Talk:Henry Cabot Lodge Jr.

message: As the original image was ridiculously deleted on Commons, I've uploaded a new one. It can be found under :File:HenryCLodgeJr.jpg. Someone may put it into the article when it is unlocked. --Scooter  (this one)  19:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Can someone please add Category:United States vice-presidential candidates, 1960 to the category listings. Thank you.--JayJasper (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And done. RayTalk 06:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Thank you.--JayJasper (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for category addition 

message: The Jr suffix is only used when the child has the exact same name as the parent. He was named after his grandfather.--201.29.57.64 (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See Archive 1 of this talk page:
I think I figured it out. After his father (George Lodge) died, little Henry Lodge (at the time 7-yrs) was un-officially adopted by his grandfather Henry Lodge & thus as the grandson/adopted son, changed his name from Henry C. Lodge II to Henry C. Lodge Jr. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

text: This may all be bunk, as I don't know if his mother was still alive; if she was alive, you'd think he would have remained in the care of a natural parent and would have retained the "II" suffix.  Offhand, I don't know how he called himself; perhaps a sample signature from the time he was a young adult before his grandfather died in 1924 would answer the question.  However, I think he'd properly be called "Henry Cabot Lodge II", without the comma as currently shown in the lead section of the article.  If he used the "Junior" suffix, it would be rendered "Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.", but not "junior" as someone currently did in categorizing media at Wikimedia Commons, or "Henry Cabot Lodge Jr" as some like to do while emulating lazy journalists.  It seems most historic references call him "Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr."  According to Find A Grave, he dropped the "Jr." suffix in 1956.  The article doesn't reference any biography that might definitively answer the question.  It's interesting that Lodge named his own son "George Cabot Lodge II", after his grandfather, so it's likely that he was named "Henry Cabot Lodge II" at birth. — QuicksilverT @ 17:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I support moving this article to Henry Cabot Lodge II. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Are there sources that use II? GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  New York Times - over 1600 uses of "Jr.",  zero for "II".  Google news archive: 6 articles for "Jr." one lonely cite for "II".   Google 91 total web pages for "II" (paging through to the end, which is the only way to do it). 811 entries for web pages with "jr."  Books on the person?    Google books for biographies?  83 for "jr."  15 for "II".  In short, the common name is using "Jr." and "II" is stilted when the person referred to himself as "Jr." in documents.  And signed documents as "Jr. (the "r" is clear, the "j" is ligature with "g", but absolutely never a "II" for it)  among many other images of his signature. Collect (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I still recommend moving the article to Henry Cabot Lodge II, as Jr is mostly associated with being Sr's son. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He did not use "II".  RS sources used "Jr."  He used "Jr."  The vast majority (90+%) of major newspapers used "Jr".  The NYT used "Jr." 100% of the time.  He was not known as "II" to any of his friends.  Yet you feel it is a more accurate title?  Sorry - I do not buy that. Collect (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Henry Cabot Lodge II would be more accurate, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: His entry in the Congressional Biographical Directory, found here, uses "Jr." These entries are prepared with direct input from the Member of Congress concerned and are generally considered reliable. The Congressional Record and related documents throughout his service also used "Jr." (I also did a quick Google search for his autographs, which although they would be primary sources are nonetheless relevant, but it appears that when he signed his name, he didn't use any suffix at all.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually they started off with a (by autograph standards) a "jr" and ended up with the "e" of "Lodge" disappearing into a down stroke after the "g" and a fairly clear "r".  Be wary - some official correspondence appears secretarial (vastly different style).  His "free frank" shows the "jr" very clearly, however. Collect (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Between that and the congressional materials, I'd say any dispute should be pretty well resolved in favor of leaving the article where it is. (Can you provide a link for the frank signature?) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice example at   Collect (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, I reckon my theory is accurate. He went by Jr because he was raised by his paternal grandparents. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He went by "jr." because he had the same name as another person in the family.  "Paternal grandparents"  is a stretch for a reason. Collect (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter what you think is more accurate, what matters is both the official sources say and the preference of the individual in question. In every source possible, Lodge was always referred, referenced, and wildly known as Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., not "II" or "Henry C. Lodge Jr." or other suffixes.  NewDealChief (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

text: He was in fact II. Jr IS in fact only used when a man carries an original name and gives his exact full name to a son. If the original carrier of the name is a cousin, uncle, or ancestor (including grandfather), it would be II. I have seen this Lodge referred to as II in sources such as "The Kennedys: End of a Dynasty" by Life magazine. I have also seen many people misuse suffixes, such as referring to President George H. W. Bush as "George Bush, Sr." and President George W. Bush as "George Bush, Jr.". Also, people commonly make the mistake of calling Ronald Prescott Reagan (son of President Ronald Wilson Reagan) "Ronald Reagan, Jr.". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Many reliable sources and Lodge himself used Jr. There is no law or even any widely established agreement as to when Jr or Sr should or should not be used. We should follow reliable sources as well as the self-identification of the subject. older ≠ wiser — Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, there IS general agreement that Jr = son of Sr. Regardless of what Lodge referred to himself as, it doesn't change that calling him "Jr" is a misuse of the suffix. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be some fussy pretentious folks who think there is a clearly defined distinction. The practice in reality is quite different. older ≠ wiser 18:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Suffix (name) page, calling this man Jr would be incorrect. It also mentions other men that misuse suffixes. 174.226.5.18 (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That article has little more than a load of original research and speculation. What reliable source says such use is "incorrect"? And even if some sources describe such uses as incorrect by some imaginary standard, we go by the common name of the subject as used by the subject and in the majority of reliable sources. older ≠ wiser 16:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we could move this article to "Henry C. Lodge", following the format of his son George II and father George I. He was also simply known as "Lodge" or "Henry C. Lodge". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is he called "Jr"? 

message: The section on his tenure as ambassador to South Vietnam reads as though he was acting with approval of the Kennedy administration, which gives the section a conservative twist. In fact, Lodge disregarded explicit orders and encouraged the coup against Diem entirely on his own hook, and the assassination of him and his brother. He was described as being "gleeful" at the murders. Kennedy was dismayed and horrified by this, not only because the two brothers were Catholics but because Lodge's actions knocked the props out from under the president's policy of limited action in Vietnam. Kennedy had intended to organize a "friendly exile" for Diem. Instead, Lodge's actions were largely responsible for the immediate explosion of the anti-war peace movement in 1963. See Ira Stoll's new book, JFK, Conservative (Chap. 8), for details, which will be out in October 2013. --Michael K SmithTalk  15:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam 

message: He was ambassador in Spain during six years and play an important role in the return of Franquism to the international scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.128.139 (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Spain

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Henry Cabot Lodge Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070802202137/http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=8aaaf95a-7a23-495b-8054-755ab7cdfa1f to http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=8aaaf95a-7a23-495b-8054-755ab7cdfa1f
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I feel the need to make some edits to the Vietnam section. Some of the language is wooden, or ungrammatical. For example:
"In course of this binge of drinking and sex, Đôn played on Dinh's ego, saying that a "national hero" like him should be in the cabinet, which showed Diem's rank ingratiate.
"rank ingratiate"? What is that?
But as I read more closely, this section is particular does not read like an encyclopedia.
"Lodge for his part was a man of dynamic energy and immense ambition who very much wanted to be president, and believed that if he was successful as an ambassador to an important American ally in the middle of a crisis, that would help his presidential ambitions."
"When Kennedy asked Lodge if he was willing to serve as an ambassador, Lodge replied: "If you need me, of course, I want to do it"."
This second bit seems like something one would see in an encyclopedia. Is that true of the first sentence? That sentence seems appropriate for Langguth's book, which is a historical narrative, has a viewpoint, and is not an ecyclopedia.
And, later, "only to receive the absurd reply that the Hue incident was the work of the Viet Cong". An "absurd reply"? Again, is this how an encyclopedia presents things?
Am I wrong about this? I would welcome comment before I take the time to edit.
RayKiddy (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has been greatly expanded since the last time I read it, and not necessarily for the better. In particular, the section on his time as Ambassador to South Vietnam has been vastly expanded, to the point that it is much too long, wordy, and filled with pedantic detail for an encyclopedia article. The section on the Vietnam War is now far longer than all the rest of the article put together, although his service as Ambassador to South Vietnam was only a part of his career. The article also seems to imply that he was a strong supporter of Senator Joseph McCarthy, when in fact he ended up as a McCarthy critic, and McCarthy refused to support him in his 1952 race against JFK - William F. Buckley has said that Lodge may well have won the Senate race with McCarthy's support. I'm all for improving articles and adding information from reliable sources, but it needs to be well-written, well-organized, and should summarize the subject of the article, not get mired down in massive amounts of detail. IMO, this article could use some pruning by an experienced editor. 2603:6080:C402:2A45:648B:B9BB:6F06:6979 (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam section, in an encyclopedia?