Jump to content

Talk:John F. Kennedy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kupferert (talk | contribs) at 16:27, 31 October 2019 (I feel accomplished.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former good article nomineeJohn F. Kennedy was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 8, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
November 17, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 29, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
August 3, 2016Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
Current status: Former good article nominee

Small spelling mistake in this article; suggesting change

Under the header 1960 presidential election, 13th line, the word "chose" is included twice; once as a hyperlink, I'd advise to leave the hyperlink but remove the first word.

Family names

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

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

Protected Edit Request September 17, 2019

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

The article is published as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2019

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

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_F._Kennedy&oldid=923917403"