Talk:Kermit Roosevelt III

Curious

Why is this guy worthy of a wikipedia article? What is his notability? What has he accomplished? Just curious.Nunamiut (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

He's, at the very least, an author with published works. Based on that alone, an author with more than one book gets an article. Plus he's a Roosevelt.--RossF18 (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Family relationships don't grant notability. However, his career and books appear sufficient. Rklawton (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering about this too. The book reviews are clearly good sources and indicate public interest, but do they make the book more notable than him? On the other hand, I feel that GNG is met because refs 1 and 2 are about him specifically, and not just the books. While perhaps people are more interested in interviewing him because he's a Roosevelt, that's probably not for WP to decide. I think the fact that the book has reviews and there are published interviews with him makes it not just WP:BIO1E. If I'm understanding everything correctly. Novabrahm (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't he be IV?

Sounds like we're talking Super Bowl I know, but:

Kermit Roosevelt (b 10 Oct 1889 in Oyster Bay, New York, d 4 Jun 1943 in Sitka, Alaska) was the son of President Theodore Roosevelt.

Kermit Roosevelt Jr (b 16 Feb 1916 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, d 8 Jun 2000 in Cockeysville, Maryland) was (II).

Kermit Roosevelt (b 7 Apr 1938 in Boston, Massachusetts) would be (III)

And then this gentleman (b July 14, 1971) would obviously be (IV). TomVote (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's not change the content of the article thereby making it contradict the article's title. As for his name, that's worth looking into. He calls himself "Kermit Roosevelt" - so do we use the name he uses, or do we use what's on his birth certificate? Has anyone seen his birth certificate? Rklawton (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you believe I still have the emails that explain this all? Thanks to Rklawton for inviting me over to chat:

Hope this doesn't make things harder for you ... probably something I should have mentioned before. We've done a very bad job keeping the numerals straight. When my great-grandfather died, my grandfather, who'd been Kermit Roosevelt Jr. started calling himself Kermit Roosevelt Sr. That made sense, I suppose, on the theory that he was now the elder living Kermit. So my father was called Kermit Roosevelt Jr. for, I think, almost his whole life. I was born while my grandfather was still alive and was called Kermit Roosevelt III. When my grandfather died, my father told me that he was dropping the Jr. and suggested that I could take it up if I wanted. I said that was the craziest thing I'd ever heard of, because I had enough trouble being confused with him already and had used Kermit Roosevelt III in all of my legal documents (passport, driver's license, bar admission, etc.). I also publish my law review articles as III, but I thought it would look wildly pretentious on a book jacket, so I left it off. | For the disambiguation entry, I guess. | Kim | Kermit Roosevelt Assistant Professor University of Pennsylvania Law School 3400 Chestnut Street Philadelphia PA 19104

And from a later email:

No one but me has ever been called Kermit III, and I've never been called Kermit IV, although I am definitely the fourth Kermit. Both my father and my grandfather have been Kermit Jr., and if my father takes the Sr., then he and my grandfather (and I think my great-grandfather) will have shared that.

Can we take the man at his own word? :) Apparently it's quite confusing for all parties concerned, but I think he's the world's expert in his own name! jengod (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This jives with the old tradition of passing along the "Sr" to the eldest (except in the case of royalty). We've stopped doing it only (comparatively) recently when a person's existence far outlives his or her life. Rklawton (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, death actually does NOT impact suffixes. Therefore, this man IS in fact IV, his father III, paternal grandfather Jr, and patrilineal grandfather Sr. The idea of "passing on" suffixes would make things very confusing. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Dead wrong. It did in the past, and it's the past we're dealing with. More importantly you will not find any source more reliable than the subject himself that explains Kermit's naming any other way, and without a reliable source, you must not go changing the article to suit yourself. Rklawton (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, calling him "III" is essentially like discounting one of the previous Kermits. He would be III if one of them had a different middle name in the others, though. Since all four have the exact same full name, that makes him IV. See suffix (name) for more. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, you don't have a source that says IV, the subject of the article has explained his name (to wit, you're wrong), and times have changed. Here's a source that shows the "rule" in a different light. and another one. The point being, the rule is out there, so this particular Kermit clearly does not have to be IV, and just as clearly he has no legal documents that say he is. Rklawton (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It would still be much less confusing to simply call him IV. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"I'm sorry sir, but your name is confusing so we're going to change it," ... no. The press would roast us. Rklawton (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion between common name and actual name. While this Roosevelt is commonly known as III, in technicality he is IV since he shares his full name with his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. As mentioned, he would be III if one of the previous Kermit Roosevelts had a middle name that the others did not have (or had no middle name when the other three shared a common middle name), then he would technically be III. I know this from personal experience because on my father's side, I have a cousin who is IV, an uncle who is III, a grandfather who was Jr, and a great-grandfather who was Sr. While my patrilineal great-grandfather died at 58 when my grandfather was 12, my grandfather was still Jr (even though my grandfather, uncle, and cousin are all referred to by their own nicknames). My grandfather died at 61 when my eldest uncle (III) was 35 and eldest first cousin (IV) was 12. My uncle remains III and cousin remains IV. The Astor, Rockefeller, and Taft families are other examples of how technical names remain unless one changes his/her first/middle/last name(s), like how President Bill Clinton was named William Jefferson Blythe III after his late father William Jefferson Blythe, Jr. and grandfather William Jefferson Blythe, Sr. and changed his last name as a teen to "Clinton" for his stepfather Roger Clinton. 174.226.0.161 (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The flaw with this reasoning is that a person's name is what his parents, or he later in life, decide it is, which includes numerical suffixes. That this may appear to some to contradict common sense or logic is besides the point and represents no "technicality", legal or otherwise; we all know about hippies naming their kids God, Karma or Messiah or whatever or more common cases of apparent misspellings. Thus if named "correctly", Joseph Kennedy II, son of RFK, should be III, based on the life of Joe Jr. who was killed in World War 2, but as Joe II's has said, his name is what appears on his birth certificate which he sees no need to tamper with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.72.159.156 (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Remember the '60s one hit wonder Napoleon XIII ("They're Coming to Take Me Away"). OK, "technically" he should have been the 4th. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.72.159.156 (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

According to "Robert Kennedy and His Times" by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. (who personally knew the Kennedys), RFK's eldest son is actually Joseph III. Calling him "II" would create a consistency error and make it harder to keep track of the JPK's. 174.236.0.50 (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard

Here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

sources/profiles

Some of the reference links are dead or go to paywalls. A better link for a review of The Myth of Judicial Activism would be www.democracyjournal.org/pdf/3/DAJOI3_Chemerinksy.pdf‎ (review by Erwin Chemerinsky). For profiles (since this article was proposed for deletion on the grounds of a lack of profiles), one might look at http://observer.com/2005/11/the-little-supremes/ (describing Roosevelt as one of a group frequently mentioned as possible Supreme Court appointments) or http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/06/entertainment/et-roosevelt6 (LA Times profile in the context of publication of In the Shadow of the Law) or http://observer.com/2005/06/kermit-the-rough-writer/ (New York Observer profile in the context of publication of In the Shadow of the Law) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.113.65 (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the reason this article was put up for deletion. Profiles are oftentimes not third-party sources, and multiple reliable third-party sources with significant independent coverage are needed to establish notability. The first and second links you provided only mention him briefly, with the first containing one quote from him (self-input is not third-party), and the third link is essentially a primary source since much of it relies on his quotes. He still fails WP:GNG, and is likely a case of WP:BIO1E. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kermit Roosevelt III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111207075441/http://ndlawreview.org:80/volume-80-issue-5/ to http://ndlawreview.org/volume-80-issue-5/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kermit Roosevelt III. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150105194613/http://www.ali.org/email/pr-14-11-17.html to http://www.ali.org/email/pr-14-11-17.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)