readers of Wikipedia access its pages from many different technological viewpoints and practically no two viewing experiences are the same. On my computer's screen this juxtaposition does not occur. I don't think different readers' variable appearance is something that Wikipedia can completely account for... Shearonink (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
We could avoid using “Jack” or clarify which Jack we mean when they co-occur. If we feel the need. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok. Shearonink (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Error in the name Fitzgerald

I am quite sure the name F in Kennedy's name is not for Fortnite. The article start with "John Fortnite "Jack" Kennedy (May 29, 1917 – November 22, 1963), commonly referred to by his initials JFK,"

I believe we should read "John Fitzgerald "Jack" Kennedy (May 29, 1917 – November 22, 1963), commonly referred to by his initials JFK," — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.131.65 (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done that was someone vandalizing the article, and "Fitzgerald" has been restored. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Huge images in the page

Hello, I just wanted to let everyone know that there are huge images that were spammed in the John F. Kennedy page that display the F word followed by Trump. Linus1217 (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Billings friendship

Kennedy's & the Kennedy family's biographers stress the unusual closeness, length & importance of that friendship. It should be included. I've changed a heading and reinstated it after it was swiftly removed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It was removed because whether intentional or not, where you placed it implied something it was not. It was not an affair and not an extramarital relationship; they were close friends per the RS sources. It has WP:Undue problems, as well. It should be moved and placed where their friendship is mentioned. It has to be with proper placement, nothing to do with wanting it out. Kierzek (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I am still not happy with Serge's "fix" of the problem. Why is it necessary to mention homosexuality at all (assuming it's not in the sources). Putting "friendship" in the heading with Affairs still makes the association. There should be a completely separate subsection dedicated to Friendships, up higher (second or third). Surely Billings was not JFK's only close, personal friend; there should be others listed. (And again, the needless reference to homosexuality should be removed.) JustinTime55 (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
It is in the sources. Also that Billings had his own room in the White House. JFK did not (not) have any other friends comparable to Billings, as per sources. Nothing even close. They would usually sleep in the same big bed. There was lots of speculation about homosexual activity. Rose's respected biographer put that to rest once and for all by saying that there is no way we can know about that, not even from sheets she mentions. Better to deal with this that trim it. We're not supposed to censure well-sourced info because some of us might be uncomfortable with it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Again you are mis-reading the points above. It has nothing to do with censure. It has to do with how it is presented; which has to be npov without undue weight, rumor and speculation. There is no evidence it was more than a close friendship, in the end. Kierzek (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
First off, let's get the terminology straight:
  • Censure (noun) is "a judgement involving condemnation" or "an official reprimand" (Merriam-Webster)
  • Censor (verb) means "to suppress ... or delete anything considered objectionable". I think this is the word Serge intended to use (as in WP:Wikipedia is not censored).
Serge, you seem to be a competent, experienced editor; I'm surprised you would get this confused. Again, it's a matter of NPOV and due weight, not censorship. I just wanted to get that straight, first. I'll post my further thoughts about this issue momentarily. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Barbara A. Perry is not a gossip columnist or non-npov blogger. I don't cite sources like that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
When I first saw this update, I didn't realize that Billings was known to be homosexual. Serge added this same fact ("Though there has never been any proof of homosexual activity between them, John F. Kennedy would often, and even when married, share a bedroom with Billings.") using the same citation, to Billing's article under "Personal life". This fact throws a slightly different light on the issue in Kennedy's biography; there is indeed a reason to mention the issue; the question is how to do this with due weight, and not just casting smears (even by denial) on JFK.
  • The JFK article currently does not mention Billing's homosexuality; this would be necessary to put it in context, in "Early life and education", either where he is first introduced, or later where the European road trip is mentioned (not sure which is best).
  • Not sure whether it's better to put the room-sharing there (as Kierzek has said), or leave it where it is in the "relationships" section. There is more in the Billings article about the subject of JFK having gay friends (e.g. the Ben Bradlee quote) which might be appropriate here to place it more in context.
In short, I'm not quite sure the best way to handle this. Serge, would you object to moving your update here to the talk page for discussion while we decide the best thing to do? JustinTime55 (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for asking! The item is very well-sourced and I think it goes where it is. No need I think to rm it and put it on trial here first. Feel free to do whatever you want with it (as long as changes do not look like censorship) within the article. Suggesting addition of a statement like "Jack did not care if he or anyone else was gay or not." is in good faith, I'm sure, but how does one properly source POV like that, and should we, just that once use "Jack"? (Some of this is real confusing to me). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
PS To me, there is always due weight in a very close and unusual and lifelong friendship like that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I thought it was pretty well known Billings was a gay friend; Kennedy did not have a problem with such things. I thought it better to mention it in the article body and not in the section where it is now, for the reasons I stated above. It would probably be good to add that Jack did not care if he or anyone else was gay or not. Kierzek (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_F._Kennedy/Archive_9&oldid=1253427663"