Talk:John F. Kennedy Jr.

This article is much too long

If you take this article and change the name to "John F. Smith" would it be on Wikipedia at all? Many children of U.S. Presidents don't have their own Wikipedia page, so an article about Mr. Kennedy should have some other justification. He was a lawyer - but so what? He was in a plane crash, but so what? Is Mr. Kennedy (the son) an historic figure? He started a magazine that went out of business, but so what? Can you explain exactly why he should have such a long article when his accomplishments are just like a million other people? The chatty aspect of this article is also disturbing, like when the paragraph on his mother's death talks about visiting his "Uncle Bobby's grave." The grave itself is a few feet away from his mother's so why is this included like it is a revelation? And the use of the word "Bobby" instead of "Robert" when referring to a United States Senator seems like it written by an intern at a gossip magazine. If this article were cut in half - which could easily be done without removing necessary content - would anyone notice? Princetoniac (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Many children of U.S. presidents have articles, some rather extensive. Members of the Kennedy family tend to have more notable information available, thus more to include in a Wikipedia article. It may not be "fair", but the Kennedy name adds notability; look at articles about other Kennedys. JFK Jr.'s death in the prime of his life is part of the Kennedy curse and adds to his fame. This article could be trimmed some, but not by half. I think the section on his death could be trimmed because it has a separate article. What would you suggest removing? Sundayclose (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

He was a high profile person of interest. Pretty much a celebrity. Perhaps you are too young to know that?

The only part I don't like in this article is the stupid mention about "conspiracy" and "Qanon." That section reads like an attempt at corny conspiracy theory. "Qanon" is a corny conspiracy, and whomever added the section felt threatened enough by the fiction of it to place it in the article. Who cares what conspiracy theorists think? 172.58.123.48 (talk) 172.58.123.48 (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Sundayclose makes a good point. So I suggest that two small sections, "Politics" and "Personal Life," as currently written do not speak about Mr. Kennedy's achievements and add nothing to the article as a whole. They should be deleted. Thoughts?Princetoniac (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Two months have passed since my suggestions and no one either agreed or objected. I'll delete these two small sections and wait for a response. Princetoniac (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone reverted the edit and said I had not explained why it was done. I suggest the above argument clearly explains why the two trivial sections have no place in the main article. The two sections, "Politics" and "Personal Life" reveal nothing about the subject. They are simply filler. While Mr. Kennedy was famous, he was still just a private citizen who never ran for, or was appointed to, any public office. Thus we should avoid the temptation to include anything and everything he did.Princetoniac (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

George magazine

"Truthful hyperbole" from Coulter? She's not a reliable source. No corroboration for these claims she made in a book, and "admire" is not a synonym for being "particularly fond of a piece … attacking … a rotten liberal." The article says it’s a column Coulter wrote but I didn’t find any publication for it. The chapter in the book is called a "tribute to John" but it’s a tribute to the greatness that is Ann Coulter (name-dropping, book tour, I passed the NY bar exam and John didn’t, etc.). You can read it yourself here. In it, she also claims that she was fired as a legal correspondent by MSNBC "a lot" ("I still felt kind of bad about all the firings.") She was fired twice, for cause - the first time after insulting the late U.S. ambassador to France at her memorial service, the second and final time after a snide on-air remark to Vietnam veteran and co-founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Bobby Muller. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

QAnon

I thuink that the QAnon nonense sholud be rremoved, or at least significantly reduced and taken out of Legacy where it is inappropriate. We don't need every batshit conspiracy theory about him listed just because it's been reported somewherePipsally (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC).

I'm fine with trimming it down (as you did), but not complete removal. QAnon is a large presence in the news, and when it absurdly links itself to JFK Jr., that's newsworthy. It shouldn't be removed simply because it's controversial and a conspiracy theory. If that was our standard, lots of articles on Wikipedia would be needlessly gutted or removed. Sundayclose (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it should remain considering the widespread coverage of QAnon-related stories in recent years. However, the paragraph could use a little trimming for conciseness.Writethisway (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I vote to agree with pipsally--the conspiracy theory should be removed. It is not a wide held belief, and I am not even sure QAnon folks even believe in it. It is very poor scholarship. Just delete it. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I am fine with including this at QAnon, but per WP:ONEWAY, I have a hard time believing that this is appropriate for inclusion in a biography. I have tagged the section to see if we can get more input. jps (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a spate of WP:RECENTISM in reaction to the QAnon folks encampment in Dallas and subsequent news-of-the-weird coverage. Maybe it could be included here if it were of lasting impact, but it's too soon to tell. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It belongs on the QAon page if anywhere and not here. Hardyplants (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

There have been a number of different conspiracies about this person and none of them have been added to the article see: Hardyplants (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I've removed the section as consensus seems pretty clear. jps (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't plan to restore this right now because it's not worth an edit war. But I disagree that "consensus seems pretty clear" based on comments by just a few editors. If other editors weigh in here, a shortened version of the information may need to be restored depending on what kind of actual consensus emerges. I thought about an RfC, but I'll hold off on that, at least for now. Sundayclose (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I wonder where you were for the last week, but I'm happy to listen to your arguments if you have any new ones. In particular are there any reliable sources about John F. Kennedy Jr. that even mention QAnon? (There weren't any in the article when I removed the section -- all the sourcing was to discussion of QAnon and had no information about JFKJr.) Remember, this is a biography. It is not WP:IINFO. I think the WP:ONEWAY concerns are pretty clear, but if you don't, please explain. jps (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I just inserted a (hopefully) more neutral and less rambling version of that section. It probably merits some mention. - Special-T (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@ජපස: I wasn't anywhere; I was watching to see what happens here. I didn't mean to suggest that I had a new argument. My point is that I don't think that "consensus seems pretty clear". And since my previous comment another editor has expressed an opinion, which suggests to me that declaring consensus was premature. Maybe I misunderstand you, but I don't understand your comments that "all the sourcing was to discussion of QAnon and had no information about JFKJr". All of the sources cited in the removed section refer to JFK Jr. I also don't see how WP:IINFO applies. At the very least it is a personal opinion that it applies. Of course it's a biography; other biographies mention conspiracy theories about the subject. Being a biography doesn't mean that a brief mention of a conspiracy theory is an indiscriminate collection of information. Sundayclose (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Just because a source refers to JFK Jr doesn't mean the source has any information about JFK Jr. That's the entire point of WP:ONEWAY which I think absolutely applies here. I understand that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but we're dealing with this article right here and now. None of the proposed sources that are included in that section are actually about JFK Jr.. Instead they are about a QAnon conspiracy theory that involves JFK Jr. The articles that discuss those conspiracy theories certainly can link here but until, for example, a reliable source biography of JFK Jr. comes out discussing these conspiracy theories, I just see no justification for including any of them on this page. jps (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

If anything, a full section about QAnon nonsense is definitely UNDUE there... Perhaps a short sentence in the death section, if discussed by enough sources... Then again, one must take NOTNEWS in consideration, it's likely not only fringe but only a fad of that fringe movement... That would then be popular culture trivia in a few years. —PaleoNeonate – 13:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@ජපස: The point that you don't want to hear is that a source doesn't have to have extensive information about JFK Jr. It only needs to mention him in the context of the conspiracy theory for a section about a conspiracy theory. In any event, you do not have consensus to remove the ENTIRE section. At this point there is some support for reducing the section, but not removing it entirely. Please stop repeatedly making this decision unilaterally. That's not how Wikipedia works. Sundayclose (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:ONUS may be useful, —PaleoNeonate – 14:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRD is also useful. Sundayclose (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the example Autodynamics—There are no reliable sources about special relativity which also mention autodynamics, and so a decent article on special relativity should not mention autodynamics. from WP:ONEWAY pretty much decides the issue. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

A key word in that analogy is "mention". The sources currently cited mention JFKJr, and more than once. And there are reliable sources on JFKJr that mention the conspiracy theory. Maybe I haven't expressed myself clearly since some people here seem to be missing a point: We don't have to throw out EVERYTHING in the section to write the article so that it mentions the conspiracy theory. I'm not the only editor here who has supported that position rather than complete removal. Sundayclose (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

there are reliable sources on JFKJr that mention the conspiracy theory. So far, I see the cited sources for the conspiracy theory are narrowly focused on the recent Qanon activity. Is there a JFKJr bio that includes a chapter on the Qanon conspiracy theories? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

In English the word "mention", in both my comment and the quotation from Autodynamics example, means "To make a short reference to something". So, again, the sources "mention" JFKJr. Sundayclose (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I' don't think parsing the word "mention" is the way forward here. Dozens and dozens of sources have covered the 90s urban legend that Richard Gere had a gerbil stuffed up his ass, and they all "mention" Gere, but this urban legend is rightly not included in his bio. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Another key word is "about". You need a reliable source that is about JFKJ, which mentions QAnon. Not the other way around. I see this is difficult for you to grasp, so people will probably have to repeat it in different wordings for a few days.

It does not matter that other people besides you do not understand it either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, looks like we have a pretty good consensus here that we don't have serious sources about JFK Jr. which also mention the QAnon conspiracy theory. Are we good here? jps (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I removed a recent addition along the same lines - ref to an article about rallies & conspiracy theories that mentioned JFK Jr., not about JFK Jr. - Special-T (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Sequence

...to attend the wedding of his cousin Rory Kennedy at Hyannis Port, Massachusetts, after having picked Lauren up in Martha's Vineyard.

Surely he was due to drop-off Lauren at Martha's Vineyard. Valetude (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

It is confusing, and since it's uncited, I just simplified the sentence to reflect what's clearly established. I don't know the facts (I read the WSJ article used as a ref in that section). - Special-T (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

unclear attribution of famous saluting photo

in the opening section the famous photo is attributed to Stan Stearns, while in the closing section it is attributed to Dan Farrell. in fact, there were 2 photos taken that were very similar but the wiki never clarifies that there were multiple versions of this famous photo captured by at least two photographers, but instead currently just confusingly attributes two different photographers with taking the exact same photo. 2600:1008:A130:BFF2:D4DC:1E87:1529:2406 (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)