This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
John F. Kennedy was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil Rights Movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil Rights Movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil Rights MovementWikipedia:WikiProject Civil Rights MovementTemplate:WikiProject Civil Rights MovementCivil Rights Movement articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
At nearly 19k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. See WP:TOOBIG. Detailed content should be condensed or moved to subarticles. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree it's too long to read, but no one seriously proposes that articles are read from top to bottom. I see no problem navigating -- that's what a TOC is for. EEng 21:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So why hasnt anything regarding the CIA being directly involved in the JFK assassination been added to the page? I mean, the CIA themselves declassified a bunch of documents over the last 12 months that detail their full involvement thoroughly down to choosing a scapegoat. Most of this information has been online for a year now and hasn't been updated, but if I change "Rachel Levine's" name to his real name Richard Levine its manually rolled back almost instantly. 2A02:C7C:BF30:2000:D8FF:1166:CDAA:85B1 (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably because everyone's sick and tired of hearing some guy claim they have proof that [not-Oswald] shot JFK. Provide the CIA docs, if they exist. CitationsFreak (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The CIA involvement was publicly declassified last year on the CIA Docs and Government Docs websites. It made global news, its undeniable at this point.
13,173 records released in the last year related to the JFK assassination. More than half of which directly detail the CIA involvement... that alongside the legal cases that presided over the situation that directly dictated the CIA were involved after lengthy trial... proves that all you nerds on Wikipedia base things solely off your left wing bias and opinion and not off the facts themselves. I know nobody here read all 13000 documents and pulled the truth because none of this article has been changed... most of the sources linked are directly from US government websites, national archive and CIAdocs mostly... 2A02:C7C:BF30:2000:707D:842D:95A6:6821 (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. There probably should be something further mentioned about the declassified content; but we should only use reliable secondary sources to verify that content and its interpretation given the potential controversy around the interpretation of primary sources. It could be done at Assassination of John F. Kennedy rather than this article; although I hesitate to edit any FA article. The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 would also be an acceptable place to include content, and might be the best place as the document release is tied to that act. There is some quality reporting in New York Magazine, Times of Israel, The New York Times, CNN, BBC, The Guardian, The Washnington Post etc. There's also some discussion by an expert at UVA in UVA News. Opinions appear to be diverse regarding the significance of the declassified documents. There are certainly valid criticisms made over lack of CIA transparency in RS, and that the CIA knew far more about Oswald than what they led the public to believe previously. That is verifiable to the sources above. However, most of the sources also state that direct CIA involvement in the assassination isn't provable; and that CIA involvement, while closer to the event than previously known, was tangential. The New York magazine piece is the most critical of CIA involvement among the RS. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you quite sure about the wounds JFK sustained during his assassination? The medics who treated him noted only two wounds; one small wound to the neck, which they believed to be the entrance wound, and a massive wound to the back of his skull, out of which part of his brain was blown. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe the detail should be added in the page that JFK was the first person to take presidential office that was born in the 20th century 2605:A601:AD7B:9200:8CF5:9FD8:A2D9:7B91 (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not done this is a very minor detail about him (especially compared to his political views/actions in office), too trivial to include. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg)
