Talk:John F. Kennedy

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Historycorrespondent (article contribs).

RFC on location for year of assassination

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.

---

Should the year they were assassinated be included in the prose in the first sentence?

This could be construed as redundant since the date of death is included in the first text of the article John Fitzgerald Kennedy (May 29, 1917 – November 22, 1963)

For context, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Warren G. Harding, William Mckinley, James A. Garfield, Abraham Lincoln, Zachary Taylor, and William Henry Harrison include the year of their death in the first sentence of prose for the article in addition to the birth and death dates.

There doesn't appear to be clear guidance on WP:MOS. Let me know if there is a better way to state each position. {{u|SamStrongTalks}} ^(Talk) 21:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose As noted, that would be redundant and would also make the prose a little clunky. The date of the assassination is already stated in the fourth paragraph of the lede (as it should be).~ HAL333 22:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• NO as it reads perfectly fine currently ("...served...until his assassination."). It's all very clear already, and for those whose interest is piqued, there's an entire fourth paragraph about the assassination, with the exact date again, and then of course section 7 of the article covers it in details. Using "until his assassination in 1963" would be redundant and clunky and also redundant. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 23:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I think as his date of death, and it is stated that he was assassinated, its already obvious. As per above, the secton below on the assassination has more details. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose His date of death appears right after his name, and much later in the lead it says On November 22, 1963, he was assassinated in Dallas. The idea that we need to include this information for a third time in the lead is absurd. FDW777 (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• Of coure not. There is no need to state anything twice in one sentence or three times in a section. Surtsicna (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, redundant. Kierzek (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, Agree with all the reasons above, especially redundancy.TrueQuantum (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose it's sufficient to state the year once within opening sentence. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support My point about consistency in opening sentences doesn't just apply to US Presidents, it applies to virtually every single person who died while serving in a role. If you look at them, it always says the year of death in the opening sentence despite the fact it is repeated twice in the opening paragraph (if you count the dates of birth and death). And in addition, another inconsistency is that the opening sentence of nearly every single article on Wikipedia, the years when the individual served in a role are included at some point in the opening paragraph, despite the fact a reader could simply rely on info boxes to find that out. As well as my point about consistency, when looking at any Wikipedia article from external sources such as the amazon echo, the year of death is never read out, and considering someone may ask such a device that for the sole reason of wanting to know when a person served in a notable office, having to then ask when they died just to find the end year of a tenure is not a necessary step to force them to take, particularly when you don't need to something like that for other Wikipedia articles. Lawrence 979 (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

In response to someone's point about the point about the fourth paragraph containing information about the assassination, the kind of people who don't read the dates of death after his name are also the ones who, after finding out small amounts of information such as when they served (1961 - 1963) are unlikely to read on further. This opinion is largely shaped by personal experience when i just wanted to know who the president was and when they served. Lawrence 979 (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Redundant and would create clunky prose. Pincrete (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC) Support eminently sensible suggestion by Mx. Granger below - "from 1961 until his assassination in 1963". Pincrete (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Summoned by the bot. I think "from 1961 until his assassination in 1963" would read better than just "from 1961 until his assassination", so on that basis, weak support. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, that alone reads better; but John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1917 – 1963) was the 35th president of the United States from 1961 until his assassination in 1963 does not read very well. I do not see how the lead benefits from stating the same thing twice in one sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  Support: I agree that tacking "in 1963" on the end of the sentence would be a pleasant way to work in a reminder to readers what year Kennedy was assassinated. Lord Dweebington1 (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

  A reminder? In case they forgot since reading it at the beginning of that sentence? Surtsicna (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way, for clarity sake, the reason I think 'in 1963' should be added to the opening sentence is largely because it would be read better on its own (excluding the section at the start where it says the year he died) , however, if '(1917 - 1963)' was always read out, then 'in 1963' would be what many opposing claim to be, a redundant repetition. Lawrence 979 (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support For the same reason that Pincrete now supports the "eminently sensible suggestion by Mx. Granger [above] - "from 1961 until his assassination in 1963". But let me offer an additional explanation. The dates in parenthesis are that: a parenthesis. They are not an integral part of the sentence being read. When I am reading something and I come to dates in parenthesis, I first finish reading and understanding the whole sentence. Only then I may go back and see how the information in the parenthesis fits into the sentence I just read and undestood, no? Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  So then what you would read is that JFK was "president of the US until his assassination in 1963 (1917-1963)", right? Surtsicna (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  But the sentence says "from 1961 until his assassination in 1963." Where did the "from 1961" part of the sentence go? Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  Alright. Would "president of the US from 1961 until his assassination in 1963 (1917-1963)" sound good to you? Surtsicna (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  I don't understand the game you're trying to play with me. Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  It is not a game. You wrote that you first read the sentence without the parentheses and then read the parentheses. I am wondering how you feel about the end of such a sentence then effectively, to you at least, reading "until his assassination in 1963 (1917-1963)". Surtsicna (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  It's a question of logic. You said you save the the parenthetical content until after you've read the sentence, and that the sentence should include "in 1963" at the end. Surtsicna is asking you if you (truly) like the way it sounds when you read it, as you say you do, as in Surtsicna's last formulation. I think it sounds even more repetitive than the original proposal, but you're entitled to your opinion. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  Why would JFK's (DoB - Dodeath), not remain exactly where they are - parenthetically immediately after his name. Like warshy, I tend to skip parenthetical info in article openings, whether alternative name, pronounciations etc EXCEPT when I am specifically looking for that info. It would thus read "president of the US from 1961 until his assassination in 1963." Although the death date is already there in the opening parentheses, it clarifies to link assassination & 1963 IMO. Pincrete (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  Nobody suggested moving the vital dates. Warshy says that they read the parenthetical information after reading the entire sentence, which effectively puts the vital dates at the end for them. In that case, "assassination in 1963" is immediately followed by the dates of birth and death, thus being even more redundant. Surtsicna (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  Pincrete obviously understands what I am trying to say, which makes sense, because I only decided to express my view on the matter here after he got convinced Mx. Granger to change his own view. Surtsicna obviously does not understand us, no mater how much we try to explain. I will try my hand one last time. When I read and understood that he was "president from 1961 until his assassination in 1963," and then I read the dates, it first confirms to me my initial understanding. But, now with the additional benefit that I know the exact date of his assassination, i.e. November 22, 1963. So it is not redundant at all, in my view. The reading of the precise dates at the end reinforces my initial understanding and gives me the exact date of the deed. Be well, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose , A redundant point as has been pointed out by some editors above. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - of the four US presidents who were assassinated. Only the James A. Garfield bio article has a different write up. Of course, that's due to the fact his lasted over (July 2- September 19) two & a half months. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems rather redundant and agree with many of the editors above. TrueQuantum (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Its absurd for that information to be repeated again. Sea Ane (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Look at it this way. Suppose Kennedy had died of natural causes. You certainly wouldn't write John Fitzgerald Kennedy (May 29, 1917 – November 22, 1963) was an American politician who served as the 35th president of the United States from 1961 until his death in 1963, because it would sound dumb. The fact that the death was an assassination doesn't change that. See also WP:MURDERBYDEATH. EEng 23:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  See intros to Zachary Taylor, Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt (for examples) which do use that style. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  And indeed sounds dumb. Looks like I underestimated my fellow editors. EEng 23:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  It might be more deft to say ... his assassination just before the end of his third year in office. That way you're adding a bit of color instead of just repeating the raw fact. EEng 00:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  No one's noticed this suggestion so I've petulantly gone ahead and installed it live for people to see in context. EEng 01:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Why make the JFK article a special case? See the intro of six of the seven other US presidents who've died in office. Garfield gets a slight different write up, per the length of time between his shooting & death. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

  In those six other cases the year of death was duplicated after the articles reached GA or FA status. The duplication there does not indicate good practice. Surtsicna (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  "Other articles do it" (paraphrase) is a non-argument, since it disappears into nothing if someone changes those articles. So rather than make non-arguments, perhaps people might want to explain why the addition of "in 1963" or similiar to this article has a positive impact on this standalone article. FDW777 (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: We do have WP:REDUNDANCY: "Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence." Surtsicna (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose it is redundant. Honolulucb (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support the lead sentence for a president of the United States article (or any head of state like article) should always contain the year they started and the year their term ended. It is fundamental, basic infomation for the reader. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• That's why it does already. What's not needed is the same information twice in the same sentence. FDW777 (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It is not the same information. One is the date he was born in, and the date he died on. The other is the year of his assassination. He did not just die. He was assassinated, and without the specific statement, the opening sentence just lacks basic information for the uninformed reader. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Two dates are given. One is the date he was born on. The other is the date he died on. The sentence says that he was assassinated and that he was president until he was assassinated. The sentence thus states when his presidency ended. Therefore, the sentence does not lack any of that information. Repeating one of the dates does not add anything new. Surtsicna (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep. It's the difference between having all the information there, and then letting the beginner reader read, stop, and start drawing his conclusions from all the information that is there; or, on the other hand, spelling out for the reader clearly, out front, the most important conclusion from all the information that is there. The impact the information has when spelled out is what I believe you are trying to avoid. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

What we are trying to avoid is infantilizing the reader and insulting their intelligence. Surtsicna (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The page you link to does not refer to online encyclopedias' editing. It has, in my view, nothing to do with the basic disagreement we have had for a while here over this issue. It feels to me like just adding an unnecessary and unjustified label to the discussion. But alas... warshy ^(¥¥) 20:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• @FDW777: It only mentions his death date in brackets though not in main, running prose. Moreover, when reading biographical articles I and many others do read especially read over the birth date, death date, native language name, pronoucation, as they are not necessary when just starting to read about the person most of the time unless you are specifically wanting to find that infomation in the first place. The only reason Wikipedia does this stuff in brackets to follow on the tradition with other encyclopedias. Encylopedias did this to begin with to disambuate those with simliar names (as those with the same names are extremely unlikely to have the same birth date and death date). Unless you are trying to look at many other people called John Fitzgerald Kennedy you are unlikely to need to look over the b.d./d.d. In addition, assume you read this way it will not become apperent to after reading the lead sentence that the death date is actually relevant for once and needed for this kind of infomation which is rare for biographical articles, and for president articles in general. Furthermore, dates in brackets do not appear in previews or Google knowledge boxes in prose. Regards (please ping)  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

As above thumbnail previews are irrelevant, good prose is not dictated by those nor Google knowledge boxes. FDW777 (talk) 08:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

If you are trying to boil down my entire argument to just previews I suggest you reread my response as to why I am supporting the proposal. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the change/addition. Kierzek (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kierzek: That is not a valid argument against my argument. The whole point of an RfC is to determine a consensus, that is what I am commenting my views on this question. If consensus is against me fine, but the comment is "There is no consensus for the change/addition" is in no way a rebuttal to my comment and is unhelpful for the process.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Spy-cicle: I already stated my argument above. My most recent addition is based on the totality of what has taken place. If you wish to keep “beating a dead horse”, that’s up to you. Kierzek (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not "beating a dead horse", I was simply replying to those who replied to my comment, including your unhelpful one.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: It should be noted that a decision to duplicate the date of Kennedy's death in the lead sentence might have an effect on articles about other US presidents who died in office and from there on articles about other heads of state, such as monarchs, whose reigns normally end with their deaths. Judging by FAs about monarchs, duplicating the date of death in the lead sentence is not the current practice in those biographies. Surtsicna (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  There is a difference between having no consensus to add year of death to lead sentence, like in this RfC, then having consensus to remove year of death to lead sentence in this article. Moreover, you would need to start a much wider RfC before applying it to all presidents, and other officeholders, etc.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Closure

Over three months later & this RFC still hasn't been ruled on. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

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.

I wish this RFC had covered all eight US presidents who died in office. I attempted to bring the Taylor, Lincoln, McKinley, Harding & F.D. Roosevelt article intros in line, with this (Kennedy) article's intro. But, was reverted :( GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

C'mon, you know better than to think all articles of a certain class need to be consistent. Different articles have slightly and subtly different needs. EEng 19:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Reverted edit

@JohnFromPinckney: Hello, I'm replying per the comment in this diff. The referenced MOS:Repeat link says explicitly that links can be repeated in infoboxes and this was an infobox. It could then be asked why not a have a link? DBpedia is a tool around since 2007 which extracts data from Wikipedia info boxes to be more efficiently query-able. I understand that that may not be of interest to you, but I suspect this is precisely why there is this carve out in MOS:Repeat link. Gettinwikiwidit (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Gettinwikiwidit, thanks for posting. Specifically, MOS:REPEATLINK says if helpful for readers, and while I can see the usefulness of repetition in, say, a sortable table (where you don't know what rows the linked items might land in), I question the usefulness to readers of duplicated links just two lines apart at the top of an infobox.

In regard to DBpedia, I don't see why we should change our styling to satisfy some external scraper of our data. And if it is important, then I think we should establish that consensus publicly and advertise it well. (Otherwise there'll be endless edit warring on multiple pages.) The thing is, I don't know where best to open a discussion. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking, or maybe at a Village Pump? Or (even better), are you aware of some discussion about DBpedia collaborations happening already? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 15:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It's more important linking to Lyndon B. Johnson as Kennedy's successor as president, rather then as Kennedy's vice president. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Automatic archiving timeframe

Per this edit summary of "Let someone raise an issue and 2 months later someone pick up on it. What's the hurry?" Well, no particular hurry, 30 days/1 month seems like plenty of time to me but if editorial consensus on this talkpage is to keep threads around with no replies for 3 months? Ok...Shearonink (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Really? Really??? You're really opening a thread to debate this? Because the talk page is so crowded it needs urgent pruning? Right now I see several threads more than a month old which, from appearances, might be usefully continued. Do they bother you somehow? EEng 04:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

This is not a debate. I just wanted to respond to your edit summary and doing a null edit with another edit summary didn't seem appropriate. That's all. It's fine - I'll leave JFK alone. If people want to respond later than I thought they would, it's ok - you could be right and I could be wrong/mistaken/whatever. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

If you've been doing this to other articles, please leave them alone as well. Very active articles with many watchers, and new threads arriving frequently, can benefit from relatively short archive times. Otherwise, unless the page is getting unmanageably large what you're doing is shipping people's thoughts and concerns off to oblivion in a hurry for no reason beyond a misguided urge for tidiness. EEng 12:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"If you've been doing this to other articles..." Doing this. Hmmm. Well, I do not go around trying to force unwanted changes against editorial consensus on talk pages, if it seems to make sense to me, occasionally I might change an automatic archiving timeframe, sometimes longer, sometimes shorter. You think this talk page and other talk pages can benefit from having a 90-day archiving timeframe and that is fine. Peace dude. Shearonink (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

RfCs of interest

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. RfCs are underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents concerning the removal or retention of US president series boxes at associated articles and the removal or retention of US vice-president series boxes at associated articles.

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents#Survey (Question 1 - president series boxes) with Discussion of president series boxes,
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents#Survey (Question 2 - vice-president series boxes) with Discussion of vice-president series boxes. Shearonink (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Sexuality developments

I am reluctant to bring this up, due to possible violent objections, but there have emerged several new sources lately that suggest that some form of sexual relations in fact occur between Kennedy and Lem Billings. Might it be a good idea to try to word something balanced and not-too-sensational now to preclude this kind of exaggeration? Just asking. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

"[V]iolent objections", certainly not. The problem is that no main-line historians have ever put forth evidence (and by that I mean, conclusive proof, more that hearsay or something "reported" or 'suggested", which is only speculation, conjecture and WP:Fringe) of anything other than a close personal friendship. I do note that in Billings article it states: "Some historians believe that Billings expressed his sexual interest in Kennedy in writing in 1934 and that Kennedy rebuffed his advances. (Perret, 38, 405n.; Pitts, 22-3.)"

So, biographers of Billings have rejected anything else between them. Now, in reading Billings article it does under the "Personal life" section give some further explanation as to their friendship, some of which could be added. For example (with article attribution for the copy edit, we could add: "Charles L. Bartlett, a journalist who introduced Kennedy to Jacqueline, and friend of both Billings and Kennedy, described their relationship: "Lem was a stable presence for Jack. Lem's raison d'être was Jack Kennedy." Pitts, 207. Something akin to this. Kierzek (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This section deals with recent developments, not with what we knew and accepted as comprehensive before. Several reliable sources recent ones have it that it should not be ruled out that there were sexual relations or that that exclusion should even be suggested. Recent is the key word under this heading.

Also, please note that I am not suggesting that we try to conclude that there were sexual relations, but that recent suggestions by reliable writers might need to be included. It seems that it might not be fair or accurate to continue to portray Billings as the sad, pining and totally rebuffed man. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

”Recent suggestions” doesn’t mean anything. It’s just speculation and conjecture and not built on proof. So it should not be included. Kierzek (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

How about a smoother rephrasing of that sentence: Though due to lack of evidence it has generally been assumed that there was no homosexual activity between them, Kennedy would often, and even when married, share a bedroom with his lifelong friend.[408] ? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

That is not bad. I would tweak to say, “Though due to lack of evidence it has generally been assumed that their relationship was platonic between them, Kennedy would often, even when married, share a bedroom with his lifelong friend when visiting.” Kierzek (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

This version would need correcting: "... their relationship was platonic between them, Kennedy would often...". Their relationship is already "between them". — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 05:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Um, I'm a little leery of the "even when married, shared a bedroom" bit. You seem to be assuming that's somehow significant. It wasn't that long ago that two men, business associates, attending a convention might share a hotel room. I think you need to be sure you have a source that authoritatively says that that particular detail is in any way significant, in the context of the time. EEng 05:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The cited source is very clear on that "married" detail & expands on it quite a bit. I'll wait for more possible comments before opining too much on suggestions now made. Suffice to say that their "relationship" does not really fit as "platonic" and the source describes it all as lack of evidence of homosexuality, even to the point of mentioning sheets etc, if my memory serves me right. Their friendship was intimate, though not sexual as far as anyone knows for sure. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

It's the shared a bedroom part I was talking about, not the married. EEng 19:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

"even when married, [often] shared a bedroom" is what's in the cited source (and more and more since then). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

You're still not getting my point. It's hard for readers today to appreciate how routine it was, just 50 years ago, for unrelated adults to share a bedroom, so if you make a point of that fact in the text readers are likely to reach an unwarranted conclusion. Similar issues come up with the word intimate which has gradually become a euphemism for sexual. EEng 01:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I would not agree to using the word "intimate", as is too suggestive (undue weight) and again no evidence is shown other than a close, platonic friendship; and as to use the term "homosexual activity", awkward phasing and outdated un-needed wording. Kierzek (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

"Platonic" is not inferred or cited anywhere. "Intimate friendship" is, in several sources. The two terms do not mean the same thing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I am really amused by this whole discussion. On the one hand, I don't think that the evidence for JFK's amazing feats of heterosexuality (including the so-called famous "affair" with Marilyn Monroe) is any stronger than the evidence being presented here now for his so-called "homosexuality." But nonetheless, it seems that all his alleged amazing feats of heterosexuality are now established, irreversible memes of the general culture. So maybe the push now from the other side can serve to balance the overall picture of the man's sexuality a bit, for the coming 20 years or so. One way or the other, all these memes are based on the exact same amount of concrete evidence, i.e. 0 amount of concrete evidence. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The friendship between Kennedy and Billings was of an extraordinary type. That much has been attested to by many reliable biographers. I agree that nobody actually saw Kennedy having sex except people with him in those rooms, of whom nobody has testified reliably nor taken photos that we know of. I also agree that fair assumptions about a famous person's heterosexual escapades (see e.g. Greta Garbo) are no more noteworthy that those about homosexual activity. -

Suggested sentence (II): Though due to lack of evidence it has generally been assumed that their relationship was not sexual, Kennedy would often, even when married, share a bedroom in his own homes with his lifelong friend.

-SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. All of this is speculation on the part of a few writers without any evidence. I don't really see how this is encyclopedic. Further, including the subject gives WP:Undue weight to unprovable material. I really don't think we should be elevating content that isn't backed with some solid evidence; particularly when the writers making these claims make money off of doing so. Nothing like secret lovers and scandal to get people to spend money. 4meter4 (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  I agree. EEng 10:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  I agree. warshy ^(¥¥) 14:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The cited source is a thorough and respectable scholarly biography of Kennedy's mother. Wikipedia does not do censorship. Remove everything about Monroe et al also? Or is it just the homo stuff we are not supposed to include? Shall we delete Billings completely? Maybe delete Kennedy in his article also? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

And, of course, a mother always knows. EEng 23:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

SergeW, we’re not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We’re talking about one specific thing. So one biographer has this opinion based on speculation and conjecture. That’s not enough. None of the other biographers go that far with whatever their suggestion is. None of the historians do either. And you say this is something “new”, it’s not new, these guys have been dead for years and their friendship has been looked at by biographers and historians over the years. And there’s certainly no new evidence. You still have not named who this biographer is, either. I must assume its not a historian. Kierzek (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

What's not clear? Barbara A. Perry is the biographer long cited already under the article re: this matter. She wrote in detail about it after talking to family members. I found new writers published by Googling more recently and asked a question here, fearing it would raise this kind of a stink or worse. That's all. Look at Greta Garbo for example! Pure speculation, no relatives interviewed. Lots of coverage. It's clear we are supposed to be much more wary here. That's disturbing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested we state anything as fact, just the too-well-known-and-now too-well-sourced-to-be-ignored speculation. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I think this proposal clearly falls under WP:FALSEBALANCE as it is speculative history. The author is making an extraordinary claim not based in any evidence. There are no eye witness accounts, no letters, no statements by either men or the people who knew them substantiating the claim. There's nothing here but guesswork (made more than 50 years after the subject's death when most of those who knew the subject well at the time are no longer alive to contest such an extraordinary claim). This is frankly not respectable work or professional conduct for a biographer.4meter4 (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I just looked at the Billings page for the first time, trying to identify this source there. I couldn't readily identify it from there. Can you specify the source here please? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm just really confused here what sources are in " but there have emerged several new sources lately that suggest that some form of sexual relations in fact occur between Kennedy and Lem Billings" when none of them have been provided? Why so much secrecy about the sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.77.85 (talk • contribs)

---

Jesus, SW, will you please quote the source, including the source's citations? EEng 18:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Please stop being personal and demanding. This is not about me. Read what I write here, please. She is named under the article and recently above. If you want me to quote everything she wrote about this, I'll have to acquire her book again. I don't own it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

ONUS etc. Like it or not no one's going to even consider this without seeing exactly how the source presents it, and what (in turn) her sources are. It's too WP:REDFLAG for anything less. EEng 19:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Is this a campaign now by one user only who objects to what one of the Kennedy family's greatest experts has written about the unusual & intimate friendship between Kennedy and Billings? Anyone else with feathers that ruffled and claws out? I'll get the book again if needed. It's probably readily available at most major libraries. Not as if the author & book are obscure & unknown. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  Its not unreasonable to request exactly what is said without paraphrasing. It’s still amounts to speculation and conjecture. And if she’s not a historian, but only at author, then the scrutiny should be even higher. And it doesn’t matter how another article such as “Garbo” is handled. We’re talking about this article. Kierzek (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  We are talking about Prof. Barbara A. Perry whose link I have posted above already once. If nobody is going to bother to even look at what we're discussing, why bother? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  I missed the link; but, if you don't want to put in the work (providing the text) as to an addition you want to make, then "why bother"? I have better things to do then waste time on this. Kierzek (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  Well I didn't miss the link, but the request is for Perry's text and sources, not just her identity. It's like the 8th time you're been asked. If it didn't occur to you to take images of the relevant pages for something like this, it's your own damn fault. Anyway, I'll pick it up next time I'm at the library. EEng 20:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• I am asking again that we stop being personal and condescending here and stick to article content. Whoever gets to a library first can easily fix this.

The suggestion (suggestion, not request) that I made here was for a bit more to be added since Google clearly reveals that more is being written about Kennedy and Billings since Perry's book came out. That's all. I can do without it (and without complaints that I do not - and will not - photograph book pages every time I give them in a source citation). The fact again, that this particular citation is being question (and in a manner which infers that I cheated somehow) is disturbing, as to subject matter. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

No one's being condescending or personal (though I can certainly switch to that mode if you'd like -- just give the word) and you need to learn to recognize constructive criticism when it's offered. If you really thought that there was any chance the article is going to say anything remotely like Though due to lack of evidence it has generally been assumed that there was no homosexual activity between them, Kennedy would often, and even when married, share a bedroom with his lifelong friend without the rest of us knowing what the source actually says, your judgment is off. No one's implying you're "cheating" but this isn't a simple factual point which is straightforward to paraphrase.

You should have known you'd need the source at hand for the duration of the discussion. If you weren't going to hold on to the book itself, in this digital age it's not at all strange to expect that you would have taken a snap of the relevant text and its citations. This article requires serious research and that's what serious researchers do. I do it all the time to save myself lugging stuff back and forth to the library. After all, film's really cheap these days. Oh wait, I forgot -- --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)you don't even have to pay for film anymore. EEng 20:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

English is my first language which I've taught for over 40 years, thus, I know what the words "personal" and "condescending" mean. Is it possible to discuss this without these personal comments over and over? And without sarcasm and superciliousness?

Anyone who reads my original question above can see that there has been no need for all this personal scolding. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

But anyone who reads the rest of the thread can see that after everyone told you that only with source quotes could such material even be considered, you kept up with the "one of the Kennedy family's greatest experts" schtick (folding in the bizarre idea that there's "one user only who objects" and that there's something "disturbing" going on about the "homo stuff"), instead of just doing what you needed to do i.e. get the source quotes. And there's no little irony in the "sentence" English is my first language which I've taught for over 40 years, thus, I know what the words "personal" and "condescending" mean being offered as evidence of, um, mastery of English. Now I am being personal and condescending, just in case you hadn't noticed. EEng 15:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It has never been suggested here by anyone that we go against what is described above as "only with source quotes could such material even be considered". This section dealt with the question of possibly expanding the Billings item a bit which already had been added long ago and then sourced to Kennedy expert Perry, and if so expanding it as per new material appearing on Google from recent writers. The fact that the section was not meant to deal with the already well-sourced item in the article but with the idea of a possible expansion, of course well-sourced if done at all, has lead to a misunderstanding here which derailed my original question. I have given up on that above (but continue to be scolded by a user who will not give up on the scolding). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing and EEng might I suggest you both stop swiping at each other per WP:CIVIL, as this conversation is not progressing productively. @SergeWoodzing the conversation has naturally stalled because we lack page numbers and quoted text from Perry to make an informed decision. I would suggest taking the time to produce that content. Without it, the consensus is to not alter the article.4meter4 (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion here has never been to alter the article, but possibly expand it, which I have mentioned (now for the 3rd time) that I have given up on. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing. The proposed expansion is an alteration. And again, we need to see the evidence from Perry. At this point you are exhibiting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, and if you persist it may be perceived as disruptive editing. Please except that community consensus at this discussion is overwhelmingly telling you that we need to have detailed evidence (name of book, publisher, isbn number, page numbers, quoted text) before changing the current text of the article on this particular topic because it is making an extraordinary claim. It's now up to you to produce the evidence or let it go.4meter4 (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)