Talk:John Kerry/Archive 3

Family Background

Vidiviniwiki claims that it's "Silly to put in '6th cousins' and '8th cousins' and descent from Charlemagne, as if any European is not his descendant; not unbelievable, simply pitifully innocuous)" in the "family background portion. I tend to disagree, but ask for opinions. First, Kerry isn't European. Second, not everyone can trace ancestry to Charlemagne. To some people it's interesting and useful to know the family background at this level, and isn't silly at all. Kerry dopesn't come from just some ordinary American family, his maternal ancestors have played an important role in both American and European history, and I think that as a candidate for the most powerful political office in the world, that's certainly worthy of attention.

Here are portions which were deleted:

" In the 19th century, members of the Forbes family played an important part in building the railroad system of America's Middle West, in helping get Grover Cleveland elected President, and in building Alexander Graham Bell's telephone company. Ralph Waldo Emerson's daughter, Edith, married into the Forbes family."

And

"This branch of Kerry's family tree also shows a common ancestry with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jane Addams, Calvin Coolidge, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. Because Margaret is one of the "gateway ancestors" of Charlemagne, according to the International Society of the Descendants of Charlemagne, Kerry's lineage can be drawn back to the great emperor as well."

-- Damion

Well, I agree. I earlier reinserted some of the same material that Vidiviniwiki had deleted. I agree that it is interesting and should stay. Bkonrad | Talk 05:02, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Kerry dopesn't come from just some ordinary American family, his maternal ancestors have played an important role in both American and European history, and I think that as a candidate for the most powerful political office in the world, that's certainly worthy of attention."

I actually find that a bit offensive. The USA is a republic and a democracy which rejected royalty and the divine right of kings, implicit in that the rejection of the concept of inherited nobility. To make the kind of fuss which requires us to think back to Charlemagne presupposes the doubtful genetic basis of greatness, especially when you are going to distant cousins. Why is it that when we trace ancestry we find kings and princes and emppresses, but somehow nobody is ever related to Adolf Hitler, Attila the Hun, Ivan the Terrible, Jack the Ripper and Vlad the Impaler. I suppose all these gentlemen died childless. :) Cecropia 05:08, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's offensive if someone is making that particular argument, which the deleted statement does not. Another interpretation could be that royal families have preserved their power and wealth over the centuries through sending their children to prep schools, marrying into other wealthy family lines, and joining exclusive organizations-- all of which the Forbes family has done (and I speak not as a detractor but as a supporter and fan of Kerry's). Whatever the interpretation is, I think the point here is to present the genealogical fact and let people make up their own minds.--Damion

Yes, the U.S. did reject royalty and ironically, if there is a candidate in the current election who is vulnerable to the charge of "inheriting" the office, it is not Kerry. I could be quite happy without including the Charlemange detail, but the somewhat nearer relations are interesting. Bkonrad | Talk 05:28, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and Mr. Shrub has most of the exact same bluebloodedness as Mr. Kerry. Cowboy hat or no, daddy is a New England wasp and you would never have been embarassed invitin' ol' Prescott to the best hoe-downs! :) But, you see, I'm a thoroughgoing republican, suh! (small "r" please) By all means, keep Charlemagne and everyone else in there, but like your horoscope: "For Entertainment Value Only." ;-) Cecropia 06:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vidiviniwiki responds on March 31: Regarding my concise but perhaps slightly too assertive original commentary, I will step back and try to argue out my points more diplomatically, and offer to abide by any extended vote during April/May (whoever wishes to organize).

First, regarding Charlemagne reference, I agree that a legitimate, proven descent from this ruler could be interesting. However, to genealogists, it is in fact less powerful than a closer relationship to say Edward III, considered a 'font of English blood royale', which has 'been proven' for many Presidents, including each Bush and probably Kerry. For most people of European descent, it is not a question of if someone is a descendent of Charlegmagne, but rather how many times, 50 generations later. For genealogists, the prominent early Colonial ancestors of Kerry (Winthrop and Bowdoin) would be more telling, and of course, his immediate Forbes family (of China and Boston) descent and Kerry family descent are most important, with the relationships with his parents and grandparents deeply formative. More relevant to our article's 'family background' section is the genealogical impact on Kerry's biography; is Kerry confident or ashamed because of his varied ancestry?; was Kerry helped or hindered because of this ancestry; is he an 'outsider' or 'insider' or both with his family background? Clearly the 'Irish Catholic' illusions of early Boston press and political campaigns, his (and his mother's) trusts' origins in the Forbes family wealth and opium dealing in China especially when he self-financed his primary fight against Dean, his father's and maternal ancestors patriotric service - these are important genealogical references. Non-genealogists, though, might see a Charlemagne reference and either ignore it (as these get common and cause 'ancestor inflation' for every notable) or put too much emphasis on it (as if Kerry was born with a tiara on his head). Yes, Kerry is partly an aristocrat and considers himself a kind of one, which is clearly is part of his biography now (his youthful idol was Scaramouche). But he is an aristocratic Senator not because of 'blood royale' a thousand years ago but because of his family's 19th century commercial and local ties - mainly because the Boston elite like the Winthrops in the 19th century married into and 'adopted' an immigrant Scots Forbes family grown rich while living in China, and these ancient Boston connections were helped with Forbes trusts and (French estates), prep schools in Switzerland and the Northeast, the Ivy League, etc. A royal descent is fun and all, but a descent from King Louis XI or Charlemagne probably belongs on a different page (the Forbes or Winthop or whichever 'family' page). (Now if you said Kerry was the natural son of the Queen mum, that would be different).

Regarding proposed standards for an individual's genealogy (and secondly, a family), in an article:

For an individual's article: list parents, if known, in any case, with careers; list grandparents, if sufficiently interesting; list uncles and aunts, and 1st cousins, if powerful or accomplished people affecting the individual (for example, Kerry's uncle and aunt were expatriates, I believe, and his childhood pal and 1st cousin is a French citizen and was a (Green? party) candidate for President or Prime Minister of France; that seems relevant to an individual running for President of the U.S.); list any (American/nationally connected) ancestors within 10 generations, if they were clearly famous and accomplished leaders, etc., like a top stateman or 'first governor' (not simply historical footnotes);

For a family article: confine article to prominent family only, like 'Forbes family of China and Boston', but not necessarily a 'Forbes of Scotland' genealogical compilation out of Burke's into genealogical antiquity - that could be a different article; list main family line from 'patriarch/matriarch', with birthdates/places to identify them easily; list some spouses if of notable families (for example, Emerson's daughter married so and so); comment on interesting cousins/relationships to the 2nd cousin or 3rd cousin, or perhaps to a very distant degree if major like a '7th cousin' relationship between Kerry and Bush, descendants of same Governor (under Winthrop family article) comment on the accomplishments of members on this 'family' page (for example, keep the Forbes 'railroad' investments on the Forbes family page, since this Forbes appears to be a second cousin of Kerry's great grandfather, a pretty distant connection).

Sorry for longwinded proposal - the end! -------------------------------

May I mention that Charlemagne was crowned in 800 (sic!), 1204 years ago? Any white person who is not somehow a relative of him must belong to a family of untouchables or islanders. Furthermore, no serious encyclopedia would list far cousins, especially not if there exists an extra entry about the family and there is no indication that they had a personal influence on the life of the person the entry is about. Get-back-world-respect 14:02, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, Kerry and George W. Bush are cousins of NINTH degree. I see no reason to include this here, nor the connection to e Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jane Addams, or Calvin Coolidge. If one is interested in the family there are extra articles. Get-back-world-respect 23:08, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what degree of cousins they are. If it is incorrect, let's fix it. But I definitely think this is appropriate to include. It is precisely the sort of background information I would expect to find in an encyclopedia article. As of now, I do not think there are any "other articles" which decribe these in any detail. If there are, then sure link to them and we can trim the verbage a bit. But until there is an actual article, I'd like to see it stay. It is actually not such a bad idea for an article: something like the Family tree of John Kerry. Course we'd probably need one for Bush, and then the completists will want one for every other president. Bkonrad | Talk 23:51, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is this a novel or an encyclopedia entry?

Not that I think this was not interesting, but why is there SO MUCH information about details of his life? The story of him getting someone with a rocket in Vietnam even shows up twice, as well as Lacrosse and a girl he once dated. Is it important he met Kennedy at a sailing race? Get-back-world-respect 14:46, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hey that's a funny point get back the world respect... Anyway, if peeps are going to put in Austrian origins and distant Bowdoins and Winthrops, then they should put in grandfather Forbes (born in Shanghai for G-d's sakes) and opium dealing (which bot Naushon Island and offshore estate in France and trusts), ironic since Kerry has gone after Noriega/Bush for political credit... and also include Brice Lalonde first cousin - since obviously he was a May 68 student leader in demonstration/confrontations and green activist that clearly motivated Kerry to launch his own youth demonstrations in '69 and environmental policies in 70s. ERGO: Brice in, opium/Forbes connections in, JFK-JFK-oswald rifle tie in, but Winthrop/Bowdoin 'Brahmin' out.

I agree that the grandmother's grandfather is not needed, nor 9th grade cousins like GWB. But Oswald's rifle is only there because someone does not like Kerry, and the word "opium" occurs SEVEN times in an entry about someone whose only personal connection with opium is that some ancestors traded with it. The Forbes family has its own entry. Brice Lalonde is mentioned FOUR times. If 205.188.116.204 thinks it can decide who is a troll it may first open an account. 205.188.117.11 created the Brice Lalonde entry, and 205.188.116.65 changed it three times. 205.188.117.14 changed Forbes family 5 times, adding such neutral information as "For a while, the Scottish and Chinese opium trading background of the early Forbes family members who settled in Massachusetts did not wear well on Boston society, but because of the family's enormous wealth and aping (sic!) of local customs, the Forbes family became known, through friends like Oliver Holmes, as a true 'Brahmin' family." Get-back-world-respect 15:29, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do we need what President Nixon said about Kerry? Just imagine there was a section about what Bill Clinton said about George W. Bush. To me that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Get-back-world-respect 15:05, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

News reports last week said that Nixon had the FBI trailing Kerry in the late '60s, so I don't think Nixon's opinions or statements about him are uninteresting. It probably wouldn't appear in the Encylcopedia Britannica, but this is a different kind of encyclopedia. Bias is more likely to appear in the withholding of information than in providing information. I maintain, the more the better. Damion

"Bias is more likely to appear in the withholding of information than in providing information." Direct counterexample: Cecropia included a lengthy paragraph about French and Russian financial interests in Iraq in the entry about George W. Bush. Get-back-world-respect 21:18, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As long as there's context and accuracy, what's the problem? There really are no space constraints, you know, and so there is no reason not to be exhaustively detailed. For short and breazy, read the mainstream media. Damion

The inoffensive paragraph is as follows:

John Kerry's maternal grandfather, James Grant Forbes, was born in Shanghai, China, where the Forbes family of China and Boston accumulated a fortune in the opium and China trade, and became an international businessman and attorney living in France. Kerry's interesting Forbes family cousins and ancestors include: John Murray Forbes and his cousins, leading opium dealers in China during the Opium War; Cameron Forbes, the Governor General of the Philippines during the U.S. occupation; his niece, Ruth Forbes Paine, who started the International Peace Academy and who married Arthur Young, the inventor of Bell Helicopter; her son, Michael R. Paine and his wife Ruth Paine, benefactors and friends of Maria and Lee Harvey Oswald (and in whose garage Oswald's rifle is said to have been stored the day of the Kennedy assassination); Brice Lelonde, the Mayor of the Forbes family seat of Saint-Brieuc and a French politican (and ecologist) who ran for President of France as a Green party member in 1981; see Forbes family.

Get-back-world-respect continues to engage in edit war and deleting previous work by others. Further, he claims Brice is mere in law, but my authorities say that 1) Brice and John are sons of Rosemary and Fiona Forbes, expatriate heiresses of Forbes family and 2) Brice directly influenced John's activities in leading student demonstrations. So that must remain in. Put up authority on any claims otherwise. Others - either vote or replace Forbes family paragraph when he deletes it. Further, it's his middle name! People have remarked on Kennedy bootlegging and Bush CIA conections; Forbes 1st cousins and grandpa remain IN.

Regarding opium - well, he DID inherit the Forbes family trusts in 2002 when his mother died; he DID visit Forbes French estates and DID visit Naushon Island estates of Forbes family; he DID get tuition from a Winthrop family member (whose family was enriched with Forbes marriage connections); he DID go after Noriega and as prosecutors, several local drug dealers and supports strong drug sentencing; he DID prolongue his election fight against Dean with Forbes family inheritance (his interest in house/paintings/trusts); he did join Skull & Bones in part on Russell/Forbes family relationship; he IS a sailer and boat captain echoing Capt. Forbes opium smuggling adventures; he IS a New Englander with tremendous intellectual and moral ego built on opium profits lecturing to the rest of the country; he IS a Forbes first cousin with Brice, an active green party socialist and European activist; he IS a cousin with Forbes family members who have subsidized International Peace Academy and other UN functions, marrying into military, diplomatic, and wealthy families; this is a riff on the Forbes family connection to Senator J. Forbes K., a made man in a Forbes dynasty by the Captains Forbes as certainly as Samuel Bush and Joe Kennedy made their dynasties.

Regarding JFK-JFK connection with Oswald's rifle in cousin's garage, well, I agree that is coincidental and a Forbes family secret - but also, because of JFK-JFK connections (and his own modelling after President) and Bell Helicopter wealth/cousin (given Vietnam service and protests), and fantastic wealth all around (Kerry was not poor; if he was not a born trust fund beneficiary that's because he was a generation-skipping level away in offshore estate ownership, and trusts through his mother who herself 'waited' to get rich).

Anonymous tries to pretend that I deleted more than just the paragraph following "Kerry's interesting Forbes family cousins and ancestors include:" Already "interesting" is a judgment, and mentioning opium SEVEN times and including the Oswald rifle is an obvious attempt to throw mud on Kerry. I never wrote anything about Brice being "mere in law", and the relevant information on him is given at THREE different positions of the Kerry article. Get-back-world-respect 17:45, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Was there a vote?

To 205.188.116.204, I don't believe there was ever an actual vote on this -- simply a protracted discussion with no apparent consensus. I'm not removing the info right, mostly because I just don't care strongly enough to get into an edit war over it. I find it a bit much to include every remote relation here. This would be more appropriate in an article about the entire family, not about one member of the family. Some portion of the paragraph might work in this article, but no one is attempting to compromise by editing the material, only cutting or pasting it in total. Bkonrad | Talk 13:00, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph in question was discussed twice, at "Family Background" and "Is this a novel or an encyclopedia entry?". In none of the discussions the anonymous abuser could get much support, both discussions ended with unanswered statements by me. The family ties to other US presidents were deleted as well as a similar paragraph in the George W. Bush article. The only reason why the anonymous abuser wants to keep the paragraph is in order to include the word opium even more often in the article than it shows up already. Pretending I tried to act against a vote is just a disgusting way to show how poorly this abuser can defend his propaganda.

Besides his 11 edits in the Kerry article, 205.188.116.204 has only engaged in a ridiculous edit war about April 20. The page he edited first, Michael Johns, was also visited by a user with a very similar IP address, 205.188.117.11 who tried to include the word "handsome" in the article about Josef Mengele and who created the article about Brice Lalonde, where user 205.188.116.65 made 3 changes regarding opium dealing. Get-back-world-respect 14:17, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Don't be suckered by Get-back-world-respect who is an obvious partisan, editing George Bush, Vietnam, Iraq War sites, - look at his contributions. He deletes cousins.

Regarding Bkonrad - you were the one above I see when people were taking a vote on 'ancestors' and cousins that wanted all interesting cousins to be kept IN, including very distant ones I believe. Pick one or the other.

Please don't attribute things to me that I did not write. I objected to cutting out everything about the family tree. I wrote " I could be quite happy without including the Charlemange detail, but the somewhat nearer relations are interesting." That leaves me comfortably on the fence about exactly which relations are interesting. The "interesting" material I reinserted that Vidiviniwiki had deleted was this: This branch of Kerry's family tree also shows a common ancestry with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jane Addams, Calvin Coolidge, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. Nothing about cousins in there.

Second point, there was no vote. Simply discussion, which as I read it, was inconclusive but tending to support trimming the more extraneous relations. So I do not see any justification for you in using that discussion to support your repeatedly reinserting tangential information. Bkonrad | Talk 23:39, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In sum:

include Forbes opium drug dealers, of course - source of Forbes family money; include Cameron, a Governor General (but for now I'll delete as compromise) include Paines, because of Vietnam/helicopter/JFK interesting tidbit (this could be compromise if 3 people agree to delete); include Brice Lalonde here because 1st cousins, French opium derived estate, student protest leader in 60's (giving JFKerry ideas), and ran for President - very important family connection and precedent - must include here, no compromise.

Deleted sentences were: Kerry's Forbes family cousins and ancestors include: John Murray Forbes and his cousins, leading opium dealers in China during the Opium War; Cameron Forbes, the Governor General of the Philippines during the U.S. occupation; his niece, Ruth Forbes Paine, who started the International Peace Academy and who married Arthur Young, the inventor of Bell Helicopter; her son, Michael R. Paine and his wife Ruth Paine, benefactors and friends of Maria and Lee Harvey Oswald (and in whose garage Oswald's rifle is said to have been stored the day of the Kennedy assassination); Brice Lalonde, the Mayor of the Forbes family seat of Saint-Brieuc and a French politican (and ecologist) who ran for President of France as a Green party member in 1981.

Paragraph after compromise: Kerry's Forbes family cousins and ancestors include: John Murray Forbes and his cousins, leading opium dealers in China during the Opium War; Ruth Forbes Paine, who started the International Peace Academy and who married Arthur Young, the inventor of Bell Helicopter; her son, Michael R. Paine and his wife Ruth Paine, benefactors and friends of Maria and Lee Harvey Oswald (and in whose garage Oswald's rifle is said to have been stored the day of the Kennedy assassination); Brice Lalonde, the Mayor of the Forbes family seat of Saint-Brieuc and a French politican (and ecologist) who ran for President of France as a Green party member in 1981. -Anonymous!

Here is the ENTIRE paragraph, not just the addition (so we can see redundancy)

John Kerry's maternal grandfather, James Grant Forbes, was born in Shanghai, China, where the Forbes family of China and Boston accumulated a fortune in the opium and China trade, and became an international businessman and attorney living in France. Kerry's Forbes family cousins and ancestors include: ~~John Murray Forbes and his cousins, leading opium dealers in China during the Opium War;~~ [it's already established that fhe Forbes family fortune came in part from opium trade] Ruth Forbes Paine, who started the International Peace Academy I've never heard of the IPA, but don't really care if this stays in or not and who married Arthur Young, the inventor of Bell Helicopter; again, I've never heard of either the man or his invention and this doesn't do anything to whet my interest--either keep or delete, makes no difference to me her son, Michael R. Paine and his wife Ruth Paine, benefactors and friends of Maria and Lee Harvey Oswald (and in whose garage Oswald's rifle is said to have been stored the day of the Kennedy assassination); right, now let me get this straight--the son of a cousin (neither of whom have clear connection to Kerry aside from extended family) had something to do with a notorious figure--ah yes, this really is such a telling detail about Kerry (not)--there is absolutely no need for that to be here Brice Lalonde, the Mayor of the Forbes family seat of Saint-Brieuc and a French politican (and ecologist) who ran for President of France as a Green party member in 1981. perhaps somewhat informative, I think another version established a closer personal relationship with John, if so, this may be relevent.

How about this for a compromise:

John Kerry's maternal grandfather, James Grant Forbes, was born in Shanghai, China, where the Forbes family of China and Boston accumulated a fortune in the opium and China trade, and became an international businessman and attorney living in France. Kerry's Forbes family cousins and ancestors include: Ruth Forbes Paine, who started the International Peace Academy and who married Arthur Young, the inventor of Bell Helicopter; Brice Lalonde, the Mayor of the Forbes family seat of Saint-Brieuc and a French politican (and ecologist) who ran for President of France as a Green party member in 1981.

Bkonrad | Talk 23:39, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I realize that the compromise I offered above was really just a straw man. I really see no reason at all for Ruth Forbes Paine or Arthur Young to be included (I was ambivalent about them, but including them tells us nothing about Kerry. I might be persuaded that it's worth mentioning Brice Lalonde if it can be clearly established that Kerry was close to him. Bkonrad | Talk 00:09, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As I already explained, Brice Lalonde is mentioned at THREE different positions in the article, as well as the opium dealing of the Forbes family. Similar extensive relatice information was already deleted from this article as well as the one about George W. Bush. I see no reason why the sentences "Frederick committed suicide on November 23, 1921 by gunshot to the head at the Copley Plaza Hotel in Boston, Massachusetts. His second son, Richard was only six at the time." or "They (Kerry's partents) married in Montgomery, Alabama in January, 1941.) should be kept. They tell nothing about Kerry. Get-back-world-respect 02:13, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's been a while since I read the entire article closely. Maybe I should take a look again. Maybe tomorrow. The more stuff I see from this anon obsessed with the Forbes opium fortune makes me very doubtful about any of hir contributions. S/he had inserted it into nearly every article there is about every member of the family making it sound as if every one of them was an opium dealer (and the descendents still responsible for whatever sins their forebears may have done). I don't want to cover up that background, but it doesn't need to be plastered everywhere (and usually in very poorly written prose at that). Bkonrad | Talk 02:42, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bkonrad - since you're plausibly receptive to improving the site with a compromise, I'll address you. (Get-back-world-respect is a notorious partison adding and deleting on dozens of articles with far-leftist tripe). Regarding opium, well, the family is drenched in opium profits and profits on profits, so no deals to delete. It's like describing the Bush's without 'Northeastern Banking' (even though they've been in Ohio and Texas/Florida the last 150 years far more than the 'Northeast'), the Rockefellers without describing oil, or the Kennedy's without describing their wealth and region. The Forbes/Kerry's are a China/UN/Boston family of opium wealth, international dealings, and national service: period. That's where the trips to France (met Forbes wife) to Rio (met Heinz wife) to Switzerland (prep school), etc., came from. Regarding Brice Lalonde, again - he's 1st cousin (share grandparents), playmate on Forbes estate in Saint-Brieuc, and led his cousin in France with student protests and politics. Pretty amazing that James Grant Forbes (born Shanghai) is grandfather to a nominee for President of France and a nominee for President of U.S.! Regarding grandfather Kerry's suicide - well, that's not my entry, but it seems reasonable to put it in if describing grandparents, especially since suicide is probably dependent upon depression, and that is probably a genetic-associated infliction. Wouldn't you really like to know that the grandfather (1/4 of genes) of a nominee for President (with his finger on the button, or not, or on again?) was a suicide? Regarding Paines, well, perhaps they can go, but not until a vote. Regarding proposed compromise - well, again, don't delete until we come to a conclusion. Pervading ethos: keep in until voted out.

Anon.

No, Sorry. You're a smear artist. The opium connection is there, it is not necessary to repeat it in every other paragraph. Same with the French connection. The other stuff is irrelevant. A grandfather committed suicide has bearing on Kerry's qualifications? You've got to be kidding. You are misreading the discussion here if you think it supports keeping all of that in the article. Bkonrad | Talk 12:31, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I may have overreacted a bit. Calling you a smear artist is not helpful. I apologize. At the very least, you appear to be going through the motions of discussing things here on the talk page. There is hope in that (although I reserve the right to remain highly skeptical until you demonstrate a more responsible attitude towards editing NPOV encyclodedic articles). I stand by my other statements however. Most of what you are attempting to reinsert is either redundant or irrelevant. Bkonrad | Talk 13:45, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am gettting SO sick of the debate over this issue. Now Bkonrad has deleted almost everything relating to the Forbes family in Kerry's entry. Surely it's not the most important infortmation, but my god, the Forbes family is one of the most prominent families in New England's history! Kerry's genealogical connections to and through the Forbes has been written about in major newspapers around the world.

Well, that is quite to the point. There is more than enough info about the Forbes family for a extended article (there already is a skeleton of sorts). Much more than is really relevant in an article specifically about John Forbes Kerry. I think it is enough to mention the highlights here and direct the interested reader to more complete coverage elsewhere. Bkonrad | Talk

This week, the director of Burke's-Peerage spoke to a reporter about Kerry's confirmed genealogical connections as a Forbes to several world leaders throughout history, and stated that he is exceptional in that he has more connections than even President Bush.

I'm not opposed to including a few additional highlights here. What I have been deleting the last few times is just some (IMO) inappropriate materials from anon. I did not feel sufficiently motivated to try and re-write the mess and simply restored back to the last version before anon's edits.Bkonrad | Talk

Don't tell us this is irrelevant and then unilateraly decide to delete it!

I have not been acting unilaterally. (Although I'm a little reluctant to claim him as an ally) GWBR has also been actively removing the inappropriate additions. And as I read the discussion on this page, the majority seemed to be tilting toward less detail rather than more. And I don't say all of it is irrelevant--I say irrelevant or redundant. There is a difference. I do not want to hide the connection of the family fortune with the opium trade but it is not necessary to repeat it ad naseum. Bkonrad | Talk

True, I think the connection to some guy who knew the daughter of a cousin or whatever is quite beyond the boundary, but Winthrop, Forbes and the rest, are all quite relevant.
I quite agree. I'm not sure why you seem to be attacking me. Bkonrad | Talk

And by the way, if Bkonrad wants to talk about bias, then let him explain why the Jewish side of his family line (which I mostly authored) has remained untouched for weeks! Presumably, it's fine to know that his grandfather's sisters were killed in Germany, but who his other grandfather's family was and what they were doing at the same time, is not relevant? -- Damion

Are you serious? You're accusing me of bias for not removing factual and fairly concise material about the father's side while also removing redundant extraneous information about the mother's side? If you read closely, the information about the mother's side IS still there--I only removed the repetitous insertions. Bkonrad | Talk 22:15, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with including some information about the family. But mentioning opium SEVEN times, Lalonde FOUR times and including what some relatives allegedly once stored in their garage for someone else is clearly over the top, and the anonymous was the only one who kept making these edits. What's wrong with claiming me as an ally? I clearly indicate on my page and even with my handle which opinion I stand for, but I try not to make biased edits in the articles and always support what I do with arguments on talk. Get-back-world-respect 23:56, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not defending the opium, Lalonde and Oswald comments; but as it is now, the reader would have no idea about the significance of the Winthrop and Forbes families. When the Lalonde/opium/Oswald stuff was taken out, so was entirely factual and relevant Winthrop and Forbes material. -- Damion

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but if you look at the diffs carefully you'll see that the bio section was dramatically shortened some time ago during one of the earlier discussions above (the one where I wanted to see more details). The recent spate of edits almost entirely centered on Anon trying insert redundant and irrelevant info, I haven't seen anyone in the last few days trying to insert Winthrop connections. Bkonrad | Talk 12:28, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Damion, BTW I like your edits and additions of the last several hours. Bkonrad | Talk 12:32, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kerry Poor or Rich?

This was added to the Kerry page:

Kerry may have had a moneyed pedigree, but he didn't have money. By the time the Forbes family fortune reached his mother, it had been subdivided into an extremely modest sum. (Kerry's mother, Rosemary, who trained to be a nurse, was one of eleven children.)

But the article indicates that Kerry had quite a privileged childhood and young adulthood; and he is now what almost anyone would describe as wealthy in his own right; even without having married into the Heinz food fortune. I believe this paragraph needs either to be deleted or explained: If "he didn't have money" where did he get it? Cecropia 04:21, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You must have been online at the exact moment I was because that section was accidentally put into the piece while I was writing something else, and wasn't intended for final edit, and indeed is not there now. On the other hand, it appears to be true that the earlier characterization of Rosemary Forbes as just "an heiress" implies that his mother and father had more money than they did. For instance, his fees for St. Paul's School were paid not by his parents, but by an aunt. He is not described as poor in this piece, but I think it is accurate to say that he was poor in comparison to his classmates-- a point which is made by people who attended the school with him. His father, afterall, was the son of Jewish immigrants, and did work for a living as foreign services officer; it's not liek his parents were wealthy industrialists or executives or politicians. -- Damion Damion

Ah, I see your point. But to the average reader I think it sort of emphasizes his non-humble upbringing. Poor people don't spend their summers on estates on exclusive islands, have doting aunties who pay their private school tuitions, and they usually don't travel in the circles that allow them to marry two consecutive heiresses. One site, listing wealthiest U.S. presidents estimated that, if elected, Kerry will be the third or fourth wealthiest man ever to be President. Also up there, IIRC, are George Washington, JFK, LBJ and Herbert Hoover. Cecropia 12:55, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Erm ... I just noticed something in Damion's post: "His father, afterall, was the son of Jewish immigrants". IIRC, even Kerry was not supposed to have known that. I recall the Boston Globe "revealing" this. I can't find the original article, but I did find this reference to it:

"Now it's Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry whose Jewish roots are being reported.

"Kerry? The Massachusetts senator, the quintessential WASP-y looking politician with an Irish-sounding name?

"Yup.

"Two of Kerry's grandparents were Jewish, it turns out.

"Kerry, who is a practicing Catholic, said he has known for 15 years that his paternal grandmother was Jewish, but had unsuccessfully searched for news of his paternal grandfather's roots.

"However, a genealogist hired by the Boston Globe found that Kerry's grandfather was born to a Jewish family in a small town in the Czech Republic.

"This is incredible stuff," Kerry told the Globe. "I think it is more than interesting. It is a revelation." [1]

So it would seem that Kerry didn't know he was half-Jewish when he was in private school and would he have communicated that to his classmates if he did know? Cecropia 13:24, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he knew his grandparents were Jewish when he was kid. My point was that as the son of a Jewish immigrant, his father most likely was not an inheritor of wealth. Damion

by Anon: The facts are:

1. Kerry's Forbes mother was 1 of 11 children.
2. Kerry's Forbes mother (later in life) was beneficiary of Forbes family trusts
3. Kerry's father was public servant, but son of a wealthy/bankrupt suicide and cousin to very rich European merchants (cousins built modernist mansion in Italy), and thus father got plenty of education and connections
4. Kerry's parents were young, without cash in their own name, and accepted a gift of prep school tuition for their son John from great aunt (childless, who indubitably was going to give them money/inheritance anyway for estate planning)
5. Kerry's parents spent a lot of money traveling around the world to Forbes family estates, overseas postings, boarding school trips, books, clothes, etc.
6. Kerry's mother inherited (in today's money, approximately $40) millions, leaving son John in 2002 multimillion Forbes family trusts. (Kerry inherited about $5 MM himself; 4 siblings = approximately $20 MM; estimated spending by mother = 50%; mother 1 of 11 children > estimated grandfather's fortune in today's money (before spending, donations, etc.) = $800 MM U.S.).
7. All generations (generations skipping) beneficiaries knew they would be 'eventual' Forbes family heirs even if they were 'shabbily' dressed during prep school.
8. Forbes family wealth originated in opium trade, illegal under Chinese law, during 2 Opium Wars (wars for Oil? how about wars for Opium!)
9. Kerry's Forbes grandfather had equivalent today hundreds of millions of dollars
10. Great grandfather Forbes and his Forbes cousins had equivalent of billion dollars: an immense, early, ill-gotten American fortune started in opium
11. Kerry's million dollar 2002 Forbes trusts and inheritances (and offshore Forbes estates and Forbes family donors) absolutely helped him continue his campaign against Dean in Iowa when regular donations dried up
12. Kerry's wife's fortune (and unreleased tax returns) are interesting as well, as well as first wife's fortune. Seems like Kerry men only marry millionaires with foreign estates.
13. The idea that Kerry was born poor, was raised poor, remains poor, is the poor husband, or otherwise represents the poor is ABSURD on its face. - Anon1453.

Forbes family wealth

Suggestion to anyone - suggest someone works to publish/research Forbes family wealth (wills, estate tax, published trusts, etc.). Publish excerpts here on talk page. -Anon1453

I second that. I have been unable to locate the source for the claim that Kerry's mother inherited so many millions of dollars. I also find it biased and inaccurate to say what the amount would mean in 2003's dollars. If the reader is looking at the entry in 2010, it will be useless to know what the amount meant in 2003. This has clearly been put in the entry to make it seem like a lot more than it was.

Yeah, I kinda thought so as well, but I was catching so much flak for other thinks at the time I didn't want to comment. I'd be very interested in seeing some documentation for these claims. Bkonrad | Talk 00:23, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Brice Lalonde

Dear Bkonrad. My compliments on partly-thoughtful rewrite. I want Forbes cousins IN Forbes section. But as sop, in your language, I will include Brice only, leaving other for Forbes page. But if this compromise is not acceptable, then 1 2 3 4 I declare an edit war. Thank you and regards, Anon1453

Your recent edits are quite reasonable. Perhaps not exactly how I would have phrased things, but I guess that's how we reach NPOV. Re: Lalonde, he is also specifically mentioned in the Childhood Years section. I don't see it neccessary to include him in the Family History section as well. But I'm not going touch it for now. Peace out. Bkonrad | Talk 13:52, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I hope GBWR's recent deletion doesn't upset the compromise that seemed to satisfy anon. I'll gladly trade a redundant sentence about Lalonde for endless edit wars. Bkonrad | Talk 22:06, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You do not love your country, appeaser 8^p Get-back-world-respect 23:10, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I want Bush and Coolidge out

"Other notable figures in this branch of Kerry's family tree are Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jane Addams, Calvin Coolidge, and ironically, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush." is unnecessary here. Bush and Kerry are only ninth (sic!) degree cousins, and a similar sentence was deleted in the article about George W. Bush. If one is interested in genealogy one can take a look at the Forbes family article. Get-back-world-respect 21:24, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Except that the relation to Bush would not be in the Forbes family article since it is on the Winthrop side. I think this is very appropriate to keep. Exactly the sort of information I would expect to find in a good encyclopedia. Bkonrad | Talk 21:57, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

PS Although I'd prefer to keep this info in, I don't feel that strongly about it; however, as someone (I can't see who right now) pointed out above, we have several paragraphs about the Forbes family and about Kerry's Jewish-Catholic heritage, but only one short line about the Winthrop family, which is quite arguably the more important connection politically and historically speaking. Bkonrad | Talk 22:39, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, if it weren't for a Winthrop -- his wealthy great-aunt -- he probably would have never gone to prep school and then eventually Yale, in which case we most likely would not be discussing him at all. About the Bush and Coolidge connection -- I'm not wedded to it either, but it has been in the news, so I don't think it's altogether irrelevant-- Damion

I know that Kerry and Bush are only ninth degree cousins, what are the family relations with Coolidge, Roosevelt and Addams? Get-back-world-respect 23:14, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If they're really ninth cousins, it's a meaninglessly distant relationship. I bet I'm a ninth or lower degree cousin of at least one other person who's posted on this talk page. I don't object to it strongly, but we should understand that it doesn't mean anything when making the decision to keep or remove. Isomorphic 23:41, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume that the genealogical connections are as common as you think. There are millions of African Americans, Mexican Americans, Italian Americans, etc.. who very likely don't share a single ancestor with Kerry or Bush until you're dozens of generations back, in which case it's probably impossible to prove anyway due to the fact that genealogies are kept more thoroughly among certain ethnic, social or religious groups than in others. The mere fact that Kerry's genealogy can be traced and so thoroughly is itself a certain indicator of his background. -- Damion

I agree that it is an inconsequential detail. But I still think that it is precisely the sort of detail I'd want to have in an encyclopedia article. I mean, there is some inherent interest and irony that Bush and Kerry are related. It's a fact, it's topical, and why should we make users have to look elsewhere to confirm or deny it. And besides, what harm is there in including it? As for Coolidge, Roosevelt, and Adams, while it may be a little less topical, I think there is still inherent interest in such trivia, perhaps even more so when Kerry gets elected. Bkonrad | Talk 23:57, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I personally have about twenty cousins. First degree. To ninth degree it increases nearly exponentially. Maybe 500? Maybe 5000? If one of them was George W. Bush, would anyone bother? Would I qualify for an encyclopedia article? You know what I just found when I searched google for "ninth degree cousin"? "You do not know your danger, Theoden," interrupted Gandalf, "These hobbits will sit on the edge of ruin and discuss the pleasures of the table, or the small doings of their fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers, and remoter cousins to the ninth degree, if you encourage them with undue patience." The Lord of the Rings (Book 3, Chapter 8). (This could be said of many genealogist I know).Get-back-world-respect 01:17, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Like I said, there is inherent interest in such trivia. Not that it amounts to much of anything, but some people do seem to be interested in such things. Hard to say why exactly, but then I guess there are worse ways to pass the time. Rather than the hard-core geneologist, I was thinking more of people sitting around, having a few brews and someone says, "Hey, you know I heard that Bush and Kerry are actually cousins or something" "What?, you're crazy." "No, I'm serious, let's check the web." Whereupon they come upon the Wikipeda article which settles the question. Bkonrad | Talk 02:20, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Remaining question: what is a ninth degree cousin? How many do they have? Get-back-world-respect 03:14, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Bkonrad. If it's true, it belongs in the article. Even if it doesn't have any great deep meaning, it's interesting and the kind of thing Joe Public would want to know. Mdchachi|Talk 13:48, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

By my math, if we assume (very conservatively) 3 children per generation, someone would have about 13,121 9th cousins plus 4,374 8th cousins (etc.). It comes out to nearly n^9. The actual formula for kin(k): k.sub(n)=n^9-k.sub(n-1). To help this out, let's just say its n^9, since that answer is only off by 30%-ish. With n=2.5=3814, n=3=19683, n=4=262,144, n=5=1,953,125. Family sizes going back 2 generations averaged much larger (some up to 13 kids, it was common to have 8 kids). I believe it's fair to say that there is a year Y where: if we pick 2 random people now living in the U.S., the chance that they are related through someone who lived anywhere on the planet in the year Y is 95%. I would guess that year to be 1800, but it's just my guess. Anyone have hard facts?

Basically, it seems like a lark that they're related, it's funny but not useful. The article may want to mention this somehow. Further, someone familiar with demographics and the specific way that they are related should determine the odds of this happening, which I believe are close to 1 in 1. True, the fact that they know who is related to whom is interesting, but with famous families and occassionally famous ancestors to help out, this seems like a math problem not a political debate. MY VOTE: This info belongs on a separate page and a link should be put here; the separate page should talk about the numerical analysis part, and include other famous examples (how many of us are ACTUALLY RELATED to KEVIN BACON??). User:Justanyone Talk 15:54 CDT 20 April 2004

That information is useful, but also well known and well understood by anyone who's studied genealogy. I maintain, though, that the relevance of Kerry's genealogical connections is less in the connections themselves than in the fact that the genealogy can be traced so clearly. The reason WHY we can trace Kerry to Charlemagne and other distance figures is because history saw fit to keep track of wealthy, powerful figures, and not keep track of most others. I may or may not share a common ancestry with Kerry -- but I'll never know because the line is lost once once looks past the late 19th century. Had Kerry's father not married into a wealthy family, no one would know from whence he came, as evidenced by the fact that Kerry himself didn't know of his Jewish heritage for a long time. We KNOW of his genealogy for a very specific reason, because his is a wealthy family, and for that reason it is highly relevant. -- Damion

If anyone is interested, [2] has a good graphical representation of one of the Bush-Kerry connections. This site [3] has a more complete listing of several different relationships between them. I don't see any way to concisely express any of it any more clearly than to simply say they are distant cousins. It might be worth trying to summarize in a separate article or perhaps just add these links at the end of this one. Bkonrad | Talk 00:30, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

...