Jump to content

Talk:Caroline Kennedy/Archive 1

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

Last Name

Kennedy has repeatedly stated that she did not change her last name. Here are links to two interviews: Larry King Live and a Time magazine interview. Her name is Caroline Kennedy on the copyright of her books and the byline for her Obama endorsement article. It is how the JFK library, of which she is president, refers to her. I'm adding this as support for my recent edit, and so I don't have to find the links again if they become necessary. Ariadne55 (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I always thought she went as Caroline Schlossberg. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
She says she never changed her last name. I think the problem arose because she doesn't correct the journalists and newspapers that frequently call her by her husband's name. She's probably trying to be polite, but it just unnecessarily creates confusion. Everywhere that Ms. Kennedy herself has chosen how her name should be written has her birth name. Ariadne55 (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I just note that when she spoke at the Democratic Convention last night she was labeled as Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg. JEB90 (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
She was announced as Caroline Kennedy and the screen behind her in the convention hall said Caroline Kennedy as well [1]. If a news station chose to place a label under her on their broadcast that said something else, that's not something she would have had input on. Ariadne55 (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Will she pick herself?

"Caroline, thanks for letting me intrude on your life. How wonderful it will be to have a vice president who will respect the Constitution, who will support (instead of control) her president, who will never let her staff out a CIA agent, and who will never tell her country that she is "currently residing in an undisclosed location."

Say it one more time: "OBAMA-KENNEDY." A move like that might send a message to the country that the Democrats would actually like to win an election for once. "

-Michael Moore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.0.188 (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Succession box?

Okay, is it really necessary to have a succession box for the children of John F. Kennedy - - especially since only two of them survived beyond day 3 of life? - Prezboy1 talk 14:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, probably not. Is there any opposition to removing it? Ariadne55 (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
It makes no sense. I support removing it. --Crunch (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought I removed it yesterday. It's an inappropriate use of a succession box in any case. Tvoz/talk 08:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Caroline Kennedy (not Schlossberg)

I provided a source, TIME magazine, for this name.

<ref>{{cite news | first=Romesh | last=Ratnesar | title=Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg | date=[[1999]]-[[July 26|07-26]] | url=http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/07/26/jfk.sister.html | work=[[Time (magazine)|TIME]] | accessdate=[[2008]]-[[December 17|12-17]]}}</ref>

If her name wasn't changed, someone provide a source that contradicts TIME.

Thanks.Hekerui (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, another Time article - but this one is an interview with her in 2002 where she explicitly explains that she is incorrectly referred to as Schlossberg but that she never changed her name - this is a better source than the other. Tvoz/talk 07:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
And another one added to article - an interview on Larry King Live, also from 2002. Tvoz/talk 07:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Convincing. Thanks. Hekerui (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I just did a Google News search for "Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg" - more than 2200 hits - I believe this is fitting as her 'real name', with "Caroline Kennedy" being a moniker akin to "Chevy" instead of "Chevrolet", which we use here without question. Blueteam (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Google searches have no relevance here, and your analogy is inapt. This is not a moniker or a nickname, it is her name. We have several well-sourced statements where she is quite clear that she never changed her name to Schlossberg, and even that she is sometimes misidentified as such. That is what we say in the article. Tvoz/talk 08:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Attorney?

She graduated from law school, yes. But the article states that she "is an attorney, writer, etc...." Is she licensed to practice law in the state of New York/ has she passed the bar? Many people graduate from law school and don't become practicing attorneys.--Gloriamarie (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The article states that she is a member of the New York and DC bars. Tvoz/talk 22:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Has she practiced law?--Panzertank (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not as far as I've seen, and the article doesn't say she has. Tvoz/talk 15:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There should be a seperate article for her political positions

Political positions of Caroline Kennedy should not be a redirect to this main article. Every other well known candidate running for major political office has a seperate article for their political positions. Why should this person be treated differently? Grundle2600 (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Why a separate article for those 4 sentences (exactly what's in the main article)? Seems silly. - Special-T (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Because Sarah Palin has one. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The editor started the sub section in question way too soon. But since it is now there we could leave it for a while and hope for quick improvement.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Remembering the "Caroline Book"

I am almost an exact age-mate of Caroline Kennedy, and my mother was a serious fan of her father. I and my siblings had a copy of a "Caroline Book," as we called it, and it was based on the Kennedy kids playing with an old English sheep dog, and having fun. We have tried to properly identify and acquire a copy of this book, but with no success. Does anyone know anything more about it? BobHelms (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why the Polling Info?

I'm not sure I see the relevance of the polling information and graph. As I understand it, this is a biography piece and the relevant current fact is that she is being considered by the Governor for the Senate appointment. How do the week to week swings in public opinion factor in? It strikes me as all a bit US Today gratuitous - graphs and charts for the sake of color but not really enlightening.

If it is just to reflect public attitudes towards her (and this is not a feature found in other wiki bio pages that I've noticed) why is it limited to NYS polls? Why not include national views, for instance? (I'm not advocating it, I'm just trying to puzzle out why we include polling at all.) I also notice that it is not really a complete record of even NYS polling on the Senate appointment. (Where are the Marist Poll numbers, for instance?) I'm not saying it is an inaccurate reflection, only that it is not really thorough. It also specifically tracks her vs. Andrew Cuomo, and does not include or mention other candidates. (The fact that she and Cuomo dominate the polls, but not necessarily the actual appointment process, is another reason the inclusion of these polls is problematic.)

Can someone explain why we would include this? I hold no brief for Kennedy's bid, but I admit I am suspicious of the motives for featuring this trivial information so prominently. TheCormac (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that info can be removed - it's "news"-type content, and is not that relevant to a bio article. Also, it's different polls by different organizations, presumably including different subject groups (from different areas of the state?), so comparing the numbers is an "apples-to-oranges" comparison. - Special-T (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the removal. GOod call. Tvoz/talk 07:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit??

How do I edit it? They just said she's not withdrawing... 9fm (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously... anyone? 9fm (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, look, the entire thing was a mistake... she isn't withdrawing... MSNBC/CNN, etc... 9fm (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I wondered that too. Should the article reflect that it was said she was withdrawing and it was later proven incorrect? Or just take it out altogether? Not sure...--Nelliebellie (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It should all come out until we know what is actually going on. Tvoz/talk 05:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
And now we do, as she released a statement. A little patience goes a long way - we're not the news and we don't have to report developments nano-second by nano-second. Tvoz/talk 05:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Apologies, I got a bit too trigger happy :| - GateKeeper(X) @ 06:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"personal reasons"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/nyregion/23caroline.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.106.178 (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I know about the publicity about her wanting the seat vacated by new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Please explain the remark "This seat was to be filled through 2010". Kirsten Gillibrand got the appointment after Caroline Kennedy withdrew from consideration, and then won the election in 2010 for the rest of the term, which ends 3 Jan 2013. If someone other than Kirsten Gillibrand had won that election in 2010, when would that person have assumed the office? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Schlossberg

When did Caroline, stop being called Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg? I recall her being referred as that, in the media, in the past. Furthermore, since she's still married, shouldn't her name in the content lead be Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg? GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Time Magazine: "I never actually changed my name. But people call me whatever they call me."[2]--The lorax (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Alma mater in infobox - can we stop this back and forth?

Can we stop the back and forth on this? I don't have a strong preference regarding including the degrees with the schools - I don't see a problem with including, nor do I see a problem omitting the degrees here. Could someone who cares, as apparently some do, please provide some policy-based reasons either way, or else stop changing it? I do have a strong preference against repeated changes without discussion. Stability is a nice goal. Thanks Tvoz/talk 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Order of subjects in infobox

The infobox has the "relations" before the children and parents, but when I go to edit the infobox, the info is in correct order. ??? Can someone please fix this or tell me how to? Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Just saw this -this is something for the infobox template pages, not here - we cannot control or change how infoboxes display on individual articles. Tvoz/talk 07:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

2016 presidential election section

Basically the same as the 2008 and 2012 presidential election section since she's been figuring into it, with Trump saying she only became ambassador because she's rich and connected, the revelation that she used a private server like Hillary Clinton and her saying last year that she would support Clinton if she chose to run. I think that would be enough for a sub section. What does everyone else think? Informant16 7 September 2015

No, not at this time if at all: this is classic recentism. If this becomes relevant to a biography of her life, not just random attacks and innuendo - and if there's actual reliable sourcing - we can discuss. The 2008/12 endorsement was big news - this is not even little news. Tvoz/talk 07:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Got it. I'm most for the part about her using the emails. I've found multiple sources for that. New York Times CBS News Boston Herald Those are pretty reliable. Informant16 8 September 2015
Understood - but let's see first if this develops into anything with any impact on her career or life story. In general I think the ambassador section may be getting a bit bloated with details of her daily events - some notable, some really not particularly, and somewhat repetitive. We're not a newspaper - and while we require reliable sourcing to include things, the presence of sourcing does not mean they should be included - sourcing is a necessary but not sufficient reason to include material. Tvoz/talk 18:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Caroline Kennedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Caroline Kennedy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Nobody knows what someone else "believed"

In the 4th paragraph of the section Education and personal life, this sentence appears:

"John bequeathed Caroline his half ownership of George magazine, but Caroline believed that her brother would not have wanted the magazine to continue after his death.[33]"

There is a reference, but that is irrelevant. All we *ever* know about what someone thought, believed, or felt is what they may have said they thought, believed, or felt.

Even when there is — as in this case — no reason whatsoever to doubt an assertion about someone's thoughts, beliefs, or feelings — we still never know what they are.

So it is appropriate only to state that some person (or their representative, or an interviewer, or a news story, etc.) stated what they thought, believed, or felt.

The reason for this is simply that telepathy has not yet been demonstrated, and even if it had been, we would still have to take the word of whoever claimed to have telepathy.

This sentence needs to be modified to as to fit with common sense.Daqu (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion at Talk:Jack Schlossberg

There is currently a move discussion at Talk:Jack Schlossberg, son of Caroline Kennedy and grandson of John F. Kennedy, in which you may be interested in. Thanks! ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 22:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Caroline Kennedy. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caroline Kennedy. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't she have a website?

She's rumored to be interested in public office. Surely she must have some web presence? No? Skysong263 (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caroline_Kennedy/Archive_1&oldid=1224798351"