Talk:Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis/Archive 3

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

Ancestry

'Michel Bouvier, Jacqueline's paternal great-great-grandfather, was born in France and was a contemporary of Joseph Bonaparte and Stephen Girard.' That just means they were the same age. Did he actually know these men? Did this have any significance? 86.148.132.157 (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he supplied furniture to both these notable Frenchmen. Valetude (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

"Kennedy-Onassis" Name Designation is Made Up

Referring to Jackie as "Kennedy-Onassis" with a hyphen is ridiculous as it is made up. I replaced them with "Onasssis." I left her name as Kennedy in the section "Fashion Icon."Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Drinks at the White House

'She also began to let guests at The White House drink cocktails, to give the mansion a more relaxed feeling.' Was this a first? President Harding served alcohol in the White House during Prohibition, so I'd be surprised if it was a dry zone very often. Valetude (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived 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.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear consensus to retain the current title. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis → Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Per WP:COMMONNAME, she is more widely known as a Kennedy than an Onassis. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and speedy close per WP:SNOW. While she may be more widely known as a Kennedy, reliable sources refer to her more often as Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis (38,300 Google Books hits) than as Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy (13,100) by over a 3 to 1 margin. If the proposed title was Jackie Kennedy, there would be some basis for that [1] [2] [3] (68,400) --B2C 06:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Seems a bit soon to "speedy close"..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Contra OP's point, that is not at all clear. She was known as Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis for twice as long (1968-1994) as she was as Jacqueline Kennedy (1953-1968), albeit from 1960-1968 receiving significant and prominent coverage as such; and although it was her name, she was never commonly referred to as Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy in print, on tv, or in general. If anything she was usually referred to as "Jackie Kennedy" even after her marriage to Onassis, but that is not appropriate as the title of the article. Tvoz/talk 06:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
What exactly would be inappropriate about titling the page "Jackie Kennedy"? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - equally well known as Onassis. Virtually nobody knows her maiden name. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per COMMONNAME. Much better known by "Onassis" than "Bouvier". – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2014 (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.

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis → Jacqueline Kennedy – WP:CONCISE, WP:COMMONNAME, also far more known for her Kennedy affiliations than Onassis affiliations. "Jacqueline Kennedy" yields about 11,800,000 results on Google while "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis" yields about 1,030,000 results. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This was rejected less than three weeks ago. Calidum 12:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • But this is a different suggestion, it doesn't include the "Bouvier" bit. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose All of those 11.8 million "Jacqueline Kennedy" results INCLUDE the 1.03 million "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis" results, you know. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    Well, that would still leave a 10:1 ratio, wouldn't it? Dohn joe (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • If we were to take out the 1.03 million from the 11.8 million, we'd have 10.77 million. The "Jacqueline Kennedy" results that aren't including those are indeed over 10 times as many as the "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis" results. At current state, 11:1 ratio. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Naively comparing commonality of monikers "Jackie Onassis":"Jackie Kennedy":"Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis":"Jacqueline Kennedy" yields ratio of 1:5:3:9. At first sniff, the WP:COMMONNAME argument holds. NickCT (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - These days, she is best remembered as Jacqueline Kennedy and the affiliation thereto. Kierzek (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Best known in history as Kennedy Onassis. It is not Wikipedia's business to hush up her impopular second marriage in her overall claim to fame. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This isn't exactly a "hush up". In Kennedy biographies, she is just about never referred to as Onassis. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The First Lady is buried beside President Kennedy; yet, her tombstone reads "Onassis." To me, that suffices to express her wishes and those of her family. Xoloz (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The tombstone of JFK's mother reads "Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy" yet her article is Rose Kennedy, so I don't see how tombstone affects it. Not to dishonor family affiliations or anything, though Jackie is far more commonly known as a Kennedy than an Onassis. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Given how important her own lineage was to Rose, I would support a proposal to move her article to "Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy." While the personal wishes of the subject are not conclusive or definitive, I believe they should play a role in close cases. This is a close case: it is true that "Jacqueline Kennedy" is more common in print; it is also true that omitting "Onassis" might be considered an ahistorical oddity, or (at worst) a POV attempt to rewrite the past. With those two competing notions in tension, the First Lady's wishes settle the question for me. Xoloz (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't worry- this is no attempt to "rewrite the past". Rose was also moved from "Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy" to "Rose Kennedy" a while ago per WP:COMMONNAME. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure POV-pushing is not your intention; however, the relative unpopularity of the First Lady's remarriage creates a problem of appearances in any effort to rename her article. Wikipedia has a responsibility to maintain a NPOV; there are many who would argue that renaming this article violates the spirit of that principle, even assuming -- which, of course, I do -- that your motives are entirely objective. Wikipedia cannot appear to cater to a specific POV regarding the Onassis marriage (namely, that the marriage should never have happened.) Xoloz (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose her common name is Jackie O/Jackie O. ; and she was frequently Jackie Kennedy before "O" -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I've mulled this over for a day. Not only is she most commonly referred to as Jacqueline Kennedy (or Jackie Kennedy) in RS, but most of her notability stems from her life as "Jacqueline Kennedy". Yes, legally she took on the Onassis name when she married him, but she did not really become an Onassis, did she? That's good enough for me, but in case it still adds up to a toss up to anyone, I also offer the WP:Concision razor in support of this move. --B2C 06:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Please note that WP:Concision razor is not policy or even a guideline; it is an essay, written by B2C and not implemented. Tvoz/talk 04:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Like all essays, it identifies itself as an essay, and not a policy or guideline, at the top. Again, it is an argument based in policy and guidelines. People need to decide whether they agree with it or not without regard to who wrote it - who wrote it should not matter, pro or con. What matters is whether it is found to be persuasive and applicable in this case. --B2C 19:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Come on, can you not take someone's point? I'm not attacking the essay, I'm merely saying that citing it as support for your own position does suggest that it exists as an independent opinion that is consonant with yours - but as its writer, that's not a resource you are drawing on or finding agreement in, it is your own position. Just say so, so no one is misled. Maybe you follow all links that sound interesting in a discussion, but likely not everyone does. And "WP:" is the same format as used for, say, WP:5P, the fundamental principles we work under. I'm not trying to make a big deal of it, B2C, but this has come up before and full disclosure would be a better approach for those people who don't actually click on it to discover it's an essay written by the person who is citing it. It's pretty simple - citing Wikipedia essays without identification gives the illusion that whatever the essay says has somehow been vetted by the community or is a guideline or is a policy or is a pillar. I don't think you intend to mislead, but you could acknowledge the possibility that a casual reader and commenter might think it is something it is not. A simple "that I wrote" would have sufficed. As would a "point taken" here. Tvoz/talk 21:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
It's an argument based on policy and guidelines, Tvoz (talk · contribs), just like every other good comment in this discussion. I could transclude it directly into this discussion, but I figure it's better just to link to it. No? --B2C 17:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Born2cycle (talk · contribs), linking to it is fine, as is invoking it - but I think it's incumbent on you to point out when you do that it is an essay that you wrote, of course supporting your point of view on this issue, and that it itself is neither policy nor guideline, nor representative of any decision made to recommend or agree with it. If I missed your saying so in this discussion, which is certainly possible, I apologize for implying that you didn't identify it as such. I daresay not everyone will follow the link and investigate its provenance and some may see a "WP:" and assume it is official. Tvoz/talk 19:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose moving a stable article for no good reason. Omnedon (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    • What better reason can there be to move an article in order to comply better with policy? WP:RM is replete with examples of proposals, at least one almost every day, based solely on WP:CONCISE, and they are often successful. We can agree to disagree on whether JK complies better with WP:CONCISE than does JKO, but simply dismissing an argument widely and often supported by the community as "no good reason" is not a strong rebuttal. --B2C 17:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
      • There is no good reason to move this article, per the statements already made by others. Moving it doesn't make it "better comply with policy" -- that is only your opinion. She is best known by this name and this article title is stable. It should be left a the current correct title, even though others may be a bit shorter. Omnedon (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Reliable sources seem to favor "Jacqueline Kennedy" over "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis" by about 3:1 (after factoring into the equation that all instances of "JKO" will include "JK"). See this ngram and this ngram comparison to see how much reliable sources prefer "JK". "JK" is the most commonly used version, and will be the most recognizable version to our readers. There are no WP:BLP issues here, so we should go with what the reliable sources tell us to. And 75% of reliable sources say "Jacqueline Kennedy". Dohn joe (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support moving per WP:COMMON, WP:CONCISE, and the [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Jacqueline%20Kennedy%2C%20Jacqueline%20Kennedy%20Onassis&date=1%2F2014%2012m&cmpt=q google's trends graph shows that this is by a good measure what people are more likely to look for when searching for this person. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 23:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Commonly known as Jacqueline or Jackie Kennedy, would be rather obscure person if she had only married Onassis. PatGallacher (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose strongly. She was steadily identified as "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis" from her marriage in 1968 all the way to the end of her life in 1994. She achieved considerable public attention under this name, or in its tabloid short form "Jackie O." (or memorably in the 1972 hit Rod Stewart song "You Wear It Well", as "Madame Onassis"). The attention encompassed both scandal and controversy due to her marriage to Onassis as well as the most prolonged and successful professional career she had, that as a book editor in New York. Common name calculations are not especially pertinent here. That is because while sources that are only talking about the JFK years may reasonably refer to her as "Jacqueline Kennedy", sources that describe her whole life will use "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis". Just look at this Amazon list of books with her name in the title. The ones that just deal with her as a First Lady use "Jacqueline Kennedy" in the title, while the ones that deal with her whole life all use "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis" in the title. If you look at obituaries that were published when she died, they all refer to "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis", such as this Associated Press one and this New York Times one and this Washington Post one and this Associated Press news analysis one and this People magazine one and this Fortune piece on her will and so on. If all these books that deal with her whole life use "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis", and if all the obituaries that dealt with her whole life used "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis", then this Wikipedia biography that covers her whole life should follow the same practice and also use "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis". And this Wikipedia article has used that title, for over a decade. There is no justification for this move request. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What tabloids call her is extremely moot. There are also many Kennedy family biographies that go into her up until she died and never once refer to her as "Onassis". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I strongly appreciate and support the opinions given by Wasted Time R and Xoloz above, while I find the constant bullying pestering and mostly irrelevant comments (under every opposing vote!) by XXSNUGGUMSXX - such as declaring what is or isn't "extremely moot" - very irritating. Is this supposed to be a discussion of various editors hoping to find balanced consensus, or a forum for XXSNUGGUMSXX to doggedly push personal POV by bashing every single opinion that does not agree? Please stop that! We know what you think by now. You don't need to try to dominate the whole page here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
To expand upon my previous point about what names obituaries of her used, I've gone into Highbeam, done a search for "jacqueline kennedy", then restricted it to 05/01/1994-05/30/1994, the month that she died. I looked at the first 40 newspaper stories there (two screens' worth on my browser), and 37 of them use "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis". You should be able to replicate the search yourself even if you don't have a Highbeam account. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
SergeWoodzing, I assure you that this is no attempt to bully or push POV. Sorry if it came off as such, though. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
@SergeWoodzing: - Seriously Serge; implying that the phrase "extremely moot" is a form of "constant bullying and mostly irrelevant comment" seems like a bit of a stretch. NickCT (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
OK I've revised that now, mainly thanx to the polite comment about it here by XXSNUGGUMSXX h-self. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Most commonly identified with the current name by historical sources. Another ill-informed gender hit, on the heels of the Hillary Rodham Clinton RM. Tarc (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    Most historical sources drop the Onassis, as has been shown above. If you have contrary evidence, though, I'd be glad to see it. And how is this a "gender hit"? Dohn joe (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen any evidence that most historical sources that deal with her whole life drop the "Onassis". Now obviously, there was a ton of media attention to the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination last year, and all of those pieces would have just said "Jacqueline Kennedy", since she that's what she was then. And if you were writing a subarticle like First Ladyship of Jacqueline Kennedy or Jacqueline Kennedy and the assassination of John F. Kennedy, those would be appropriate titles. But this is an article on her whole life, and she had large-scale public attention as "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis" and a productive professional career as "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis". That is the name that obituaries of her used and that biographies of her whole life use. As another data point, the Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis Reservoir is so named. The Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis School (ballet) is so named. The Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis High School for International Careers is so named. All of these reflect the contributions she made to public life in her post-JFK years. The only thing named after the shorter form that I know of is the Jacqueline Kennedy Garden at the White House, which again is focused on just her years as a first lady. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Wasted Time R has very clearly outlined why this stable article should remain named as it has been for over a decade. She was known as Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis for twice as long (1968-1994) as she was as Jacqueline Kennedy (1953-1968). Although married to Aristotle Onassis for only seven years (1968-1975), she chose to retain the Onassis name for another almost 20 years after his death until her own. Reliable sources describing her whole life always refer to her as Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, the name her obituaries and gravestone, installed by her Kennedy children, used. Her career, writing, and considerable public influence over three decades were as Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Of course her three years as First lady were very significant, and of course books written about those three years refer to her as Kennedy, as we do in those parts of our article. But every story of her whole life uses the Onassis name, and, as WTR said, we are writing a biography of her whole life, so should do the same. Nothing has changed regarding her name or how she is described in the decade that this article has used the JKO title: this move request has no merit.Tvoz/talk 04:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. When it's necessary to choose between two different commonly-used forms of a name, WP:COMMONNAME recommends looking not just at raw frequency counts but also at the form preferred by other significant sources such as encyclopedias, major organizations, and the like. The Encyclopedia Britannica prefers the JKO form, as do sites like NNDB, history.com, etc. Usage among major bodies and media outlets is mixed, with some significant ones using JKO (UPI, CBS, Time, LA Times, etc.) and others using the forms JK, JBK, or JBKO. Basically, while raw frequency counts may favor JK, other considerations either favor JKO or are mixed, so I don't see a sufficiently strong rationale to change a stable article title on that basis. I also agree with the points above raised by Wasted Time R and Tvoz. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • If reliability of sources is of concern, it should be noted that NNDB is not considered reliable, and neither is Britannica. As for sources that follow her whole life, examples of sources that never once address her as Onassis include the Life magazine The Kennedys: End of a Dynasty. Article stability is more based on frequency of content changes within article itself (i.e. edit warring) than it is title. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. from WP:TITLECHANGES. Not just about content. Tvoz/talk 21:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jacqueline_Kennedy_Onassis/Archive_3&oldid=1040145799"