Talk:Thomas Kean

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

I heard through the grapevine that Mr. Keane gave up business connections with Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law shortly before accepting the nod for the September 11th commission. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

True, probably you can't add that info here. Check my conspiracy wiki page on Thomas Kean for more details. Conwiki 23:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Anyone feel like mentioning the Ballot Security Task Force here? Proto t c 1 July 2005 11:38 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of the conspiracy theorists category. People should not be put into categories which may be controversial. I don't see any evidence in the article text that shows that he is a conspiracy theorist. I suspect it may have had something to do with this text: "On April 4, 2004, Kean stated that the September 11 attacks could have been prevented had the United States government acted sooner to dismantle al-Qaeda and responded more quickly to other terrorist threats.". That's not enough though. --Phroziac ^(talk) 23:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the substraction of the conspiracy theorists category, since it is objectively true. A conspiracy is when two or more people come together in order to commit an untoward act against another or others. Thus, the U.S. government's official position on the 9/11 attacks is by definition a theory regarding a conspiracy.--Jamie

Do you have more information on this to include in the article then? --Phroziac ^(talk) 23:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I also note that Thomas Kean is not "the U.S. government". There is no reason to assume Kean makes a habit of unfolding conspiracy theories. Furthermore, I do not believe the U.S. government's position on the 9/11 attacks is commonly regarded a conspiracy theory with such overwhelming agreement that it justifies labeling Kean a "conspiracy theorist". I ask for credible sources to back up such an assertion. Our own article states "a conspiracy theory is a theory that claims an event or series of events is the result of secret manipulations by two or more individuals or an organization, rather than the result of a single perpetrator or natural occurrence." Under this definition, I doubt any explanation of the 9/11 events that directly holds a terrorist organization responsible qualifies as a "conspiracy", since there isn't anything secret about it. JRM · Talk 23:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rename of article

I have undone changes regarding Thomas Kean (the former NJ governor and chair of the 9/11 Commission) that renamed the article to Thomas Kean, Sr. and changed Thomas Kean to a redirect to Tom Kean (disambiguation). While I acknowledge that the father's formal name is Thomas Howard Kean, Sr., he is universally known as Tom Kean or Thomas Kean, without the suffix. A Google search of Kean with Sr. appended shows a comparatively small number of hits compared to searches without the suffix, and a significant number of the Sr. hits are for articles mentioning both father and son and trying to distinguish between the two. The convention of referring to the father as Thomas Kean and the son as Tom Kean Jr., accurately reflects the actual vernacular references to each. As such, renaming the article for the father to Thomas Kean, Sr. is not justified and the change of the original article to a redirect leaves some 150 wikilinks in other articles pointing to a disambiguation page instead of the article. Alansohn 13:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Jersey Republican political machine

I question the NPOV-ness and to a lesser degre the relevence and accuracy of that paragraph. There never was much of a Republican machine. And *of course* future Republican notables worked in his administration. Does the author of that paragraph have reason to believe that Kean had more than the normal level influence on the NJ GOP in the years after his governorship? Dvd Avins 02:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

At first glance it looks to me like a probable violation of WP:NOR. And in any case much/most of it belongs in New Jersey, in a section on politics of that state. Specifically:

• First paragraph: first two sentences are fine (if not elsewhere); second pair should be deleted.
• Second paragraph: second sentence belongs in discussion of Kean administration; rest should be deleted.
• Third paragraph: delete entirely.

I suggest giving this a couple of days to see if anyone wants to defend the section, then following WP:BB and removing most of the section and redistributing the rest. You might also stick an NPOV tag on the entire section, with an edit summary that mentions this talk page. John Broughton | Talk 03:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)