Talk:Kennedy (surname)

Coat of arms??

I do not understand why there is any information about the Kennedy coat of arms on this page, which is about the surname, and serves as a disambig page for people to locate relevant Kennedys as subjects of WP articles. Move it to an article called Kennedy (coats of arms) or to the pages relating to relevant individuals or families, but surely get it off this page? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally think it is useful information (though I may be biased). My concern with the removal, and why I reverted it, is partly a matter of WP:BRD, and partly a matter of a posting to ANI that will be up momentarily. → ROUX ₪ 05:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that now. I'd like to keep this separate. It isn't that the information may not be useful, but I don't see why discussion of a range of coats of arms of different Kennedy individuals or families should be on the surname page rather than on the pages of the relevant people (or indeed a page about the coats of arms, if there are a few relevatn secondary sources to satisfy notability). But this is a bit of a new area for me, so if there are contra arguments, I'd like to hear them. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, and like I said I may be biased; the field of heraldry is rich in history and provides, at times, context and background. I am not particularly married to arms being included here, but would in general prefer that they stay. → ROUX ₪ 05:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

IMO opinion the heraldry should only be dealt with in the specific articles of the families themselves. This article is supposed to just deal with the surname - like it's etymology, the frequency it appears, and all that. The notable families that bear the surname aren't related, and neither is the heraldry the the families possess. I think we should just move the relevant heraldry over into sections within the articles on the families/clans. Heraldry is important to clans, so I don't want the information deleted, just moved into proper articles on the families. Keep it separate. I note that User:Xanderliptak was the one who dumped all this into this article just about a year ago, with his images, and did the same thing to a few other articles. I got into a blowup with him concerning the Roosevelts a year ago: Talk:Roosevelt family. Now I notice he is requesting mass deletions of every [almost every] last image he has every uploaded on the Commons. The drama never ceases.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I find little to disagree with in what you have said. However I would suggest for the sake of maintaining clarity in the discussion that any consensus arrived at here be held off in implementation until the discussion at ANI has run its course. Would you object to this? → ROUX ₪ 06:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No objections on my part. No need to rush things.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion has concluded. I also think that this section should be moved ASAP. Further, the JFK coat of arms bears very little resemblance to the one he was presented with - it should be binned. Scolaire (talk) 08:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it again, the section is OR, or at least totally unsourced apart from the JFK arms. I'm deleting it. Scolaire (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Origins

I have reverted these edits for a number of reasons: (1) "The surname Kennedy comprises of two surnames" makes no sense; (2) the fact that the Irish and Scottish families are unrelated doesn't mean the surnames are unrelated; (3) the added content about the Scottish Kennedys is unsourced, except the single fact that the Hon. Whatsisname is the current clan chief; and (4) the added content relates almost entirely to the Clan Kennedy, not the surname.

The section as it now stands is in need of cleanup anyway. There is no reason to think that the various versions Ceannéidigh, Cinnéide, Cennétig or Ceannaideach are different etymologies rather than simply different spellings. As far as I can see, none of the cited sources talks about different etymologies. Plus, the sentence at the end, "There are also an Irish Kennedy family and a Scottish Kennedy clan of Carrick in Ayrshire, which are unrelated to one another", is a total non sequitur. Why "also" - in addition to what? And how does it relate to the origin of the name? Scolaire (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, i see it the same way: that it's really one name. There just happens to be varying ways writing it in Gaelic (some may be older, out-of-date, or archaic forms of the name, I'm not sure though), and it has been giving various etymologies like the "ugly" one, and the "helmet" one. I think it's OK to mention the two families at the end. It just needs to be reworded a bit, and probably put in another section like - 'Popularity and Use' where we can note where the name is most frequently found. Something like that. Both families are notable, and notably unrelated; so it can't hurt to mention them as being notable bearers of the surname. If it's just a short simple statement then I think it'll be OK. We don't need to go into heraldry, chiefs, and clan histories and all that.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hierarchy

I moved the multiple names list to the top because it means that the reader does not have to go through a list searching for that certain person, only to give up or go to the bottom or to the table of contents to work out where the link to that person is.

I realise that the US Kennedy family is very special to US people, but they are not all the most important Kennedy's in the English speaking world. As they are mainly known for their political involvement, I have moved them to Politics, while leaving them in their special section. Brunswicknic (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)