Talk:Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"In office" should be "In role"

In the info-box it says "In office," but First Lady is not an office. Please see the bottom of Talk:Nancy_Reagan It says that a template was changed; I took that to mean it was for all the first ladies' pages. --CousinJohn (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Done - thanks for bringing it to our attention. It's an addition to the template that has to be done manually (add "term_label = In role"), so as Wasted Time R pointed out on the template talk page, eventually some infobox tweakers will make the rounds and make the change where appropriate. Tvoz/talk 15:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

copyvios

I've found numerous places where there appear to be copyright violations throughout this article, and I have removed or reworded those that I came across. I have asked the editor involved to go over his/her work with this in mind - I don't have the time or inclination to be the police here, but we cannot let what can be considered plagiarism stand. Even though these were footnoted, the words need to be our own unless there is a reason for an occasional direct quote of something the subject said or was said about her - in which case it needs to be in quote marks. But generally this would not be descriptive sentences from source books. There also is a tendency to include trivial points that are sourced, but not really significant to this biography of her whole life - that is a more subjective thing, but I think we need to keep it in mind. Any help on rooting these copyvios out would be appreciated. Tvoz/talk 09:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Well I've looked around and I really don't see anymore of those types of edits. We already had a discussion on my page about this and it appears they are gone. As far as the specific audience tag that someone placed here, I would be happy to defend any material that may be found extraneous. That is not a problem. Informant16 9 November 2015

I'm afraid not - I just removed another paragraph that used the same words as the original, albeit with slight rearrangement. Also questionable tabloidesque details. We can do better. Tvoz/talk 07:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Also - you can't just dump material into a paragraph without reading what's there and trying to keep it chronological and not contradictory. For example, "Early years" section said they honeymooned and moved to a home, sold the home, then said they didn't own a home for the first four years of their marriage. Something was obviously wrong - the editor adding material has to verify the new material before adding it, and it has to be in your own words. I don't know which factoid is correct, but can't leave an obvious contradiction there so I removed the late addition. Also had citations to "Brinkley" which doesn't appear in bibliography or any reference. Can't do that. The problem here seems to be a matter of surfing books on google and picking up items and dropping them in, but there's no coherence, no integration into the existing article, and it ends up being a mess when you start to really look into it. And it's important to remember that just because something is found in a book and can be sourced doesn't mean it is notable for inclusion in an article about a subject's whole life. This is not a long book that can ramble on with anecdotes - so adding something gives it an aura of importance that may not be valid - it distorts the text. What we need now is to focus on cleaning up the article we have, not just adding and adding without regard to coherence, relevance, chronology, and just plain sense. (An example of making no sense is The couple's decision to sell their house came from Jacqueline's traumatizing over the stillbirth., now removed.) Tvoz/talk 08:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tvoz. Informant16, you have done the same type of edits/additions in the Robert F. Kennedy article which led to my recent ce work there. Please be mindful of Tvoz's comments and practice greater discernment when making additions; it might help if you got involved in the experience of bringing an article to GA status with one or more editors. Kierzek (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It would also be helpful if you provided edit summaries for your contributions, Informant16, especially for big additions/removals. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

In sort of reading through these responses, it seems my efforts are unwarranted and unwanted additions. Let me just explain something: When I find some material or person that I take an interest in, I try to learn everything about it or them because I like to believe knowledge is more valuable than anything else and the only way to eradicate ignorance. So when I went out and searched through those books, I saw it as my way of sort of contributing to the knowledge already on Wikipedia, the first site that comes up more often than not when any of the people or things I've edited are looked up. I just wanted productivity, to make my mark so to speak and most of the time just saw it as something fun that I could do while at the same time being productive. However, seeing as how these sorts of issues persist despite my best intentions, I figured I might as well give up. Informant16 11 November 2015

Not exactly what we meant. Something one must ask before making additions is whether it is something the subject is noted for. We strive to include all major aspects of a person's life without going into too much detail. The amount of detail that one should give varies from matter to matter. Feel free to ask if you are unsure how much detail should be included on something. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Even then, this seems to be a continuous problem with my edits that won't seem to fade. Tvoz, who you agree with by the way, posted on my talk page about these types of edits the previous year for being copying but now there is another issue, which is that they are being seen as extraneous. I wouldn't care if there was a complaint were these just edits I made to make, but I didn't. I really tried to contribute here and all I could be told was how bad it was and how it didn't flow with the rest of the article and how it was so unnecessary. It really is saddening to me that I put effort into this and there just doesn't seem to be any payoff. Now all that I've posted is about to be taken down while also being criticized and I'm going to get further disparaging comments made about my writing. Informant16 11 November 2015

Perhaps you should take a step back and follow the advice to seek a mentor here - this isn't working very well, in my opinion. Tvoz/talk 09:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter since everything I do relating to this article gets referred to as a copyvio. Informant16 22 November 2015

Only when you use the words and phrases of the source instead of rewriting in your own words - just rearranging the sentence but keeping the source's words is still a copyvio, as has been explained. And it matters because it's making work for other editors. I asked you if you could go over your contributions and compare them to the originals and flag those that may be problems, and you said that there were no more, but since I don't think you are doing this deliberately, I guess you're just not recognizing when it's a copyvio. Working with an experienced editor as mentor or watching what goes into bringing an article to GA or FA status might help you. Tvoz/talk 08:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend reading WP:Close paraphrasing for a guide. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Apparent MOS / tone vio

Why is the article subject referred to by her first name throughout the article? This seems a clear bio of MOS that last names only are used after the first full mention, and a WP:TONE vio in its conversational rather than encyclopedic language. Is there some consensus reason that MOS and tone were not adhered to here? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a deliberate usage, and I do not think it is a MOS or tone vio. First, we settled on this formulation over time because of the inherent confusion when referring to her as Kennedy or Onassis - MOS allows for first name usage when there is more than one prominent person with the same surname being repeatedly discussed in an article and it would be confusing and even incomprehensible if surname was used alone (i.e., here we have multiple Kennedys - John, Bobby, Teddy, Rose, Caroline, etc. - and several Onassises in addition to Jacqueline being referred to), and unwieldy and awkward if we used the full name each time. Per WP:SAMESURNAME - To distinguish between people with the same surname in the same article or page, use given names or complete names to refer to each of the people upon first mention. For subsequent uses, refer to the people by given names for clarity and brevity. As for tone, we use "Jacqueline" instead of "Jackie". as our attempt to minimize conversational language. This may not be a perfect solution, but given the particular circumstances in this article, this has seemed to be the best approach. Tvoz/talk 20:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tvoz. It would be confusing to just say Kennedy or Onassis and to distinguish all of the different people the two names apply to would only lead to unneeded verbiage. Kierzek (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the comments following Tenebrae's. This article was, at one time, rid of first-name usage. Somehow, at some time, it was all changed back. If done correctly, there is no confusion when using last names as required by policy/guidelines. I am in the process of fixing this per WP:MOS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

That is rather peremptory, Winkelvi - this has been discussed and I don't see support for your position. MOS does not dictate this as some mind of absolute - WP:SAMESURNAME (To distinguish between people with the same surname in the same article or page, use given names or complete names to refer to each of the people upon first mention. For subsequent uses, refer to the people by given names for clarity and brevity.) is applicable, as mentioned above, without objection. I'd ask you to revert these edits until you have consensus. There are multiple Kennedys mentioned and several Onassises, and your change makes this more confusing to readers who may not be as familiar with the players. MOS is not to be slavishly followed - and this exception is common across the encyclopedia - clarity should always trump rules. I very much object. Tvoz/talk 22:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the opinions of Tenebrae and myself count here, and from what I can see, our two opinions opposing yours and the other editor's makes for no consensus at all, but a stalemate. Not trying to be contentious at all, but I'm not going to revert the changes as I don't think they are confusing in the least. It would be great to have other editors' opinions on this. Perhaps an RfC is called for? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say or mean that yours and Tenebrae's opinions don't count, but since a discussion was opened here, with two editors disagreeing with one - providing policy argument - and you agreeing with the other one, it seems to me that you didn't have justification to change the text from where it has stood for two months. That is why I asked you to revert your peremptory changes. Out of respect to you I haven't done it - I'm not trying to be contentious either, nor will I get into an edit war with an experienced editor - but I think you know better than this. Make your argument while leaving the status quo. I'd be happy to have other editors' comments, which is why I participated in this discussion with Tenebrae - who, I note, did not change the text, but appropriately brought it to Talk. I don't know why you think it is ok to do what you did in this light. Tvoz/talk 03:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, first off, I wasn't saying you thought our opinions didn't count. I can see now that how I wrote what I said above could be interpreted that way, however, that wasn't my intent. I was only pointing out the statistics of it. Secondly, the article was actually status quo for several months with last names used. Like I said in my first set of comments in this thread, I don't know when it changed (but it does now seem from what you've said here, it was a couple of months ago). I put a lot of work into what I did with it to change it appropriately. Like I said, using last names can be done to keep readers from being confused. I don't know if you actually looked at the article to see if there is confusion, but why not leave it with last names and work on changing any instances of where it is confusing, rather than going against MOS? That makes more sense to me, especially since MOS really is the first consensus to go back to on things like this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I put a lot of careful, systematic work and a lot of time into it too, to get it to be consistent. I worked on the entire article, as you can see if you review history. And yes I read it again. It is now inconsistent and confusing, sometimes calling her Jacqueline, sometimes calling her by one or another of her surnames. And, for example, the section about her marriage to Aristotle Onassis goes back and forth between calling him Onassis and calling her Onassis. And many other places of inconsistency. Sentences like "Onassis was the first First Lady born in the 20th century" makes me wonder if you seriously think it is better to ignore convention and go with strict interpretation of MOS, despite it being clear that exceptions are fine when warranted as they are here. I am not going to spend the time again to put it back to where I think it is clearer - I already did that. Tvoz/talk 04:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi: you're not a newbie, you know how things are to be done when there is no consensus - "Status quo ante"; until a final determination is reached. The fact is you didn't have consensus to make the changes you did; the MOS is a guideline which does not always work; as when one is talking about multiple members of a family, such as this one. Kierzek (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The tag

I've been looking at this tag for roughly five months now and I'm ready for it to be removed. So I'd like to ask what overall issues the community has with my additions and I'm essentially willing to do anything to remove the tag. There was a level of disappointment I had in seeing that, partially because it almost made me feel as if I was more of a nuisance than anything else, but it is what it is. Informant16 April 1, 2016

I will not agree at this time, to removal of the one tag of "excessive amount of intricate detail", as you have continued to do this (and add trivia) through the time-frame of your recent "additions"; in this article and others, including Robert Kennedy and Michelle Obama. You have been asked not to do this and to use discernment with edits/additions; and you have been asked, for example, to work with other editors to bring an article to GA, for the experience. So, give it some more thought. Kierzek (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I concur. Tvoz/talk 07:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

While taking an article to GA would be nice, I personally don't think it's needed for a sense of what to include and not include. Probably best to sort through what detail is beneficial to have, what detail is not, and why it is or isn't worth including. Pages that might help provide insight are WP:Out of scope and WP:Too much detail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You know what? Forget it. Not just this, but editing on Wikipedia in general. I'm done. You wanted me to stop editing articles so that's what I'm going to do. After all, what's the use in trying? Informant16 2 April 2016

That's very oversimplified; nobody said you should stop editing in general, only to stop adding excess detail. Big difference. Feel free to ask if you aren't sure if certain details are worth mentioning. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Snuggums, no reason to quit, just read the links and use discernment; and one can always ask or post on the talk page as to queries, etc. Kierzek (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not only oversimplified, but such WP:DIVA-like and personalizing behavior shows a severe lack of understanding in regard to the purpose of Wikipedia, its policies, and the enforcement/keeping of same. The article and the encyclopedia isn't about the editors, it's about the reader. Do yourself a favor by keeping that in mind and don't take things so personally, Informant16. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I also agree with SNUGGUMS's comments. Adding excessive details can be addressed and fixed without having an editor leave the project. On another note, the tag also includes a message about close paraphrasing. Has this been addressed? When this issue gets fixed that particular notice can be removed and we can concentrate on the excessive detail problem. Dr. K. 19:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Both have been an ongoing problem; but the former (close paraphrasing) less so, of late. Ping @Tvoz:, as to same for comment. Kierzek (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

If what I'm doing is not of the quality that Wikipedia looks for then I shouldn't be editing. Kierzek already outlined where I'm worsening articles twice and I can't think of a single time where I've improved any article's quality. Wikipedia is supposed to be informative and for me was fun up until this, but I don't see the point in making any more edits no one likes. Informant16 2 April 2016

Your comment here, "I don't see the point in making any more edits no one likes", only further proves my point above, Informant16. Don't take it personally (unless someone is making disparaging, uncivil comments about you/engaging in personal attacks). Changes in content you provide is the nature of Wikipedia. It always has been and it always will be. Contribute because you're wanting to help out and it's fun to be able to do so, not because you have the illusion that what you've contributed will be a legacy and stand the test of time. As well, remember that no one comes to Wikipedia with a degree or credentials in how to edit Wikipedia. We all have had to learn how to contribute -- some do it quicker than others -- and there's nothing wrong with that. Don't let yourself get discouraged over what is the normal "progression" of editing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

WV, I appreciate the argument, but I cannot find any reasoning for why I should edit when these situations have become more and more common as time has gone on. I've seen it on multiple articles by now. I expect for things I write to have edits made to them or alterations but for it to be completely deleted because of what somebody thought really has brought me to question writing it in the first place. It just tells me that I might as well give up. At least then I wouldn't be setting myself up for failure with contributions that can't hack it. Informant16 2 April 2016

I'm sorry, but see the "Copyvios" section above, edit summaries, and several places on your User talk page. When constructive criticism - never personal attacks - has been made in the past about the nature of some of your edits here and in other articles, leading to the posting of the tags, your answer was the same, that you would stop editing. The response to that by the editors raising the problem - like me - was that no one was saying that you should stop editing, it was rather a matter of understanding, for example, what we mean by close paraphrasing. The fact is there have been persistent problems with this here and in other articles. There were repeated, serious copyvios in many of your additions that I found when I went back to the book sources - and doing that checking was extremely time-consuming for me as there are limits to how one can research this via google books. I can't say that the copyvios have or have not continued - I just don't have the time to do the research and find the passages and make changes. The pattern was so severe and pervasive, that the tag was absolutely necessary. But I had asked that you pause in your editing - not leave the project - and go back over your own edits and the original sources that you had used, read the policy, and flag those that might need re-writing which I was willing to do. But that never happened that I'm aware of, and as I say, I ran out of time to devote to this kind of painstaking research. And the matter of trivia is of course a judgement call, but it persists - that is often handled by just reverting trivial additions, but that too puts a burden on the other editors. It's been suggested that you discuss things on Talk, but that hasn't happened either. So I don't know what to say - it's clear that you've put a lot of work into this, which is appreciated, and again no one is personally attacking you. It's been suggested more than once that you work with a mentor, which is often very helpful for editors. The suggestion made months ago that you pick an article that is already being worked on to bring it to GA status and see what goes into that, might be very helpful to you, but I I'm not aware of your taking up that idea either. Seeking out citations is important and useful work, and you've done a lot of that here too which is improving the article. But the problem is not with the tags, it's with what has led to the necessity for the tags. Tvoz/talk 07:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

What are you sorry for? Everybody has a right to their opinion. I just wish that you, Kiezerk and Winkelvi could understand how disappointing it is to write a paragraph and have it removed because somebody thought it wasn't needed. I couldn't care less if what I write is rewritten, so long as the content is still there. That way it doesn't seem as though it was a complete waste of time to vest interest in what I thought was something, Wikipedia, that could be used to educate people who came to learn. Informant16 6 April 2016

I was wondering if I could help with the issues the article currently has? I don't know much about Jackie Kennedy and don't have the time to do a lot of research on her; however, I could help in 'condensing' the article. I've already started working on the first two sections, but don't want to edit the actual article yet in case I'll step on anyone's toes. You can have a look here. Thank you! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Thanks for the offer TrueHeartSusie3; Ping @Tvoz: has been working on it more than myself, of late. Kierzek (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

So I just looked at these recent edits for the page and admittedly, it kind of hurt. I guess I'm just not a fan of giving effort for nothing, but I also apologize for ruining the article. Won't ever happen again. Informant16 8 April 2016

Bouvier/Kennedy/Onassis/Jacqueline – which should we use?

It's a bit confusing that the name we refer to her changes in each section of the article, but I cannot find any previous discussion about this, apart from the one above which did not seem to reach a consensus. I think we should go with either Jacqueline or (my favourite) Kennedy. Arguably, most people remember her as "Jackie Kennedy", and the Kennedy marriage is the reason she is such an important historical person. It would be weird to refer to her as 'Bouvier' throughout the article as she only used that name in the first twenty years of her life, and even weirder to refer to her as Onassis.

Also, should JFK be referred to as JFK, John or Jack? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Well, the confusion is the reason I stated above that just using "Kennedy" to describe her, creates a problem given the other Kennedy family members, along with her husband, the president. If last names must be used, as consensus was not reached last time, I would suggest using her maiden name until she is married and then Kennedy (where possible) and then Kennedy-Onassis. In the Michelle Obama article for example, her maiden name Robinson is used until marriage, then she is referred to as Obama. Basically the same type of change over takes place in Hillary Clinton's article (but she started using the last name Clinton, later) and at times in that article they use the name Bill Clinton for distinguishing who is being written about. So, I rather Jack or John Kennedy be used for him. Kierzek (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• First name usage is against MOS on naming conventions. Last names must be used. There's nothing wrong with using the maiden name prior to marriage, the married name(s) after marriage. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I think what Kierzek proposed sounds good! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I think what Kierzek proposed is precisely what I said and what has been in the article for a couple of months now. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sorry if it appears for some reason that I'm disagreeing with you? That's not what I meant, I simply meant to reply that I agree. Both of you are saying the same thing, except that Kierzek explained it in more detail, hence my wording. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Removal of valid content and reverting POV content

TrueHeartSusie3, you have removed valid, sourced content and replaced it with content that has POV wording stated in Wiki-voice. When what you removed and placed in was reverted, you chose to revert it all back in again. The cycle is supposed to be WP:BRD, not BRRD. You should seriously consider walking back your reversion as not in line with the BRD cycle and being a vio of policy. You originally acted boldly, I reverted, you then reverted it all back in without attempting to discuss. Please discuss (and explain). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi, how was what I added POV, can you explain? Jack Bouvier's problems are well-established and seem to be discussed in every biography, even in the NYT obituary, I'm therefore really struggling to see how the facts that Bouvier was an alcoholic, had extramarital affairs and never recovered financially from the 1929 crash are POV? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

(1) "Bouvier's parents' marriage was strained by her father's alcoholism and extramarital affairs; the family had also been in constant financial problems since the Wall Street Crash of 1929."

This is a judgement stated in Wikipedia's voice, therefore, makes it POV. Doesn't matter how well is was "established" or reported, it needs to be worded in a neutral manner (as it is, it's not NPOV). There was nothing wrong with how it was worded previously.

(2) "Bouvier was deeply affected by the divorce, and subsequently had a "tendency to withdraw frequently into a private world of her own"."

Again, a judgement stated in Wikipedia voice and not supported in the prose by who said it - quotation marks aren't enough, the reader should know who said it and in what context without clicking on the ref link (which most won't do).

(3) You didn't address why you removed valid, applicable references.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I've not explained anything because I did not understand what to explain, I don't see how any of those statements are controversial?

1.) How is this a judgment? It's stated in the sources I used. I'd agree with you if it was just one biographer who believes this, but it doesn't seem like there's anyone reputable who denies this. It's an undisputable fact that the marriage was strained due to Jack's illness and behaviour, and that he never recovered financially from the 1929 crash. If it's the wording you disagree with, I'm completely fine with it being re-written, but omitting it would be weird. The divorce and Jack Bouvier's issues are again alluded to in the section where Hugh Auchincloss' influence on Jackie is discussed.

2.) All I did to change the sentence that was there before was remove Davis' name (as indeed it doesn't seem to be only his opinion that Jackie was affected by the divorce, hence I don't think we should imply that it's a minority opinion), and removed the bit about "relatives noticing", as that was plagiarized from the NYT obituary. RE: I've re-added Davis' name now.

3.) I'm confused as to what references you are referring to? I didn't remove the NYT obituary, and I ADDED Flaherty and Pottker. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

"It's an undisputable fact that the marriage was strained due to Jack's illness and behaviour" Indisputable to whom? You? The American public? People in the Republic of Botswana reading the article and having no clue as to the article subject's history? You cannot make a statement like that in Wikipedia's voice. That goes for the other statement I outlined in point #2. Such claims are precisely what the article and policy on NPOV is addressing. Surely, you aren't unclear on what the policy is about, are you? Also, please don't accuse other editors (named or unnamed) of plagiarism. A copyvio, yes, but plagiarism is a very serious charge against another editor as well as Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The article is currently tagged as containing plagiarism, I'm not accusing any particular editor of it. I don't quite see the difference between calling something 'copyvio' or 'plagiarism' when we're discussing someone taking passages from other authors' texts and claiming them as their own words? I have observed that this article contains A LOT of plagiarized material, not just sentences but entire paragraphs. The tag is there for a reason. Anyway, this is in no way related to the discussion at hand.

Indisputable as in mentioned in most texts about this topic? Are you seriously proposing that I compile a long list of all biographers, relatives, etc. who have written about this? I've listed four sources. I'm sorry, but Jack Bouvier's alcoholism, infidelity and financial difficulties are not disputed, they are not opinions or interpretations. Following this logic, we'd have to start every sentence with "According to X", including "According to X, Jackie Kennedy was born on this day of this year."TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Seems like part of the problem with you not understanding NPOV is based on your statement: "Following this logic, we'd have to start every sentence with "According to X", including "According to X, Jackie Kennedy was born on this day of this year"." There's a huge difference between stating a statistical fact and making a judgement about an individual's character - especially when it's done in Wiki-voice. Talking about what her father was like and that because of his character, that is the reason why thus and so occurred, is POV. Stating a person was born on such and such a day is not POV. We cannot give judgement about someone's choices in life (that's POV) and then connect those life choices with a specific result, e.g. the divorce (that's POV and synthesis). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, please be mindful of the tone you are using. We're not making a judgment on someone's character here. Jack Bouvier's alcoholism, infidelity and financial issues were very real, and are widely discussed in literature about the family. We're not judging by mentioning them; mentioning negative things is not POV if they are established facts. Note that I do not state that they 100% caused the divorce and that there absolutely cannot have been any other factors involved, but that they placed a strain on the marriage, which is again a solid, well established fact. What's currently stated in the article is that a.) Jack Bouvier had confirmed, serious problems ; b.) they contributed to the separation and divorce. This is what the sources state.

I'm not sure what you're proposing that I do instead? Completely omit these well-sourced facts? That leads to hagiographies, it's not the point of WP to pass judgment, as you've stated. Again, as I said, I'm fine with rephrasing if you'd prefer another wording. But I really don't understand why you cannot believe that it can be a well-established fact that someone was an alcoholic, had extramarital affairs and financial issues, and that these problems placed a strain on their marriage, which then ended in divorce? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

If you still can't see how what you added is POV, I can't help you see it. You've made up your mind, obviously, that it's not (or you've decided you don't care and will defend the content regardless). Either way, commenting to you on this any further will obviously be a waste of time. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

If a point is made by one biographer (and RS cited to them), then it should state who it is according to, for that point. If it is something which major historians or biographers agree then specific naming is not needed; only RS citing for the sentence or point made. Kierzek (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It should never be in Wiki-voice and we should never assume a reader will know it's something major historians and biographers agree on. We have readers from around the world. This is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias provide content and information that is not just well sourced and factual but neutrally voiced. The content in question needs to be reworded to give the reader an idea from where we got the information. If it's from one individual, then that should be stated. If it's something historians/biographers agree on, then something in the manner of "...biographers have noted..." or something along that line - and with references to support that numerous historians and biographers have noted it. Again, the difference is whether or not it's in Wiki-voice. As currently written, it is and it reads POV. Fixing it in the manner I have suggested removes the POV and gives the content more credibility. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Winkelvi, but that's not WP policy. Kierzek explained this well. The readers are already clearly informed where the information is coming from, as the sentences are referenced. "we should never assume a reader will know it's something major historians and biographers agree on" – the reader should be able to assume this if we don't begin a sentence with "according to x", which we shouldn't do in this case as, once again, these are established facts we're talking about, not an opinion. It appears to me that you see something sad or negative written about a person, and assume that it must hence be POV? That's not how this works. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Confusing use of Kennedy name

This article refers to several Kennedys, so the references to Jackie Kennedy as 'Kennedy' is confusing. I've relabeled as Ms. Kennedy where I can catch the use. Pls help to catch more confusing contexts. --Kgwu24 (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:HONOURIFICS. Titles are not supposed to be used in articles. Also the context is clear in the sentences involved and there is no confusion as to who is being talked about. Please see also my edit-summary in the first of my edits. Also please do not add any more honourifics before others comment here. Thank you. Dr. K. 18:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

edit conflict - Kgwu24, please see the last time this matter was discussed above, under: "Bouvier/Kennedy/Onassis/Jacqueline – which should we use?". The last name is being used for her; first name of husband or other Kennedy mentioned, such as Robert Kennedy, to be used as needed. Kierzek (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanx. I didn't read the historical editorial context, so thought I was trying to help. Didn't mean to start an edit war. I'll revert all my changes.--Kgwu24 (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

How about if I add "Jackie" to the places where the last name are used? Somehow it doesn't sound right in this context where the Kennedy name is so standard and famous for the president. Similarly for Onassis. In many cases when the last name is previously used notably, we always seek rescue from the first name, such as Hilary, Jeb, RFK, etc.Kgwu24 (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see the need for that. The editors who have cleaned up the issue have taken care to provide the right context for the sentences involved. For instance, In early 1963, Kennedy was again pregnant, leading her to curtail her official duties. Now, that sentence couldn't apply to her husband or brother in law. Dr. K. 20:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion at Talk:Jack Schlossberg

There is currently a move discussion at Talk:Jack Schlossberg, John F. Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis' only grandson, in which you may be interested in. Thanks! ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 22:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Aided the administration?

"As First Lady, she aided her husband's administration with her presence in social events […]"

In what way is this Noteworthy, and how does it differentiate her from any other First Lady? Would it not have been extraordinary if she didn't?

"[…] and with her highly publicized restoration of the White House."

I know she had it redecorated; exactly what was it that needed restoring?

Paul Magnussen (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with your first point - I'll take another look at that section. (Although the current First Lady does call the assumption into question.) As for the second, it was a major renovation/restoration of the whole house. Big news, much coverage, absolutely notable. Tvoz/talk 23:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

No, actually I didn't realize you were quoting from the intro section - this is a summary of the much more detailed explanation in the body of the article. Perhaps the first part could be expressed a bit more artfully, but these are things she was known for as First Lady - the emphasis on cultural events in the White House and the restoration. So I think both are appropriate for the intro. I will see how to improve the phrasing. Tvoz/talk 00:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Jackie O (radio host) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Clinthill limo.png

File:Clinthill limo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Code on display

The first section is not properly formatted & I'm afraid I don't know how to fix it. I write here in case someone is monitoring tese entries. jde94.126.214.75 (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hypocorism in the first sentence, violating MOS

@Tvoz:, would you mind explaining to me why this is a "special case" that somehow, for some reason, overrides MOS? WP:QUOTENAME is clear that common hypocorisms should not be listed, in the manner of the first sentence as you restored it. Hypocorism#English lists this particular example. It's taken as a given. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Because "Jackie" is a name she was widely known as through her life in the press, books, etc., not just a childhood nickname, or an intimate nickname, or a pet name used with children, and so on as hypocorism is generally defined. Although when we refer to her by first name in the article we always use Jacqueline, we have quotes in the text that call her Jackie, and without an antecedent explanation of who "Jackie" is, it might not be clear (as in for non-Americans, children, etc.). We do the same for JFK, and others not related to Kennedys. I believe that clarity supersedes strict MOS interpretation on this point - and let's not forget that MOS is a guideline, not an inviolable policy, and is often overridden for clarity. Tvoz/talk 17:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Tvoz; this is an exception to the guideline and, for example, the same was done for Robert F. Kennedy and John F. Kennedy for the same reason as Tvoz points out here; a widely used and known name. Kierzek (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2017

2607:FCC8:9D02:9F00:20BE:2C95:34A6:CAE3 (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

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. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 19:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments

This article is very neutral with reliable sources. I enjoyed the talk page about removing the information that did not have facts and sources to back it up. I enjoy the pictures as well.

MMcAteer608 (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2017

2607:FCC8:9D02:9F00:20BE:2C95:34A6:CAE3 (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

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. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 19:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Suppression of negative information about Jackie Kennedy's private life

Despite the fact that Jackie Kennedy is one of the most famous women of the twentieth century, her article is not classified as a featured article and is not even rated as a good article. This seems strange to me.

It also seems strange to me that little or no information about the negative aspects of her private life is given in the article. Jackie was a chain-smoker throughout most of her life; this might have contributed to her death from cancer at age 64. I added information about her bad habit, but the edit was summarily deleted, even though it had a seemingly reliable source. It seems apparent that a number of people don't want adverse information about Kennedy to appear in her article.

A number of sources—some reliable and others not reliabe—have mentioned that Jackie, like her husband, engaged in a number of extra-marital affairs. JFK's article has an entire section devoted to this topic, but not a single word of Jackie's secret trysts is mentioned in her article. I agree that sources like The Sun and Daily Mail Online are not reliable, but they would not intentionally publish false information because they could be sued for millions of dollars for defamation. There are additional, reliable sources that also document Jackie Kennedy's out-of-wedlock amorous dalliances.

There seems to be a double-standard here; it's OK to tear JFK's private life apart, but Jackie is snow-white. This is deceptive and misleading journalism.Anthony22 (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The point isn't to "supress" anything; if we include such detail on her life, then we would need to cite publications that are overall known to be accurate. The Sun and The Daily Mail don't fit into that category at all, and I'm pretty sure The Daily Mail would intentionally publish false reports given outright absurd pieces like this. As for the chain-smoker bit, I wasn't really familiar with the citation you put in, so I can't say much on that one. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Frankly, Anthony22, you have been around long enough to know better than para-phase and cite to non-RS sources. Although, from your talk page I see you have done so in the past. No "double-standard"; use some good RS book sources and write it in a non-pov way and it should not be a problem, as long as there is consensus; but, this is not a tabloid, as you know. For example, I know she was a smoker, but your cite was not RS and the wording was poor, with OR issues. And as for other personal/private life events or "claims", "exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources"; WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Kierzek (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Anthony, I agree with Snuggums and Kierzek - the fact that you yourself say that some of your sources are not RS should indicate why this is problematic as written. There is no deception or suppression (kind of an offensive suggestion to hard-working editors here), and by the way, we're not doing journalism, we're writing an encyclopedia. There's a difference - we make decisions every day about the relative weight of reliably sourced material - as I am sure you know. Just being sourced does not on its own mean it should be included. But the opposite is the case - not being RS'd automatically should disqualify. As Kierzek said, find some quality sources and let's see if consensus is to include. One other thing - I can't agree with your assertion that those tabloids would not intentionally publish false material. I wish that were true. Tvoz/talk 02:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I just saw this thread. Calling my revert "suppression" and commenting It seems apparent that a number of people don't want adverse information about Kennedy to appear in her article. is straight out disinformation and lack of AGF. As I clearly explained in my edit-summary: " "40 years" not in source. Also source qualifies chain smoking: "Few people knew that she chain-smoked when she thought no one was looking. " Not accurately described)" The edit was very bad quality and got reverted for the clear reasons I enumerated in my edit-summary. When one opens a thread and accuses other editors of suppression of information and It seems apparent that a number of people don't want adverse information about Kennedy to appear in her article., without addressing the valid concerns expressed in my edit-summary, then I can only assume lack of AGF, or CIR issues. Dr. K. 03:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Is it OK to include a video clip of JFK, Jr. announcing his mother's death?

I recently uploaded a video clip of JFK, Jr. announcing his mother's death in front of her apartment building, but the clip was summarily deleted. I don't know what is appropriate and what is not appropriate concerning this issue. The clip in question was a good source. Was this clip deleted in error? Should I upload the clip a second time?

Also, Citation 177 is a cite error. What is the point of retaining a citation that gives no information? Anthony22 (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

It was removed because the "death" section already mentioned that JFK Jr announced her death, though I hadn't noticed that the ref used wasn't pointing to anything. Sorry about that. This had nothing to do with legitimacy of citations. I'll restore that URL. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

JFK's 'war injury'

John Kennedy suffered from Addison's Disease and from chronic and at times debilitating back pain due to a war injury

He had chronic back pain before the war, and should never have been on active service. His father bribed the government to commission him in the Navy and serve in the Pacific, where he was knocked over in a collision and the pain came back. It is misleading to call it a war injury. Valetude (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Not quite correct; JFK did have chronic back pain in life and the injury received during the PT-109 collision made it worse. As far as military service, in 1940, JFK attempted to enter the army's OCS, but he was medically disqualified due to his chronic lower back problems. He then exercised for months to straighten his back. On September 24, 1941, with the help of the director of the Office of Naval Intelligence (who was the former naval attaché to Joseph Kennedy), Kennedy joined the United States Naval Reserve. It was not a "bribe". JFK was state bound and wanted to go overseas, so JFK is the one who volunteered for PT boat service to go overseas. With that said, the sentence can be tweaked, but in a NPOV way. Kierzek (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Kierzek (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Mavros John Jack 'jj' Onassis - Possible reason for Semi-Protection on this page.

There have been repeated instances of vandalism on this page regarding the marriage to Onassis, stating:-

'From this marriage on January 15, 1975 at Onassis Clinic Surgery Center in Athens, born Mavros John Jack 'jj' Onassis.'

This is completely unfounded hence why no source link has been provided, lets keep an eye on this. What are opinions on this page becoming semi-protected to stop random edits?

ToonIsALoon (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this is obviously vandalism. I asked for semi protection yesterday, and was told there was "not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection" which is absurd. I asked them to look again, but they just archived. Some hours later, User:SNUGGUMS asked the same and it was done. I guess 2 more incidents were enough, for a different admin. Tvoz/talk 03:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Tvoz, I agree this page should've been semi-protected when you asked for it. The nonsense simply had to end. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I've had this argument before, many times - some admins seem to think it's more important to protect anonymous IP editing than the integrity of the articles. I'll never understand this thinking. Anyway, glad your request did the trick. This one was a no-brainer. Cheers Tvoz/talk 04:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your support all. ToonIsALoon (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Possible vandalism - Photo with Jacqueline Kennedy, Sisowath Kossamak and Norodom Sihanouk in 1967

Have raised this on the wikimedia commons page for this photo but also flagging here. The yellow dots on the photo, this may well be lens dirt/print issues with the very original, but following other recent instances of vandalism, just thought i'd gather opinions on whether this attempts to reference a sexual organ for the guard to the left? From research on the wikicommons page there is currently no other photo to replace the subject of Jacqueline Kennedy, Sisowath Kossamak and Norodom Sihanouk in 1967, however there are others to be found on, for example on pinterest.com (doesn't have to be from there just first I saw.) Have little to no experience in finding owners permissions for uploading to wiki commons so just thought would ask if anyone agreed and would help in gaining an alternative? Other photos I've seen also show Kennedy smiling and feature a generally more active background.

ToonIsALoon (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The photo is from [1], and the damage to the image is the same there. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

This is reminiscent of the famous Risqué ‘Star Wars’ C-3P0 Trading Card. As with the card, it doesn't appear to have been done deliberately, but some people have vivid imaginations.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, the Wikipedia version of the image crops off more extensive damage to the photo on the top and right. I'm surprised the official thing from the State Department didn't fix or crop that image themselves. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

ok thanks for the feedback. Accepting that the photo is damaged. That said, would anyone help to get permission for a better photo of the event? ToonIsALoon (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, there are several other pictures of her on that trip in the same source, some of which are more interesting anyway. The one with the elephants is a much less unflattering image of the Queen, too. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

This has now been replaced. ToonIsALoon (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The photo i replaced has had licensing issues and has now been deleted. Can anyone help with gaining a licensed photo of this trip preferably with the same people? ToonIsALoon (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Relationship with RFK

In the first paragraph there is a throwaway line about Jackie and Robert becoming lovers after John's death. It is a single, out of place line sourced from a C. David Heymann book, but a quick search reveals the biographer has faced charges of fabrications in his work (See: Los Angeles Times, "C. David Heymann dies at 67; controversial bestselling biographer" http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/14/local/la-me-c-david-heymann-20120514; Newsweek, "C. David Heymann’s Lies About JFK and Jackie, Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor" https://www.newsweek.com/2014/09/05/c-david-heymanns-career-serial-fabulist-266876.html). The Newsweek article in particular reports on this controversial claim, and says that Heymann's source disputed the claim he attributed to him.

It seems irresponsible to just have this one sentence based on a highly disputed source, with no mention surrounding the controversy of the claim. The question is, should this sentence be deleted altogether, or it be expanded to state that this was one writer's highly disputed claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsox59 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I've removed that altogether. Someone who has access to Heymann's work should cross-reference any other claims in this article attributed to him. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Identifying terms

I think "socialite" is not a good choice as the first identifying term in the lead sentence. First Lady would be more appropriate, as it is clearly the role for which she is best known. The sentence would require adjustment to accommodate that change; or, possibly, a separate sentence could be used for inclusion of the additional terms. DonFB (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

She was the First Lady for only a few years, although this is what she is best known for. She was a well known socialite in the 1950s and after JFK's death as well. Nowadays it might seem a bit old fashioned to say that she was best known for being a socialite but she was always a key figure on the social scene.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you've said, but I am unable to shake my impression that "socialite" as a first descriptive term is a disservice to her biography. DonFB (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

A rudimentary search with her name as titled here and "socialite" produces about 720 thousand hits. Search with quote-enclosed "First Lady" produces nearly 3 million hits. DonFB (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Outside the lede section, the article makes no explicit mention of her being a "socialite." In the 'College and early career' section, she is mentioned as making her "society debut" before entering college, becoming "a frequent presence in New York social functions," and being deemed "debutante of the year" by a columnist. This description, I submit, refers to a minor portion of her life, but not one that would justify "socialite" as the first descriptor in her Wikipedia (or any) biography. I point out that her mother and sister were both referred to by that term in published reports. In my non-exhaustive survey of tertiary and online sources, History.com is the only one I found that applies the term to Jackie, beginning its thumbnail biography: "The journalist and socialite Jacqueline Lee Bouvier married John F. Kennedy...." (and socialite comes second). Of the sources I've seen over the years, I believe the great majority refer to her as First Lady before they refer to her (if at all) as "socialite." I inquire of editors of this article if any of its listed references refer to her as "socialite," and if they do, whether they prioritize that term over First Lady. It's my intention to edit the lede to place First Lady as the first descriptor, followed by book editor and maybe socialite. Instead of socialite, an alternate choice that I believe sources support is "international icon of style and culture." However, I won't object to continued use of socialite in the lede, but I believe it is misplaced and decidedly not supported by sources as the first descriptor. DonFB (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree and support your edit. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I Googled "Jacqueline Kennedy socialite" and nothing came up that identified her as a socialite. What DID come up were numerous hits that identified her sister Lee Radziwill as a socialite. I cannot understand why Lee Radziwill is known as a socialite but Jackie is not. Radziwill was basically unknown in comparison with her sister. Anthony22 (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Jackie's fame as First Lady and the drama and tragedy in her life outweighed any conventional description of her, unlike her sister, whose life was not marked by such extraordinary events, leaving her, more suitably and more referenceably, with a legacy as a socialite. DonFB (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Barbara Leaming

Barbara Leaming is referenced here multiple times, but it is very unclear to which books we should refer. Sure, the footnote includes a parenthetical with the year in which the book is published, but I was forced to find the title of the book elsewhere. It is not the most effective way to reference the book. Either link to Barbara Leaming when mentioning her in the primary text, or include the book title in the footnote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkt0991 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done I've added a link to Barbara Leaming's Wikipedia article, and a full reference to the book in the footnote where it is first used as a citation in the article. Orville^talk 16:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Bkt0991: Please see response above. Orville^talk 16:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

How do we archive all of this article's references?

I tried but it won't go through. Please help. Factfanatic1 (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "archive all of this article's references"? It's not clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I mean to rescue the links and add archives for any non-dead links. Factfanatic1 (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, I understand now Sorry, I've never done that, so I can't help you. Have you tried asking at the WP:Teahouse? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao would you, by any chance, use a tool that could fix/archive an overload of dead links? I tried the "Fix Dead Links" tool thorough the article's Page/History. The tool told me there are too many dead links for that tool to work. Any ideas? — Maile (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Maile66: Sorry, no clue. I might check with one of the bot operators - it sounds like something they might be able to help with. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Factfanatic1 I'm out of ideas here, but refer you to WP:TECHPUMP. After it told me the job was too large to run, there was a message something like "submit a bot instead". I clicked on that link, and it ran a bot. Told me it competed the job. But nothing changed. The folks at the Village Pump that I have linked, might have some better insight about this. Good luck. — Maile (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you tried using Checklinks? GoingBatty (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: I just tried Checklinks, thank you. There seems to be a few references that are dead. I also looked at all of the references and what worries me is that the vast majority of references are not archived, meaning that if the reference or article in question is removed by the website, the reference is gone forever in all likelihood. It's not really that I'm worried about the references being dead, although that's important; I'm much more worried about the fact that close to none of the references are archived. So in the future, it will be a lot of work for editors to locate new reliable sources. Factfanatic1 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Factfanatic1: Looking at the first 11 references, each one is either a book or is a web page that was already archived. I manually added the archive-urls to the references. GoingBatty (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: That's great, thanks. I just worry about the rest of the references. There are 323 references and most of those are web pages. As far as I can see, only a few of them are archived, including the ones that you archived. Factfanatic1 (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Factfanatic1: I didn't archive anything. Since the web pages were already archived at the Internet Archive, I added the |url-status=, |archive-url= and |archive-date= parameters to the existing references. GoingBatty (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Got it, thanks. Factfanatic1 (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Name

Her name is much more commonly just "Jackie Kennedy"; for evidence see the numbers on Google, particularly the ones in the News tab — 125K results for "Jackie Kennedy", but only 14.8K for "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis". I think this should be moved, as this article's title is definitely not her common name. DemonDays64 (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

STRONGLY OPPOSE The common name guideline tells us to use reliable sources, not Google counts. And there is a good reason to WP:IGNOREALLRULES, when the common name is subject to change over time, we must also avoid WP:Recentism and maintain WP:NPOV. She has been dead for 26 years, and will remain so forever. She was married to both men (JFK and Onassis), and we must maintain her biography in context of that. This article hides the fact that her popularity took a dip when she married Onassis less than five years after JFK's death; it's as if the American public took the Onassis marriage as a betrayal of the late president (and we certainly can find reliable sources who say so). If you had been able to do a Google search back in 1968, the winner would have been "Jackie Onassis". But when Jackie died, Onassis had been dead for 19 years, and the fickle American public forgave all, buried her as the "queen of Camelot", and purged their memory of Onassis' name. The article should stay where it is, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. JustinTime55 (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I personally would opt for Jacqueline Kennedy instead not only because it not only would be more concise than using "Onassis" and appears to be used more often, but she is also more widely known for her first marriage and being a FLOTUS than her second marriage. Contrary to what JustinTime55 seems to suggest, a rename wouldn't downplay how she remarried, just reflect the more commonly known one. Frances Cleveland is a comparable example. Both women are known to have married after their Presidential husbands died, yes, but their original marriages are more famous. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

STRONGLY OPPOSE I agree with JustinTime55 , everytime I've heard her name its the full Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, we are just presenters of history/information we don't really get to impose on it. -MaximusEditor (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

"Jackie"?

Why is the subject referred to as "Jackie" throughout the article, rather than by any of her surnames? Per MOS:SURNAME, this encyclopedia doesn't generally refer to people by their first names or nicknames. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

At least some of them appear to be used because there are instances where using "Kennedy" or "Onassis" might lead to confusion. Have a look at WP:SAMESURNAME, which states "To distinguish between people with the same surname in the same article or page, use given names or complete names to refer to each of the people upon first mention. For subsequent uses, refer to them by their given names for clarity and brevity. When referring to the person who is the subject of the article, use just the surname unless the reference is part of a list of family members or if use of the surname alone will be confusing." SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

That's right, thanks for the explanation, Snuggums. There are so many places in this article where "Kennedy" would refer to her husband (and even her brother-in-law Robert), and also since she remarried and thus was originally referred to by two different surnames, Kennedy and Onasis. I chose Jackie as the most consistent, least confusing option, with a good enough reason to sacrifice our sacred style guidelines in the spirit of WP:Ignore all rules. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It still comes off as very patronizing towards the subject, methinks, not least because the article does not even refer to her by her first name but by a nickname. I doubt a male subject would be treated the same. Indeed, the patronizing effect is amplified by the fact that JFK is never called "John" in this article; he is predominantly, and almost reverently, called "President Kennedy". It is a jarring contrast. Surtsicna (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree re: how ridiculous that looks. Surely we are capable of fixing it. Looks now like one of her dearest chums (or someone who has dreamed of being such) wrote FYthe whole thing. Degrading to the subject and degrading to our project. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Agree, this wants fixing. There are about 200 uses of "Jackie". Almost all of them should be replaced by "Kennedy", and then the sentences that seem odd because of JFK -- the secondary figure in this article -- should be fixed. As it stands, this article looks completely out of alignment with almost every other article. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

FYI, I am the one who changed all the "Kennedy"s and "Onassis"s to "Jackie". 'I am not "one of her dearest chums (or someone who has dreamed of being such)" (far from it), smart-ass. I explained my reasoning above. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis is "out of alignment with almost every other" biographical article topic, and as I explained, following the guideline (not a rule) requires changing her reference back and forth between Kennedy and Onassis, and causes more confusion. Consistently calling her "Jackie" fits the WP:COMMONNAME guideline and is least confusing, because that is what she was known as publicly. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, we'll leave there if consensus is reached, and we'll change it back if another consensus is reached. I read your explanation above, and disagree with it. WP:COMMONNAME applies to the article title; MOS:SURNAME applies to the use within articles; "Generally speaking, subjects should not otherwise be referred to by their given name." We should refer to her as Jacqueline only when it's necessary within a paragraph to distinguish her from any of the other Kennedys, Onassis, or Bouvier; we should almost never use "Jackie" except when referring to her popular nicknames, just as we almost never use "Jack" in the JFK article. It looks like a gossip or fan magazine at the moment, regardless of your intent. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I think calling her Kennedy in some sections and Onassis in other sections is preferable to using a pet name for an adult woman. We use different surnames to refer to Hilary Rodham Clinton in the article about her. Various approaches are taken in other biographical articles. JFK Library calls her Jackie in childhood, Jacqueline as a young adult, and either Jacqueline Kennedy or Mrs Kennedy throughout the rest. Britannica calls her Jacqueline throughout but also calls her husband John. Biography.com calls her Onassis throughout. National First Ladies' Library calls her Jacqueline Kennedy throughout. Therefore it would not be unheard of to use different names, nor to use her actual first name when the men in her life are referred to by theirs, and also "Jacqueline Kennedy" appears as an option. Surtsicna (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Proposal: Undo this set of changes. They were boldly made without discussion, and the result is not consistent with the WP:SURNAME or any other articles on Wikipedia. I'll take this to the RFC level if necessary, but I think there should be enough eyes on this article and talk page to find a consensus here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure I fully agree. We could use "Jacqueline" instead of "Jackie" for any instance where "Kennedy" or "Onassis" might refer to her husbands (debatable how often "Bouvier" should be used pre-marriage), but I'd only use a surname for instances where there's no ambiguity whatsoever on who the text is referring to. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Whenever the sentence refers to two people, first names should be used. Otherwise it can reasonably be assumed that the "Kenendy" or "Onassis" is the subject herself. "Jacqueline Kennedy" and "Jacqueline Onassis" are also viable options. Surtsicna (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

As a result of this discussion, I have replaced references to Jackie with references to Jacqueline, [Jacqueline] Bouvier, [Jacqueline] Kennedy, [Jacqueline] Onassis, and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis where appropriate. Surtsicna (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Looked through your pronoun changes here, and I don't see any problems with them :). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you for checking. I was afraid I might have accidentally edited some quotes but it appears that I avoided them successfully. Surtsicna (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Portrayals

I think Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis#Portrayals needs severe pruning but I do not know how to condense all that text. Surtsicna (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Numbering first ladies, doesn't equate the numbering of presidents

TBH, I don't know what purpose the short description serves in these bio articles. Also, Jackie K. Onassis was not the 35th first lady. The first ladies of the United States aren't officially numbered & if anybody is going by the List of first ladies of the United States article? Then look very closely. The ordinals are for their husbands (the president), not the first ladies themselves. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Cite error

There is an undefined refname in the Assassination and funeral of John F. Kennedy section. The reference was removed by this edit, while the refname was still in use.
The following:
<ref name="FordMitchell2004" />
should be replaced with:
<ref name="FordMitchell2004">{{cite book|url={{Google books|Jmz__lna90kC|page=PA149|keywords=|text=|plainurl=yes}}|title=The Makeover in Movies: Before and After in Hollywood Films, 1941–2002|last1=Ford|first1=Elizabeth|last2=Mitchell|first2=Deborah C.|date=March 2004|publisher=McFarland|isbn=978-0-7864-1721-6|page=149|access-date=May 1, 2011}}</ref>
Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested, you're now confirmed, so you should be able to make this edit yourself. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I was just working through some I had outstanding, this was next on my list. Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead Image

Looking at commons I found some new Kennedy pics were uploaded to commons and therefore opened the door for some possible lead image picks.

• 
  Option A (current)
• 
  Option B
• 
  Option C
• 
  Option D
• 
  Option E

I favor either B or C. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current one but E is ok. Not keen on the others.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Although I'm in no position to comment in any professional manner, Option A is best because her eye colour is most discernible. GebienD (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2021

Under the category, “Nicknames”, add “Jackie O”. 136.49.142.166 (talk) 07:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Jackie and Declan Costello

The following is an extract from the newly updated Declan Costello article

In 1950, Jacqueline Bouvier, later to become better known as Jackie Kennedy, was staying for a time in Ireland. She had befriended a Father Joseph Leonard, an elderly priest who lived in Drumcondra, Dublin. It was through Father Leonard that Bouvier was introduced to the Costello family. Bouvier had confessed to Father Leonard that she was seeking a husband at the time, and Leonard suggested that Declan, then 24 years old, would be a good match. Bouvier wrote to Leonard that Declan "sounds like absolute heaven" and that he would make a "suitable" husband. However, the match was never to come about as Bouiver continued her travels onwards to Scotland, and later returned to the United States while Costello married Joan Fitzsimons in 1953. Jacqueline would return to Ireland in 1955 as Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy alongside her new husband US Senator John FitzGerald Kennedy, whom she introduced to the Costello family. Jacqueline would later write in a private letter to Costello recalling a double date between the couples: "That night we dined at Jammet's and our happy marriage was nearly rent asunder because Jack was enchanted by Joan and I was enchanted with you -- but somehow we patched it all up at the movies"
— Declan Costello article

Do other editors feel a short synopsis of the above warrants inclusion in the College and early career subsection of Jackie's article, or would it be considered too trivial given the scope of her life? I'm not sure how many or how few credible suitors Jackie had before her first marriage. For reference, the "Costello" family mentioned above is the family of John A. Costello, who at the time was Taoiseach (Prime Minister) of Ireland. That is to say, the most politically powerful man in Ireland at the time. Also, while the above doesn't get into it, Jackie continued to correspond sporadically with both Father Joseph Leonard and Costello as late as the late 1960s, if that influences how people view whether this was trivial or significant relantionship. CeltBrowne (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

References

It's a mildly interesting sidelight in the lives of Jackie and Declan, but I'm not sure it even belongs in the Declan article. The quotations by Jackie are the only thing that rise above the background, but they don't really seem to justify inclusion of the anecdote in this article, since there never was an actual dating relationship between the two principals. DonFB (talk) 08:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2022

Under the section RELATIONSHIP TO ROBERT F KENNEDY

"He credited *Kennedy* with convincing him to stay in politics..."

The reference to Kennedy can be confusing since there's several Kennedy's mentioned in the article.

I suggest changing it to...

"He credited *Jacqueline* with convincing him to stay in politics..." 50.5.111.73 (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Clarified that section, thanks for spotting. --Marbe166 (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the subject of the article is always the only one who is referred to using a bare surname. Others are referred to by their first names (if related) or their full names (if unrelated). Exceptions are for lists of family members or when the usage of surname alone would be confusing in the context. All other Kennedys here should be referred to by their first names only. MOS:SAMESURNAME WP Ludicer (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)