Talk:Caroline Kennedy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Caroline Kennedy article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Harvard

Not Radcliffe?-- Achilles 15:46 5 June 2005

I'm pretty sure that Harvard is correct. Many on-line biogaphies confirm, also Time Magazine, July 26, 1999, mentions her summer employment at the United States Senate while a Harvard undergraduate. Morris 20:03, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

If memory serves (not a given), Harvard and Radcliffe had been separate institutions. At some point students all attended the same classes, but diplomas still had the name of one or the other. I believe that the 1979-80 school year was the first to have diplomas reading "Harvard-Radcliffe". So while she was probably admitted to Radcliffe College (ca. 1975), her diploma probably says "Harvard-Radcliffe" - her graduation was right at the time of that transition. I'm not 100% sure of any of this, but I hope it can help someone else track down some verifiable info. - Special-T 02:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Radcliffe College was a separate college until the 1960s. Over the next thirty years a slow merger began between Harvard and Radcliffe. At one point, it was referred to as "Harvard-Radcliffe." Radcliffe closed as a college in 1999 and became the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study. It is not uncommon for graduates from the 1970s to say that they graduated from Harvard rather than from Radcliffe. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Children's names

It appears that all the children of hers have Kennedy as their name even though the married couple has Schlossberg. Why?? Georgia guy 13:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

apparently, caroline herself does not use schlossberg as her legal name. probably because it is a really big deal to have that name in this country....bigger than any other name, in many people's eyes...I would be willing to bet that the father doesn't mind in the least. Note the children have Bouvier as the middle name, even though that was Jackie-O's maiden name. the bottom line is that, for better or worse, you're dealing with people whose lives are primarily based on their bloodlines. that said, caroline kennedy seems like a particularly positive example of this type of person

All her children have "Schlossberg" as their surname. They have "Kennedy" as one of their other names, which is not at all unusual, i.e. having a mother's maiden name as one of one's names. Many people even have their mother's maiden (sur)name as their first name. There is nothing extraordinary about this. 66.108.4.183 22:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. -- from Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg to Caroline Kennedy. Please check redirects. –Hajor 2 July 2005 05:46 (UTC)

    • As long as you leave a re-direct, moving the article would be fine, or IMHO putting a redirect the other way would also be fine. Morris 04:33, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote status

It has been just about 5 days since the page was put on Requested moves. There have been 3 voters; 2 to support and 1 neutral, and 2/3 is already greater than 60%. This means that it is about time that the page should be moved. Any faulty thinking?? Georgia guy 20:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is she rich?

Did she end up with the hundreds of millions it (wiki article) says Jackie died with? Did she get John's estate? If someone knows please add.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.110.221.182 (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Sorenson endorses Obama, Caroline writes eloquent Obama endorsement

When John Kennedy's daughter is eloquent, check where his alter ego stands (see Ted Sorenson's own wiki-article for back-up.) Please don't delete again without discussing here. David in DC (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. There are 2 degrees of separation there. What is Sorenson's direct connection to Caroline? I don't see one. I could maybe understand including Ted Kennedy in this article, but not Sorenson. - Maximusveritas (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The Sorenson endorsement and the Kennedy article were six months apart. Why are you suggesting that one is related to the other? What proof/facts can you cite? What's the point of including him on her page? Ariadne55 (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It may just be a generational thing, but when any Kennedy is eloquent (JFK from Profiles in Courage through his untimely death, Bobby in his presidential campaign, JFK, Jr. at the Democratic Convention or Joe III on alternative energy), I think a sensible reader must ask how much of it Sorenson wrote.
As I read Caroline's op-ed piece, the first critical thought I had was "I thought Teddy Sorenson was dead." The cadences are that obvious. I looked on Wikipedia to see if he was dead and discovered that, not only was he still alive, but he had already endorsed Obama.
As I say, it may be a generational thing, but I think the connection is obvious, nearly beyond question.David in DC (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
So are you saying that he helped her with the piece, wrote it for her, edited it, or persuaded her to write it? It's not clear from the sentence you added and that's what's causing some of the issue of relevancy. Also, most politicians have speechwriters, but the words a public figure chooses to say are attributed to the speaker her/himself. Anyway, what you're saying seems more opinion than verifiable fact. Ariadne55 (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Whole-heartedly endorse Classicfilms' major improvements to my work on 2008 Kennedy endorsements. David in DC (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(LOL) Thank you, that's nice of you to say. Just trying to be a good Wikipedian. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. This is an article about Caroline Kennedy, not the whole extended Kennedy family. There's now more stuff about the other Kennedy endorsement than there is about her endorsement. - Maximusveritas (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that WP:WEIGHT is a concern here. But it applies to the whole article. If there were a lot more here about her two constitutional law books, oir her other writings, this would take up a smaller part of the total article. BUT the Kennedy/Camelot intersection with Obama is, and will always be, a major incident in Caroline Kennedy's life story. The subsection about the 2008 endorsement is spot-on. Folks concerned about Undue Weight probs should add more struff to lots of other subsections. David in DC (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

Someone added a parenthetical clause about Kennedy's religion to the article. They did not cite a source for the information. I moved it to the infobox because it didn't seem worth writing a complete sentence about. That seems to give it too much prominence though. If someone would like to remove the information (esp. if no cite is given soon) or add it as a sentence in an appropriate spot, that might be good. Ariadne55 (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Political endorsements

I was asked by another editor to review the section dealing with the Obama endorsement. I have removed the superfluous trailing paragraphs because they are not relevant to Caroline Kennedy -- this is a biography, not an analysis of her endorsement. Including information about other endorsement (beyond her own), as well as offering responses and commentary, is a violation of WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming Wikipedia:Assume good faith from us all, it is not uncommon to provide context for biographical information, which can involve related but outside info. Thus, I'm curious as to how this qualifies as WP:SYN or a form of original research - since the multiple endorsements have been mentioned in numerous articles such as this NPR article:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18489453
That being said, I won't revert your edit but I would like to gain a better understanding as to why this is objectionable material. Thank you, -Classicfilms (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The NPR article you cite is an article about the endorsements. This article is a biography that is about Caroline Kennedy, not about political endorsements. Her endorsement is notable; other endorsements by other people (and/or analysis, rebuttal, or commentary about this endorsement) is beyond the scope of a biography article. Beyond all of that, in its current form the presentation of other points is a violation of our synthesis rules. Thanks for not reverting -- hopes this helps clear things up. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I appreciate your point of view. In response, I would ask that we then remove the quote offered from her op-ed (which is an endorsement), which without the context of the opinions of other members of her family which differ from hers - appears to violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Perhaps the solution would simply be to state that she wrote the op-ed, give the reference and not quote from it. That would satisfy NPOV and still offer a notable event in her life. How does that sound? Thanks for your reply. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not an opinion that Kennedy wrote the quoted lines. It's a fact that can be proven by checking the linked NYTimes article itself. The quote is NPOV because it's provided to give an idea of what she wrote, not to argue the value of her words themselves. If she'd written, "Martians have landed in Omaha and are devouring puppies," the inclusion of that line in her bio wouldn't indicate agreement (or disagreement) with it. I think the inclusion of the opinions of other members of her family is actually non-neutral, because it gives the editor scope to pick and choose which family members to include. Ariadne55 (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I could make the same argument for the paragraph as it stands - that it "gives the editor scope to pick and choose" which quote to use. The quote that was chosen (and no one is arguing against the idea that this is a quote from the article) violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view because it advocates a particular point of view which - without the larger context which was removed - does not provide the scope of a public event expected of an encyclopedia. If a quote must be used, it should be NPOV (ie. does not advocate a position). The quote below for example could have equally been chosen and was not - I would suggest using it instead to make the paragraph NPOV:
Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual. -Classicfilms (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The larger context is that she endorsed Obama, which the current quote seems to illustrate very well. NPOV refers to not advocating the position of the editor, we don't have to pretend that Kennedy herself was neutral. Ariadne55 (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but your argument doesn't wash. The reason we "pick and choose" this quote is because it is a quote by Caroline Kennedy. This is a biography, not an analysis of or response to her opinion. Neither, then, are other family members' quotes relevant here. I fail to see how including her quote violates WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree. It is fine to add text to say it was an endorsement for Obama. However, the quote given was not a simple endorsement but rather a comparison with a highly respected president - JFK. The inclusion of other Kennedy voices balanced this perspective. Which is why I suggested a quote which - minus other voices - is neutral and therefore negates the need for them. -Classicfilms (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
We don't need to balance her opinion, we're describing her opinion. The only thing Kennedy's opinion could be balanced with, in a bio of her, is if she had given a different opinion at some other point. Ariadne55 (talk) 07:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with classicfilms and disagree with Blaxothos, who's now given me a 3 RR warning. Too much wiki-drama for me. I'm disengaging. Sorry classic, you're right and the mob is wrong. David in DC (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. To classicfilms: It seems you still think this is an article about politics, and that "WP:NPOV" says that counter-arguments to her political positions are appropriate. Neither is correct -- this is a biography of a semi-political figure. Beyond that, all we may do is describe her political positions (using her own words when possible). That's all we're doing here. Comparisons to JFK, responses to her quotes, etc. are inappropriate and should be removed (two wrongs don't make a right). I'm sorry if you misunderstand the intent of WP:NPOV, but it certainly doesn't mean that editors may "respond" (explicitly or implicitly) to voiced political positions.
  2. To David in DC: I gave you a cursory sentence regarding WP:3RR in the context of a larger message, sorry if it touched a nerve. Wiki-drama aside, I fail to see any rationale at all to justify your claim that "you're right and the mob is wrong". This isn't a vote... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo available

There is a photo of Caroline taken during the christening of the USS John F. Kennedy here and since its a US Navy photo it is in the public domain. Thought I would mention it in case someone wants to add to the article. --Brad (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)