Talk:Nelson Rockefeller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citation This page was cited by Boston University Law Review

Contents 1 Commission on Critical Choices for Americans= 2 Image 3 One objection 4 Accuracy 5 Governor of New York 6 What no mention of Megan Marshak? :) 7 Good Ol' Rocky .... 8 'Some analysts'? 9 Conservative Party 10 Cremation 11 NYC fiscal crisis 12 Rockefeller? 13 Cleanup and citations needed 14 French American 15 Cleanup 16 Bias 17 Marriage and Death 17.1 Mediation 18 moving on

[edit] Commission on Critical Choices for Americans=

I added the section on this commission... didn't put much detail in, so if anyone wants to expand it, that'd be nice. Tooptoo 20:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

What happened to the b&w portrait that was here before? jengod 19:17, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Here you go.

--Bkell 19:40, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] One objection

"Group of unwashed hippies" isn't a NPOV.. anybody else agree?

--RobbieFal 22:24, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Aye, I removed it. It was not only NPOV, but repetitious. :) --Golbez 22:36, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy

What is the source of the following sentence: "It is believed that had Marshak called an ambulance promptly, Rockefeller might have survived"? When it says "it is believed", who believes this? Did he have a simple heart attack or a cardiac arrest? If it was a cardiac arrest, then even if she had called paramedics and administered effective CPR, he probably would not survive. Mauvila 12:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Governor of New York

Rockefeller did not create the Long Island Expressway (which is never called "the Long Island"), which was opened in 1940.

Did Robert Moses? — Rickyrab | Talk 07:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What no mention of Megan Marshak? :)

Well, y'know, she had someone die on top of her, whaddya expect? :) — Rickyrab | Talk 07:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good Ol' Rocky ....

... A "die hard" Republican if there ever was one :)

[edit] 'Some analysts'?

"Some analysts speculated that his appointment to the vice presidency by Gerald Ford was calculated to forestall a Rockefeller presidential campaign in 1976."

Which analysts? I had never heard this other than as a random rumor, and can find no corroboration about this theory at all.

[edit] Conservative Party

Added comment that it was Rockefeller's perceived social liberalism that led directly to the creation of the Conservative Party of New York. --Kayman1uk 14:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cremation

Somebody obviously went to some trouble to compile so much information about cremation of prominent people in U.S. history, but there is a bit too much detail on that for this article. Jonathunder 04:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NYC fiscal crisis

The sentence describing the the Daily News and and NYC fiscal crisis strays from the subject of Rockefeller. Should it be dropped? "The screaming Daily News front-page bold-type "Ford to City: Drop Dead!" instantly became a newspaper headline sensation, although Ford never actually said those words, and the Daily News actually endorsed Ford the following year." Leuliett 22:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It goes with Ford, not Rocky. Rjensen 00:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I really agree, even though I think that I was the one who mentioned that it was never really said by Ford in so many years, even though it was a Post headline.Rlquall 03:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was a New York Post headline, one of the first ones that came out after the Post was purchased by Rupert Murdoch and changed from being a moderately left-of-center afternoon newspaper to a "screaming headline tabloid" format. The headlines were often written solely to shock and attributed fake quotes to public personae : a typical example occurred after the diary kept by David Berkowitz, the "Son of Sam" killer, was found. The Post published excerpts under the headline "How I became a mass murderer, by David Berkowitz", deliberately giving the misimpression that they had somehow secured an interview with the killer following his arrest. Partnerfrance 23:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rockefeller?

Is this guy related to Rockefeller of Standard Oil? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The masterpedia (talk • contribs) 17:42, April 23, 2006 (UTC)

It is his grandfather. It says so in the second paragraph. --rogerd 22:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup and citations needed

Just finished trying to clean up as much as possible. This article was filled with POV, weasel words and uncited assertions. This is an encyclopedia article, Folks, not a political analysis. Alas, like many Wikipedia articles, this one appears to be largely lifted from somebody's term paper. If this article was cited by Boston U., then it's a reflection on them. Rocky deserves better. — J M Rice 19:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

yes it can be better. The citations that are requested are all covered in the bibliography, esp Persico's book. Rjensen 19:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know how to cite things on Wikipedia. So I will here that the source for my statement about Rockefeller meeting George Bush and his wife in 1977 is First Son: George W. Bush and the Bush Family Dynasty, by Bill Minutaglio. FDR 10:21 AM May 25, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French American

According to JDR I biography by Ron Chernow: Rockefellers came to Germany from France and were germanised. They're, also, French Americans

Ethnicity does not work that way--it's language and culture not country of residence because lots of Germans lived in France.Rjensen 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

After the edit of User:70.182.64.86 ([1]) the section "Governor of New York" is quite a mess - some headlines would help.

As I am not qualified to edit an article about this person, could someone please check the accuracy of the new content, too?

-fin 07:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

I saw this in the article

"The Bush family vehemently despised Rockefeller because of his perverse sexual behavior and his extreme left-wing policies."

Am I the only who thinks that this is a little slanderous to say the least? Having extramirtal relationships isn't perverse and while he was the to left of the GOP at that time, no one can argue that he was a left-wing extremist.

Thanks for spotting that. Somebody keeps adding Bushism--as if the opinion of president Bush's grandfather mattered much 40 years ago. It did not matter and does not belong here. Rjensen 10:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage and Death

From Wikipedia's Verifiable Sources entry: Say where you got it It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear.

The citation on Nelson Rockefeller's death is from the transcript of a PBS documentary on the Rockfellers which, as far as I know, has never been challenged for its veracity or authenticity. Would someone kindly explain why this is being reverted? Thanks.--Idols of Mud 14:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Rockefeller was in retirement at the time of his death and not a public figure like President or Prime Minister--and we don't know what happened. To say an aide may have been present when he died does not say much. To say the aide was 27 is ridiculous in an encyclopedia. Salacious gossip lowers the quality of an encyclopedia. Rjensen 19:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this relentless practice of insinuating things by innuendo and nuance needs to stop. If someone wants to create a celebrity gossip wiki, they are welcome to do so. They can even free-license it; but that will not make it an encyclopedia.

Information should be here because it's useful, not because we have room for it. "The that he was with a 27-year-old at the time" sounds like the horny black man in a Robin Williams comedy routine: "Don't even call me when I'm with someone!" (using with to mean "in bed"). --Uncle Ed 20:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Once a public figure, always a public figure. There's no real doubt regarding the circumstances of Rockefeller's death, although the press were rather more circumspect than they would be nowadays; even so, it's one of the things he's best known for nowadays. He left his "aide" a sizable property in his will. This ought to be in there.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 14:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Prohibit Onions is completely correct in this. This is not celebrity gossip, it was news at the time. Indeed, anyone who was paying any attention at all in New York back then would tell you the same thing - not that that would constitute a citation, of course. There is neither any doubt regarding the circumstances of his death, nor any likelihood that a credible source verifying will be located. Ms. Marshak has consistently refused to comment or write a tell-all, etc. (leading some to speculate that this was a condition imposed upon her, but there's no evidence of that either - maybe she truly loved the guy), and the family/staff clearly does not wish to reveal the truth - going so far as to initially dissemble about where his body was found - so a verifiable source is not going to be found. But to remove this would distort the truth of the article, and make it a part of the mythology about this public figure (which an encyclopedia article should also not be), rather than an attempt at portraying the reality of him. Personally, I would include more than what we have now - I think there could be a way to write it so that it is clear that it is unverifiable speculation, but encyclopedic at the same time. Tvoz 21:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

the problem is that it's junk and degrades Wikipedia.Rjensen 10:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not junk, it's a part of Rockefeller's story, and it is decently sourced. As for degrading Wikipedia, I'm not sure what you are saying. If a PBS documentary isn't good enough, what is? Tvoz 18:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. This is neither junk nor degrading. Rockefeller died under the circumstances described. Removal of sourced material regarding this newsworthy incident constitutes vandalism. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

we have self-censorship--junk gossip degrades the quality of our product. We INSIST on reliable verifiable sources for all information. PBS is reliable but some people seem to want to add details that are not in that source--that is forbidden by Wiki rules. Rjensen 11:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This is disingenuous at best. This is not "junk gossip." Marshak was there; there is no dispute about this at all. If you object to the source, add another. If you are a member of the Rockefeller family, or have ties to him, you have no business whitewashing Wikipedia. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 13:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Echoing what the others say, Rjensen, I understand your concerns but in my original edit, the only thing that wasn't in that transcript was the age of Marshak -- and, as everyone else has pointed out, Marshak has her very own entry on Wikipedia. This is part of Rocky's life.--Idols of Mud 22:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And, see this link: [2] - I'm trying to see if I can get a transcript of this news broadcast from 1979 from the NBC Evening News - please read the summary Vanderbilt University posts. None of this is tabloid. Tvoz 22:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wiki has very strong rules regarding unfavorable information on living people. Evidence has to be solid and there has to be a very good reason for including it. Suggesting a woman helped kill (or coverup death) Rockefeller violates this policy. Rjensen 22:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You have changed your argument against this material several times which leads me to wonder what your true concern here is. The article as now written does not say anything at all about helping to kill or cover-up a death. Nothing is violated in this small paragraph, so stop reverting it.Tvoz 22:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The material degrades Wikipedia and violates its ironclad rules. So why is it included? Rjensen 22:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said, you can't seem to make up your mind about what it is that so offends you here, and that is making me think that you might have a different reason for removing it. It seems every time someone responds to an objection you raise, you change what it is that you are objecting to. For example, earlier you objected because Nelson Rockefeller was retired and "not a public figure"; when that was debunked you moved on to something else. Now you just accused the article of claiming something about helping to kill or covering up a death, but when I pointed out that the text does not at all say that, you ignore it and move on to something else again. What exactly is bothering you so much? Wikipedia is not at all being degraded - legitimate sources have been attached, nothing is being said that is not backed up by sources. No rules are being broken here - your repeating that doesn't make it so. Do you have information that disputes what is said here? If so, cite it, write a few sentences and include them in the piece. There is room for presenting two sides of an issue. Since you likely do not, please stop reverting text that is legitimately here, has citations, and for better or worse is a part of the story of this former Vice President of the United States. Tvoz 23:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Rjensen, you will need to provide links to the specific policy you believe that this information violates. It seems to me a pretty clear-cut case: it documents the surrounding controversy with citations from reliable sources without including personal speculation or opinion. The article doesn't make any claims, it merely says that there was some press coverage concerning the peculiar circumstances of his death. You have been blocked for violating WP:3RR, but when you return I will happily review your reasoning for wanting to remove this information provided that you link me to the specific policies that you believe are being violated. More comments such as it "degrades Wikipedia" will be discounted. The paragraph does not, to me, seem to violate WP:LIVING since it merely asserts that Ms. Marshack was 1) present at his death and 2) a beneficiary in his will, which a number of sources have confirmed. Continuing to remove sourced, verifiable information can result in a further block or lead to your being prevented from editing this article. -- Merope 15:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with the above, but I have temporarily removed the offending para as it is poorly worded ("see for example" and such). A consensus version worked up here should present no pressing problems. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph does not say "for example" - the references do. This is completely acceptable reference style when there are many possible citations and the writer is selecting one or two to illustrate the point. I included the phrase to attempt to fend off the criticism that this was not widely reported, but I don't object to removing it. Otherwise, though, I don't think what';s needed is to remove the paragraph - if it is "poorly worded" please make suggestions for re-wording it. There seemed to be only one person objecting to its inclusion, and he did not seem amenable to reaching consensus, as you can see in the discussions further up on this page. Tvoz 20:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Further, I see nothing in Wikipedia:References that speaks about not using phrases like "See for example", so if it's amatter of taste, mine would be to leave it as it is providing some information. Either way, it's not such a big deal - and not evidence of the paragraph being poorly worded. Tvoz 20:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not saying that the blocking of Rjensen was a mistake, bear in mind the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy explicitly allows users to violate the 3RR to remove content in violation of itsays that the 3RR doesn't apply when removing content in violation of BLP. I can't be bothered considering the matter sufficiently to decide whether IMHO it does or not so again I'm not saying the block was a mistake, just reminding everyone of our policy Nil Einne 20:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] moving on

I think other areas in this article can use some attention - enough energy has been expended in the one paragraph about his death. I've started to look at Attica and Rockefeller drug laws s they both could use some work- other parts could also use expansion as they are very sketchy. Tvoz 20:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)