Talk:Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
April 28, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted


Removal of valid content and reverting POV content[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Comments[edit]

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

Aided the administration?[edit]

"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)