Jump to content

Talk:Joseph P. Kennedy Sr./Archive 1

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

Sam Giancana

"Kennedy was associated with various mobsters by their own account, including Sam Giancana and Frank Costello."

No citations were provided for either but I know that Costello did say something along those lines after Kennedy died and just before his own death. I doubt Giancana would say such a thing because he was a small time hood in the 20's and did not become a major player until after WWII. Furthermore Costello is less than credible since he only said this after JPK was dead. Thus I will change the above to

"After his death various mobsters including Frank Costello claimed to have associated with Kennedy" Lenbrazil (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Bootlegging?

It is my understanding that Joe Kennedy's involvement with the alcohol industry during Prohibition was limited to investment in non-functioning liquor distributors with the expectation that prohibition would eventually be repealed. Can someone produce an objective reference implicating JPK in the illegal alcohol trade? If not, calling him a bootlegger is unsupported.

98.230.27.142 (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The place to begin improving one's understanding is Canada, to whose liquor manufacturing and importing/exporting industry U.S. Prohibition was a major windfall. Booze by the ton began flowing south across the "undefended" border. It did so by land, air, and sea to the waiting hands of entrepreneurial crooks with the organizational means to warehouse it and set up supply lines across the USA. The principal Canadian figure (King of the Castle) was Samuel Bronfman, founder of Seagrams, who transported booze to Halifax and Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. Stevedores loaded the booze onto ships, which soon departed for American waters and unloaded in U.S. harbors, especially Boston.

L.H. - a contract literary researcher whose name I have no permission to reveal - began a study of the archived shipping manifests and other paper trails in Halifax and Boston. It took about a month to solidly link Sam Bronfman with Joseph Kennedy. It is instructive to read the first four chapters of Times to Remember by Rose Kennedy and the initial chapters of The Bronfman Dynasty by Peter Newman - switching between the two books. Two families, each connected with the liquor industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.18.138 (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't know why it is so hard to find information on Kennedy's bootlegging activities in Boston. My grandfather, who was originally from Greece living in Boston at the time, made a substantial sum of money working for cohorts of Joseph Kennedy. In fact, the opposition to the Kennedy's bootlegging activities and my grandfather's (who worked largely in South Boston) were the French... From what I have been told, they were very violent. I guess this is just another example of the difference between the 2 realities: one that is public (official) and the other that is the real (unofficial)...Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


"I don't know why it is so hard to find information on Kennedy's bootlegging activities..." -- Here are two very good reasons: because the allegation is not true and the information doesn't exist. And BTW, exactly how would you define a "cohort?" And, since you're so eager to find incriminating information on Joe Kennedy, why not start by finding these cohorts' names.!? Mwprods (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


Read Gloria and Joe by Axel Madsen (ISBN 0-87795-946-3) pages 58, 59 for the question of bootlegging. For Cuban connection before Castro read 'The story of John & Caroline Kennedy' by C. David Heyman (ISBN 978-0-7434-9739-8) pages 85, 86. 121.209.49.39 (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Last Call:The Rise and Fall of Prohibition by Daniel Okrent, the allegations about Joseph Kennedy and "bootlegging" were never made until his son's run for president. The connection here is that it was a politically motivated slurl. Until a more reliable source is found, I think his distinction of a bootlegger should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.129.112.152 (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Okrent. Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition. p. 367. says "there is really no reason to believe he was one[bootlegger]." If you go to the url, the rumors arose because he cached thousands of dollars of liquor LEGALLY before prohibition outlawed it, etc. --Javaweb (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

There is a tunnel from a beach that leads to the Kennedy compound that was built by Joesph Sr. for smuggling in whiskey from Canada. Go look for yourself. Saying he didn't smuggle is dishonest and revisionist history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.84.45 (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

There is also a tunnel that runs from one's brain to one's mouth, but obviously that doesn't prove that it carries any truth or intelligence.

I personally corresponded with a best-selling, major historian/biographer who--when referring to Joe Kennedy in a quick aside within a bio of President FDR--twice called Kennedy a "bootlegger," but this without a single source note of any type to back up this casual allegation. When I confronted the historian about this and cited two highly researched accounts which refuted his assertion, he apologized and said: " If I had had the benefit of Okrent's and David Nasaw's fine books, I would have written that capsule description of Kennedy differently. He was colorful enough without the additional tag of bootlegger."Mwprods (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Early comments

This article now includes his (shameful?) comments, while serving as US Ambassador to England, comments that "democracy is finished...". These disparaging comments were made in Nov. 1940, during a critical time of the war, when Britian was fighting for its survival - Nazis occupied France, Poland, the Netherlands, etc. The comments were especially damaging and highly unprofessional, since they were completely contrary to US policy, White House policy, and seriously undermined Churchill's efforts to support and build British morale during the nightly bombings of London and the Battle of Britain.

He made these comments during a long interview with two acknowledged newspaper reporters, on the record. Later, when he realized the magnitude of his errors, he then tried to get them changed to be "off the record", after the fact. The article also now reports his forced return back to the States as a result of his comments. I cannot yet find documentation of his prior repeated late-night panicked and bawling/weeping phone calls to Roosevelt and the State Dept = a crack-up from the pressures of the Battle of Britain?

It's widely accepted that his lack of fortitude and lack of personal discipline during this critical time permanently ruined any hopes he had for becoming US President. This driver for his resignation and his retiring from the national political stage does not seem to need further documentation, but I welcome others to provide it. I am currently in Mexico and have limited access to historical source materials. The Good Doctor Fry 21:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC) subsequently edited The Good Doctor Fry 19:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Who cares about his high school grades and batting average on the baseball team? Perhaps this could be replaced with "subpar student."

Perhaps I'm getting my Kennedys mixed up, but isn't Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. also supposed to have been concerned with bootlegging during prohibition? Assuming these allegations haven't been entirely dismissed, we should be able to make a NPOV mention of them? Our page for Kathleen Kennedy states the allegations as flat fact. -- Finlay McWalter 15:25, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'd say it should be moved here if true (I've taken it out of the Kathleen Kennedy article since it's irrelevant to her). It seems to me I have heard that about Joseph, but I can't remember where and can't find a source at the moment or I'd add it. - Hephaestos 15:31, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Thank you for deleting that fom Kathleen page. Had no relevance there at all, let alone evidence.Mwprods (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
There's plenty of Google hits for "joseph kennedy bootlegger", but I don't know how much faith we can put in them. I do think it's fair to say that there are "persistent allegations" that he was involved with bootlegging. -- Finlay McWalter 15:36, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Yes; we could attribute it to the Sins of the Father book at least. - Hephaestos 15:41, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Why are the pictures missing? Colipon 05:00, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Discussion is from a long time ago, but there is certainly no serious evidence he was a bootlegger, he cunningly acquired the licences to import medicinal alcohol and predicted the passage of the Consitutional amendment through the required number of states that lifted Prohibition. By the 1920's JPK was a very wealthy and politically ambitious man (remember he had thoughts of becoming a Cabinet Secretary and quite possibly the POTUS_ and did not have the motive to be involved in manufacturing illegal alcohol. Makes for a nice story for hatchet job biographers but just isn't the case. The truth is less interesting. 144.132.89.151 01:39, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well here is an insight, from a police offficer in a recent paper, by explaining the two-tier legal system, and why some people have been recorded with special treatment in history. By Andre Lichtenfeld, ex-Thunder Bay policeman Jan 8, 2007, 00:57 Expoliceman Two tier Legal System

Readers beware!

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

His career as a bootlegger is amply documented in the book JFK: Reckless Youth. I might add that this article is inaccurate and slanted; it is basically a (poor) attempt at hagiography. Although Hamilton's book (previously mentioned) is about Jack Kennedy, it is a trove of information about his parents as well--by far the most thoroughly documented account of Joe Kennedy's career. His advocacy of a separate peace between England and Nazi Germany is what got him in trouble with FDR; the claims below on this Talk Page are--like most everything in this article--apparently written with very little knowledge of the man's life. 66.108.4.183 06:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

FALSE: "His career as a bootlegger is amply documented in the book JFK: Reckless Youth." I just checked the book and there is no statement or hint that he was a bootlegger. Rjensen 07:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources that mention Joe Kennedy's bootlegging.

[1] [2] [3] Check those.SisterEurope 03:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


AGREE with FALSE: Who cares if there are even dozens of Google citations of allegations? The newest, most respected, most highly researched and documented Kennedy bio sources reject Kennedy bootlegging as unproven, mere mth:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/04/26/the-kennedy-bootlegging-myth.html http://www.us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781594203763,00.html Mwprods (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


--DS-survivor (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC) I checked these references and they do nothing to resolve the question of bootlegging by Joseph Kennedy, Sr. Instead, they simply repeat unreferenced and therefore unsupported rumors. Can someone find a primary source to resolve the bootlegging question?

Spanish Civil War

I think that this article may give Joe Sr. entirely too much credit for keeping the US out of the Spanish Civil War. Even had his reports from London strongly urged intervention, condemned Franco, or downplayed Communist influence in the Republican movement any significan US involvement in the conflict would have remained extremely unlikely. I also quibble a bit with the statement about Americans being strongly for the Republicans. At most Americans sympathized with Madrid; certainly no clear majority and nothing approaching 60/40 until '37 or '38 when intervention was completely out of the question. Not a serious flaw to the article, just something future editors may want to consider.

I concur--JimWae 20:24, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Joseph and Rose Kennedy's children today

So one of the most influential men in the country: 1. Rode the bus. 2. Solicited medical advice about his daughter's mental instability from the bus driver. 3. Subjected his daughter to a radical medical procedure based upon the recomendation of the bus driver.

That makes perfect sense.

Additionally, why is this section predominatly about Rosemary (who today is dead)?

Since every child of Joseph Kennedy has their own wikipedia entry, I propose that this section be removed. The List of descendants of Joseph P. and Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy should be sufficient.

--134.53.176.101 22:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


I inserted a Section Dispute notice because there are specific claims that need sourcing. As well, this needs a rewrite to properly clarify his actions as legal at the time and cthe changes that followed the Pecora Commission investigates for the U.S. Senate. - Ted Wilkes 22:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

_________________________________________________

Regarding the length of time that Kennedy served as Inaugural Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, since the Commission was evidently created in 1934 and this article says that he "served several years and resigned in 1935," how does 1 - 2 years of service equate to "several years?" _________________________________________________

hitler

didn't joe meet hitler and visit germany during his role as ambassador to the uk? WookMuff 00:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

He tried to but failed. He was a Hitler lover, though and anti-semite. 51kwad (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
no he did not meet Hitler. Rjensen 02:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh i got confused between real life and a book i read. It was Joe Kennedy Jr. That travelled through germany and they both apparently admired hitler WookMuff 09:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
neither one met Hitler and neither one admired Hitler. The Letters edited by Smith make that clear. Rjensen 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
i said apparently, but you are saying that edited letters are reliable indicators of two dead mens thoughts? if neither of them admired hitler, why was kennedy such an advocate of appeasement and, once war broke out, a non-interventionist? Also, joe jr. and john BOTH visited hitler's germany. so... you are obviously a big fan of the kennedy's and don't want unsubstantiated facts to mar them on the encyclopedia. But saying that they weren't hitler admirers is silly. I am talking pre-WWII. I am not saying that after the war joe went around saying "Hitler rocked!!!". I am sure all the "proof" of joe sr.'s hitler admiration is just part of the world jewish conspiracy! WookMuff 23:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The private letters between Joe and Joe Jr make clear they did not like Hitler. FDR appointed Kennedy in 1938 to try to keep the US out of any European war, which Kennedy tried to do. It was FDR who changed his mind. Rjensen 23:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

who is smith and how did he come to "edit" the personal corespondence that you are using as evidence? WookMuff 04:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Amanda Smith edited Hostage to Fortune: the letters of Joseph P Lennedy; she is Joe's grandaughter; she has a graduate degree in history Rjensen 05:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
and no agenda WookMuff 10:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see, so we are then absolutely certain, that she wouldn't expurgate the hitler bits...the obvious and blatant lying that goes on makes me sick sometimes... 195.134.68.6 09:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

McCarthy's relationship with the Kennedy Family

About a sixth of this article is devoted to McCarthy's relationship with the Kennedy family. Is that necessary? Was McCarthy an especially important figure in JP Kennedy's life? I dont' think so. I suggest trimming this section to bring it in accordance with the importance of McCarthy to JP Kennedy. It's worth about a sentence.

McCarthy section is vitally important. The alliance shaped both men and indeed the sons JFK and Robert Kennedy as well. Rjensen 18:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

False statements re Antisemitism

Joe did not like Jews, but Wiki shouild not be giving out false info. I checked every one of the references in the section and deleted repeated falsehoods. For example, Kennedy was NOT a "close friend" of Father Coughlin: they never met or talked; Kennedy once sent him a short thank you note after he was mentioned on one broadcast. Kennedy worried against FDR causing armageddon, not the Jews. Etc. Rjensen 20:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It does not say he was a "close friend", you are deliberately setting up a straw man argument. It says he was a supporter. In fact, as it turns out, Leamer himself uses the phrase "friend": "Joe was friendly enough with the demagogic priest that he wrote Coughlin in August ..." on page 93.

I am looking at each of the citated references on Amazon.com's "Search inside" feature. They appear in each of the books I have cited. Perhaps you are using different editions than those available on Amazon. I am assuming in good faith that you actually looked them up as you claim. Check your indices. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Leamer only says he wrote a friendly thank you note, once, after being mentioned on a broadcast. Leamer does NOT say he was a supporter Coughlin at any point. (Coughlin was at first a supporter of FDR) I did use the Amazon editions--the deleted statements are not in the books.

I have restored with explicit citations, quoting directly from the books in question. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Joe Dinneen, a staffer of the Boston Globe, conducted interviews with Kennedy in which Kennedy made a number of anti-Semitic comments in an effort to exonerate himself from the charge of anti-Semitism. When Dinneen wrote The Kennedy Family, he was urged to remove these quotations from the book by John F. Kennedy himself. Dineen complied.[1]

Please explain how pressure by Joe's son, while Joe was still alive, to remove unflattering references from a biography about Joe, is irrelevant to his life. That seems facially absurd to me. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I too am mystified as to why Rjensen is attempting to remove this material. Jayjg (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, because it currently says nothing about Joe Kennedy, that's why. Exactly what did Dinneen say about Joe? What did Joe actually say? Rjensen 22:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You honestly believe that this has no bearing on Joe Kennedy? an article about a person need not consist entirely of statements expressly made by the subject person. Efforts to suppress public awareness of Joe's statements is 100% relevant to Joe. Why are you so intent on whitewashing these details? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I honestly believe a non-story that was not published and whose contents are unknown is not much help to users. Including it degrades the quality of the article. Just what are "Joe's statements"??? please tell us and don't keep hiding them Rjensen 00:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they are, it matters that they were stated by Kennedy and recorded by a historian and interviewer. As such they are a part of his life and another record to his already large predisposition toward antisemitism. Guy Montag 00:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hersh 64, at fn.

"Had Issue"

In the section on Joe's children, I didn't understand how "had issue" or "no issue" after each of the marriages was supposed to be interpreted. Does it mean that he "had issue" with this marriage or that? If that's what it means, it doesn't seem like very important or relevant information. There should be at least be a clearer way to say it (so and so married, over his objections?) And of course he had "no issue" with Edward's marriage in 1992 - he was dead!

Strongly agree; removing this until someone can replace it with something that makes sense and is relevant. Happywaffle 07:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the comments on "issue" have been removed, but, for the record, "had issue" simply means "had children," in the language of lawyers. That's all it means. 66.108.105.21 17:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

'Issue' is part of legalese and means offspring. He died without issue, for instance, means he had no children. Has nothing to do with common parlance 'having an issue with soandso or such and such'. 121.209.49.125 (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Knight of Malta"?

In the categories section of this page, it has Joeseph Kennedy listed as a Knight of Malta! I suspect that this is vandalism, considering that if it were true, it would probably be listed elsewhere in the article. I will erase it (also listed as a Knight of Malta is Rick Santorum, by the way, so I think that there is a serious vandal problem here. --Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 00:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be true, as well as for Santorum (see evidence posted on that talk page). — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 00:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I think this is a fine article, but there are a few things to address before I feel it meets GA standards. Some of what follows is minor, but the citations and the family tree issues are important.

  1. The main thing that needs work is citations. The paragraph about anti-semitism has good citations, but the rest of the article has almost none. This is an absolute pre-requisite. I would think most points would be easy to cite from a standard biography.
  2. Please rephrase the sentence that starts "Too disbelieving" in the "Early Ventures" section -- as it stands I'm not completely clear what it is intended to say.
  3. Without dates on the early part of the "Crash" paragraph, I can't tell whether it might be better placed after the "Liquor" paragraph -- someone who knows the subject might take a look and see if these should be swapped around.
  4. The reference to "outsider status" in the section on the Ambassadorship is a little jarring. There is no mention of ostracism of any kind in the earlier part of the piece, except in the very first section, on his early life. I assume there is some source for ongoing outsider status even to this point of a very successful career; a more complete reference to this might be better than the brief aside given.
  5. The reference to Al Smith could use an additional explanatory word or two. As it stands, if you don't know who Smith is, you have to click on the article to find out why he is being referred to, so it doesn't clarify. I don't know this material, so my suggested wording may not be the best, but how about something along these lines: "He sat out the war on the sidelines, along with other opponents of Roosevelt such as Al Smith, eager to help the war effort but never invited."
  6. The ancestors section is too big. I don't see a need for both the table and the tree; and the tree is much too big for the article. It might be more usefully placed in Kennedy family. I'd suggest at least pruning it to grandparents, parents, children, and grandchildren, along with siblings.
  7. Finally, the lead could use a little work. It is really too short as it stands, and doesn't mention some major areas of the article. Take a look at WP:LEAD for some guidelines in this area.

Overall, the article is in good shape, but the citations, lead, and tree are must-dos. If you fix those problems, please bring it back to GA. Mike Christie (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if its been changed since this list of good recommendations, but just reading through it I thought the lead section was way too long. I think that the first paragraph is sufficient as a through, quick introduction to who he is and why he is important, and the rest of the information contained in the lead is adequately and appropriately covered in the rest of the article, whereas including it (briefly and unsatisfactorily) in the lead seems to be a botched attempt at trying to tease the reader into reading the rest of the article. I'm new to Wikipedia, so take my comments with a grain of salt, but I know that when I look something up on Wikipedia I expect the lead to be short and sweet, and then if I want to delve further in to particulars I check out the table of contents and go from there. Jochmed7 (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Disputes with Father Charles Coughlin

This section seems incoherent and poorly put together. "Roosevelt sent Kennedy and other prominent Irish Catholics praised Coughlin" is not a proper sentence. Mention of the World Court in the following sentences comes out of the blue; what's the World Court to JPK, or to the Pope? And so on. A little background here would help connect the citations. 72.219.10.130 03:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

'Shoeshine Boy' and the 'warning' of the crash

As I noted in my edit, the story of [fill in name of noted financier] who knew to get out of the stock market when his [shoeshine boy|elevator operator|barber] [gave stock tips| asked for stock tips|talked about his investments] is apparently apocryphal or has been so often misattributed it may as well be; I have removed it and cited a NY Times story from today, 3/18/08, that attributes it to J. P. Morgan (and I had heard it attributed to Morgan as well, but referencing the Crash of 1893); however, I think the URL is temporary, here is the full title of the article: "Wall Street Indicator: Smoking Longer and Enjoying It Less" Doprendek (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Response---

It is very unclear as to who the 'noted financier' is and what happened and so on. For example, there this clip from a 1929 Wall Street Crash documentary : [[4]] around 2:35 which claim the financier to be Bernard Baruch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolimejuice (talk • contribs) 20:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Jean Ann Kennedy Smith

In The Article Of Joseph Patrick Kennedy, Sr.,His Daughter Jean Ann Kennedy Smith's Age Is Listed As 80 Years Old, She Is Not,She Is 81 - Years - Old So That Needs To Be Fixed Immediately.Annonymous.72.4.92.186 (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Fatherland

Does it say in the novel if it is Joseph Kennedy Sr. or Jr. who was President? Joseph Sr. would be in his seventies, while his son, who was killed in the war in real life, would be in his forties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.32.176.254 (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thomas James Kennedy????????

This article consistemtly & erroneously refers to a Thomas James Kennedy as a child of Joseph P Kennedy even citing dates of birth & death.

Joseph P Kennedy had no such son named Thomas James indeed the first paragraph of the article references (correctly) Nine children but the table shows ten (Thomas James) being the obvious error.

Can someone please correct this? I do not know enough as to how the whole thing works to do it myself. Also, this mistake is endemic right through the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.17.100 (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

He was a well known bootlegger, anti-semite, and ruthless businessman. Look at the papers from that era. There is no way around it. 69.243.3.113 (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


P.J.

The article in two places referes to Joseph Patrick as 'P.J.'. Is the fact that the initials are switched around a mistake (in which case this should be corrected), or was he really called/nicknamed PJ instead of JP, in which case that should be explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sejtam (talk • contribs) 05:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Presidential Ambitions for Family Section

The "Presidential Ambitions for Family" section is poorly worded and lacking the appropriate tone of an encyclopedic article. This doesn't even mention the fact that none of the claims are sourced except for the final sentence. I propose that this entire section is deleted, does anybody agree? Wikipediarules2221 06:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In this section, it might be worth mentioning that Joe put pressure on JFK to find a suitable wife, and personally selected Jacqueline Bouvier as a gracious and well-educated woman who would make a good First Lady. 81.129.150.171 (talk) 11:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems like this entire passage is written based on the television drama, The Kennedys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.113.168 (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources for "affair with Gloria Swanson"

On this article page, and a few others (such as 'Queen Kelly' and 'Gloria Swanson'), it is casually and offhandedly claimed that Kennedy had and affair with Gloria Swanson. None of these claims seem to be sourced, however. Considering how serious such a claim is, it is imperative that sources are found or the passages the removed.theBOBbobato (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Bob bobato, there are impeccable sources for this given in the article. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent NY Times article re: FDR

An article out today with some pertinent details:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/us/29fdr.html

Dhollm (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Kennedys 3 generations.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kennedys 3 generations.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Rectifying an old double standard

Hi there. I was in sixth grade when JFK died, so I'm old enough to be somewhat shocked that I never learned about his sister Rosemary until now. I would like to work with the editors of this article to place one cited sentence in the lead. I'm prepared to read any books you think are needed in order to accomplish that. I will try to be careful of Joseph's reputation and take it easy, but what happened to his daughter is almost unbelievable to me today. Is anybody else willing to help?

Our article about her brother says he was promiscuous and said to Harold Macmillan, "I wonder how it is for you, Harold? If I don't have a woman for three days, I get terrible headaches." The Associated Press quote from her obituary, "Rosemary was a woman, and there was a dread fear of pregnancy, disease and disgrace,” author Laurence Leamer wrote in an unauthorized Kennedy biography called The Kennedy Women: The Saga of an American Family. The AP obituary, "But as she got older, her father worried that his daughter's mild condition would lead her into situations that could damage the family's reputation." So we appear to have a somewhat slow but otherwise normal female whose only fault was that she was a female. It might take me a year to do it correctly and without original research, but one sentence needs to be here. Thank you for your time. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I haven't read her article but it would belong there. Rosemary Kennedy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Carolmooredc. No, the lead of this article prominently lists off Joseph's children (and includes mention of the "Special Olympics co-founder"). So I would like to think Rosemary belongs here. Because this list appears to "show off" a bit, it wouldn't surprise me if she has to be separated to make sense. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I think I read about a case like this in the book The Sins of the Father some years ago, specifically on the Kennedys. I suggest the book for researching this. The title is in the article and the bibliographic information looks like it's for the book I read. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Nick Levinson, thanks very much. I added one sentence (a logical break came after his grandchildren) to illustrate what I have in mind. Does it look like a fair addition? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The coverage looks good, considering that the Rosemary article should have the primary coverage and the Joe Sr. article should focus on his role. I don't recall if the book mentioned that maybe because she was a woman she might have been very bright, too, but ignored for that. There was mentioned in the book an issue about which diagnosis was politically preferred by the Kennedy family (but I don't remember whom among the Kennedys) because of John's route to the Presidency and public acceptance of some conditions as nonfamilial (if she has condition x the public might think he must have had it, too), the treatment being conditional on the diagnosis. At any rate, it's been years since I read the book. The content deserves reporting. Thanks for doing it. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
OK. Thank you for your time, Nick. I have ordered the book and it is number four in my list coming up. Yes, most of this belongs in Rosemary's article. I would also like to thank User:JimWae who has tried to reword my addition but I note The Kennedy Family and the History of Mental Retardation by Edward Shorter says on page 33 the location of the lobotomy was St. Elizabeth's Hospital in D.C. He's right though, that Watts was the surgeon, not Freeman as I first thought. No need to fight about this. I can fix it after reading the book. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Seems to me that critics of Kessler will say I also need to read Laurence Leamer so I will. But I can tell by his choices of subjects over the years what I'll think of him. I can try to be as neutral as possible and hope that other editors will balance me out. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Violent outbursts

The Kennedy Women: The Saga of an American Family by Laurence Leamer, and The Kennedy Family and the History of Mental Retardation by Edward Shorter both identify Rosemary's problem and Joseph's tipping point as Rosemary's sexual urges. I am sorry but the source chosen by User:JimWae is a religous treatise written about disabilities in general. I think that a person who has specialized in the Kennedy family is at least as good a source. In this case, Shorter says generally that historians have been tough on Joseph because he tried to clamp down on Rosemary's sexual urges. I don't think User:JimWae should keep reverting my wording because saying she had violent outbursts puts Rosemary at fault. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous sources (here's another and another) which say her behaviour was becoming physically difficult for the family & the nun's to deal with. Since we cannot agree that one account is best, it is better to let the reader see that sources give diff reasons. Her sisters also had sexual urges, but for some reason (and who is to say sexuality was the entire reason?) Rosemary became difficult for others around her. Nobody is assigning blame to her. Any detailed account belongs in her article anyway, the lede on her father is not the place for anyone to reach a "final" decision on this. Sources do seem to agree that she was walking the streets alone in the middle of the night, after the rest of the household had retired. --JimWae (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, JimWae. The article reads just fine to me right now. Thank you for your work on it! Yes, I hope to add some more to Rosemary's article after reading the book User:Nick Levinson recommended (and which has no Google Preview). These two sources (of 84 sources found at Amazon.com) both had "Look Inside" working when I tried them, and I was surprised to read Edward Shorter's summary that historians were tough on Joseph. So it's good to have this mention of Rosemary in the lead. Much better this way. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Several sources seem to indicate there was an "official diagnosis" of "agitated depression". One site mentioned something about a Boston hospital turning down the request to perform the surgery there - but the reason could have been just that nobody on staff was trained to do it. Very few doctors were doing that surgery in 1941 - perhaps just the 2. Relevant would be what problems the surgery was being done for - I see schizophrenia and a few other problems mentioned--JimWae (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it's clear from Kessler's book that Rosemary had, as you say, "agitated depression". Yes, the lobotomy was number 67 of thousands, so it was a new procedure at the time. The doctor's records say no one got one for mental retardation. Kessler also interviewed Dr. Watt just before he died, and Watt couldn't remember what kind but knew she had depression (not retardation). -SusanLesch (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The second paragraph of this entry seems quite out of place. Joseph did many great and horrible things and obviously what happened to Rosemary was quite horrible indeed, but stylistically, listing it at the very top of a biography of a very influential person seems like a kind of.. bias? I'm not sure. It's hard to criticize the desire to publicize just how horrific it was, but from a purely "this is the format of a biographical entry" point of view - it's misplaced. Fleep (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Fleep. It is separated from his other children. If you prefer to list Rosemary with the others we can integrate it one paragraph up. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Fleep, in case you return to see this note, the paragraph was moved to the bottom of the lead. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Lobotomy

It seems to me that mentioning the lobotomy of Rosemary Kennedy so early in the introduction, before going into his business or political career, is a smear. It serves to convey the impression that Kennedy was a bad man before we learn about any of the other things in his life. It can be argued whether or not he was a bad man, but something which conveys that impression so early in the article can certainly not be called neutral.

I propose to move that comment to the end of the introduction, rather than close to the beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.200.62.29 (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I just saw your comment now. It is separated from her brothers and sisters. If you prefer we could integrate Rosemary with the other children in the lead. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Apparently your view has won out and the paragraph is in the bottom of the lead (where I didn't even see it yesterday). -SusanLesch (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Should not be in lead at all, so I moved it to "Lobotomy" section much farther down. It seems an irrelevant fact with which to lead a bio about the father of three sons who were either President or presidential contenders, among his other career highlights as well as flaws. Mwprods (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Cushing-mosaic.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cushing-mosaic.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 24 August 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Luce Affair

Isn't it sort of odd to have the picture of Claire Booth Luce, and a mention of an affair, but not to have anything in the article? This seems doubly true since there is no mention of Kennedy on the Luce article. —Noah (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Article title

Someone earlier today made a change to the Robert F. Kennedy article which might have been good faith and might have been pointy, but in either case it made me wonder about this article. The change was an addition of ", Sr." to his name in the opening sentence, with an ES implying it was needed to distinguish him from RFK Jr. I don't think it is (reverted the change), but I also don't see the difference between that case and this article. I understand why the Barack Obama, Sr. article carries that title, since Jr (actually II) uses the name unappended and is clearly the more notable of the two. But that doesn't seem to be the case with the Kennedys. I didn't see any earlier discussion on this. Does anybody have thoughts on why the "Sr." is needed in the title or whether it should be deleted? Fat&Happy (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted material

Re: information deleted on 01/29/12 by user: Fat&Happy

Memoirs (George Jacobs’ book, “Mr. S., My Life with Frank Sinatra”) can be valid sources of information, defining "eyewitness" material often absent in “scholarly” texts. Unless someone comes forward to refute Jacobs, his recall of events can be taken as credible. One person’s condemnation of the information as sensationalist “tell-all” —and therefore not fit for public consumption— is a subjective opinion and amounts to censorship. “Truth” is not the exclusive privlege of those sitting at the desks of professors or scholars. Betempte (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Memoirs, especially memoirs of involuntarily terminated household employees, can be a lot of things. One of the things they are not is a reliable source for uncorroborated claims about the actions of others, especially if some of the alleged actions are illegal. And the presentation of such claims in tabloid language, such as "Behind the scenes, away from the scrutiny of the media, among those associates who both feared and worshipped his power, Kennedy was a crude man in both behavior and speech", probably wouldn't even be called NPOV by News of the World. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Say it isn't so!"

I acknowledge that there exist contingents of well-meaning people who too often are unwilling to deal with ugly truths, especially when they contradict their own worldview or inner belief system OR (in this case) threaten to blemish the reputation of a noteworthy historical personage. The innate tendency then is to discount such revelatory information as unreliable. Anything impalpable, mind-boggling, eye-popping is a personal affront, basically indigestible and must be discredited as tabloid trash. “Say it isn’t so!” — people engage in heinous behavior behind close doors?! And a KENNEDY yet! Biographical encyclopedic entries, especially must strive to avoid the “I don’t want to know about it syndrome.” Otherwise all we have is a hagiography, not a balanced picture of a life— the good, the bad and the ugly that is found in various proportions in the make-up of every human being.Betempte (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: Continued deletions by user: Fat&Happy

Those editors who engage in self-serving action threaten the integrity of WIkipedia— in this case one individual’s zealous crusade on behalf of the long-deceased Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. Wikipedia is a vital repository of information, a source of “authority” which people access with confidence in its content. How can Wiki users rely on its credibility when there are individuals who engage in obsessive missions of censorship? . Fat&Happy insists Jacob’s memoir, “Mr. S. My Life With Frank Sinatra,” is a work of “allegations,” uncorroborated testimony. I’m not aware of any libel lawsuits brought against George Jacobs, the author of this “contested” book. I invite the Wiki community, particularly Fa&Happy, to provide information, which will refute the paragraph I inserted elaborating on the character of Kennedy Sr. I’d welcome the discovery of any such material. Until that time I will consider the objection to and deletion of this material as the subjective bias of one individual bent on condemning the validity of this man’s witnessed observations.

Below my most recent edit deleted:

In private life, away from the scrutiny of the media, among those associates who both feared and worshipped his power, Kennedy was a crude man in both behavior and speech. George Jacobs, Frank Sinatra’s valet for some fifteen years recalls in his memoir, “Mr. S., My Life with Frank Sinatra,” Kennedy’s time as house guest of Frank Sinatra at Sinatra’s Palm Springs, California home. As late as 1960, Kennedy’s dinner conversation was laced with a barrage of racist jokes. He verbally condemned American Indians, and mocked blacks. His most virulent bigotry, however, was reserved for Jews.Betempte (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Position at Bethlehem Steel

My understanding is that he was an Assistant General Manager at Bethlehem Steel's Boston Shipyard, and not an Assistant General Manager for the whole of Bethlehem Steel.

If somebody knows for sure, the article should be corrected.

Rhkramer (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Illness and Death

In this section, there is no mention whatsoever of Joseph P. Kennedy Sr's. actual death; Where, when and how he died; His funeral and his final resting place. Granted the date of his death is written in the introduction of the page, but there is no further information after that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiseguy007 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Kathleen Kennedy's marriage

The mention of Kathleen Kennedy's marriage to the Marquess of Hartington in the section on her father's service as Ambassador to the U.K. seems incongruous. The marriage took place in 1944, long after the end of JPK's ambassadorship. I'm pretty sure it should be moved but, just as it seems very much out of place in this section, there doesn't seem to be another place to insert it. Rontrigger (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

image issue

Please note that File:Arthur J. Altmeyer-crop.jpg is not James Roosevelt. It was mistakenly labeled that, I have renamed it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Peace Efforts

His efforts to bring about peace between Britain and Germany aren't portrayed from a neutral point of view. In contrast to common beliefs, there were also attempts from the German side to bring that about. --41.146.33.114 (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 6 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

There is a consensus to move away from the commas. The consensus is less strong for RFK Jr., who does use the comma himself though inconsistently, but other sources now prefer no comma in line with our own MOS after the recent RfC. That said, posting CSD notices in anticipation of the move before a close was presumptuous. Fences&Windows 23:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

– Per WP:JR, remove comma to conform with most modern style and grammar guides, with most modern sources, with wikipedia house style, and with John F. Kennedy Jr.. Dicklyon (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
And:

– It's being discussed for move below, so it should appear in the nom section so people don't miss it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 

  • Support as nom. See book search which shows that at least 70% of modern books omit the commas from the names of these guys, as well as others. And please do review WP:JR, documenting wikipedia's house style on such things, which has recently re-affirmed a long-standing but little-known preference for no comma in such names. Dicklyon (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Dicklyon puts it very well. And if my eyes are bumping along that forest of fly-spots, I'm sure readers' eyes do too. Tony (talk) 05:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. Oppose due to the ship USS Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. (DD-850), which wouldn't change and would be enough to grandfather the comma (grandfathering older pages was encouraged via the recent close). --- Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. Support move as it wasn't his name before he had his son, so no need to grandfather, and why not just name the page 'Joseph P. Kennedy' without the Sr.? --- Oppose changing Edward Kennedy, Jr. per his current use of the comma. --- Oppose changing Robert Kennedy, Jr., due to his personal preference. Randy Kryn 13:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Randy, some points about those:
  • Joe Jr. – The Naval Vessel Register does not use the comma. The Friends of the USS Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. DD850 don't use the comma. Neither does the National Register of Historic Places Nomination. And the photos of it show the name painted on the end without a comma. What makes you think we need to, or why what we do for the ship would affect the bio?
  • Ted Jr. – most books omit the comma. Now that he's into politics he gets a lot of news coverage, and it's 90% without comma.
  • Robert Jr. – The page you link to has the classic mismatched-comma error; not great evidence that anyone has thought carefully about this. Also most commonly without comma in news and books by others. He does use the comma in his own works; is that evidence that he cares? Has he said anything about all those writers who write good things about him without a comma?
So, there are range of possible criteria we can discuss here for keeping a comma; but these seem weak. Dicklyon (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Good finds on the ship, we should change the ship page here too if those check out, and I'll Support that change now. Robert Kennedy, Jr. seems to want to keep his comma (the linked page is to his current employment), so I'd still oppose that change. The senior Joseph P. Kennedy could be just the name without the 'Sr.', unless Wikipedia policy calls for the Sr. to be included if a Jr. exists. Randy Kryn 15:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved the ship. Seems uncontroversial given the guideline and the cited references and photos. Dicklyon (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Aye, the power of the pen, to move a ship. Seems cool, good finds. It does seem like Robert Kennedy, Jr. uses the comma, so looks like a case of personal preference and probably should be kept (maybe remove him from the nom?). If only his voice were better he might have been a presidential/vice presidential contender at some point. Randy Kryn 18:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Someone reverted the ship move, but whatever.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support with one potential exception. Most of these should be moved per MOS:JR; modern RS mostly drop the comma, and there's no evidence that the living Edward K. Jr. consistently uses the comma.
    Possible exception: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., given the evidence of personal preference so far but see more below]; per WP:ABOUTSELF, that is could have been enough evidence of a MOS:IDENTITY which MOS:JR (presently, anyway) suggests respecting for WP:BLPs. Open to evidence RFK Jr. doesn't consistently use it, though [and it was provided].
    Do not drop "Sr.": Dropping it is a customary British practice (see Hart's New Rules, etc.), but not American, and these are American subjects. It also serves as natural disambiguation; it would be stupid to later end up with a title like "Joseph P. Kennedy (elder)" because someone decided to parenthetically disambiguate it, but we all know someone would probably try that, given how many fans there are of forcing parenthetic disambiguation for no reason.
    Remove comma from ship, per evidence given above. We should use whatever the DOD official name of the ship is; the sources cited so far in that article disagree on this, and one of them even has it without the "Jr." at all, but many of them are not official, and the sourcing above is better, especially the ship itself with huge lettering on it. That's a self-source, exactly the same as citing a book for a quotation taken from it, or citing a video game's packaging for what the game's published system requirements are.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
How consistent do we need? See p.9 of [http://www.amazon.com/Billionaires-Ballot-Bandits-Steal-Election/dp/1609804783 this book] where RFK Jr is named as the author of the foreword, without a comma (other places in the same book do have the comma, so it's not like anyone is showing they care). And here he signed a card that had his name comma-less; it didn't seem to throw him. But if this is as close as we have to a living person expressing a preference for a comma, let's put him into the guideline as an example and let the comma stay. As for the ship, that's for another day since it was reverted; there are several such ships with marginal to zero evidence of comma being part of the official name. Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Wait, there's more; RFK Jr blogs for the Huffington Post without a comma: [5]. House style rules there. Dicklyon (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: Yep. If he's publishing with inconsistent punctuation, that's not the case we're looking for. I've struck my support of RFK Jr. as an possible exception. Agreed on the ships – that's a different matter for another venue, and Talk:USS Frank E. Petersen Jr.#Requested move 7 April 2016 seems to be it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose removing all commas. Seriously... you guys need to give this a fucking rest already. - theWOLFchild 07:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support all per MOS:JR and the evidence provided. RGloucester — ☎ 13:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose all per WP:TITLECON, which says not to change a stable title without a strong reason to do so, and the Manual of Style itself, which says one correct style should not be changed for another correct one. Calidum ¤ 17:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Invalid ratonale. MOS:JR prefers the one over the other, except for rare cases which the present articles do not qualify as, thus there is in fact a strong reason to make the move (MOS compliance), and it is not a change from one correct style to another, but a move from an obsolete style to the one currently preferred in all dialects, genres and registered of English.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:MOS, MOS:JR, and the RfC. It does this encyclopedic no good to move articles from one acceptable style to another. Dohn joe (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Invalid rationale, since MOS, MOS:JR, and the RFC all support this move. Also, the very point of the RFC was that this comma usage leads to grammatical errors and other problems, so it is not equally accessible to begin with.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The fellows above going on about not changing stable titles without "strong reasons" to do so are right. One shouldn't change titles merely to flip between styles if the reason for that change is merely change for change's sake. However, in this case, that's not the case. There are strong reasons why the comma should be removed, and these reasons were discussed in a widely advertised RfC at the village pump (Mr Joe and Calidum opposed the proposition put forth by the RfC). The RfC came to a conclusion in favour of expressing a preference for the lack of the comma. The reasons why that preference is expressed are indeed strong, and where sources do not support the comma, and where BLP doesn't come into it, there is no reason why the comma should be retained (see also: [[WP:CONLIMITED). Those reasons, embodied in the RfC, start with the matter of the tendency of the comma to be clunky in prose, often resulting in errors in comma and other punctuation placement. In addition, nearly all style guides support dropping the comma. Indeed, even WP:CONCISE could come into play, suggesting that the comma-less titles are more readable, something which the survey of style guides that brought on the RfC shows is supported by RS. Regardless of this, I don't particularly like it when editors that opposed an RfC held in the most-watched part of the encylopaedia's project pages, did not get the result they wanted, and now think that they can override that result in far corners of the encylopaedia. Please see WP:CONLIMITED on that matter. RGloucester — ☎ 04:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per Dicklyon. No-comma has been established as the house preference and should be used except where there is a local consensus for the comma. As an aside, I'm opposed to giving weight to subject preference, for reasons well articulated by others elsewhere, and I'd love to see that discouraged in the guidelines. (While I'm here, I'll note that "you guys need to give this a fucking rest already" is not an argument and amounts to WP:I just don't like it.) ―Mandruss ☎ 06:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
No-comma has been established as the house preference - Where? And where has it been established that commas are not permitted at all, and must! be removed at all costs...? Where is the policy on that? Not guideline, but actual 'policy', that mandates commas are not allowed anymore? (And while I'm here, I'll note that all I see is I don't like commas... so I'll disrupt the entire project removing them. Which amounts to all this nonsense). - theWOLFchild 07:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The house preference was established in the RfC. And I don't see anyone saying anything like commas are not permitted at all, or must be removed at all costs, or are not allowed anymore. Certainly not me, I clearly said that commas can be used where there is a local consensus, which is not remotely like your characterization of my comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Going by the comments here so far, I think that people supporting Dicklyon's actions need to scrutinize them a little closer. - theWOLFchild 09:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I'll wear that. Has he removed any commas against a documented local consensus? I don't support that. If he did, he may not have been aware of the consensus. When it was pointed out to him, did he resist restoring the commas? I don't support that. I do support a swift and widespread general implementation of a new community consensus, so we can put this behind us and move on. I don't support attempts to "tie up the implementation in court indefinitely", as I consider that unethical behavior worthy of lawyers. I support supporting this implementation and moving on to something more substantive.
In any case, this RM is not about Dicklyon's actions and in fact was initiated by SMcCandlish. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Not, it wasn't, I just added an article to the listing, since it was being discussed for moving but not mentioned in the original nom. I didn't initiate the RfC, either. Quite some time before it (in 2015), I suggested that we should look into what the "ground truth" was on the matter, and then I did research toward that end, but for mainspace. RGloucester then repurposed that for an RfC (which I would have written quite a bit differently, actually, as is probably apparent from how I first tried to implement changes to the guideline wording in the wake of the RfC, e.g. being more favoring of variance in the case of BLPs, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I sit corrected; thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
BTW, I hope this RM is an anomaly. I hope that I and others won't be spending the next year of our lives restating the same arguments again and again in RM after RM. That's precisely the purpose of the community consensus and the guideline, to save us all that time. Going forward, if there is no existing consensus, the commas should be removed from title as well as content, without debate. Any editor may then start a local discussion and/or RM to propose restoring them. And those discussions should not be about the legitimacy of the community consensus, but rather about considerations specific to that subject individual. As with any guideline, the consensus burden should be on those who wish to deviate.
I routinely conform to guidelines that I disagree with, because (1) I don't care enough to seek a consensus to deviate—or I don't feel I can make a strong enough case to deviate—and (2) I strongly believe that process is important. This is the only way that Wikipedia editing can operate with any degree of order and efficiency. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you about process. Which is why it makes me uneasy to implement a "consensus" that is so uncertain. Less than a year ago, we had an RfC that wound up with a consensus that one could use commas or no commas as long as an article was internally consistent:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_119#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr.. That RfC had nearly three times the participation of the latest RfC which called for a preference for omitting the comma. While consensus can change, the continuing pushback against Dicklyon's comma removals suggests that the consensus of the broader WP community is closer to last year's RfC consensus than this year's, don't you think? Dohn joe (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I concur with the reasoning of RGloucester and SMcCandlish, and I'll add that consensus is not about numbers. It was a fresh, new case made in the more recent RfC, the strongest case that I've seen on this question, and that's more important than a difference of a dozen or so !votes. If massive numbers of editors disagree with the result there (and I'm not at all convinced that they would win out if 50,000 editors participated) all I can say is that one of them should have shown up for the RfC and presented a more compelling case. You snooze, you lose, and I do both regularly without complaint.
The project will not suffer greatly if we make the "wrong" choice on this question, but it does if we endlessly entangle ourselves in such trivia. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Dohn Joe, I already addressed all that; see my comment beginning "What happened in the RfC last year was".... The short version: The earlier RfC didn't have facts, just lots of venting. Given a large pile of facts, nothing left to argue about.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
That's not how this works, Mr Joe. Consensus can change, and indeed it did. New evidence came to light in the period between the two RfCs. Indeed, you'll notice that I too changed my opinion, having supported no guidance in the last RfC. I changed my opinion, just as others might've done. The recent RfC was conducted at a high standard. It ran for the correct period, it was widely advertised, it was held in the most public part of the encylopaedia's project pages. Nothing could've been done to "force" more participation than already was done. The close suggested "grandfathering" in certain cases, but by no means did it suggest that changes should not be made for good reason if evidence supports them. You don't get to override the RfC with this kind of nonsense. If you'd like to oppose the changes, feel free to do so. However, do not cast WP:ASPERSIONS on other editors, and continue to be a disruptive stonewall to change that others have indeed supported. RGloucester — ☎ 16:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
That's not how this works, Mr Joe. - according to who? You? And what change in consensus are you talking about? This? The "debate" between only 7 editors? The one with no conclusive agreements on anything? And lastly... how many times are you going to type out WP:ASPERSIONS today? Dohn joe did not cast any "aspersions" on anyone in his comment above. You should strike your comment immediately and apologize. - theWOLFchild 09:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
What happened in the RfC last year was precious little sourcing and lots of venting about opinion and feelings. This time, I provided a shipload of sourcing, and all the opinion and feelings evaporated. Since there wasn't a subjective "cause" to champion, just facts to look at, there was suddenly nothing to argue about. Well, almost all of subjective views evaporated; a handful of editors continue to pursue them RM after RM, always falling on deaf ears. I trust that won't continue indefinitely. There are about a dozen RMs running concurrently on this issue, and they're all in favor of removing the comma. There is no hope that this is magically going to reverse itself, since the real world is abandoning this comma, we know it, and it is proven.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support per the fact that the people in question lived during a time when using the comma was natural. Not having the comma looks way neater and more aesthetically pleasing. Rovingrobert (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Check your facts. Two of these guys are alive, and younger than I am. And tying article style to period style is not a thing on wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: I was specifically referring to the Kennedys. I didn't realize we were discussing the list below too. Anyway, I agree with omitting commas now since it looks neater. I'd still like some clarification on this phrase, though: "Tying article style to period style is not a thing on Wikipedia"? So modern changes do affect past articles? If so, why would all of these articles not have been changed?
I was also specifically referring to these Kennedys, two of whom are alive and younger than I am. The list below is just for precedents. "why would all of these articles not have been changed?" is an odd questions. Things don't change automatically, so we're doing it now. I have taken the liberty of changing your !vote based on your response here that I bolded the key bit of. Dicklyon (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I feel like it was a bit strange telling me that two of these guys are alive. That doesn't prove that they didn't see the comma be phased out, although that is a tentative argument of mine. Anyway, thanks for correcting my vote. So if modern changes affect past articles, does that mean that every single article needs to be changed for continuity's sake? Rovingrobert (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
As many have pointed out, WP:MOS expresses a preference for certain styles, not a requirement to change everything. When editors invest the effort the move toward preferred style, that's generally regarded as a good thing. We'll probably never fix all the errors and less preferred styles, and that's OK. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. But you also made the point that tying article style to period style is not a thing on Wikipedia. Rovingrobert (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Precedents, and calling the question

For the info of participants and closer, here are all related closed RM discussions since the RFC and JR rewrite, all of which affirm following the no-comma preference of WP:JR:

There is no precedent that support's Dohn joe's interpretation. Dicklyon (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The only remaining question here is whether Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is the rare individual who insists on a comma. Closer is advised to read the evidence and opinions and assess the consensus on that one explicitly. Dicklyon (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The closes above were done without using the preferred grandfathering in of the comma. RFK, Jr. seems to prefer the comma, and that seems to mean a keep for him. The use of commas for names in Wikipedia is not a one-size fits all, it has been carefully thought out and decided and some names, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and living persons such as RFK, Jr. do meet the established criteria. Randy Kryn 11:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "carefully thought out" or what the "established criteria" you refer to are. Feel free to add more here about those, with links or whatever. Dicklyon (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The closer should take into priority consideration that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. prefers and uses the comma, and that according to established Wikipedia policy/guidelines/whisperings the comma should then stay. I would ask for a long-established administrator to do this close. Randy Kryn 20:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
But Randy, if you make a biased summary like that, I have to point out that it's also shown above that he sometimes writes under a by-line without the comma, too. Dicklyon (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
When a subject herself or himself is inconsistent in usage, it really does weaken the case for retaining the comma. Tony (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Very tactful as ever, Tony. In my opinion, it utterly obliterates said case. That's the very high bar that we should be setting for this comma.
One thing perhaps not considered: Leave the comma in RFK, and it's guaranteed that someone will come along and submit requests to move the other Kennedys, "for consistency". (Granted, if consistency were the real goal, they would submit a request to remove the comma from RFK; consistency would simply be their chosen rationale, anything but IJLI.) There will be nothing visible to inform them as to the situation, that all this has been discussed and resolved (over at JPK Sr.) and RFK has been given the only valid-exception card among the Kennedys. The admin processing the requests will need to be aware of the situation, or they will probably honor them and then we'll have to move back. Again. Wait a few months, repeat. Until the end of time, or the end of Wikipedia, whichever comes first. Commas will always be comma bait, another reason for the very high bar.
All things considered, all Kennedy commas should go. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Since Randy is alone in his assessment of RFK Jr. (SMcCandlish having changed after seeing the evidence), and since the few general opposers had no meaningful rationale (just I-don't-like-it statements like "you guys need to give this a fucking rest" and "not to change a stable title without a strong reason to do so" and "does this encyclopedic no good to move" against 9 supporters of following the guidelines of the MOS), and since Randy has asked for an admin to close, and has asked the only admin closing RMs not to close it, it seems that we just need to let this one lie here unclosed forever. Let's see if we can move on anyway, and adjust if it ever gets closed for real. Dicklyon (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't see anything at WP:RMCI that would preclude an uninvolved non-admin from closing this. Is there anything unclear or ambiguous about the consensus? After the close, WP:RM requests could be submitted referring to it. The only problem is getting a non-admin to do it without being accused of cherry-picking the closer (or the actual potential for doing that unconsciously). ―Mandruss ☎ 08:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest asking WP:ANRFC for a formal admin close. That takes long enough, usually, that either this will sit here until RM admins get tired of seeing it unclosed, or ANRFC admins get through enough backlog to close it, and either case it might take a week to a month, and it won't be a BFD in the interim. A decision in this case isn't really necessary, since all the other RMs have closed in favor (naturally) of following the guideline and the RfC behind it, rather than the WP:IDONLIKEIT arguments.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Being a relative noob in this area, I can only go by what I read. And, generally, I feel it's important to follow the instructions that the community has developed. WP:ANRFC says: "If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance." ―Mandruss ☎ 12:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_P._Kennedy_Sr./Archive_1&oldid=1136855497"