Talk:Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Violation of WP:FRINGE

I don't think that every time there is a WP:FRINGE theory in the New York Times we have to mention it in this article. Has the scholar who espouses this view written an academic paper which establishes the Muslim roots of Jackie and published it in a reputable journal of genetics or is this just an unverified theory? Before we can answer these questions I do not think we should add this material in the article per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I have to agree with Dr K here, as the article quoted has no footnotes and does not look very scholarly. Exceptional claims need exceptional proofs --Diannaa (Talk) 05:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

See my response below. I do not really think it is a grossly exceptional claim. In many parts of America including New York black people have made up a significant part of the population that they woul interact with whites is not such a hugely impossible thing. The article is hosted on the Yale website. It links back to the NY times and in the paragraph it discusses the specific episode with an embedded footnote, that is it makes specific reference to the specific episode of frontline where it occured and gave information on how to find the information (which is why no end notes appear. http://www.yale.edu/smhac/articles/family.htm is the website . "Since 1997, after it broadcast "Secret Daughter," a documentary about a mixed-race child given up for adoption in the 1950's, "Frontline" has been exploring the mixed ancestry of well-known Americans on its Public Broadcasting System Web site. One is Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, whose blood lines, according to the historian Mario de Valdes y Cocom, go back to the van Salees, a Muslim family of Afro-Dutch origin prominent in Manhattan in the early 1600's. If any branch of your family has been in America since the 17th or 18th centuries, Dr. Berlin said, "it's highly likely you will find an African and an American Indian." It actually quotes 2 different professors. So far I have provided professors or academics all of whom are saying kennedy had black ancestry from leading universities and publications like Yale, Harvard, New York Times, Frontline and Dr. Berlin, a professor of American history at the University of Maryland and the founding director of the Freedmen and Southern Society Project, so either they are all quacks, quack schools or she had black ancestry. The proof of muslim ancestry was pointed out by professor cocom "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, whose blood lines, according to the historian Mario de Valdes y Cocom, goes back to the van Salees, a Muslim family of Afro-Dutch origin prominent in Manhattan in the early 1600's. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.18.213 (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

O yeah and more published book also say the exact same thing. Light, bright, and damned near white: biracial and triracial culture in America By Stephanie Rose who is a master in anthropology http://books.google.ca/books?id=BDEDuqIaKEYC&pg=PA39&dq=jacqueline+kennedy+black+ancestry&hl=en&ei=Z6NDTe-MNMK88gap-dX6AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false on page 39 she documents the history of kennedy's black ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.18.213 (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis black ancestry

Here is my statement that Dr.k keeps deleting "Jacqueline also had black muslim ancestry like Barack Hussein Obama '"Frontline" has been exploring the mixed ancestry of well-known Americans on its Public Broadcasting System Web site. One is Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, whose blood lines, according to the historian Mario de Valdes y Cocom, go back to the van Salees, a Muslim family of Afro-Dutch origin prominent in Manhattan in the early 1600's." According to Yale and the New York Times [1] "

You said that it had too much content from the site so i reduced it to "According to Yale and the New York Times and a frontline documentary Jacqueline had black muslim ancestry like Barrack Hussein Obama [2] "

Then you claimed it sounded like a fringe theory. I don't know if Yale, the New York Times and Frontline are considered to be fringe sources but I do not see any evidence of it I must admit. I think the onus might be on you to provide some proof here that Yale, New York Times, Frontline and its reporters are making up fringe theories about the former first lady, because these 3 sources are widely used in wikipedia. Further you better have evidence that Mario de Valdes y Cocom, an historian of the African diaspora, and Professor Hershkowitz, or Tim Beard, former head of the Genealogical Department of the New York Public Library who all are experts in their field and believe this are quacks or pushing fringe theory http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/vansallees.html "Anthony and Abraham van Salee were the ancestors of the Vanderbilts, the Whitneys, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Humphrey Bogart.

They were among the earliest arrivals to 17th century New Amsterdam. In a number of documents dating back to this period, they are both described as "mulatto"."

yes it would also mean that Professor Joe R Feagan who is a Harvard Professor with a Ph.D in sociology and a pulizter prize winner who was the former head of the american association of socilogist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Feagin, and these many awards and honors Awards and honorsNomination for Pulitzer Prize (Ghetto Revolts) Scholar-in-Residence, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1974–1975. Sociological Research Association, 1986–present. Phi Beta Kappa Alumni Scholar (Baylor University) Gustavus Myers Center Outstanding Human Rights Book Award, 1995 (Living with Racism) Gustavus Myers Center Outstanding Human Rights Book Award, 1996 (White Racism: The Basics) American Sociological Association, Oliver C. Cox Book Award, 1996 (White Racism: The Basics) University of Florida Research Foundation Professor, 1997–1999 Honorary Life Member, Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society, 1999 Robert and Helen Lynd Award for Lifetime Contribution to Community and Urban Sociology, 2000 Special Award, Section on Racial and Ethnic Minorities, for Racist America and lifetime of work in racial and ethnic relations, 2002 Choice award for Liberation Sociology as one of best books of 2002 ASA Section’s Distinguished Undergraduate Student Paper Award named for Joe Feagin (2003) University of Illinois Center on Democracy in a Multiracial Society, Symposium on the Research and Contributions of Joe Feagin (April 2004). Choice award for White Men on Race as one of the best books of 2003. Sociologists without Borders (SSF) Distinguished Professor (2005) Harvard Alumni Association (HDS) Rabbi Martin Katzenstein Award (2006) Sociologists without Borders (SSF), the Richard Wright Award (2006) Center for Healing of Racism Ally Award (2006) Fellow, Center for the Study of Poverty and Inequality (Stanford University), 2006- Butler A. Jones lecture, Cleveland State University (2007) [edit] Administrative and editorial positionsVice-President, Society for Study of Social Problems, 1986–87 Chair, ASA Section on Racial and Ethnic Minorities, 1994–1995 Member of Council, American Sociological Association, 1995–2000 Editorial Board, Comparative Urban and Community Research Editorial Board, Sage Racial and Ethnic Relations Series Editorial Board, Race and Society Governing Board, Southern Regional Council, 1997–1998 President, American Sociological Association, 1999–2000 Editor, Perspectives on a Multiracial America, Rowman & Littlefield, 2003–present

is pushing a fringe theory in his book Racist America: roots, current realities, and future reparations By Joe R. Feagin when he said on page 218 "Whites with African ancestry have included prominent Americans. Among them is Jacqueline Kennedy Onasssis, who has been celebrated in the media as a paramount symbol of white womanhood"

http://books.google.ca/books?id=0stwPeRea2MC&pg=PA218&dq=jacqueline+kennedy+black+ancestry&hl=en&ei=Z6NDTe-MNMK88gap-dX6AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=jacqueline%20kennedy%20black%20ancestry&f=false

I do not think this is a fringe theory seems more like a historical fact because the experts keep saying it is the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.18.213 (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see my post in the section above. Also please keep your posts brief. I don't think parading all these credentials really adds anything to the arguments presented. The issue here is to establish how widely accepted are the views that Jackie has Muslim roots. How many peer-reviewed publications have accepted the papers of the authors you mention and how widely accepted is the book you link to among those in the scientific community. Also please learn to spell my screen name correctly. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I responded to your above post. Well the accusation was that it was a fringe theory, I am pointing out the people who are providing this information are not fringe people, fringe organization and are not using fringe history it is actually widely excepted and fringe theorist would not have such wide creditials, ie when was the last time alex jones got half these credtials awards, etc. The view that she is the descdent of muslims seems to be quite wide spread among anyone who has studied to the subject, I HAVE been unable to find a paper/book/article that says this is untrue and the van Salees were not muslims at least historically. Also we are talking about Professors books, genealogical records and master books. They are peer reviewed and all of them provide genelogical soruces and proof that is consistently accurate "According to the documentation that people like Professor Leo Hershkowitz of Queens University have sifted through, it would seem that Anthony van Salee never converted to Christianity. His Koran, in fact, was in a descendant's possession until about fifty years ago when, ignorant of its relevance to his family's history, he offered it for sale at auction" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/vansallees.html

Basically you have 6 academic sources all saying the same thing. Either all these professors, masters, and organizations are wrong and fringe theories or they are not wrong. If they are not wrong they are credible sources and ought be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.18.213 (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope you realise that there are thousands of scientists in the fields of anthropology and genetics. The opinions of six scientists only get their validation through publication of relevant papers in peer-reviewed journals. So far I have not seen a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal and the books you cite are of unknown acceptance within the scientific community and thus they cannot yet establish notability of the subject you are attempting to insert into the article. The notability of such subject is therefore questionable at the moment. But let us wait for more opinions from other interested editors who would like to comment. When WP:CONSENSUS forms then we will be able to better evaluate the facts you are proposing to insert into the article. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 06:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Dr.K., and note that perhaps one of the reasons this addition is met with skepticism is its author's insistence on including the phrase "had black muslim ancestry like Barack Hussein Obama" (in his long version and then again in his short version) in this biography of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Sounds not only fringe, but agenda-driven. This does not belong here. Tvoz/talk 09:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes there are thousands of scientist in anthropology and genetics and none of them have refuted the claim, well except Dr.K. I have shown you multiple books, documents from Yale, from a Harvard Professor, and a Professor at the university of Maryland. None of their claims are fringe because they provide proof to their claims and it seems to be widely accepted in the field, I have yet to see one article that says this is untrue. This is widespread knowledge. Most of the article is not based on peer reviewed documents, because historical figures are written about not by scientist but largely by journalist, professors, biographers and genologist. If that was the case the entry would be about a paragraph. How much information on Barack Obama comes from peer reviewed entries, probably close to nil in the article. Almost the entire Early Life section is based on [3] Davis, John H. (1995). The Bouviers: Portrait of an American family. National Press Books, which is not peer reviewed, are you going to take that out? By the way the book by the Harvard Professor who says Kennedy has black ancestry is peer reviewed, so I will add that in their and leave out the muslim like Obama part until we can resolve that issue. Further the widespread appearance of the proof of her black muslim ancestry seems to have not met any resistance by her biographers, in fact Dr. Berlin pointed out anyone who's ancestors has been here as long as the Kennedy's (1600s) would be bound to be mixed with black or indian, and its true because back then those people were the majority or sizeable minority in many places. Genology is not very complex, if someone is black named Van Salee and you are their descendant you have some black ancestry. If that person was muslim, then you have a muslim ancestor.(99.238.18.213 (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC))
Ah yes. The famous Yale website. Unfortunately the "Yale" link you provided: http://www.yale.edu/smhac/articles/family.htm is not really from Yale directly. It is from http://www.yale.edu/smhac a separate website which happens to be hosted on the Yale U domain but it is a student website. As far as your calling out my nickname all the time, please realise this is not about me. Don't make this personal. So please stop the personal comments. You are conveniently missing the fact that user:Tvoz and user:Diannaa agree so far with me. So it is not only me who disagrees with you. As far as your other claims it is not established to a rigorous academic standard that Van Salee was indeed a Muslim or even related to Jackie for that matter. There are no documents provided by the academics you mention other that their assertions. Believe it or not we are trying to build an encyclopedia here not an "Educatedguessapedia" or "Rumourpedia". We demand way higher standards from our sources than mere musings without rigorous proof. Your information simply does not pass muster here. And that includes your "Yale" source. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Nontheless the website is still a Yale website, it is unclear if it is a professor or a student who has published it. Those users sound suspiciously like you which is why I have not commented much because it seems like the same person. So yes you appear to be the only one in disagreement, and the others only disagreed with what they said was politically charged language saying muslim like obama, which I agreed to remove. Wikipedia already claims on the Van Salee page that all the Kennedy's from her line are desdendents of the Van Salee's so I will add it in for consistency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Janszoon under notable descendents. Perhaps the reason why the documents are not on the web is because someone would have to naturally scan in such documents to a computer and they appear to be held in that New York Library or Meuseum where that Professor who made the claim comes from, that is you would have to go to that Meseum in New York if you disagree with the Professors claim because they will not let you photocopy the document (I called in). I will put it is believed by many academics and scholars- the 6 i listed- that Kennedy has black dutch muslim ancestry through Jan Janszoon and his son Anthony Janszoon van Salee. This is true, and it is notable and therefore should be in the article. Even if you reject the Yale source there are 5 other sources, 2 of which are original research, in no other article was it required that a professor post the entire documents of geneology for any person because anyone willing to go to the library can view these but it is often not allowed to reproduce these documents because of copyright issues and the fact that people do not go to library's when they can get the thing on the net. It is really up to you to prove the professors are being dishonest because no academic source supports your view, wiki already claims Onassis is related to the Van Salees -which is why I was trying to put this article in line with the others, this passes all the test of wiki and the rest of this article with flying colors. Looking at the reference list none of those references are peer reviewed, not a single one, we have entire sections from one book or in some cases even an article of suspect demeanour. I do not see why it is so unreasonable that JKO would have black ancestry. Doesn't mean she black, but it is important to mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.18.213 (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The original New York Times source was from the "Home and Garden" section of the New York Times: New York Times Home & Garden Surprises in the Family TreeBy MITCHELL OWENS Published: January 8, 2004. Yet you wrote: According to Yale and the New York Times and a frontline documentary Jacqueline had black muslim ancestry like Barrack Hussein Obama [http://www.yale.edu/smhac/articles/family.htm] to infer that the prestigious Yale and New York Times had supported your information. I have already rebutted your "Yale" source. Now a column, by a non-expert in genealogy, in the "Home & Garden" supplement section of the NYT strikes me as not quite the rigorous academic type of source that we expect here as an encyclopedia. It would have been quite different if this information appeared in the main section of the New York Times or if it made the headlines but that didn't happen. On top of that there is no mention in either of these inferior sources of Barrack Obama which you obviously added, without a supporting reference, for added effect. Please familiarise yourself with our policies of verification WP:V, original research WP:OR and reliable sources WP:RS before you add any other material here. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Reply to your latest claims: Nontheless the website is still a Yale website, it is unclear if it is a professor or a student who has published it. Those users sound suspiciously like you which is why I have not commented much because it seems like the same person. No, the so-called Yale website is simply a mirror of the New York Times Home & Garden article and it is completely worthless as a source. As far as your claim Those users sound suspiciously like you which is why I have not commented much because it seems like the same person. It is an insult to me and the other two users and it betrays really bad form in your discussion tactics. I ask you to retract this accusation and while you are at it you can also read our policy of Assuming Good Faith WP:AGF and No Personal Attacks WP:NPA. As far as adding this speculative and academically unproven information into the article please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Dr.K. You are quite right, of course, that I am not you, nor am I User: Diannaa, and I am quite sure she is not you either. The suggestion that we are the same person is ridiculous and only insulting in that all of us are experienced, well-established editors (and isn't Diannaa an admin to boot?), and none of us would stoop to socking in support of an obviously correct position (or any other position for that matter). It's not insulting in that I am flattered to be compared to either of you. As for this IP's refusal to understand your very clearly stated points, I think we've reached the point of feeding the troll and should close this down, as it's going nowhere and wasting your time. I reiterate Diannaa's reminder that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and none have been presented. Cheers to you both. (And this was worth it for me as it showed me <tt>, the results of which I've seen, but never troubled to find out how it was done. Now I know!) Tvoz/talk 20:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much Tvoz for your kind words as well as your obviously great sense of humour. I have always been impressed with the quality of your work as well as Diannaa's. In that sense, it is indeed a compliment that my contributions could be compared to or mistaken for yours or Diannaa's. I am also glad you picked up the <tt> trick. I find it an effective quotation tool. Thank you also for your consideration regarding my time. I really appreciate it. I think you are right in that this should wind down since many points have already been reiterated and clarified enough times already. I always appreciated your ease with procedural matters and your ability to clarify the sometimes hidden context of an argument. Cheers and take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Clearly, there are WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE problems; it is not a main stream theory; and as Dr.K. states there has been NO consensus to include the fringe theory. And as you state, Tvoz, enough said on the subject. Kierzek (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

This sentence in the introduction violates NPOV:

She is remembered for her contributions to the arts and historic preservation, her style, elegance and grace.

This needs to either be qualified by saying who remembers her that way, or taken out altogether. Unless someone adds a citation and fixes the NPOV, I am going to remove the sentence. --N-k (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. FWIW the whole of America/World does. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Please take a look at the parameters for the spouse field in the documentation for Template:Infobox person - it is pretty much standard practice here to include the years of marriages in the infobox, and to indicate the cause as death or divorce. Including the children's dates is not as universal, but when they are notable on their own - as in this case for Caroline and John Jr. - we often do include birth/death dates. Since two of the children died at birth, and so their names may not be not well-known to current readers, I think that we need to include those dates - otherwise it appears she had four children who survived. The purpose of the infobox is to give a snapshot of the data points about a person, and listing just the names is not as informative as including those points. Some examples, including FA and GA articles which have undergone a lot of editor scrutiny are: John McCain, Geraldine Ferraro, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and there are many others. Not all articles follow this style, but unless there are compelling reasons for removing the dates etc, I think we should follow what is common style here. I'm reverting to the original, but happy to discuss. Tvoz/talk 07:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, and I understand what's typical, but here are my concerns: The dates really, really clutter up the look of that narrow infobox and I think having so many dates in there looks like crap. I imagine there's nothing in WP:MOS that says "if it looks like crap and cluttered, take it out: :-) but...... Further, everyone in that list we could put dates after already has their own WP article, and they are all linked in the info box. The only exception is their first child (Annabelle? Arabelle?), and her death is listed in the article itself. So, that's where I'm coming from (now that you have listed some style parameters, I have a better understanding of what's okay in the info box, so thank you for that). If you have any comments or more thoughts on this, bring it! Lhb1239 (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to address the clutter by adding some line breaks - looks ok on my notebook screen now, as the dates are on their own lines - is it showing up that way for other screens? However, I'm really more concerned about the information being properly conveyed than the look of it. It's true that the information is found elsewhere, but we can't assume that readers will click on links, and the purpose of the infobox, as I said, is to give a snapshot of the important data points, and I do have a problem with any implication that there were 4 children. She gave birth 4 times, but effectively only had 2 children, and without saying that we are misleading the readers. And although presumably readers will know why her marriage to JFK ended, they may well not know that regarding Onassis, and the infobox should clearly say so, as the documentation says, and as we do it in other biographies. So the fact that there are separate articles for the names to me is just not a good reason to leave this information off of the infobox. Maybe other editors will weigh in on this - for now I think we should stick with it the way it has been and is pretty much the norm for these articles. (By the way - I am not a big fan of that chart in the middle of the article about the children - I would not object to it being transformed into prose.) Tvoz/talk 23:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
You're right that the infobox is supposed to be a snapshot of important data points, but it's supposed to be the data points of the article's subject, not everyone else in the subject's immediate life. Those types of points should be placed within the article body as prose, not as highlighted sections -- especially if there is already a wiki link to that person's own article. As far as how many children the Kennedy's had, my bet is if they were both alive, they would say they had four children but raised two of them. While the first child died at birth, she was still named (this doesn't happen with miscarriages), indicating they thought of her as one of their children. The same goes for the last child, Patrick, except that he actually lived for a day or so (I'm going solely on memory here, so don't hold me to that if I'm wrong). Regardless, he was their child, named in life and buried after death. Why not get an RfC on this? I've found that method of gaining consensus to be helpful in the past. At the very least, we will get editors weighing in who otherwise may not know we are having this little "argument" (I don't really think it's an argument, but for lack of a better term... :-) So -- those are my continued thoughts on this. I'm usually not one to dig my heels in on a point of contention with articles, but on this (the info box), I'm going to stick with my belief that because the info box is about the article's subject and no one else, the birth-death dates should stay out and the wiki-links should suffice. Thanks for discussing. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
These are the data points of the subject's life. Whether her marriages ended as result of death or divorce is rather significant in her life. How long between the death of one husband and the marriage to the next is a significant data point in her life. The infobox documentation is clear, and every bio infobox I've looked at includes the marriage dates and disposition of the marriage. Are you agreeing to that now? As for the children, you're twisting my argument - I didn't say they would not acknowledge all four children, and I didn't say we should not include all four. I said all four children should be listed in the infobox, but with their birth and death dates so we have an accurate picture of who they were in her life - like we do in many, many biographies here. In some cases such dates for the subject's children are not particularly signficant, but in this case they certainly are. And it is misleading to leave off the significant point that one was stillborn and one died a few days after birth. These are her husbands and her children - their dates have significance to her life. Your argument only makes sense in terms of other people in the infobox, like Lady Bird Johnson - we wouldn't include birth & death dates for her, because they are not significant to Jacqueline's life. Tvoz/talk 04:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm just going to have to respectfully disagree with your position on this. Lhb1239 (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Would like some comments on and new eyes looking at the above discussion regarding this article's infobox. Thanks! Lhb1239 (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

While I see the impact that having birth/death dates for her children has on the aesthetic nature of the infobox, it still is in keeping with WP convention as I understand them. The cluttering of the box, however, is not severe enough to merit that information's omission, in my opinion. WPxOG (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

JBKO's Name in the Infobox....

.....refers to her name as First Lady (the same infobox template is used for all US First Ladies, and the first portion of info from this template is in reference to the position of First Lady) and therefore, should end with Kennedy as her last name. If you look at Frances Cleveland Preston's page - she was the only other presidential widow to remarry - her infobox refers to her as Frances Cleveland, thus denoting her name as First Lady. FrostySnows (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Lhb1239 (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. FrostySnows (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I also agree Frosty that her name should be as First Lady, as it would be proper for the timeframe of the photo; as for the photo in use, I believe the other photo that was there (until your change) is more well known and shows her facial features better; but I will not edit-war over it. I may change it back in a few months for rotation. Kierzek (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Kierzek, I agree with you too about the portraits being changed - I just switched it to change it up for a while. It should be rotated every couple of months, I think. Have a good day! FrostySnows (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

this logic is flawed. this infobox is merely a specialized one to incorporate parameters of a first lady to overlay on top of infobox person. (in reality, "first lady" is not even a unique infobox. it is merely a redirect to "infobox:officeholder" and that page shows no special parameters for a "first lady", merely for a generic officeholder). a specialized infobox, such as "first lady/officeholder" still incorporates parameters of a subject's ENTIRE life, not just period if office. subject was not "commonly known" (as esablished by article's title) as "jacqueline kennedy" in later life. during the 2nd marriage and career as editor, subject was "commonly known" as "jacqueline kennedy onassis".

by the way, an image in an infobox should stand alone from an infobox title and provide a caption. if nothing else to provide context with a date of the photograph.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not checking this page first before I wrote in my revision summary, directed at you, to check the discussion here first - I see you've already done that. If you look at Wikipedia's Manual of Style for Infoboxes, you'll see that one of the guidelines indicates that "The top text line should be bold and contain either the full (official) name or common name of the article's subject. This does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title." In this case, I believe it's clear that since all of the First Ladies have this type of infobox - which is primarily focused on the "officeholder"'s position as First Lady, more than anything else - and once again going by Frances Cleveland Preston's page, where her infobox lists her last name as "Cleveland," I think JBKO's last name here should remain "Kennedy." Maybe we should take a vote on this matter to see what the consensus will be? Of course, I would happily abide by whichever way such a vote would go. Thanks. FrostySnows (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with your position, FrostySnows. Kierzek (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

as i commented earlier. this is NO infobox "first lady". it is merely a redirect to "officeholder". the unique "officeholder" section is only subsection (comprised of some 5 entries) augmenting a much larger "person" infobox (with a multitude of potential parameters). the "officeholder" portion is not a standalone infobox. the article's subject had various "official names". at birth, her "official name" was one thing. during her first marriage and as first lady, it was another. later in life, her "official name" was yet another. thus, the most logical, at least to me, it to match the "common name" established at creation (and much discussion i suspect) of the subject's article. (btw, even her tombstone includes onassis. see [3].)

i'm not sure using frances folsom cleveland preston as an example, and thus creating a sample set of only two articles, adds much value to the discussion. has her article been listed recently as a "featured" or "good" article (both of which processes would have received broad scrutiny from a variety of editors)? or has the infobox name on hers also been presupposing that only her period as "first lady" counts? i don't know. i've not yet been to that article.

i'll leave this for others to weigh in.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Bold text

My position on this is definitely based on the appearance that the infobox for every First Lady is primarily focused on/calls attention/notability to the time she held that position, with the other main facts of her life (birth and death dates, marriages, children, etc.) being secondary. But I do agree, others need to weigh in, and we can go with whatever the consensus agrees upon. Also - with regard to Frances Cleveland - since she was the only other presidential widow to remarry, and the editors who created that article didn't include what was her official last name at the time of her death (Preston) in the infobox, I thought it could provide some sort of precedent for this article. I don't know whether or not it's received any scrutiny in the past, but I imagine it hasn't. FrostySnows (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The name on the infobox should match the photo in the infobox. As it is, the photo is of Jacqueline Kennedy (or more precisely, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy) and the name should reflect the photo. This not only makes logical sense, it stays within the parameters set by the MOS for infoboxes. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

an infobox's title and a photograph's caption are not the same things. an "infobox" box title is just that – it entitles an entire information box, just as an article title entitles an entire article. this is regardless of what photograph might appear just below an infobox title. any photograph is described by a caption appearing BELOW said photograph (whether in an infobox or augmenting an article's prose). --96.232.126.111 (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
As is clear from the prior discussion above, I agree with FrostySnows and the revision edit by ip 184.36.11.186. Her name should be as First Lady, as would be proper for the timeframe of the photo; as for the photo in use. The current consensus is that it should remain "Kennedy". Kierzek (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Also agree with that. Being First Lady is what she is known for. This is not just a problem with this article, but with other articles about First Ladies.--JOJ Hutton 15:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Color Of Jackie's Dress The Day Of The Assassination

This is, admittedly, a minor detail . . . however, I believe the color of Jackie Kennedy's dress is incorrectly described as being pink. According to what I've read her "people" described the color as being "raspberry" not pink. I don't know if pink is what the mfr. called it or not.Gtyrebiter (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC).

In this article: Pink Chanel suit of Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy it is described as strawberry-pink. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Jacqueline Lee Bouvier Kennedy Birthplace

Mrs. Kennedy Is A Native Of Southampton,New York,Where She Was Born On July 28,1929,Please Go Back And Clear It Up.Keri Nowling, Seymour,Indiana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.143.170 (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jacqueline_Kennedy_Onassis/Archive_2&oldid=1065953654"