Talk:Catherine Oxenberg

message: A Google search on "india oxenberg" & "kerry" reveals only 3 hits.  Of these, only 1 alleges that Kerry is India's father, and that's a letter to the editor. Not only is there no evidence, there's not even an allegation floating around. What is your basis for "some" believing this Xed? Wolfman 18:01, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: how about responding to the point I made? and, that's a cute pic -- but as you know, india looks just like her mother, long face & all. Wolfman 18:20, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: big chin too. maybe she got that from her father--Xed 18:23, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: what's interesting about it? got a link? Wolfman 22:34, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you can link directly to it. You have to search for the user name. --Xed 22:39, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, I got her user feedback page.  Didn't see anything interesting there.  She also has no items currently for sale.  What am I supposed to be looking for? Wolfman 22:50, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Kerry connection

message: Since he divorced Thorne in 88 and married Heinz in 95, it was presumably within that period that the relationship took place - discounting adultery and pedophilia (Oxenberg was 9 in 1970 when he married Thorne). Kerry is believed to have started a relationship with Heinz after 92 (at the Earth Summit) - so that may narrow it down further to between 88 and 92. India was born in 91. --Xed 20:24, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice speculation.  How about some actual evidence? Wolfman 21:53, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Deduction dear Watson--Xed 22:42, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, I like this game.  I deduce that Bush was a cokehead who skipped out on the Guard.  Mind if I include those as fact in his article? Wolfman 22:49, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not. Why d'you bring that up?--Xed 22:54, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is ample precedent (that I agree with) in Talk: GW Bush for not including such "deductions".  Your deduction game is no different, and I had hoped you would see this as a "reduction to absurdity" of your argument.  Apparently, you see nothing absurd at all about including such nonsense.  That makes my head hurt.  In this case, at least, you can presumably go find out the dates.  This seems to have been a fairly public relationship, though unfortunately for us before the internet age.  Got access to Lexis/Nexis?  That should have it. Wolfman 22:59, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You've certainly reduced yourself to absurdity. I can't claim to have helped you in that matter. As for the dates, are you insinuating he committed adultery? Because outside of those dates - that's what it would be.--Xed 23:02, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My, aren't you precious. Wolfman 23:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: That's strange - before you were sure it was the 80s. --Xed 23:22, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not!  Point me to such a claim.  You cannot.  I have always acknowledged that I have not been able to find a definitive date.  What I've read leads me to deduce it was the late 80's, but that's not good enough to put in as fact. Wolfman 23:39, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You say in the edit history - "from what i can find, they dated in the 80's" - what did you find? where did you find it? --Xed 23:43, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: selective quote to misrepresent certainty:  I actually said "from what i can find, they dated in the 80's, can you support the 90's claim?"  My uncertainty is clear because (a) 'what I can find' indicates it's not definitive (b) 'can you support the 90's claim' indicates it's not definitive.  Also, a couple edits later I state "nothing definitive".  What little I can gather is only implied by wording I have seen about the relationship.   I use Google. Wolfman 23:51, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I missed your answer. What did you find to support the 80s claim? And where did you find it?--Xed 00:00, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you missed it.  I used Google, so can you.  Since I found nothing definitive, I did not bookmark the suggestive (but undefinitive) passages I did find.Wolfman 00:25, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "from what i can find, they dated in the 80's" - what page contained this information?--Xed 00:30, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: are you hard of thinking? read what i just wrote again. Wolfman 00:32, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of dating 

message: Some opponents of Kerry have posted a story from the Boston Globe of August 22, 1989, talking about women Kerry dated, which says, "More recently, there was Catherine Oxenberg."  (The story is available from the Globe only if you pay for it, and I sure am not shelling out real money to track down this lunacy.  I read the excerpt for free courtesy of http://www.auctionlandusa.com/kerryhtml/romeo_89globe.htm ("NoJohnKerry.org").)
The Globe story, saying "there was Catherine Oxenberg" (emphasis added), suggests that whatever was going on had stopped by the time of the story -- August of 1989.  India was conceived in approximately September of 1990.  It looks like this particular speculation will have to be retired.    JamesMLane 00:51, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "more recently, there was" doesn't explicitly say that the affair was over. For instance, you could say, "After a string of  different women, Jack dated Jill. More recently, there was Joan, whom he is now happily married too." All the "there was" phrase means in the story is that Oxenberg came after Fairchild, and this event happened in the past. Additionally, the Boston Globe in 1989 was unable to see into the future and tell if they resumed dating.  --Xed 18:32, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, which is why I said the wording "suggests" that they had stopped dating.  I think the key point is that no one has pointed to any evidence or shred of a suggestion that they were at all involved in or about September of 1990.  A photo of them together at an event in that month wouldn't be enough evidence to support a suggestion about India's paternity, but we don't even have anything remotely close to that much evidence. JamesMLane 02:46, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But the article doesn't just suggest it - it states it as a fact.--Xed 02:49, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it says that they dated in 1989, which is factual and which is all that is justified by our source.  By your own logic about interpreting the Globe story, the statement that they dated in 1989 doesn't mean that they stopped in 1989.  If you interpret the current text of the article to assert definitively (as opposed to suggesting) that they stopped dating before the end of 1989, because it uses the past tense, then you'd have to interpret the Globe article the same way. JamesMLane 03:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement that they dated in 1989 DOES mean that they stopped in 1989, since we are not looking at it from the perspective of 1989. -Xed 14:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you found a reference indicating that they dated after 1989? Wolfman 15:05, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't even a reference that they dated in 1989, which is why I would prefer it to say just 'after JKs marriage ended' -- Xed 15:12, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a reference that they dated in 1989.  The Globe story, as I quoted above, says, ""More recently, there was Catherine Oxenberg."  That story was published in August of 1989.  If the dating wasn't in 1989 it was even earlier, but I think "recently" suggests that it was within at least the preceding eight months.  On that basis I'm restoring the "in 1989".  If you don't think "recently" implies that, feel free to change it to "in 1989 or earlier".  As to whether they dated at any time after 1989, there's as much evidence that Kerry dated her in 1990 as there is that Bush dated her in 1990 (or, for that matter, that Bush dated Kerry in 1990). JamesMLane 16:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: It's almost identical in meaning to a previous wording to a previous version I edited. You rejected it at the time. -  Xed 16:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: when i decide i'm wrong, i change my mind.  what do you do Xed?  or, would you prefer that i dispute this as well?  Wolfman 17:00, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: But Xed has now deleted this information  without explaining why.  I'm restoring it.  If no other solution can be found, I'd be amenable to the somewhat more awkward method of simply quoting our source (the Globe) in full, with the date, so that readers have all the information.  I still think that a simple "in 1989" is accurate and preferable, though. JamesMLane 17:28, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly not accurate. We only know they dated within a certain period. There is no specific information tying it down to 1999. - Xed 17:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We know that they dated at some point before August 24, 1989.  We have zero zip nada zilch no information that they dated at any time thereafter. JamesMLane 17:38, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Some facts

message: What is the evidence that Catherine Oxenberg is Jewish?--Jbull 03:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish 

message: I'm of the opinion that all pages of celebrities need pictures to illustrate said celebrity; this page is no different.  I'm sure there's a promo photo out there somewhere that can be used to this end.  --Cyde Weys 13:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page needs a pic 

message: Why does she speak in this pseudo British/Australian/SouthAfrican accent if she was born in NYC and grew up in the U.S.? Because her mother - who probably speaks English with a Slavic accent - lives in England?
Anyway, it should be noted in the article that she has a strange accent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL5auOsFhY0
Rashnan (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: She didn't "grow up in the U.S. She was raised in London. "Strange accent" seems to be a matter of opinion.Mk5384 (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accent? 

message: Does being the 1388th person in a line of succesion really merit inclusion?Mk5384 (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it does. I'm not sure that the number should be mentioned in the introduction but the fact that she is somewhere in the line should be mentioned. Surtsicna (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well. Timothy Geithner is fifth in the line of succession to the U. S. Presidency, yet this is not even mentioned.Mk5384 (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps that should be mentioned in the article about Timothy Geithner. Surtsicna (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it really shouldn't. It also isn't mentioned in the articles for Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, et al. There has never been a situation where even the 3rd person in line assumed the U.S. Presidency. Therefore, being 5th through 17th in line to succeed are of little consequence. Being 1388th is absurd.Mk5384 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Upon further investigation, many persons, much higher in line than Ms. Oxenberg do not have their positions in line to the throne mentioned in their articles. Being 1388th in line is trivial in the most extreme fashion, and as such, I have removed it.Mk5384 (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succesion to the British throne 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Catherine Oxenberg. 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:
*Added  tag to http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00025585&tree=LEO
*Added  tag to http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00025584&tree=LEO
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080510151559/http://www.childhelp.org/about/celebrity-ambassadors to http://www.childhelp.org/about/celebrity-ambassadors
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070401171321/http://www.mynetworktv.com/wom_characters_catherine_oxenberg.html to http://www.mynetworktv.com/wom_characters_catherine_oxenberg.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified