Talk:Rosemary Kennedy

message: What is the relevance of the external link captioned as "YouTube Lobotomy Video"? I'll be damned if I'm going to watch it to find out. If it says something about Rosemary Kennedy, we should indicate what. If it is a general video on lobotomy, it doesn't belong here and probably amounts to linkspam. We don't link a general video on Alzheimer's from the Ronald Reagan article. - Jmabel | Talk 23:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lobotomy video 

message: I've moved these from the article to here. Gamaliel 16:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments by Majnun99 

message: no reference for this story. Sounds made up. --GangofOne 05:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The artcile seems to be no longer available.  I grew up in Chicago, and I do recall an unusual news item about a Kennedy sister getting lost during a trip downtown, but eventually recovered safely.  If someone has a date, I could check Tribune archives. WHPratt (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19751005&id=BfBLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=au0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=7332,2760315&hl=en 2601:80:4003:7416:4CC:209B:9E18:6E9A (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:   Rosemary's day lost in Chicago 

message: I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, but I was struck by the fact that it's never mentioned whether Rosemary wanted the lobotomy or not. I know that was a different time (amazing how quickly things change), and that it was (apparently) her father's decision and not hers, but is there any source or record regarding HER opinion of this procedure? If there is, it's inclusion is vital. Someone must have said something at some point about what she thought about it. How could something so important go unmentioned? I can't be the first person who has noticed this! 76.103.213.78 (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure if such information was publicly available it would have been included. --Ave Caesar (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Did Rosemary Want the Lobotomy?

message: The third paragraph under Family and early life, including footnotes 5 - 11, should be trimmed significantly. Words like moron, imbecile, and idiot are all perjorative; it should simply say she was mentally ill. Since the whole paragraph and most of the article itself comes from one source, and the repeated footnotes come from a few pages of that source, it seems appropriate to say something like "Rosemary was deemed mentally ill," with one footnote: Leaming, pp. 136 - 166  and leave out the idea that "morons"  were more dangerous than "idiots." Catherinejarvis (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Those were accepted medical terms in the early 20th century, and only gained their pejorative meanings later, much like the term "retarded", which was still acceptable in the 1970s, phased out in the '80s, and is no longer acceptable as neutral descriptor. Use of the terms in the articles provides context for the times and the decisions that were made. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Boneyard 99 is correct.  Imbecile, idiot, and moron have specific meanings, defined by IQ ranges.  The Association of Retarded Citizens used the term in its name until just recently.  The Catholic institution in which Rosemary was hidden from public view once had the phrase "Backward Youth" in its name.John Paul Parks (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

text: The american people uses the phrase mental health in the United States today. American society has changed. Evolved. Calling a young woman as "mentally ill" seems to me a setback to the dark ages. A Nazi-facist language. Anyway: Rosemary was a victim of the worst violence: family violence. Her father treated her - and the other Kennedy children - not as human beings - but as commodities. I only hope that this man has found in the dead the peace he never had in his life.Bryard (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  use of perjoratives 

message: Two things are troubling: The length of the article seems inappropriate for this obscure and unimportant person. Does someone who attempted and achieved nothing in life deserve 48 citations - most of which come from just two sources? The last section, titled "Mental Condition," should be completely removed. It is based on a book called "Sins of the Father," which is a dead giveaway of bias, and repeatedly attacks the Kennedy family with words like disgrace, failure, banished and rejection. It also appears to be little more than publicity for the author, Ronald Kessler, who is mentioned by name six times, as if the whole thing was written by Kessler himself. The entire article needs a dispassionate review from an editor.Polkadreamer (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon me, Polkadreamer, but I really don't like someone driving by here to say a subject, who was reduced from a beautiful young woman to someone unable to speak, achieved nothing in life. I went to the trouble of reading two books on this subject, as recommended here. For example, as I recall Ms. Kennedy learned to read Winnie the Pooh before she was given a lobotomy. Find another source if you like. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

text: To Polkadreamer: I can see why your point. She really didn't accomplish anything herself. But a well-written article is a well-article. I find it complete, but not overly detailed (trust me, some articles are much worse). It's not R. Kennedy's accomplishments that make her significant, but rather what happened because of her, or because of what happened to her. Her tragedy brought to the attention of the public the inefficacy of some of the psychiatric treatments of the day, like lobotomies and electroshock therapy; made public the abuses of a wealthy family; and since then has put Joseph Kennedy under a more realistic light. As a child, I used to hear adults talk about how wonderful the Kennedy family was for "not being ashamed of Rosemary", and treating her with dignity and humanity, etc., so there have been times when people looked through rose-colored glasses. I read the article with interest, and found it informative. It could probably use some fine-tuning, but it's mostly acceptable.Boneyard90 (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Hi Polkadreamer. Apologies for my earlier hissy fit. Five or six refs could be combined (for example, "Leamer, p. 203."). But  I don't agree that comparing the raw number of references between articles makes as much difference as you seem to think it does. Different editors have different styles plus they are each using different sources (a web news obituary might summarize a whole lifetime in one easy-to-reuse ref, for example). Also I could combine a lot of pages (for example, to say "Leamer, pp. 137, 138, 163, 164, 165, 166, 203, 204, 227, 251, 252, 253, 254, 256" etc.) to reduce the raw number of refs. But later editors would have to untangle every single one of those changes. That said, I am available to reword and to remove Kessler's name as needed. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I combined a number of references (which I should have done before). Also I labeled Kessler in his own section. Thank you, your comment led to improvements. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Must agree with Polkadreamer: article-length should reflect the degree of notability, and not whether someone 'took the trouble' to write it at its present length. People often 'take the trouble' to promote their own agendas on wiki, out of proportion to their notability. Valetude (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last section 

message: The article appears to have been cleaned up, but this last section is troubling, as others have pointed out. This section is based on Kessler's book, Sins of the Father, a title which should automatically raise red flags about objectivity. The sentence about someone tapping their skull and saying "not right in the head" is in bad taste and really has nothing to do with Ms. Kennedy. None of the opinions expressed in this section apply as biography. The last sentence in the section stating an insult as fact is obviously inappropriate. The entire section promoting Kessler's book should be removed as irrelevant bias.Ononuofk (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's something else wrong with the section: too much "close paraphrasing". Way too much, IMHO... Doc talk 06:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Yes, there is a lot of paraphrasing. Try to get a more experienced copyeditor to help. Spelling Style (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Dispute 

message: The article states that "Rosemary Kennedy became increasingly assertive and rebellious. She was also reportedly subject to violent mood changes."  Says who?  There is no source for any of those statements, and without references, the statements are nothing more than propaganda for the Kennedy family, trying to hide its complicity in the abuse to which Rosemary was subjected when her father had her undergo the lobotomy merely to satisfy his wounded ego at having fathered a less-than-normal child.John Paul Parks (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Joe Kennedy Propaganda Piece

message: I have removed the last section referring to the Kessler book - and before anyone restores it, consider how the article reads without the last section. It still gives two Kessler references, and still refers to Ms. Kennedy's mental condition and the lobotomy, without the hearsay about Joseph's mistress, or the "not quite right" quote, or the crack that Joseph Kennedy  "abandoned" his daughter. I agree with others that the article simply doesn't need the last Kessler section at all, since it provides no information about Rosemary herself. I also consolidated some of the Leamer citations. All sources that were listed before are still listed.  Again, consider the updated article and ask if it is not more precise and cleaner.Princetoniac (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of article edit 

message: This article was vandalized by an anonymous editor in the past few hours and the vandalism was reverted.  If you have this article watch-listed, please be on the lookout for possible vandalism.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I removed the following sentence since no ref is provided to explain even who the relative was who held the opinion: "Her mother's cousin thought the marriage of second cousins by Rose's parents, John Francis "Honey Fitz" Fitzgerald and Mary Josephine "Josie" Hannon, caused the condition." An explanation is already in the article of hypoxia during birth. Edison (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cousin marriage 

message: The article mentions Rosemary's "violent mood swings" but other sources, such as History.com do not describe her as volitile.  Rosemary was acting out due to frustration that she could not keep up with her sibling's accomplishments nor experience the freedom they had.  She was described as a gentle, loving child. 32.223.182.210 (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mood swings