Talk:John F. Kennedy Jr./Archive 1

Archive 1

Assassination

There are many credible sources that indicate JFK Jr. was assassinated in a mid-air explosion. Such claims are not ridiculous and should not be simply swept under the rug. -- James

Yeah, uh, you might want to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources before you make any more edits to this article.—chris.lawson (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Ha! The sources I had were nothing like Stromfront or Hamas. Political assassination is a credible, plausible narrative of JFK Jr.'s death, widely reported and researched, and I will restore that section to this article. -- James

Perhaps now would be a good time to remind you that Wikipedia has a policy against original research. Please do not re-add this section to the article.—chris.lawson (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it would be terrible if people started using original research people might start passing on knowledge and the like. Someone might work out which came first, the chicken or the egg. The theory of evolution was not Darwins, it was Alfred Russel Wallace, and he got it from another bloke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.192.178 (talk) 18:04, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

That never was a problem, because I'm not doing any original research. I cited others' research that included original press reports that conflict with the version of the story that has been settled on by the establishment press. Just because you do not agree with these pre-existing theories, widely published and cited, doesn't mean they are "crackpot" or on the "fringe." That's just your rabid POV.

The only "rabid" POV around here is that espoused by you and the articles you keep promoting. They're utterly ridiculous, and they do not meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources.

The articles I "keep promoting"? Well, that's certainly a wide and varied bunch, but they all meet the standard of reliable sources, inasmuch as any of my minor contributions goes that far. I understand that you don't personally support the reliability of certain sources, but that's your opinion. And your idea of what is "ridiculous" is not the standard for reliability. -- James

No. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Personal websites as secondary sources. Each of the links you added is a personal Web site, and is being used as a secondary source. In other words, you're linking to -- at best -- dubious original research by a third party, rather than doing it yourself. From a verifiability standpoint, there's not really any difference, and it's blatantly obvious that the links you've cited are pushing an agenda of crackpot conspiracy theories.—chris.lawson (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Why are you deleting my entries here on the talk page? I'll restore it:

1. Your namecalling ("crackpot") is shrill, insulting and a poor debate tactic.

2. You do admit that I'm not doing any original research. Thanks.

3. My main source, http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/JFK_JR/jj.html, was not a personal website. It features articles by many different writers.

4. One of the "personal websites" cites an original UPI story on the crash that is conveniently unavailable from UPI now: http://www.beverlyunderground.com/issue9/rabbithole.htm

5. Two could be construed as personal websites, although articles appear on both sites that are attributed to other writers: http://www.skolnicksreport.com/goldenboy.html and http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/PurgeTheEvil.htm.

6. Of the many public figures who have died unnaturally or under suspicious circumstances, many of their Wikipedia pages include a brief section citing reports of assassination. This includes Princess Diana and John Lennon. Are you going to go cleanse those "crackpot" theories? -- James

The deletion was accidental; I was reverting a vandal at the same time you posted the above edit. Sorry about that. Princess Diana was most certainly not assassinated. John Lennon was; that's a well-known fact. I don't see what that has to do with anything, though.—chris.lawson (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

What they have to do with our discussion is that both of those articles include the allegations that they were assassinated by a conspiracy. Neither article is slanted in favor of conspiracy, but each at least addresses the controversy as it exists. -- James

Uh, I don't see any mention of conspiracy in the John Lennon article. The mention of conspiracy in Princess Diana is fairly mild and cites reliable sources. The links you added to this article are not reliable sources.—chris.lawson (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

"Some people believe that Lennon's murder was actually a political assassination, although this idea is often dismissed as a conspiracy theory" -- it's in the Trivia section. -- James

These are the "reliable sources" that, according to your standards, allows the Diana assassination theory in that article when the JFK Jr. assassination theory is cut from this article:

• alt.conspiracy.princess-diana - Diana assassination newsgroup
• Chronology of Diana's last day, from an anonymous website whose "central tenet" is that "the primary motive force behind the murders of Diana and Dodi is Elizabeth Regent, current Queen of England" [1]

In that case, I'll be looking into those articles as well.—chris.lawson (talk) 06:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Clawson, if you go around purging pages of all references to the subject's possible political assassination, like Princess Diana and John Lennon, you'll find that your personal standard for a reliable source clashes with the standards of the community. You seem to think you can label a claim as "crackpot" and then take that label itself as proof that the source is not reliable. That's circular reasoning. Your opinion of a source doesn't make it reliable or unreliable. -- James

You'll note that I left the Guardian link in there. That was deliberate. The Guardian is a reputable news organisation. The other two links are well outside the boundaries established by WP:EL. Please do not re-add them.--chris.lawson 04:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

1000 Days

This line appears in the entry: "And of his nephew's marriage, (Edward Kennedy) invoked what had been said of his brother's presidency : both lasted 1,000 days." Some might believe that this means both lasted *exactly* 1000 days. In fact, both lasted more than 1000 days. John Kennedy died on the 1037th day of his presidency. JFK Jr. died on the 1032nd day of his marriage. Perhaps an overly picky point, but just wanted to point this out. Anson2995 18:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

John Hankey films

I've removed the references to both of John Hankey's films. These are, to put it mildly, poorly edited secondary sources. Please see Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination for my complete comments on the matter. If we want to cite the "The Bushes Killed the Kennedys" theories, then we should do so by citing well sourced scholarly research or primary sources. -Harmil 05:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Last Will and Testament of John F. Kennedy, Jr.

We wish to advise everyone that we (the Living Trust Network) have a copy of John F. Kennedy, Jr.'s Last Will and Testament posted on our website, which we believe is of interest to anyone seeking information about the life of John F. Kennedy, Jr. We have also discussed our desire to post a link to John F. Kennedy, Jr.'s Last Will and Testament with Wikipedia administrators [See User talk:Livingtrust], either under "references" or "external links." Last Will and Testament of John F. Kennedy, Jr. Wikipedia does not object to the link but has requested that we not put the link up ourselves since we are a commercial website. Instead, it has requested that we make it known that the Last Will and Testament is available, and anyone who wishes to add the link to the "reference" section or the "external links" section may do so. So, we solicite your help in adding the link set forth above. Thanks. Livingtrust 02:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

JFKJR at Chico State

Perhaps someone can confirm or deny the local rumor that JFKJR was enrolled at California State University, Chico. I actually checked with the records office and confirmed that a "John Fitzgerald Kennedy" was enrolled at Chico State prior to 1993. The rumor is that he was in Chico under the pseudonym "Jake"

You state that this is a "local rumor." Is that to mean that it is a "local rumor" in and around Chico, California?

In any event, JKKJR was not a California resident, nor did he leave New York City to pursue any kind of further education after recieving his Juris Doctor degree from New York University. --172.191.66.215 00:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, its more than a rumor. Apparently there was an article in the Chico News and Review about it. If he was under a pseudonym that would be consistent with a desire for anonomymity. Unless you were with him the whole time, you wouldn't necessarily know that he was never a CA resident or didn't leave NY. I'm not saying you don't know for sure, but I think you would actually have to have to be pretty close to JFKJR for a pretty long time to say so authoritiatively.

--gregbard

Panicking

I was just reading this and thought it was an interesting theory to do with JFK Jr.'s crash: The Art of Failure. Cctoide 16:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank You for posting this URL. It is a very interesting article in reference with different reactions to stressful situations. --172.191.66.215 00:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Small change Fuel Cut-Off Valve

I re-worded a small section regarding the shut-off valve: according to the NTSB report, after the plane had been recovered, the fuel valve had been found in the "OFF" position.

Where has this comment gone? Not edited by an IP address connected to Yale or The White House by any chance?? Was this not on page 333 of the NTSB report? Another Skull and Bones fingerprint or is it just me. Seems strange that this was tucked away, perhaps the investigators didn't the significance! I guess switching off the fuel is an easy mistake for an inexperienced pilot, especially in a dark cockpit during IFR. Or perhaps it was turned off as a fire precaution, as the plane glided into the sea.

10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 15:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The NTSB refutes another article claim...

"It also emerged that while Kennedy had flown from Essex County Airport to the Vineyard several times before, he had never done it without an instructor pilot aboard or at night."

This sentence immediately follows Kyle Bailey's quote, so I can't figure out if the article is trying to attribute it to Bailey, or if the author simply had a vision. However, it 'emerges' that the author doesn't have a clue about John's flight experience between Essex County (CDW) and Martha's Vineyard (MVY).

From the NTSB report:

In the 15 months before the accident, the pilot had flown about 35 flight legs either to or from the Essex County/Teterboro, New Jersey, area and the Martha's Vineyard/Hyannis, Massachusetts, area. The pilot flew over 17 of these legs without a CFI on board, including at least 5 at night.

One CFI flew with the pilot on three occasions. One of the flights was on June 25, 1999, from CDW to MVY. The CFI stated that the departure, en route, and descent portions of the flight were executed in VMC, but an instrument approach was required into MVY because of a 300-foot overcast ceiling. The CFI requested an instrument flight rules (IFR) clearance and demonstrated a coupled instrument landing system (ILS) approach to runway 24. The CFI stated that the pilot performed the landing, but he had to assist with the rudders because of the pilot's injured ankle.

A second CFI flew with the pilot between May 1998 and July 1999. This CFI accumulated 39 hours of flight time with the pilot, including 21 hours of night flight and 0.9 hour flown in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). The pilot used this CFI for instruction on cross-country flights and as a safety pilot. On July 1, 1999, the CFI flew with the pilot in the accident airplane to MVY. The flight was conducted at night, and IMC prevailed at the airport. The CFI stated that, during the flight, the pilot used and seemed competent with the autopilot. The instructor added that during the flight the pilot was wearing a nonplaster cast on his leg, which required the CFI to taxi the airplane and assist the pilot with the landing.

A third CFI flew with the pilot between May 1998 and July 1999. This CFI accumulated 57 hours of flight time with the pilot, including 17 hours of night flight and 8 hours flown in IMC. The pilot also used this instructor for instruction on cross-country flights and as a safety pilot. This CFI had conducted a "complex airplane" evaluation on the pilot and signed him off in the accident airplane in May 1999.

Gseymour (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Drunk

Shouldn't it be mentioned that many sources believe that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the plane crash?--68.149.181.145 23:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Name one, preferably one that has some sort of credibility, like a medical examiner's report, or the NTSB.--chris.lawson 23:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The "many" sources that repeat the drunk claim all stem back to C. David Heymann, and to his book, American Legacy: The Story of John and Caroline Kennedy. Heymann claims that ethanol found in tissue samples from Kennedy's autopsy indicates that he had ingested alcohol. He also claims that Kennedy was taking Vicodin for his ankle injury, and drugs for both Graves disease, and attention deficit disorder, and to top it off, at a service station near the airport before his flight, Kennedy was spotted carrying an opened bottle of white wine. Horse crap. Heymann is simply smearing John's name for the money he can make by sensationalizing the accident.

From the NTSB report:

On July 21, 1999, examinations were performed on the pilot and passengers by Dr. James Weiner, Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The results indicated that the pilot and passengers died from multiple injuries as a result of an airplane accident. Toxicological testing was conducted by the FAA Toxicology Accident Research Laboratory, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The toxicological tests were negative for alcohol and drugs of abuse.

FAA toxicologists are well aware that bodies subjected to severe trauma and immersed in 58F water for several days prior to autopsy will contain elevated levels of bacteria generated ethanol. Other tests can mitigate or eliminate the indication of antemortem alcohol ingestion. Also, the FAA tests for virtually all drugs of abuse, including most over the counter medicines. --Gseymour (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Flight Instructor

What is the source for the claim that Kennedy's flight instructor stated that he offered to fly with Kennedy on the fatal journey, but Kennedy replied, "I want to do it alone."? Rpawn 14:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That source was the NTSB final report, quoting the CFI number two, who we now know is Robert Merena. We know this because in a January 27, 2000 investigative report, NTSB interviewer David Muzio quotes Merena as speaking with Kennedy the day he died, July 16, 1999, and offering to fly with him. Kennedy declined, saying, “I want to do it alone.” This quote obviously made headlines in both mainstream and gossip media.

However, there is substantial evidence that this quote was fabricated.

1. Merena discussed his final conversation with Kennedy in a letter addressed to the NTSB on July 19, three days after the crash-

My last contact with Mr. Kennedy was by telephone on July 16, 1999. I had contacted Mr. Kennedy's office to inquire as to whether or not he needed his keys to the aircraft for that weekend. I was advised by Mr. Kennedy that he did not require the keys and that I should return them at my convenience to Mr. Ferguson at Caldwell Airport.

No mention of offering to fly with Kennedy, and no mention of Kennedy "wanting to do it alone".

2. Muzio interviewed Merena on July 21, five days after the crash. Part of the interview states-

The instructor was not aware of the pilot conducting any flights in the accident airplane without an instructor aboard.

3. Muzio submitted a report on January 27, 2000 claiming an interview with Merena, without including the time, date and place of the supposed interview, nor Merena's signature. Here is the full text-

The instructor stated that he talked to the pilot on the day of the accident, and offered to fly with him on the accident flight. "The pilot replied he wanted to do it alone." In addition, the instructor restated that he was not aware of the pilot ever flying the accident airplane without an instructor onboard.

4. Merena had his attorney, Peter V. Van Deventer, Jr. send a letter dated February 25, 2000 to the NTSB. Mr. Van Deventer’s letter states that Mr. Merena and Kennedy 1) had their conversation between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on the day in question. 2) John F. Kennedy, Jr. never indicated at that time that he intended to depart on the day or evening in question. 3) Kennedy never expressed to Mr. Merena anything concerning a change in his plans.

Merena is claiming that Muzio is lying. How could Merena not be aware of Kennedy flying without a CFI in the accident airplane, yet state that Kennedy told him that was exactly what he planned to do? The only possible conclusion is that either Merena is lying about what Kennedy said, in which case he contradicts himself, or Muzio is lying about what Merena said. Since the lie shows up in the final NTSB report, without any mention of Merena's dissension, I believe that Muzio planted the obviously false statement. It is definitely odd that this short tidbit of interview shows up six months after all other pilot interviews had been completed. Odder still would be Merena lying to Muzio, denying it, and then somehow this contentious and belated statement still ends up in the final NTSB report. As difficult as it is to believe that an NTSB investigator would manufacture a false statement, what is the alternative?--Gseymour (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Succession box?

Is it really necessary to have a succession box for the children of JFK and Jackie Kennedy? It just looks silly on the page to me. (If there's a better place to discuss this topic, let me know.) Terence7 (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

17 years

i just watched a documentary which claimed that jfk jr had 17 years of flight experience and over 700 hours of flight time. also, the program used a flight simulator to show the last few moments of his life..the haze and light conditions were simulated (i believe it was a mirosoft flight simulator) but what i found most remarkable was that you could see the island..the times were verified with his actions and with his final communication with the tower..i find this to somewhat contradict the spatial disorientation theory. i still havent figured out what this page is exactly for yet, any talk page really, so if i have posted this in the wrong place, well, you know. here is the documentary.. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-3179462717908405974&q=jfk+jr+duration%3Along -just copy and paste. also, the program contained many initial broadcasts and information which are not available here. there seems to be a great deal of information, with sources, in this doc. an editor should at least view it...i would make edits but i dont have enough time and i dont really know how to anyhow. 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 19:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed: I added the very link to the article as well. Extremely sexy 14:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

John Hankey is trying to overcome the reckless image that has been smearing Kennedy's name ever since the crash. He is an excellent researcher, but in this particular case he may have over-reached a little with these claims about Kennedy's experience. There was so much wild information flying around, that I decided to spreadsheet his entire flight log from 1982 to Nov 11, 1998. His latest flight log is missing. Kennedy first flew seventeen years before the crash, but I wouldn't really portray that as seventeen years of experience. He logged 12.3 hrs in 1983/83, and in 1988 logged 35.1 hrs more for a total of 47.4 hrs (and flew solo for the first time). Then in early 1998, he took intensive flight training at Flight School International (FSI) at Vero Beach, FL, one of the best flight schools in the world. At a total of 102.2 hrs, he obtained his private pilot's license on April 22, 1998. Most of his flight time was accumulated in Piper Warriors. He then purchased a high performance Cessna 182Q Skylane (it had a Texas Skyways engine upgrade). He received his high performance sign-off in the Cessna from Chris Benway on June 28, 1998. His first logbook ends on Nov 11, 1998 with a total of 218.7 hours, about half of which were in high performance airplanes as PIC (pilot in command).

An NTSB advisory notice, dated July 30, 1999 states that- "The Safety Board has information indicating that he had accumulated about 300 hours of flying experience, not including time he accumulated in the Saratoga." Kennedy's insurance application for coverage of the newly purchased Saratoga on April 28, 1999, indicated 300 accumulated flight hours at that point, in addition to several witness accounts of Kennedy stating that he had 300 hours at the time he purchased the Saratoga. In its final report, the NTSB estimates that he accumulated about 36 hours in the Saratoga, yet the NTSB obviously can't add 300 and 36 because they come up with 310 total flight hours. Huh? At any rate, Hankey is even farther off with a claim of 700.

The NTSB also makes a serious (and curious) error when it estimates the total solo hours of Kennedy at 72. That is just silly. I know for a fact that Kennedy had 80 total hours solo on November 9, 1998, because that is the date of the last entry into his first logbook that I have painstakingly spread-sheeted. He also had 103 hours as PIC at that time. It may not strike you as very important, 72 hrs... 80 hrs... who cares? The discrepancy, however, is much larger than that. It first shows that the NTSB didn't even bother to tabulate the information from Kennedy's first logbook. Second, they said that the basis for their estimate of Kennedy's flight hours during the entire period of the missing second logbook was based on instructor's logbooks, statements from instructors, and records from flight schools. So obviously, they underestimated Kennedy's solo time after Nov 9, 1998, also. After injuring his ankle five weeks before the crash, Kennedy did rely on CFIs as a safety pilots. But prior to the injury, he probably had at least ten solo hours in the Saratoga, making his total accumulated flight hours about 346. His total solo time was therefore about 120 hours.

Kennedy also loved to fly at night. After his intensive training period, flown almost exclusively during the day, about a third of his flight hours were accumulated at night. Statistics show that private pilots on average, spend less than 5 percent of their flight time at night. The NTSB claimed that Kennedy only had a total of 55 hours of night flight time. It was at least 70 hours, probably more.

Because of the retractable landing gear, a complex airplane sign off was required to be PIC of the Saratoga, and he received that sign off in May, 1999. By the time of the crash, Kennedy had accumulated about 222 hrs in high performance airplanes, and most of the other hours were in Piper Warriors, so he was well qualified to fly the Piper Saratoga. He also was in the middle of intensive training for his instrument rating, having passed the written test and completed 12 of 25 instrument flight lessons. Kennedy's logbook shows extensive work with GPS navigation and autopilot operation, and his instructors have also noted his competence with both devices. The KLN90B moving map GPS unit in the Saratoga interfaced with the dual axis Bendix/King 150 autopilot and was FAA rated for IFR coupled approaches. In other words, the avionics in the Saratoga were sophisticated and capable of flying the airplane with little input from Kennedy. The NTSB investigation indicated that the GPS unit was on, but the autopilot had been switched off at the time of the crash. The flight path indicated, however, that the autopilot was engaged for most of that flight.--Gseymour (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Split?

It is my opinion that the section on the plane crash is sufficiently long as to be split off into a plane crash article, the way several other famous folks who have died in plance crashes have had their articles handled. I realize, though, that there's a lot of people involved in this article, and not everyone might agree, so I'd like to hear input on this idea. Thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with splitting. Extremely sexy 23:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I vote no! For heavens sake, don't let the facts get in the way of a good obituary! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.192.178 (talk) 17:55, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I think a separate section on the plane crash would be of immense value. The bashing and disinformation about John's culpability in the death of three people has been rampant in the media for way too long. I would love to set the record straight about the circumstances surrounding the crash. Normally, pilots are the most reticent to condemn another pilot's decisions, especially those that involve a fatal accident. In this case, however, it seems that fellow pilots are at the vanguard of the media hyperbole. Shame on them for joining the expected feeding frenzy of sensationalism surrounding any celebrity misfortune. Let's take an honest and measured look at this tragedy for its true instruction, and not yield to the condescending pronouncements of the self aggrandizers.--Gseymour (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Two of the most famous pictures in which John Jr. is present are not to be found in this article. Why? The first one: ...*Link removed. See edit summary...

The second one: [2] Quietmartialartist (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Its hard to believe that a fair use showing of him saluting the casket cannot be put up. This is THE photo of him from his youth. 24.24.244.132 (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

My Edits

I just wanted to point out that all of my edits came from Robert Littell's book. For such an important person it seemed odd that there was not more biographical information on him,so I've added what I've read so far. Once I finish reading Littell's book, I'll read Noonan's book and add what I can from there. I wasn't sure how to footnote it because all information is coming from one (or two) sources but whenever I added a footnote it would create repeating citations in the reference area. If anyone knows how to link it to the one citation please let me know. Iluvelves (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Phi Psi

There is definitely a "Phi Psi" at Brown, despite the statement here that the fraternity branch is now defunct. Is it a different Phi Psi? (131.111.243.37 14:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

 When he attended Brown Phi Psi had dropped it national affiliation a few years before. Iluvelves (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

my edits

a small, little teeny-weeny part about a fucking fuel valve which was shut off was removed from the article... WHY? no good explaination to remove proven, hard facts from a government produced report. i hate wikipedia 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 16:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the fuel valve was found off was in the report. Everything else was from that conspiracy website, which is not a reliable source. Frise 03:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

so why did you delete the information about the fuel valve? the ends dont justify the means. and your an idiot 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 15:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one thing there is no evidence the fuel valve was *shut* off. THe NTSB report catalogues an array of damage to the fuel valve and surrounding structures, mentions the valve was found in the "off" position, and that the fuel valve linkage (which presumably leads from the valve to the valve selector) was deformed. I think it is safe to assume that once an aircraft smashes into the sea at over 100kts, the chances of all the bits being in the same place as they were 10 seconds earlier are rather slim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.224.162 (talk • contribs)

Obviously a air crash investigator in our midst, I'm glad that has been cleared-up! Now I just need the same sort of clear explanation regarding the JFK single bullet theory, and how it got to the hospital unblemished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.192.178 (talk) 17:52, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Simple. It didn't. Read Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History" for a detailed discussion of how the damaged bullet known as CE 399 was deformed and how it injured two different people after being fired by presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald.139.48.25.61 (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

ROFLMFHO!! Bugliosi was a lawyer not a ballistics expert! Since when does what he says go for gospel.

Excellent point about the damage to the selector linkage, but it must be kept in mind that there is a safety button that must be pressed and held while the selector switch is slid into the off position. This is intended to prevent 'accidental' shut-offs. It is likely that this mechanism would also prevent 'accident' related shut-offs.--Gseymour (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where to post this discussion, so I'll try here. I rewrote the mishap section; it was pretty bad in substance and style. The emphasis on the autopilot was distracting and pretty much irrelevant; no general aviation autopilot is required for any operation, and no pilot can be certified who cannot fly the airplane without the autopilot. Likewise, GPS is irrelevant; this mishap had nothing do to with navigation error. It was a loss of control event. Navigation errors involve CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) or fuel exhaustion. This was an out of control spiral dive. The discussion failed to give any background information but plunged right into autopilot and GPS details.

I am glad the "fuel valve" stuff, discussed here, stayed out. This event had nothing to do with fuel; airplanes do not hit the surface inverted at high speed just because the engine stops from fuel exhaustion. [Then why was it in the NTSB's report. It's a relevant fact.]

The whole istructor business was also overdone. No instructor was necessary for this flight, where the published ceilings and visibility was above the minimums necessary for this pilot to exercise the privileges of his airman's certificate. Also, the previous text said that JFKJR had landed at Martha's Vinyard several times under IFR without an instructor. This would have been quite illegal, not to say, reckless. I doubt this happened. On another point, the text makes a point of how many times the pilot had flown this route. This not usually very important except in navigation issues (and even then, it is not important). Control of the airplane does not require route familiarity.

Having said the flight was legal without an instructor, nonetheless overwater operations at night, and in hazy but legal conditions, claim many general aviation pilots each year, even though even basic VFR pilots must demonstrate minimal competence in controlling the airplane with reference to basic instruments. So why does this happen? Evidently inexperienced pilots (and some veteran pilots too) have difficulty in making the transition from visual to inside or instrument reference. Once control is compromised, especially in a moderately fast airplane such as the Saratoga, recovery must occur within seconds or the airplane will overspeed or strike the surface. The graveyard spiral is one of those little bugbears in the aviation world which those outside the aviation community never imagine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.64.166 (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

First, the autopilot and GPS are relevant because situational confusion is definitely a contributing factor to spatial disorientation. If you panic about where you are, that panic can exacerbate any feeling of disorientation. Flipping on the autopilot also would have corrected most unusual attitude situations. His GPS unit indicated his exact location and heading on a moving map display and the NTSB confirmed that it was operating at the time of the crash. I can't rule out spatial disorientation as a cause of the crash, but you certainly can't dismiss all other possibilities and simply say that everything that doesn't fit your hypothesis is irrelevant.

You don't understand the fuel shutoff controversy at all. It is not some idiot that thinks the plane crashed from fuel starvation. It is the heart of a sabotage theory promulagated by a John Hankey video. In it, a manchurian candidate plunges the plane into the fatal dive, and as an extra measure, turns off the fuel valve at the last second. Egyptian flight 990 about a year later crashed from that exact senario about 50 miles south of Kennedy's crash site. You can wave off sabotage theory as improbable, but at least you should understand the arguement put forward.

"The graveyard spiral is one of those little bugbears in the aviation world which those outside the aviation community never imagine." That bit of arrogance is priceless.Gseymour (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Citations Needed

I just added a citations needed banner. There are large sections of this article with specific, detailed information and no sources to verify it. This is particularly notable in the section on his plane crash and death. And I hate to say, because someone worked hard on it, but perhaps there is too much focus on the aviation aspect for a bio article? Or perhaps the details of the crash merit its own article? OwenSaunders (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There are strong opinions about the aviation aspect of the crash and probably should be dealt with in a separate article. To repeatedly overwrite other opinions with ones own is not very fruitful, here in a bio article. Gseymour (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Cam-Walker

From the article-

"Kennedy had injured his ankle and had the cast immobilizing it removed the previous day. The rudder pedals, the only foot operated controls, are required for safe operation during takeoff and landing and are especially important for spin recovery. Spin recovery takes full rudder authority, as such the rudder pedal must be pushed firmly all the way to the floor in the opposite direction of the aircraft's rotation in order to recover from a "spiral" or spin. Kennedy was a relatively inexperienced pilot, however he had flown the same route in the past, often at night, and had landed several times at Martha's Vineyard Airport."

Obviously, this author wants to believe that Kennedy couldn't apply rudder pressure properly and that he had only landed at MVY "several times". Both of these 'facts' are untrue. As repeatedly stated above, Kennedy had flown the route at least 40 times, many in IFC (always legally with a 'safety/training pilot') and many more than that VFC.

As to the ability to use the rudder pedals-

From the NTSB report-

"Medical Information

According to medical records, on June 1, 1999, the pilot fractured his left ankle in a "hang gliding" accident, and on June 2, 1999, he underwent surgical "open reduction internal fixation of left ankle fracture." On June 23, 1999, the pilot's leg was removed from a cast and placed in a "Cam-Walker." On July 15, 1999, the pilot's Cam-Walker was removed, and on July 16, 1999, he was given a "straight cane and instructed in cane usage." The medical records noted that the pilot was "full-weight bearing with mild antalgic gait."

During interviews, the pilot's physical therapist stated that the pilot did not have full dorsiflexion (bending upward of the foot) and that he could not determine whether the pilot's gait was caused by his slight limitation of motion or by mild pain. The pilot's orthopedic surgeon stated that he felt that, at the time of the accident, the pilot would have been able to apply the type of pressure with the left foot that would normally be required by emergency brake application with the right foot in an automobile.

According to 14 CFR Section 61.53, "Prohibition On Operations During Medical Deficiency," in operations that required a medical certificate, a person shall not act as a pilot-in-command while that person, "(1) Knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation."

According to an FAA medical doctor, a pilot with the type of ankle injury that the accident pilot had at the time of the accident would not normally be expected to visit and receive approval from an FAA Medical Examiner before resuming flying activities."

For those unfamiliar with Cam-Walkers, they are those hard plastic and velcro devices that help immobilize an injury, but can be removed for bathing and sleeping. The plaster cast was removed three and a half weeks prior to the crash. Gseymour (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I'm here to help. Let me know what I can do. Spinach Monster (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

link update

The existing link to John F. Kennedy, Jr.'s Last Will and Testament needs to be updated. The correct link is now "http://livingtrustnetwork.com/information-center/last-wills-and-testaments/wills-of-the-rich-and-famous/last-will-and-testament-of-john-f-kennedy-jr.html" The link has been up since August of 2006 but now needs to be updated due to a revision of the livingtrustnetwork website. Thanks. Livingtrust (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

wiki links

Hi. I just wanted to say that I just edited the page only to make some wiki links, i.e. for his schools and notable people he met, etc. Also, I think the article is good but it definitely needs expansion. I'm not sure what should be expanded yet. I have to read it through again. I will consult this page before I do anything and discuss it first. I know how much everyone loves him, so I don't want to be disrespectful to his page! :) He is a golden spirit, like most of the Kennedys, especially his father and uncles. --ACRSM 14:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality

It states here (Heymann, C. David (2008). American Legacy: The Story of John & Caroline Kennedy. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 9780743497398) found here that JFK Jr is bisexual. If so why aren't the appropriate categories on his article? AJona1992 (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Anybody bother to read the NTSB report? -Kyle Bailey

Quote from article: "Kyle Bailey, a pilot believed to have been the last person to see Kennedy alive at Essex County Airport, subsequently stated that he had canceled his own flight to Martha's Vineyard because the enroute weather was "a little too hazy."

The NTSB report is not all that long, but I will 'excerpt' relevant passages for readability. While I believe that it contains a few well documented errors itself, for the most part the report factually refutes the "reckless pilot" hearsay claims circulating through the media, in the JFK, Jr. article itself, and here in this discussion forum. The above quote gives the impression that 'sensible' pilots (like 25 year old Bailey) chose not to fly because visibility was marginal along the entire route due to hazy conditions. (Unlike that 38 year old suicidal maniac, Kennedy.)

From the NTSB report:

On July 16, 1999, about 2141 eastern daylight time, a Piper PA-32R-301, Saratoga II, N9253N, was destroyed when it crashed into the Atlantic Ocean approximately 7 1/2 miles southwest of Gay Head, Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. Gay Head had a lighthouse for marine navigation ... The rotating beacon ran on a 15-second cycle, 7.3 seconds white and 7.3 seconds red. The expected range of the white light was 24 miles, and the expected range of the red light was 20 miles.

MVY 2053...Clear at or below 12,000 feet; visibility 8 miles; winds 250 degrees at 7 knots...

MVY 2153...Clear at or below 12,000 feet; visibility 10 miles; winds 240 degrees at 10 knots...

During an interview, the tower manager [at MVY] ... stated the following: "The visibility, present weather, and sky condition at the approximate time of the accident was probably a little better than what was being reported. I say this because I remember aircraft on visual approaches saying they had the airport in sight between 10 and 12 miles out. I do recall being able to see those aircraft and I do remember seeing the stars out that night."

About 2140, the moon was about 11.5 degrees above the horizon at a bearing of 270.5 degrees and provided about 19 percent illumination.--Gseymour (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is clear to me that the entire 200 mile route between CDW and MVY was not hazy. A widely circulated radar weather map of the area an hour after the crash shows the smoggy haze that covered CDW and Long Island Sound, while indicating clear skies east of Long Island Sound. The radar was set to 'clear air' sensitivity since no rain was occurring, and at this sensitivity it indicates fog, smoke and/or haze (down to -28 dBZ). The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology published a report in 2004 which indicates that visibility is a factor in 24 percent of all private plane accidents, and 2.3 percent of those are related to haze/smoke. That is less than one percent of all general aviation accidents from 1989 to 1997 (.55%).

A more complete quote from Kyle Bailey possibly reveals much stronger influences on his decision that day-

From the NTSB report:

"From my own judgement visibility appeared to be approximately 4 miles-extremely hazy. Winds were fairly light. Based only on the current weather conditions at CDW, the fact that I could not get my friends to come with me, and the fact that I would not have to spend money on a hotel room in Martha's Vineyard, I made the decision to fly my airplane to Martha's Vineyard on Saturday."

Mr. Bailey is implying that he WOULD have flown if his friends decided to fly with him and pay for the hotel room? Now that is prudent. Notice that Bailey is only referring to the hazy condition at CDW, not the en route conditions.

Kyle Bailey may well be an excellent and cautious pilot. But his immediate and resounding criticism of Kennedy's abilities speak more about Bailey's rash judgments than actual knowledge of Kennedy's imprudence. Those CFIs that actually flew with Kennedy, who either instructed or tested him, overwhelmingly have praised his caution, experience and skill as a pilot. Christopher P. Andersen in The Day John Died quotes Bailey telling his parents a few weeks before the crash that "John Kennedy is going to kill himself in that airplane." Bailey also tells Andersen "It was a suicide mission to take off in that plane without an instrument-trained co-pilot aboard."

My opinion- Kyle Bailey is full of ... himself.

Gseymour (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

While I know the weather on Cape Cod isn't the same as the conditions along Nantucket Sound, I would like to add anyways that I was living on Cape Cod at the time and I recall the weather being hazy that evening. 75.67.234.133 (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Relationships

I removed a paragraph that included a long list of previous relationships. It was uncited and had been tagged as needing a citation for almost 18 months. Since the list includes living people, it definately needs citations, and if, after so long no citations have been found, I believe it has to go. Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Poorly written

this article is poorly written — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.159.212 (talk) 06:59, March 9, 2014

If so, please explain how it could be improved with suggestions. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Weiner Roast

OK, that line comes out of nowhere & is not elaborated as to when/where it occurred, nor does it have anything to do with providing extended Secret Service protection to presidential relatives, especially as it says a Secret Service agent pulled the kid out of the fire, so obvs they were already on hand at the time of the alleged incident. Contradictory & mystifying. I've not read the cited work (Leigh), tho I have read several others, & in none of them do I recollect JFK Jr put on a weenie roast menu. Since I do not have the cited source access, I've no clue as to how to redeem this inclusion to state actual facts. I don't even know if it ought to be included with the odd Secret Service thing. Is the person who added that still around to clarify? ScarletRibbons (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Just because something can be sourced does not mean it is notable for inclusion, and I question this story too. Tvoz/talk 21:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Older Sister(s)?

While visiting the page (following a link about spatial disorientation) I was immediately confused by the first section about his early life. The section read "He had two older sisters, Caroline, and a younger brother, Patrick, who died two days after birth in 1963" which struck me as confusing grammatically and also because I had never heard of another sister other than Caroline.

Further investigation revealed that the statement was the result of the previous edit which I believe was trying to refer to his parent's first potential child Arabel, who was stillborn. It seems the edit was made by a new editor who is even less experienced than I am, if that's possible. It appears that s/he got mired in the link somehow. I didn't simply rewrite it because I am not sure if stillborn babies officially "count" as siblings (i.e. do they get death/birth certificates or whatever it is that makes a person "real" in the legal sense of the word?).

I like the idea of having SOME mention of Arabel because up to that point I hadn't known about her almost birth, which means I learned something, which is always a good thing. I kind of like how it is mentioned on Caroline's page "A year after her parents had a stillborn daughter, Kennedy was born at Cornell Medical Center in New York City. She was named after both her maternal aunt, Caroline Lee Bouvier Radziwill, and her maternal great-grandmother, Caroline Ewing Bouvier. Her younger brother, John, Jr., was born three years later. A second brother, Patrick, died of a lung ailment two days after his premature birth on August 9, 1963." Thoughts?

Shoeless Ho (talk) 08:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much validity the name Arabella even has, as it only seems to have surfaced after Jackie's death. Two reasonably reliable sources, her cousin John H. Davis (The Kennedys, The Bouviers) & historian/Kennedy family friend Doris Kearns Goodwin (The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys), make no mention of it. The Roman Catholic Church at any rate does not baptise stillborn infants (they are consigned to Limbo, not Heaven) as they are not recognised as persons. Nor are they recognised legally as such, as there are no birth & death certificates issued, but just one certificate of fetal death. I also rather doubt that, with both parents coming from clans who tended to repeat family names, something like Arabella (with no chosen middle name, which the RCC would've insisted upon, as a child must have a variation on a saint's name in there somewhere to be baptised) would have been plucked out of thin air. It's neither Irish nor French in origin & has no particular literary or artistic presence. ::shrugs:: ScarletRibbons (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree -it is presented in a very odd way - I will change this. Tvoz/talk 21:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Policy about conspiracy theories

There are some highly credible theories about a possible assassination, with reliable American TV reporters asking the authorities key questions that are fobbed-off with non-answers. I don't see why conspiracy theories are off-limits in the case of JFK Jr., when they are allowed in other cases. I believe there should be a section in the article summarizing the most popular theories and quoting the sources, for the readers to make their own judgment. Valetude (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That belongs in a separate article or articles, with a link from here. What we actually know about Kennedy and his assassination is quite long enough, we don't need to also include what might have happened. StuRat (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Junior? No credible theories - just conspiracy bullshit. Definitely not here. Tvoz/talk 22:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Disparity in accounts of search and rescue

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy,_Jr. states, "On July 19, the fragments of Kennedy's plane were found by the NOAA vessel Rude [sic] using side-scan sonar." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy,_Jr._plane_crash states, "At 4 a.m., the Coast Guard began a search and rescue operation to find the missing plane. At 11:30 p.m. on July 20th, the fuselage of Kennedy's plane was finally located on the ocean floor by the salvage ship USNS Grasp [sic] (T-ARS-51)."

Which version is correct? Autodidact1 (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Disappointed in how this article has turned out —we are not a tabloid

I haven't looked at this article since the end of 2012. At that time, it read like an encyclopedia article that perhaps could use some expansion, but was basically a neutral, fairly well-written article. I am disturbed and disappointed at the tabloid nature of the article now. There are citations, but just because a factoid can be sourced does not mean it should be included in a biography. Kennedy is no longer alive, but family members are, and BLP policies are therefore not totally irrelevant here. But aside from BLP concerns, this article seems to have been hijacked by editors with a POV that seems to go out of its way to include negative material, no matter how minor. This has become a repository for anything that can be said that casts him and family members in a negative light, and as such it has lost its value as a neutral biography and has become close to a hatchet job. Very disappointing. Just one example: his mother was told he might have to repeat first grade and she didn't like it? Are you kidding - this belongs in his biography? And it's far from the only thing. I wonder of any other neutral editors have noticed the direction this piece has taken in the last two years. I'm tagging it. Tvoz/talk 21:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Another tasty example - he pinned his keys to his pants so he wouldn't lose them, when he was in college. I can't imagine an encyclopedia article without this. Does anyone find this notable? Tvoz/talk 22:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Very trivial. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel very appreciated. I will remove all content which you have specified as not being notable and never edit this article again. But if I could touch on the "editors with a POV that seems to go out of its way to include negative material," I would just like to say that I am not one of them. I actually like John F. Kennedy, Jr. and was disappointed by how short his article was, especially since I knew of the intense coverage of his plane crash and also of his life in general in books released after he died. Since nobody else seemed to have really edited this article during my "tenure" doing so, I would assume that I am the editor adding the "negative material," which I assumed was validated by sources which were not tabloids. But anyways, I apologize for trying to help out and will no longer do so. Informant16 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't get us wrong- you had the best of intentions. It's just that some additions (i.e. being held back, being "absentminded") were trivial and likely WP:UNDUE. Feel free to ask if you have further questions about what is trivial and what is not. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if my comment felt personal - I did not mean it as such. In fact I haven't even looked to see who put what in. The problem to me is that at every turn there was some kind of negative or disparaging point added - not all, to be sure, but the balance was off. This may be the fault of the source material, not the editors, so maybe I could have worded the above better. I've done some work that I'll post after looking at what was done this evening - it's not complete, but it's a start. Also need to have a look at the source material. I was surprised to not find the NYT obituary in there as a source, for example. Tvoz/talk 04:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of accuracy, how did someone arrive at the following regarding ill-fated flight leading to JFK Jr.'s death?

>On July 16, 1999, Kennedy piloted a Piper Saratoga II HP also carrying his wife Carolyn and her sister Lauren for the three to attend the wedding of Kennedy's cousin Rory Kennedy.

The problem is that I remember contemporary account(s) which said that Lauren was to get off at Martha's Vineyard, and JFK Jr. and Carolyn were to continue on to Hyannis Port; NOT that all three were to go to Rory's wedding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

explaining the use of punctuation

At this writing, I see:

He died in a plane crash along with his wife, Carolyn Jeanne Bessette, and her elder sister, Lauren, on July 16, 1999.

My usage of (semicolon and) commas would have rendered it like this:

He died in a plane crash along with his wife, Carolyn Jeanne Bessette; and her elder sister Lauren on July 16, 1999.

My usage would not have made the sentence more cumbersome. I would have semicolon (not comma) just after "Carolyn Jeanne Bessette" to make it clear that this is extra information about "his wife", NOT an additional person. And due to the restrictive nature of "Lauren" (i.e., use of "Lauren" narrows down who "her elder sister" is, because there is also elder sister Lisa, who is NOT mentioned here, to consider), I have NO commas around "Lauren".

I am furnishing this explanation rather than risk a vicious cycle of changes. [unsigned, 4 August 2014 128.63.16.20]

I have changed it to the following, which I believe will satisfy everyone, even a professional writer. It removes number ambiguity without the use of semicolon. "Carolyn" still links to her article for those who don't know who she was.

He died in a plane crash, along with his wife Carolyn and her elder sister Lauren, on July 16, 1999.

  Mandruss |talk  06:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Death section amount of detail

Informant16, I see you're working hard to expand this article, nice work. I just wanted to point out that the hatnote in the Death section points the reader to John F. Kennedy, Jr., plane crash for "further information". That implies that this article should summarize the events surrounding his death, and most of the detail should be in the other article. But you're putting a considerable amount of detail in this article that doesn't exist in the other one, so the situation is backwards. I think if you don't fix it now, someone else will have to come along later and do it. You would seem better suited for the job, since you're already somewhat familiar with the sources and their information. Again, thanks for your efforts!   Mandruss |talk  06:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Cite errors (sorry)

Re my big edit-down of 20/3/15. I've tried to transfer all relevant cites, but obviously haven't quite got the tech. I guess it would not be too difficult for one of the editors to correct the errors. (Sorry again.) Valetude (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

After your post a bot rescued five "orphaned refs" in this edit, and I see no cite errors in the current revision. I haven't investigated any deeper, but hopefully the issue is resolved correctly. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow.

Did they properly clean the tongue of whoever wrote this hagiography? 'Cause they were clearly licking something inappropriate....
I am now utterly convinced from reading this that JFK Jr was an absolute saint, and was, in self-evident fact, Jesus Christ himself reborn in human form.
Less sarcastically, this piece needs a serious re-write to represent a more BALANCED picture of the man.

--216.52.207.103 (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, 216. I seem to be the person for whom you’re recommending that timely mouthwash!

A serious rewrite could only be warranted by a major scandal, changing our whole vision of the man. This does not seem likely. Without blowing my own trumpet, I feel that I provided the necessary ‘major rewrite’ of an overlong and badly-planned article, and I added no further hagiography. We already know that he failed his first law exams, and that he and his wife needed marriage counselling. You may or may not believe Calvin Klein model Michael Bergin and his memoir The Other Man, about his relationship with Bessette during her marriage, but his Wiki article seems doubtful about the sources. Otherwise, I feel that the negative findings, if any, can be inserted piecemeal, without any further major rewrite. Valetude (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Signature in infobox

Is that JFK, Jr.'s real adult signature? Looks like a child's writing. At least it's legible, unlike the majority of young athletes and others nowadays. Randy Kryn 14:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

[http://www.amazon.com/JOHN-F-KENNEDY-JR-SIGNATURE/dp/B009IR0AWO Found this, which is where it seems to have been copied from]. It's a child's signature, and as such probably shouldn't be used as an example of the article subject's handwriting. Randy Kryn 19:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Comma before Jr.

This guideline states: Do not place a comma before Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation unless it is the preference of the subject or the subject's biographers.

The preference of the subject

I haven't found anything to suggest that he preferred the comma. His signature, as shown in the infobox, was simply "John Kennedy". If there is a website that shows his full name including the Jr., and where he had control over the presence or absence of the comma, I'm not aware of it. So, from what I can find, the preference of the subject is unknown.

The preference of the subject's biographers

Define "biographers". I haven't found a biography written by a professional historian, a la Stephen Ambrose or Doris Kearns Goodwin. Nor have I identified any official "authorized" biographer. So I think JFK Jr.'s "biographers" would be any authors of published works about any aspects of his life.

Here are the results from the first hits from an Amazon search for jfk jr biography (no cherry picking was committed during the making of this list):

• no comma - [http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Jr-George-Me-Memoir/dp/1451697015/ JFK Jr., George, & Me: A Memoir], Matt Berman, 2014 - The creative director of the now-defunct George magazine.

• no comma - [http://www.amazon.com/Fairy-Tale-Interrupted-Memoir-Life/dp/1439187681/ Fairy Tale Interrupted: A Memoir of Life, Love, and Loss], RoseMarie Terenzio, 2012

• no comma - [http://www.amazon.com/The-Good-Son-Mother-Loved/dp/1476775567/ The Good Son: JFK Jr. and the Mother He Loved], Christopher Andersen, 2014 - One of two examples written by authors notable enough to have Wikipedia articles about them.

• mixed - [http://www.amazon.com/Aircrash-That-Killed-JFK-Jr-ebook/dp/B005890QWA/ The Aircrash That Killed JFK, Jr.], Lam Bastion, 2011 - Mostly with the comma. However, in Amazon's excerpts, the one example of his name that spells out Fitzgerald omits the comma, as "John Fitzgerald Kennedy Jr.".

• no comma - [http://www.amazon.com/What-Remains-Memoir-Fate-Friendship/dp/074327718X/ What Remains: A Memoir of Fate, Friendship, and Love], Carole Radziwill, 2007 - The other author with a Wikipedia article. The only example written by a relative of JFK Jr. (by marriage).

• inconclusive - [http://www.amazon.com/Come-Edge-A-Love-Story/dp/0385523181/ Come to the Edge: A Love Story], Christina Haag, 2012 - In Amazon's excerpts, no example of the name spelled out with the Jr., but lots of references to "JFK Jr." without the comma.

• no comma - [http://www.amazon.com/The-Other-Man-Kennedy-Bessette/dp/0060723890/ The Other Man: John F. Kennedy Jr., Carolyn Bessette, and Me], Michael Bergin, 2004 - Notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but as a model and actor, not an author or historian. No count.

• no comma - [http://www.amazon.com/John-F-Kennedy-Jr-Biographies/dp/0761318577/ John F. Kennedy Jr.], Elaine Landau, 2000 - Amazon shows the title with a comma, and the comma is present in some references to the title outside Amazon. But the book itself has to be the final authority, and a quick "Look Inside" at Amazon proves that the book does not use a comma in its title or its body.

I also see some books with the comma, used as references in this article:

• with comma - [http://www.amazon.com/Men-We-Became-Friendship-Kennedy/dp/0312324774/ The Men We Became: My Friendship with John F. Kennedy, Jr.], Robert T. Littell, 2005

• with comma - [http://www.amazon.com/American-Son-Portrait-John-Kennedy/dp/0805070516/ American Son: A Portrait of John F. Kennedy, Jr.], Richard Blow, 2002 - An editor at the now-defunct George magazine.

Other reliable sources

I have no doubt you could find many examples of both forms on the Web. However, if you follow the guideline cited above, we needn't be concerned with other reliable sources in this situation. The only things that matter here are his and his biographers' preferences. Therefore I did not look at other reliable sources.

My take on the comma (not that it matters)

As I understand it, the comma is the more traditional form, but the modern trend is away from the comma. I don't think this is because people are lazy or ignorant about what's "correct", but because the comma doesn't make sense. Hardly anyone would write, John F. Kennedy, II. Why should you have a comma before Jr., but not before II, when they mean exactly the same thing? While other authorities disagree, The Chicago Manual of Style has recommended omitting the comma since 1993.

Conclusion

From what I have so far—and I could certainly do more research—there is not enough to justify the comma according to the guideline cited above, which clearly says the default should be no comma. Any other comments?   Mandruss |talk  08:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

A CSD request was made to support the move and the request seems to fall in line with guidelines, so I went ahead and made the move. Feel free to revert and discuss. I have no opinion; I was just implementing the technical part since it required a G6 deletion. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting to see such detail into something generally regarded as trivial. However, I personally have never once seen "Sr." or "Jr." without a comma before. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia, no issue is too small! :) ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mandruss: You stated: "I don't think this is because people are lazy or ignorant about what's "correct", but because the comma doesn't make sense. Hardly anyone would write, John F. Kennedy, II. Why should you have a comma before Jr., but not before II, when they mean exactly the same thing?" I also was confused about this topic. I was then given an explanation that actually did make sense and that allowed the comma placement also to make sense. The explanation is that the word "Junior" (or its abbreviation "Jr.") serves as an appositive. And that is why it is (often) set off with commas. An everyday example of an appositive might be this: My neighbor, the dentist, invited me over to his party. So, similarly, an appositive might read: John Smith, Junior, is my next-door neighbor. Examples that are more common and more similar (to "Junior") are dates and locations. Example: On September 8, 1973, my parents were married. (The year "1973" is an appositive and thus set off by commas.) Another example: The city of Houston, Texas, will be the site for next year's convention. (The word "Texas" is an appositive and thus set off by commas.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Also, it is my understanding that the name suffixes of "Junior" and "II" do not mean the same exact thing (as you posit). I was told that a "Junior" is when the son is named directly for the father. And a "II" ("second") is when a son is named not directly for the father, but for a person in a different generation (for example, the grandfather). That is what I was told. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I've since learned that this a very controversial area (surprise!), as per later debates and RfCs such as Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_119#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr.. We appear incapable of reaching a community consensus, so I'm apathetic as to the issue. If anyone feels inclined to try a move-back here, I'll neither support it nor oppose it. But I think it should be kept consistent with John F. Kennedy Jr. plane crash, either way. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it has become quite the controversy, apparently. I agree that consistency is the most important piece. If I had my druthers, I would always use (rather than omit) the comma before the "Junior" suffix. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE, almost a year later: We now have a community consensus favoring omission of the comma as the default. This has been reflected at MOS:JR. I would now oppose the comma here, as would many others. There is not enough evidence to justify deviating from the default here. As with most Wikipedia editing, this has nothing to do with our own personal preferences. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Graves' Disease

There isn't any mention of his suffering from Graves' disease? Just curious as to why that's left out.

Lawsuit or not?

The article says the Kennedy family paid to avoid a wrongful death suit, but if you click on the very source it says there was a lawsuit. Should the article be changed? (unisgned comment)

Name ?

How would he have been John Fitzgerald Kennedy Jnr. ? Rose Fitzgerald was his grandmother. If anything he should have been John Bouvier Kennedy , no ?

He was named after his father hence the junior. His father was John Fitzgerald Kennedy, it doesn't matter that his middle name was his grandmother Rose's maiden name.Iluvelves (talk) 07:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In America any word can be a given name, whether it's originally a surname, or 'Savanah' which we associate with African vegetation. Fitzgerald here is just a middle name. The name Talulah has been used for females - go figure. 2001:8003:A037:8C00:4CDE:BA20:6785:200 (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Not legal

"He was not yet rated for flying in low-visibility; but, at the time of his crash, During the last part of his flight he was flying in conditions that were not legal for someone with his license which restricted him to flights where he could orient himself and navigate by visual reference to the ground, Visual Flight Rules."

Where do these Kennedy-bashers come from? He flew off into a storm illegally, murdering all aboard!!! Come on, read your own link to 'visual flight rules'. Nowhere does it state that a visible horizon, or visual reference to ground is required for VFR. Above clouds and between clouds VFR flight is commonplace. Factors that contribute to spatial disorientation are certainly not 'not legal' VFR conditions.

It's not Kennedy bashing. The book by "Heymann, C. David (2008). American Legacy: The Story of John and Caroline Kennedy" describes the fatal accident in great detail and also states that JFK Jr did not have a license to fly in the dark. His doctor had also advised him not to fly because some injury on the leg was not completely healed. It's not bashing, he misjudged himself, and if that book is any guide, he did not care about the rules. We have all bitten off more than we could chew, haven't we? I have known an experienced older pilot who'd flatly refuse to fly over water with a single engine aircraft, although that was probably not the issue here. 2001:8003:A037:8C00:4CDE:BA20:6785:200 (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no "license to fly in the dark", beyond the basic private pilot certificate. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Look, there's a common misconception about his entire flight. The haze at Caldwell was the thickest in the area. By all ground witnesses, including tower personnel, Aviation Terminal Forecasts (TAF), area forecasts, Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS), in-flight weather advisories, and flight service station (FSS) briefs, the haze varied from 4 miles visibility at Caldwell to 10 miles at Martha's Vineyard. The NTSB report however, relied mainly on three pilot weather observations. These reports are mostly higher altitude, twenty miles off-shore accounts.

Kennedy's flight route was entirely over water from Bridgeport to MVY, yet he hugged the coastline at 5500 feet. Reports that he turned out over the water at either Westerly, RI or Point Judith are a lie. I personally have tracked the radar path of Kennedy's flight from the raw NTAP data. He actually turned to the NORTH a few degrees at Westerly, to stay within 6 or 7 miles of the shoreline, until he was within a few miles of populated Cuttyhunk Island, Cuttyhunk light tower, and Buzzards Bay Entrance light tower. Only then did he turn south toward the Vineyard. At no point in the entire flight was Kennedy's plane more than 8 miles from land, and if the reported visibility was indeed 10 or 12 miles, then he never lost sight of that land, nor for that matter, the three very bright light towers that were all within 8 miles of the crash site. The light at Gay Head lighthouse is one of the brightest on the east coast, classified by the Coast Guard as a primary landfall light, used as an aid to ships approaching from the open sea. It is visible at a distance of 60 miles on an extremely clear night, 28 miles with the assumed 10 mile visibility, and even if there was a patch of haze that reduced meteorological visibility to 6 miles, the light could still be seen at a distance of 18 miles. It would require 2 mile visibility or less in order to not be able to see the Gay Head light from the crash site.

John Kennedy flew a course that kept him in visual contact with both land and lighthouses over the entire route. Reports that he veered out over open ocean are a fabrication designed to mislead you into visualizing that he recklessly flew into a 'black hole'. The implication is that he was simply trying to shave a few minutes off the flight time, sacrificing three lives in exchange for his impatience. The truth is that he had a choice between a right downwind approach to Martha's Vineyard, or a left downwind approach, since the prevailing SW winds required an approach from the NE of the island. He obviously was attempting a left downwind by flying along the southern coast of the island, probably because that route keeps the airport in view during the entire approach, due to the pilot's position on the left side of the airplane. It also "buzzes" Red Gate Farm (the family estate on the south end of Gay Head). However, it most certainly wasn't chosen to save time, since that route is actually ten miles longer than the alternative that would have approached from the mainland side of the island.

Speaking of the Red Gate Farm, Kennedy insisted that his cousin, Tony Radizwill, stay at the estate while fighting terminal cancer. Tony's wife, Carole was best friends with Carolyn Bessette Kennedy, affording the Kennedys a chance to visit and support Tony and Carole when they visited the compound almost every weekend that summer. Tony died from his cancer just three weeks after John's crash. Carole Radizwill was the one that finally started the search with a call to the Coast Guard at Woods Hole. The Coast Guard garbled Carole's name into 'Carol Ratowell' which they released to the press, and ever since the media has stuck with the misnomer. Supposed good friends and even expert biographers of the Kennedys use the garbled name in articles and books about the crash, affording at least a small judgment on the quality of their research.

I don't know what caused the crash that night. It may have been disorientation or sabotage, but I doubt that it was caused by a hypnotized zombie CFI. And I am very certain that it wasn't reckless impatience. I see no solid evidence for sabotage, disorientation, loss of situational awareness, nor any other form of pilot error. I can only hope that someone not indoctrinated by the 'reckless playboy' hype can someday piece together this puzzle and solve the mystery.--Gseymour (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion of maritime and land based lights shows ignorance of aviation reality. Maritime lights do little to avoid spatial disorientation, especially when they present as an isolated bright light. THe perception of the horizon, not singular lights, is critical for control by outside reference. This mishap is, sadly, a textbook, garden variety loss of control in low visibility or over dark water or land. Note that the VFR aviation chart containing New Orleans Lakefront Airport warns that pilots can lose orientation while departing over Lake Ponchatrain at night. The Bahamas insist that all night operations be conducted under Instrument Flight Rules. Overwater operations at night, and also VFR operations in marginal visibility, are the most common cause of general aviation fatalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.203.175 (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"Overwater operations at night, and also VFR operations in marginal visibility, are the most common cause of general aviation fatalities", writes the previous anonymous editor.

This statement is patently and demonstrably false. Every edition of the Nall Report since its inception clearly contradicts the idea that either night operations or "marginal visibility" are anything remotely close to "the most common cause of general aviation fatalities". The most common cause of GA fatalities is maneuvering accidents, most of which occur low-level and result in an unrecoverable stall and/or spin. 70.226.78.119 (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, my point was not to compare stall-spin statistics to those from continued VFR into marginal weather. For one thing there is overlap between these mishaps. Low level stall-spins often accompany attempted VFR operations in marginal visibiliy when attempting to land. Moreover, it depends on how you select the cohort, whether you include agricultural flying (a lot of stall-spins), select on retractables (a lot of VFR upsets like this one), etc. The point was to show that the presence of maritime lights or occasional land lights would not make nighttime overwater loss of control mysterious or unexplained. It is a common, garden-variety mishap. Whether it is the MOST or second-most is not important for this purpose.

Likewise in the nitpicking area, my statement that an autopilot is not required for any GA operation is not strictly true. Single pilot certification for some turbojets requires a functioning autopilot and demonstration that the pilot can use it. The observation is correct when restricted to piston engine aircraft.

Again, I am not arguing for or against spatial disorientation. But to ignore the presence of three prominent lighthouses that were most likely visible at the time of the crash is truly ignorant. One spotbeam dead ahead does little to prevent loss of horizon, I agree. But why do you mention this at all? That is not relevant to this case. Three distinct lights with distinct colors and distinct flash patterns, all of which are off the port beam do make for easy horizon orientation. Think about it. You have fixed lights on your left and forward from direct left. Banking either port or starboard will definitely be noticeable. Whether Kennedy noticed that or not is the question. But to dismiss them (including a major landfall light) as useless for orientation is, well, short sighted, grin. Gseymour (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John F. Kennedy Jr.. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060513233029/http://www.cnn.com/interactive/specials/9912/yearinreview.passages/content/politics/kennedy.html to http://www.cnn.com/interactive/specials/9912/yearinreview.passages/content/politics/kennedy.html

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) 17:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John F. Kennedy Jr.. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930180348/http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2001/jan01/jan02/5_fri/news1friday.html to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2001/jan01/jan02/5_fri/news1friday.html

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) 13:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)