Talk:Sullivan brothers

Policy as a result?
As a result of this and possibly several other incidences in which several siblings serving together have perished, the armed forces no longer allow siblings to serve in the same units (must be confirmed).


 * Can we confirm this info? Gamaliel 21:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * From the little bit of research I did on the topic, it doesn't seem that this prohibition was ever the case. http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq72-5.htm  shows the Navy and Armed forces stand on the issue as encouraging enlisted personel to avoid serving together.  Rather than openly opposing it.  I guess it really is a common misconception that siblings can't serve together.  Even today it seems that they still can, provided that they wave their status as a 'sole survivor'. Malo 14:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

In light of the Pat Tillman incident, I noticed that Pat and his brother Kevin were in the same unit. I assumed this violated the law I imagined had been passed in response to the deaths of the Sullivan brothers. When I tried to discover such a law I could not find it. RussellBell 03:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The final line of the Legacy section now reads: "The United States created a law which said that no family members could serve in a war zone at the same time shortly after the Sullivan brothers died." I am not 100% sure, but I do not think this is the case. The sole survivor law states that if a sibling dies in combat, other siblings cannot be sent into combat, but if none die, there is nothing stopping them from fighting in the same war zone (or even the same unit, as RussellBell noted). Can anyone else confirm or deny this? 198.232.29.100 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This is true, a sole surviving child must envoke the right to not serve, and then it will either be accecpted or rejected based on the cercumstances of the current battle, and of the family if the child was lost. Brothers, and no sisters, are able to serve together in a combat zone, though it is discouraged for them to serve in the same unit, it is not aginst the law. They do not have to wave their rights to sole surviving child, nor do they have the option to wave the right. The only time sole surviving child applies is if all but one child was killed in combat, and the currenct situation financial support structure of the family would be damaged more by the loss of the last child, and the sole surviving child wishes to return home. They will not force a child to return home agisnt his or her will. 192.43.65.245 12:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sullivan Brother Park
The sullivan brothers park is not on the location of their childhood home in Waterloo. It is actually located on the property that would have been about 2 houses down. I will be getting the documentation to support this, but am fairly sure, since I grew up accross the street from the home that they lived in, and the park was there long before the house was torn down, and another house was built in its place.192.43.65.245 19:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Movies
Saving Private Ryan, to my knowledge based on references, was in no way based on the Sullivans, who all died, nor did the inspire the "story" of the Niland Brothers, which is not a story, it actually happened. Ryan was the story based off of the 1 SURVIVING brother. The surviving brother being the main difference between the two events, no Sullivan survived to get rescued by Tom Hanks or Bay Watch or whoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor Vandalism
I was just reading up on this page, and I came across this under legacy:

_________

The Sullivan Brothers have a Department of Defense Dependents Schools elementary school in Yokosuka, Japan named in their honor. hehehe _________

As I'm not an expert on the matter, I'd like someone to check over the article to make sure that this is the only blatant (or even moddest) vandalism in the article, and has not been modified with false or modified references. In the meantime, I'm going to mark it as needing cleanup. If you see the need, also lock the article from further modification. The only reason why I haven't locked it myself is both my inexperience and that it seems to be a minor issue.

The Legacy (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism has been reverted. The Legacy (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Sullivan Brothers also be x-ref'd under Irish-Americans?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.114.58.46 (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Noteworthy Example of the Sullivan Rule?
My grandfather, Albert Kerstiens, and his brother were on the same ship in WW2. After the Sullivan law passed both were reassigned to different ships. Shortly after that the boat sank and both would have been killed. Is this story noteworthy to be mentioned anywhere?--72.241.210.205 (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's mentioned in a reliable secondary source somewhere, it can be mentioned in the article. I recently finished reading the Satterfield and Kurzman books (both excellent and I plan to use them to expand this article soon) and both state that there never was a formal "Sullivan rule" established by the military, only an informal one in which commanders were told to encourage family members on the same ship to accept reassignment. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sister's Name?
The article seems to have two different names for their sister. This is confusing and should be resolved. "The brothers left a sister, Theresa (1917-1975)" and "Genevieve, their only sister, served in the WAVES." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.10.16 (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thirty Pairs of Brothers?
The article claims there were thirty pairs of brothers on board the ship. That seems rather unbelievable. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Czolgolz (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

LEGACY
Why isn't there at least a U.S. postage stamp in commemoration of these men and their family who gave all? Was there ever anything like this, officially, from Washington D.C.?Starhistory22 (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete section
The section “The False Myth…” should be removed. There are no sources cited, the section is written in a manner inconsistent with an encyclopedia, and the content is covered in other sections already. Imadethistosaythis (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)