Talk:Robert F. Kennedy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Robert Kennedy College

What association does Robert F. Kennedy, or his family, or his estate have - if any - with "Robert Kennedy College" in Switzerland???:

http://www.college.ch/

Is this a scam??? Thanks to anybody that knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.184.170 (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I just read on a CNBC advertisement that it is associated with the University of Cumbria (???)Betathetapi545 (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It is largely a "distance learning" school, i.e. done over the internet. Looks like a scam.109.154.19.97 (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert Kennedy College is a partner of University of Cumbria and York St. John University. The degrees obtained by robert kennedy college students are the same as those obtained by full time students of the two universities. See the University of Cumbria page about this http://www.cumbria.ac.uk/Courses/Subjects/BusinessComputing/Postgraduate/LeadershipSustainability.aspx and the page on York St. John University site: http://www.yorksj.ac.uk/postgraduate/postgraduate-study/courses/business-and-management/leading-innovation--change-ma.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.9.48 (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Main Photo rotation

As with some other bio articles herein (Jackie Kennedy, for example), I think it is good to change the main photo every so often for variety sake; as long as the photo is a free use photo and a good representation of the subject person. The one I am putting up is from Wiki Commons and from 1964, like the one currently in use. It can be changed back but I hope it will be allowed by consensus to stay up and rotated after a few months or so. Kierzek (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea Ykikamoocow (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Only one ip:68.236.250.241 seems to want to (slow motion) edit-war about this rotation. I have asked and again ask the person to stop and bring the matter to this talk page. Kierzek (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It would also be of help if I could receive assistance in having rotation on the John F. Kennedy talk page for his photo as well. PurpleSteak (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The rotation of main photos is something that does happen from time to time but not automatically; certainly consensus is needed for same. And I must tell you that in general on president pages, the official portraits are used. Kierzek (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Burial After Dark

I think it's inaccurate to say the RFK's was the only burial to take place in Arlington after dark. In fact, Ted Kennedy was buried there after dark as well for the same reason - the funeral procession arrived at the gravesite later than planned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.25.220.58 (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

brain damage privately known?

When RFK was shot, the news went out that his condition was "extremely critical". I recall hearing later that it was known privately that he had brain damage and would not be able to continue his campaign (for U.S. President in 1968). He died roughly a day after being shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.52.3 (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what good this does for the article, but after the shooting and before the Senator passed, I recall seeing a news report on TV that talked about where the bulllet had lodged or gone through (in the brain). That being the cerebellum. I recall the newscasters discussing how that would affect motor coordination. It is something I recall regularly in an allied health profession when I consider how a problem with the cerebellum will affect clients. Just a memory.75.173.133.250 (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Religion and Aeschylus?

In the "Religious Faith" section there's an inexplicable transition (under the same heading) into his interest in Aeschylus, who lived more than a half-century before Christianity. I think the Aeschylus stuff is worth preserving in the article, as it gives insight into RFK's philosophy, but it certainly has nothing to do with his religion. Pro-Apocalyptic (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Just another thought on the subject, though mine is not a loud voice to be heard anyway. I think that keeping the mention of Aeschylus in the discussion of Kennedy's faith is a good idea, That is because for the well read person, the Greek philosophers do affect one's formation in faith. One typically thinks of Aristotle and Plato in that regard; however, rather than removing Aeschylus, I would like to see the comparison/claim fleshed out a little bit more. Just a thought.75.173.133.250 (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Per the comment above, I rearranged the text in this section and altered the subhead to disentangle the ideas and make the flow clearer. Pleonic (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I am a classicist and whilst I have heard of the English metaphysical poets I have never heard of Greek metaphysical poets. Someone doesn't know what they are talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.204.51 (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Applause at the 1964 democratic national convention

Was it 22 minutes of applause or 12? This page says 22, but the convention page says 12. Who has the cited book and can look it up?

The word "Bobby"

The subject of this article is referred to as "Bobby" several times, as if Wikipedia's anonymous authors knew him - which is extremely unlikely. It seems inappropriate to continually use this nickname that the Senator did not like, in a context which implies the author(s) were close friends. Perhaps using Kennedy or the Senator would be more appropriate.Polkadreamer (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Aeschylus

What is the reason for the following addition to the Religious faith and Greek Philosophy section being undone?

During this speech he further exhibited his interest in Aeschylus' writings, wherein he stated:

...dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savagness of man and make gentle the life of this world.

It is a relevant and correct quote.

MrEditor13 (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It may well be a correct quote, but no secondary source was supplied demonstrating the it is relevant or that it "further exhibited his interest in Aeschylus' writings". Fat&Happy (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Fat&Happy. It is trivial, not shown by any WP:RS source to be more than an interest in literature and part of a classical education. Kierzek (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

In the spirit of WP:BRD, I'm coming here to discuss the changes I made to the page last night that were reverted because, evidently, citing the manual of style isn't enough of a reason to make much needed changes. I removed the needless middle names of Kennedy's family members in the infobox citing WP:COMMONNAME. I have no idea why, but most if not all of Kennedy articles here had this problem of using the entire name of the relative in the infobox. Considering nearly every single Kennedy has an article which includes their entire names, why do we need to state the person's middle name in the infobox? Why is this trend seemingly only confined to articles about the Kennedys? I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all but I don't see this done anywhere else. Why is it important that we know Kennedy's mother full name was Rose Elizabeth Fitzgerald? President Clinton's infobox does not say his mother's full name nor does it call his daughter Chelsea Victoria Clinton. That's because most people aren't publicly referred to by their entire names hence WP:COMMONNAME. It's common sense really but there seems to be a whole lot of I really like it this way so let's throw logic out the window on these Kennedy articles. Also, I changed the highly unencylopedic usage of Kennedy's first name and what is clearly an abbreviated version of his name (Bobby) throughout the article. Unless I'm missing something, we do not refer to a subject by their first name, let alone a nickname, unless there will be confusion about whom we are referring to. There were many instances of "Bobby" throughout the article. That's unacceptable to me. As I made other changes besides the removal of the middles name in the infobox, I have reverted back. I'd like to open a dialogue about this topic because, frankly, I'm tired of editing Kennedy articles only to return to see someone blindly revert it back because they seemingly have a love for middle names. There were other constructive changes made that I do not believe should have been changed because of that personal preference. Constructive comments are most welcome as I would like a consensus about this matter to be reached either informally or through an RfC. Thank you. 24.72.179.145 (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME applies to article titles, not necessarily how they are presented in the form of prose. For what it's worth, I personally see no harm or "problem" in including full names, and it seems that neither does DocRushing. There's also nothing in MoS regarding the use in prose form. I don't know exactly how many articles do/don't use full names, but it doesn't "throw logic out the window" to use either form. Seems a bit harsh to say either form "throw[s] logic out the window" or anything, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user:

First, please adopt a user name instead of hiding behind an IP address.

Second, why do you feel a need to change existing articles by dropping middle names or by abbreviating full names to the form of first name and middle initial?

Third, what accounts for your apparent fondness for the form of first name and middle initial?

Fourth, what useful purpose do you hope to serve by dropping or truncating middle names?

Fifth, by what standard have you unilaterally declared that middle names are "needless"?

This is not the Army, the IRS, any other agency of the federal government of the USA, or any other bureaucratic organization.

The insistence on first name and middle initial is one of the major and most obvious clues of the presence of bureaucrats and bureaucracies.

Bureaucrats are people who demand that everyone else conform to their notions, and one of their big things is to insist that all the rest of us must write our names in that form and believe that that's the "right" way to do it.

An encyclopedia is a place where we can learn facts – as many facts as possible or practical – including the full names of the people involved.

Wikipedia, of all places, is a source where we should be able to see the full names of people.

If you wish to ride a hobby horse, please choose a different horse.

Cheers!

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC).

Firstly, we allow and welcome "anonymous" editors. Secondly, thirdly, fourth, and fifth, I think as this is in the discussion phase, a consensus might actually be achieved for this user's edits. I don't know why this editor deserves your abuse. Most of the large edit is quite good and should be uncontroversial; it adheres more to our encyclopedic style when it changes "Bobby", "Robert", etc. to Kennedy; it goes the other direction when necessary to prevent ambiguity. En masse changes should indeed be discussed, and perhaps this one should have been worked out before doing it to multiple articles; but abusing other editors isn't good practice. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"Abuse"?  Where is the "abuse"?  To what do you refer as "abuse"?

I've not written even one word about the person of the anonymous user.

Quite to the contrary, my questions and comments deal only with certain of the behavior of that user.

So let's allow that person to answer my questions.

The talk about "abuse" tends to divert the discussion from the topic here – that is, the removal or truncation of middle names.

Maybe you individually welcome anonymous users, but among the Wikipedia community as a whole there's a strong preference for members to use names instead of anonymous numbers.

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC).

Perhaps, but see WP:IPDIS for what I suspect is more in line with the community's expectations in this regard. I don't personally agree with this -- I think anonymity is more damaging to community and quality than it is helpful. But it is how we do things here. Anyway, other than the middle name issues, do you find fault with the rest of the editor's contributions? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

DocRushing, thank you for commenting as I requested. To be honest, I find your comment to be quite abusive and your overall attitude to be poor at best. I wasn't hostile to you in the least but you can't even be bothered to extend the same basic decency. That speaks volumes. Last time I checked, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit - not just for so called elite "members". If you don't like that policy, you're free to ride that particular hobby horse yourself and get it changed. In the meantime, assume good faith, stop acting like you have the power to demand someone create an account and reign in the false accusations of "hiding". I'm not sure why you think a screen name makes you any more of a real human being than I am, but you're just as anonymous as I am. That aside, WP:COMMONNAME certainly does apply to the title of the article but why would we name an article after the name most commonly used name but then use a subject's middle name as if that's what he/she goes by? What is the significance of including a relative's middle name in an infobox or in the article body when that person has an article that includes their middle name? Aside from WP:ILIKEIT, I'm still not seeing why this information must be included in the infobox, especially only on the Kennedy articles. That information isn't lost to the ages, it just isn't crammed into the infobox or sprinkled throughout the article. I've yet to see one article here refer to President Lyndon B. Johnson as "Lyndon Baines Johnson" (as this article most certainly did) but yet it was here and blindly reverted when I attempted to change it. Why is that kind of writing acceptable here in addition to referring to a person by their first name (this article was a regular "Bobby" and "Jack" fest before I changed it)? Aren't we suppose to be striving for professionally written content or did I miss the bit where it says certain articles don't have to adhere to the manual of style? At no time have I said "Let's remove all middle names everywhere because they are needless!" Your initial accusations seem to imply that is what I said and that is what I'm doing. One look at my edits show that could not be further from the truth. You say an encyclopedia should include as many facts as possible. Great, but where do we draw the line? Should birth dates also be included next to the full names of relatives in infoboxes? Why not include that person's spouse and childrens' names too? What about their birth places or causes of death? All of that information constitutes as practical facts so again, where exactly do we draw the line, especially in a limited space? That is actually what is maddening about this. This preference for full names of relatives in the infobox and implementing a preferred style isn't going on anywhere else but on these Kennedy articles. They are basically being walled off by a few of editors who simply revert and get pissy and abusive when anyone else tries to edit them which is why I want to establish a consensus. I've changed this content before only to be blindly reverted (honestly, how difficult is it to look at the other edits that are made instead of just hitting "undo"?). Is it a wonder that more people don't create accounts? If there isn't someone who can't abide IP users, it's someone who can't abide red linked users or someone who has less than 50,000 edits. To put it bluntly, this kind of crap treatment is why I don't create an account. There's always someone, somewhere who thinks a screen name gives them the right to be a dismissive jerk. 24.72.179.145 (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to see you discouraged from account creation, IP. However, I should mention that there ARE many non-Kennedy articles on Wikipedia (I can't keep track of how many) who use middle names of others in infoboxes as well as those who don't. Sometimes one's nieces and nephews are listed, but that would be a very large number for this family. Inclusion isn't so much WP:ILIKEIT from what I've observed in articles as it is "listing one form is just as fine as the other". As far as I can tell, frequency is divided. However, this isn't the same as listing birth years of spouses. I've sometimes seen birth years of children listed in infoboxes, but more often just within article body. In-laws are sometimes contained within article body as well, but not always. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Uniformity in presentation in an article is what is important when something can be done both ways; that and consensus. If an article is overly long, then the removal suggested could be a way to save bytes. However, that is not a problem with this article. I say keep the middle names as they are presented, unless a better reason for removal can be agreed to herein. Kierzek (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Homosexual impulses

In his autobiography, Palimpsest, Gore Vidal wrote about Bobby Kennedy's "homosexual impulses" alluded to by Rudolph Nureyev. Nureyev explained that he and Kennedy slept (separately) with the the same American soldier. Any disagreement about me putting a short reference about this in the article - and any thoughts about where it would best fit? Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You will need a very good and reliable secondary source. Nurayev's info is second hand gossip & Vidal is third hand gossip of the sort famous men get hit with. Rjensen (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I suspect you're right. Thanks. Let's leave it out for now. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Vidal was a bitter enemy of Bobby Kennedy (he had Vidal escorted out of the White House after one nasty encounter). Rjensen (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It should be left out; it was just gossip without any RS source. Kierzek (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

correct the dates, please

Robert cannot have gone to school in Riversdale if the Kennedys left in 1929 He was only 4! Same for Bronxville. In 1938, he was 13, not 12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.214.29 (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

marilyn monroe

Wow, not one mention of her at all, good job!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.235.219 (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be; it's not like she was a crucial aspect of his life. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

nytimes.com blacklisted?

Helped Why is this not a reliable source: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1120.html

Nytimes.com appears to be blacklisted. Checkingfax (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Could you give some context here? Obviously, and of course, The New York Times and its website are not blacklisted. What are you referring to? Tvoz/talk 06:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Tvoz: Refill was unable to verify that link because it was "blacklisted". Checkingfax (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: see User:Zhaofeng Li/reFill#Frequently asked questions. 2600:1006:B10D:3B1:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, so the Times of course is not blacklisted on Wikipedia, it is just a problem using this automated program. Tvoz/talk 04:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Robert F. Kennedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090303180247/http://jfklibrary.org:80/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Robert+F.+Kennedy+Miscellaneous+Information.htm to http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Robert+F.+Kennedy+Miscellaneous+Information.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061130151550/http://www.indygov.org/eGov/Mayor/PR/2006/4/20060404b.htm to http://www.indygov.org/eGov/Mayor/PR/2006/4/20060404b.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Johnson's Attorney General

After JFK's assassination, Bobby Kennedy continued in his role as Attorney General, but only for a few months. It seems worthwhile to note that his time there was brief. CarolOfTheForest (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The article notes the dates. I believe that we should leave it to the reader to judge whether 9 months is "brief". Regards. Plazak (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

My edit is justified

I've maybe such a person but this is a justified source. And it is reliable. Check for the author or any user who wants this kept. They vouch for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.69.184 (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed due to copyright violation. Kierzek (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

1960 MLK jail freeing

Though I am already aware that I will be seen as trying to perpetuate "ce" or "trivia", I felt the need to make note of this. I added content surrounding Robert Kennedy's role in securing Martin Luther King's release, his role being debated by biographers which I added in there as well in addition to his motivation for calling the judge who sentenced King while also ending with what came out of his involvement which was King's release. There's not a single part in that four sentences I wrote that I thought needed to be removed. It was the when, why, where and cause of what had happened in that situation and for the life of me I can't understand it. There was also the removal of content that surrounded Kennedy's role as a delegate to the 1956 Democratic National Convention, marked as trivia by the same user, even though this came at a time when Kennedy's brother John F. Kennedy was regarded as a potential vice presidential candidate and his appointing was designed to help his brother's chances by providing another delegate that would be in his favor. For the life of me, I can't see how this is trivia. I think those were two important events that did not need condensing in the way they were written and were only targeted because somebody thought they were trivia or too elaborate. Informant16 6 April 2016

The "role" of RFK in MLK's release is still there. And unless you want the point to be tagged accordingly, you cannot just say his "role" is "debated" by biographers. That is vague, not complete, does not name who, how, in what way, etc. The point agreed on is that he was involved and that point is there and preserved. The addition as to the convention is trivial. If included it would be tagged and removed as WP:Undue weight. It had no effect on any outcome or relationship or action. The fact is, you have been asked on your talk page and in the ongoing discussion currently on the Talk:Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis [1] to use discernment with edits/additions; and you have been asked to consider working with other editors to bring an article to GA, for the experience; and as another editor stated, to ..."provide insight (read) WP:Out of scope and WP:Too much detail". Articles cannot include everything and some information is just not important to convey a subject to a general reader. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and Wikipedia:Article size is yet another consideration, we all have to consider herein. The fact is that we all have to edit our own work at times and others edit mine; as time goes on. Kierzek (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm unsure of what the necessary tag would be. I'd preferred to say which biographers had stated he did it at his own peril, similarly to the debate on LBJ's selection as JFK's VP candidate on the former's article. I have a reluctance to get involved with other users on bringing an article to a supposed good quality. The fact is that most of my recent edits have been rebuked by you and your colleague Tvoz. The fact is that this has lead me to believe that my edits are apparently not to the standard of you and him. The fact is that regardless of whether I was successful in bringing an article to this quality that you write of, I still would think and interpret things the same way. Even after all of this, I still don't see anything wrong with what I wrote. Lastly, I'm well aware of articles not being able to include everything and wasn't trying to do that. I don't see how my edits could be interpreted that way. Informant16 6 April 2016

I haven't had a chance to look at the passages being discussed here, but perhaps this will help you better understand the criteria we employ on Wikipedia, and specifically for biographies: we ask the question, has this piece of data had a significant impact on the subject's whole life? Was it important for the moment but not over time? Is it more important for another person, event, matter than for the subject, so while it seems "important", is it really too minor for the subject of this biography's life but might fit better into a more focused article about the topic rather than the life story of a person? It is a subjective judgment call, as has been explained to you many times, so what we try to do is take into account the experience longtime editors of a given article have, and reconsider additions that seem too detailed or trivial or short-lived. Then there are always the separate matters of copyvios and also whether too much weight is being given to a particular matter in the context of the subject's whole life and relative position in an article. So we edit, and try not to think of contributions as "ours". And always are available to discuss on talk page. Finally, you still don't seem to grasp what we're suggesting regarding observing what it takes to bring an article to "good article" status - the idea is that you see the thinking process of experienced editors in determining what stays and what goes and how things are re-written and cited - it's a valuable learning experience, and I'm troubled by your resistance to it and your conclusion that you would "still would think and interpret things the same way". Perhaps you'd actually learn something about the process and change the way you think and interpret. Tvoz/talk 16:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Clinton comments, comparisons and popular culture

I've been wondering where the Clinton comments could be added or if they were worth of inclusion in the legacy section, just to see if they build on the idea that his assassination is also part of his legacy. The comparisons to Obama and Sanders are also evident in different articles and I can recall several times in media such as in Family Guy and Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice where Kennedy was mentioned. Should we include any of this stuff? Informant16 18 April 2016

I am for inclined to believe it would anything but opinion of no great weight (other users comments welcome); certainly the TV or movie "comparisons" would be trivia. Kierzek (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

How is this not influence?

So several politicians being influenced by Kennedy is notable but performances and songs that came as a result of him were not? It seems the word "trivia" gets thrown around here without merit. Informant16 8 May 2016

No lasting influence; pop-trivia; which frankly if this article ever goes up for GA would even cause the film and TV portrayals to be removed. Again, if you would take the time to learn how to edit in a more experienced way, it would be helpful. Kierzek (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

So if those portrayals are causing the article to be of a lesser quality then why have them there to begin with? Pop-trivia? So I guess Caroline Kennedy's article mentioning that she served as the inspiration for the song "Sweet Caroline" was just trivia too, but yet that still remains on the article. Why is that? I'm far from inexperienced. I know how to write. There's nothing for me to be taught. Informant16 8 May 2016

"There's nothing for me to be taught." And there again, lies the core of the problem (as has been mentioned by others, as well). The fact is, we (including myself) all can learn something and should never stop trying; even on Wikipedia. Kierzek (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You didn't address the rest of what I said though. Also, I know how to write and you've basically continued removing incentive to try seeing as how you and two other users continue to remove my material as if it's defacing the site. Maybe if it was once, twice or three times, but it's over and over again. Informant16 8 May 2016

Articles are a matter of consenus of regular editors and also following the guidelines set out on this site, accordingly. Since you don't want to listen to any advice; as for the reverts that have taken place, here and on some other articles, such as Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis; think about this, Wikipedia:If ten people say you're drunk, lie down. Kierzek (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You're apparently calling on me to give up, judging by that last line. You and two other users isn't ten. Once again, you did not address my prior points. If the media brings the article's quality down then why bother with it? Informant16 8 May 2016

It's more than three, but you miss my point above; I have not asked you to quit. But, there is no reason to continue our exchange at this point. Kierzek (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

RFK Senatorial Photo

Unless anyone can come up with a reason for it - I'm going to post RFK's official photo as attorney General or senator. All other Senator's and All other Attorney General's have their official photo's posted, so I don't see why RFK shouldn't either... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C802:5994:E0A0:C568:73E1:9563 (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Back-and-forth editing

Informant16, please don't edit war over content. It is not a good idea to continue to re-insert something after been reverted again and again in quick succession. At the very least provide a reason why you feel your additions are beneficial. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I was unaware of the three revert strike rule and that giving actual information was a crime. I apologize for being productive. I will try to be less productive in the future. Informant16 13 June 2016

That's not exactly what I meant; see the comment I left on your talk page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Your comment confuses me, though I responded to it. Informant16 13 June 2016

You need to read Wikipedia policy and procedures then, if you do not know of the three revert rule and WP:BRD after editing since July, 2011. You added something which had already been removed before and have given no valid reason for inclusion except under the reasons listed in WP:IDONTLIKEIT, apparently. Kierzek (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It's okay. I understand now that being productive isn't what you want. Informant16 14 June 2016

Being productive is something people want. However, if something is not deemed worth including and you disagree with its removal, you should provide a reason why you feel it is a beneficial addition. People can be productive while disagreeing over certain article content. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Informant16, you are missing the point, which has nothing to do with being "productive". I again recommend that you read Wikipedia policy and procedures. Kierzek (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I did read the policies, which I've adhered to before now since editing the site contrary to your prior statement, and it's clear that you are upset with me adding material whereas other users who would remove it have a tendency to not add anything whatsoever, thereby drawing issue with me not doing what everyone else does by choosing to be productive. Remember, I added, they removed. I posted, they deleted. It was the same thing over and over again and notice they never post anything themselves. What does that tell you? That my adding of actual information is an offense, apparently punishable by being blocked. Informant16 14 June 2016

You've taken this the wrong way. Again, if something you added was reverted, provide a reason for inclusion if you disagree with removal. Achieving a compromise or consensus is best for articles when editors disagree on content. When people make lots of reverts to an article within 24 hours, however (excluding instances of reverting vandalism or self-reverts), that is edit warring, which is frowned upon for all users. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I've been on the talk page multiple times and had the same two users delete my material, one of which has consistently done so and made no attempt toward compromise. I'm not getting into an edit gridlock. I'm really going to be banned over adding material? When have I ever vandalized this site? Never! Your colleagues will accuse me of deflecting but it's a shame that you'll ban me over trying to assist. Informant16 16 June 2016

Any blocking that happens would only be a result of not following policies, such as continuing to revert rather than engaging in discussion about why you think material should be included. Read Snuggums' last comment again, please. Tvoz/talk 23:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

So anytime I want to add something there has to be a dialogue about it? I have read his comment and I've addressed it which means there's no need for doing so again. Informant16 17 June 2016

Only when there is dispute over whether it is worth mentioning. Non-contentious additions are fine to just make at free will. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I've got two questions. First, how would I know what is non-continentious when first posting it without prior exposure to what other users such as yourselves might perceive as being that? Second, are you guys the Presidents of Wikipedia? I thought the whole purpose of the website was to have factual information and considering that other pages have trivial things such as birthdates and marriages then it doesn't make sense to me why this information couldn't have been included. I'm aware of the policy that having things on other pages doesn't automatically mean something is right but I explicitly questioned Kierzek on why we had the media portrayals when the latter claimed that it was hindering the article's quality by preventing it from being a good quality article in his eyes. Informant16 17 June 2016

Residence?

When did he move from MA to NY, and where in NY did he live?Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Robert F. Kennedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical%2BResources/Archives/Reference%2BDesk/John%2BF.%2BKennedy%2BMiscellaneous%2BInformation.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://books.google.com/books?id=m9m6b9i8SQQC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=robert%20kennedy%20st.%20paul%27s%20school%20episcopalian&source=bl&ots=ZqIPrW-plq&sig=cmankTNYKL_fffdnxClm-uYSssU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KTVqUbr8CY21ywGEhICADQ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwADgU
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://books.google.com/books?id=RKzUqXc3BHgC&pg=PA285&lpg=PA285&dq=bobby%20kennedy%20Portsmouth%20Priory%20School&source=bl&ots=VK_i4q8FJB&sig=N8tSyjGVZnBB-JGhjc9Aey89Dns&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kUtqUb2xNerQyAGFloHwAw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAjgK
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://books.google.com/books?id=LyBN758OMhMC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=bobby%20kennedy%201946%20enrolled%20harvard&source=bl&ots=xPpf0zYLKz&sig=4pudbHwIf2rNPiMgdKEo8rbs1HM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KFZqUdH5I4i2yAHdroGwDw&ved=0CGIQ6AEwBg
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://books.google.com/books?id=n3i4KOu7MiEC&pg=PA208&lpg=PA208&dq=Robert%20Kennedy%20yale%20game%20cast&source=bl&ots=jNyNn734Wv&sig=2YBPJvdcOJ4mAqM1dEXp0SnyIKc&hl=en&ei=IpHBTvbNMYr20gGTrbzSBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://books.google.com/books?id=wEkFzIWjdn4C&pg=PA822&lpg=PA822&dq=robert%20kennedy%20Treaty%20of%20Peace%20with%20Japan&source=bl&ots=vtnf8EwB-t&sig=Npfc0t2VW-gptbGOjRyWSYNCWIE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jnxqUfWRAeTeyQG2lYGYCw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwATgK
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://books.google.com/books?id=tYME6Z35nyAC&pg=PA947&lpg=PA947&dq=robert%20kennedy%20seven-week%20Asian%20trip&source=bl&ots=EY8xEGqu-I&sig=5m3nuiVFsaN7rL-pUc7OOv0U4YM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DH5qUfGwG6W3ywH4r4GgCQ&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBTgK
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/feguer3.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical%2BResources/Archives/Reference%2BDesk/Robert%2BF.%2BKennedy%2BMiscellaneous%2BInformation.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071223120100/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_10_32/ai_66495286 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_10_32/ai_66495286
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://books.google.com/books?id=wEkFzIWjdn4C&pg=PA816&lpg=PA816&dq=hubert%20humphrey%201968%20establishment%20candidate&source=bl&ots=vtng0BBCTn&sig=FbFEykXAay5t8JMaxMWpOMXBiC0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NChtUePSLarMywHQ7IGwDA&ved=0CDcQ6AEwATgU
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/visitor_information/Robert_F_Kennedy.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.jfklibrary.org/Search.aspx?nav=N%3A4294885975
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical%2BResources/Archives/Reference%2BDesk/Speeches/EMK/Tribute%2Bto%2BSenator%2BRobert%2BF.%2BKennedy.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

First sentence

Use of name "Bobby"; For the same reason @Tvoz: stated in the Jackie Kennedy article: Because "Bobby" "is a name [he] was widely known as through [his] 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."

This is an exception to the guideline and, for example, the same was done for John F. Kennedy for the same reason as Tvoz points out; a widely used and known name. Kierzek (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Role In The Cuban Missile Crisis

The sources glorifying him are a 2000 Washington Monthly article and a book by former Kennedy speechwriter Arthur Schlesinger. Audio recordings containing his exact words rather than potential hype from possibly loyal followers are more reliable. I in fact source recorded White House conversations and the Nation Security Archive website's written text,[2][3][4] though I admit I made in error in describing the October 16 conversation as an Oval Office meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as the meeting was with national security advisers in the Cabinet Room. Sometimes getting caught up in the what you hear distracts you, and I was in fact too focused in what I heard on the tapes. However, my earlier gaffe doesn't mean that we should censor reliable information presented through Robert's own words.68.47.65.239 (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources. You are trying to change the narrative based on a primary source. If you want any traction here, you will have to find a historian who places importance on the recording. Your own interpretation is not allowed per WP:No original research. Stop warring to re-insert this stuff. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

This propaganda is unacceptable. I did in fact include three sources from the National Security Archive, two of which were tapes and one of which was a written text.68.47.65.239 (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

His "words" were not in context; so what if he asked a question. The addition on its face does not convey importance; you used them to try and change the narrative based on your own WP:POV opinion. That is WP:OR. I have to agree with Binksternet. Kierzek (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The flaming definition of original research. Find a secondary source that expresses doubt over RFK's involvement in the Cuban Missile Crisis or publish your own book through a reputable publishing house and then we can talk. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Kierzek, Binksternet, and Indy beetle. Please listen to editors with more experience than you seem to have in how Wikipedia works. Tvoz/talk 21:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

This editor is using multiple IPs from Minneapolis, including the range Special:Contributions/2601:447:4101:41F9:0:0:0:0/64, to put the same problematic material into multiple articles, for instance this inappropriate addition to a film article. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

To the IP editor wanting this new material included - please register formally as a Wikipedia editor. It will gain you considerable credibility, and ultimately give you a lot more tools and abilities here. You also need to learn a lot more about Wikipedia policies, such as those already mentioned above. They are tried and tested, and are what this encyclopaedia is built on. Ignoring them and arguing against them will get you nowhere. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2018

Please make the following two changes to the article titled "Robert F. Kennedy": (1) Delete the sentence and foot note "Evelyn Lincoln wrote of that November 19, 1963, conversation just three days before Kennedy's assassination.[94]" located in the section titled "Attorney General of the United States (1961-1964)"; end of second paragraph. It is in the wrong place in the article and does not have anything to do with the appointment of Robert Kennedy as Attorney General. It has to do with President John Kennedy allegedly telling Evelyn Lincoln, his secretary, that he was not going to rename LBJ as Vice President in 1964. See the following which clarifies this: https://potus-geeks.livejournal.com/420620.html (2) In section titled "U.S. Senate (1965-1968)"; subsection "Tenure"; 2nd to last sentence, change "In remarks during a May 1968 campaign stop in Roseburg, Oregon, Kennedy defended the bill as keeping firearms away from "people who have no business with guns or rifles": the bill forbade "mail order sale of guns to the very young, those with criminal records and the insane," according to The Oregonian's report." by changing the colon (:) after the word 'rifles' to a period mark and capitalizing "the" to "The" to make two separate sentences. This makes it better grammatically. 2600:1700:B7A0:3A90:54A1:AD9C:F185:D25F (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done per my below comments. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2018

This is a SECOND request for a correction. See below for the info in the original request:

Please make the following two changes to the article titled "Robert F. Kennedy":

(1) Delete the sentence and foot note: "Evelyn Lincoln wrote of that November 19, 1963, conversation just three days before Kennedy's assassination.[94]" located in the section titled "Attorney General of the United States (1961-1964)"; end of second paragraph. It is in the wrong place in the article and does not have anything to do with the appointment of Robert Kennedy as Attorney General. It has to do with President John Kennedy allegedly telling Evelyn Lincoln, his secretary, that he was not going to rename LBJ as Vice President in 1964. See the following website which clarifies this: https://potus-geeks.livejournal.com/420620.html

(2) In section titled "U.S. Senate (1965-1968)"; subsection "Tenure"; 2nd paragraph; 2nd to last sentence, change: "... people who have no business with guns or rifles": the bill forbade..." by changing the colon (:) after the word 'rifles' to a period mark and capitalizing "the" to "The" to make two separate sentences. This makes it better grammatically.

2600:1700:B7A0:3A90:54A1:AD9C:F185:D25F (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Greg Stokley (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you the IP who made the first request, Greg Stokley? In any case, I'm not sure if the link you've provided is something that can be used for claims (or at least contentious ones), but I've removed the Lincoln bit anyway as "wrote of that November 19, 1963 conversation" doesn't provide anything of discernible value here and have adjusted the punctuation. Now  Done. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2019

Please add the below citation to this sentence on the page: 'The trust the President placed in him on matters of negotiation was such that his role in the crisis is today seen as having been of vital importance in securing a blockade, which averted a full military engagement between the United States and Soviet Russia.' The academic article cited justifies the assertion being made here with detailed evidence.

• Hayes, Matthew (2019). "Robert Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis: A Reassertion of Robert Kennedy's Role as the President's 'Indispensable Partner' in the Successful Resolution of the Crisis". History. doi:10.1111/1468-229X.12815.

Anon52890421 (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Peaceray (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Assassination

When I was in school, we watched a video about the Chicano movement. During the video, there was some interviews with some people who worked in the fields and supported the UFW. After RFK's speech, he went to leave. The UFW had planned a big celebration, with a mariachi and other Mexican celebrations. But, instead somebody had told RFK to come this way. The footage that we saw in class had the audio (of someone telling him to go that way, not the assassination itself) and you see him pull RFK in the shoulder and you could hear him say No come this way (twice). This is just memory but I believe that this information may be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamamia5x (talk • contribs) 20:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2019

The line: "On June 17, 1950, Kennedy married Ethel Skakel at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenwich, Connecticut." doesn't have a citation and I have one that can be added: https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/the-kennedy-family/ethel-skakel-kennedy. Also, is there a possibility this reference to Bobby's wife could be separated out of the section titled "Further study and journalism (1946–1951)" since it seems his marriage to his wife is not relevant to this topic title?--HarrisonJ09 (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC) HarrisonJ09 (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

 Already done by another editor who added the citation, and changed section header to include "marriage". --Nemoschool (talk to me) 00:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise

'Locked' article, so we can't correct the politically-biased Wikipedia. Sirhan was an Arab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.118.231 (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

There is an unclosed blockquote halfway down the page that causes all sections afterwards to be indented. 76.121.3.181 (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out! – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2020

Please add the category Category:People who died in office. 2601:241:300:B610:459C:16C6:1E33:61CE (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. Jzsj (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2020

Please add the following succession box to the Party political office section.

73.110.217.186 (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sundayclose (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Here are sources naming them as nominees.

 Done Thanks for the sources. Sundayclose (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

References

There seems to be a problem with the formatting of the US Senator nav box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Sundayclose (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

File:SWPC-RFK-C020-010.jpg

The caption for the image used at the Assassination section, I believe, should be June 5, as Kennedy delivered his speech just after midnight on that date, though the article source uses June 4; the photo was most likely taken at the end of his speech, with the iconic thumbs up moment you likely see here, regardless the caption date should really be June 5. Any feedback? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect information

You credit him on Google search as haven written The Real Anthony Fauci which is in face written by his son 213.236.20.40 (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Robert Kennedy Jr

When I did a search for "Robert Kennedy" the Wikipedia link came up as one of the websites. The picture on the link is not Robert Kennedy but is Robert Kennedy Jr. The picture in the article is the correct image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.26.18.79 (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

date change

Change the caption under Kennedy's speech from June 4, 1968 to June 5, 1968. Thank you! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That photo seems to be taken on June 4, see [5] --Ferien (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The text in the article shows June 5, 1968. Here are two sources. [6] [7]. 75.144.185.89 (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done As the text in the article indicates, "he addressed his supporters shortly after midnight on June 5, 1968". Peaceray (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Style Check

I just made a small adjustment to the phrasing of the section on Kennedy's Vietnam politics, so that it uses the phrase "antagonistic toward" rather than "antipathetic to". I made the change because the word "antipathetic" caused some confusion for me reading that sentence and seemed rather archaic. I generally mark style changes as minor, but since this changes the wording rather than adjusting punctuation or rearranging the order of things, I wanted to check my thinking. Thanks in advance. Gazeboist (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect sentence in summary bio

The summary incorrectly lists his age as 36 when he became attorney general. He was 35. The cited Washington Post article is incorrect. The JFK Library citation has his correct age. "He was appointed United States Attorney General at the age of 36, becoming the youngest Cabinet member in U.S. history since Alexander Hamilton in 1789." Also: RFK was definitely not the youngest Cabinet member since Hamilton, since he was not even the youngest Attorney General. That was Richard Rush, during the presidency of James Madison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRBoh (talk • contribs) 14:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Handled by the alerting user. Gazeboist (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Infobox pic

There has been debate over which pic should be used in RFK's infobox. I have nominated 7 photos that could be used, and I want to reach a consensus . I personally prefer photo "B" or "E".

• 
  A
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D
• 
  E
• 
  F
• 
  G

Oluwasegu (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• I thought this had been decided long ago. If I have to choose, then A or E. With that said, the problem with the photo numbered E is that it has quite a bit of shadow on his face. Kierzek (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

:I vote for Image G. It's the 2nd highest resolution option, and it best represents him fully, without any crops to his body or likeness. it is also mostly front-facing, with a slight lean, and it doesn't have a transparent background or odd lighting/contrast .etc. I don't believe the others, as much as I like E, would represent Bobby as well as G does. ~ Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 13:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Update; I would instead like to nominate this photo. I vote for Photo H. Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 14:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Image H

Image H. It's a professional, detailed portrait and depicts him well. GI Brown 1970 (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Either A or G they show the best angles without unsuitable backgrounds. In particular, I don't like how that blends into his suit within D. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Update: I prefer Image H Oluwasegu (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I know I'm late to the party but why need to change image A in the first place? It has been like that for five years. I vote to keep Image A the way that its been. I've long noticed that since the pandemic, there's been this new trend to change infobox photos, why fix something that isn't broken? If you don't believe me, take a look at this page on the Wayback Machine and tell me otherwise. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it just seems to be that people want change. I'm not an expert and have no idea why people are eager; but a wave of new editors must be coming in with some new ideas. It's interesting to see. AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 12:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with User: Yourlocallordandsavior - I see no reason to have changed the long-time image A - H is not an improvement and article stability is a virtue. It's an unnecessary change and as one of the long-time top editors of this piece I think we should go back to what has stood for several years. Tvoz/talk 23:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Hear hear. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

As I said earlier above, I thought this matter had been settled a long time ago. I certainly agree there was no reason for a change. I also voted for image A as my top pick. Kierzek (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image consensus; again

@Yourlocallordandsavior, @GI Brown 1970, @Oluwasegu & @SNUGGUMS

While I originally planed to amend the original vote, I believe it instead to be better for us to hold a vote to change the current consensus. I wish to replace the current image (A) with this new image (B). While they are both high resolution; B has less of an odd crop, is in color, looks more natural, and is more of an official portrait than just a handout photograph. One thing to note is they seem, at least to me, to be from the same photoshoot, meaning B, in a bit of a stretch, supersedes A. I vote for Image B.

• 
  Image A
• 
  Image B

~ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 12:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather not beat a dead horse, but out of those two options, I definitely prefer B over A. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I still prefer Image A. Too many shadows and distractions in the background of Image B. Image A is more clean. Oluwasegu (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I vote A. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm voting for Image B. NewDealChief (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

My vote is for the original image that was designated, image A; from the prior discussion, which was the info box image from many years. Kierzek (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kierzek That's because it was one of a few free images available to choose from for many years. Now there are more options. Oluwasegu (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Image C

Has anyone considered Image C on the left-hand side? The user who uploaded this image claims it's his original work, but I'm a bit skeptical. Should this be a candidate? Oluwasegu (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I like it; but surely we should investigate and correct the licensing? I feel like Image B is better as well coz it's higher resolution and not so tight of a crop. However, C is nice. I think a general, much deeper discussion needs to be held. AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 20:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

If we can't get the 1964 National Convention image, I'm still for vote A. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)