Talk:John F. Kennedy document hoax

Typo?

Paragraph 3 states that "lift off type" was used to correct an error. Should that be "lift off tape?" 70.187.40.175 (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

No, ‘type’ works just fine. - SchroCat (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Old people like me remember those IBM selectric typewriters that actually lifted off the letters by sort of gouging the ink out of the surface of the paper. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Is reference to signature character correct?

In the "Uncovering the Forgeries" section, the text refers to when the letter y from Marilyn Monroe's signature had created an artifact as it crossed over the signature line. Yet in that same subsection, the image shows what seems to be the same phenomenon (or one similar), except that this is the effect of a Monroe signature's letter o crossing the signature line. These may be two distinct and separate things which had happened. Yet the circumstances move me to ask whether this can somehow be double checked, to make sure that the text is not attempting to describe what we see in that image, because if that's the case, then the text should be changed. —catsmoke ^talk 05:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it’s correct. The citation is linked, if you’d like to check for yourself. - SchroCat (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd love to have checked it myself, but last month I threw away all my pre-2000 back issues of Vanity Fair. —catsmoke ^talk 12:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Release from prison

When was he released from prison? It can be inferred from the date, but I can't say for sure if he was released early. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

See also

Might a link to the Hitler Diaries hoax be appropriate here? Stronach (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done, that seems appropriate. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Reversions

The recent reversions in this article of my various style improvements are totally ridiculous and unjustified. They were done on the clearly false claim that there were "multiple Kennedy's" (sic) mentioned in the article and that we need to be "specific". This is sheer nonsense. Throughout the article all of the many references to "Kennedy" by itself are only ever to John F. Kennedy. The only other Kennedy mentioned at all is Robert Kennedy, once in a caption. If the reverting editor thinks that my one change of "John F. Kennedy" to "Kennedy" is somehow not "specific" enough then every other mention of "Kennedy" should also be changed to "John F. Kennedy". The reversion of all of my various style improvements is one of the worst examples of totally unjustified and incorrect reversions I have witnessed. This is the kind of very poor and inexcusable editing behaviour which too often makes responsible and sensible editing an unnecessarily unpleasant experience. Quizical (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Quizical, I think it is worth repeating the first name and initial at this point in the article (not in other sections where it is used more than once), and I would defer to Schrocat's judgment on the issue, as he has done the most work on the article. Calling expert editors' work "nonsense" only shows that you have nothing of value to add. Whether your edits are "improvements" is for others to judge, and I completely disagree that they are. In addition, your WP:EDIT WARring, violation of WP:BRD and aggressive approach here is the most unpleasant thing that I have witnessed in many months working on this article, and I assure you that the many experienced editors who watch this article would not appreciate it. Please see WP:CIVIL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you take note of your own aggressive and unpleasant attitude to other editors as indicated by your own uncivil comments and attempting to justify the reversion of all of my edits. Quizical (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you think you could take the aggression out of the comments please? There’s no need for it, and it only ever leads to people upping the ante in response. - SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Despite the hyperbole in the comments, I’ll say again, we refer to ‘the Kennedys’ on multiple occasions. Having a small piece of clarification to be of assistance to readers seems to be a beneficial thing. - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

There was still no excuse at all for reverting all of my edits. Quizical (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

In your opinion, maybe. - SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)