Talk:John F. Kennedy

Affairs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to telegraph, a Miss Alford had an affair with JFK. Maybe this is important to mention. [1] --Sarteto (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Mark for edit

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

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

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

The section "Civil liberties" contains a mention of J. Edgar Hoover which I think should link to the article about him.

Misspelling

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

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

Camelot

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

inconsistency

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

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

Lead Infobox Image

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

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

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

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

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

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