Talk:Jay Rockefeller
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Jay Rockefeller is within the scope of WikiProject West Virginia, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of West Virginia and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. (Usage) | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. | |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale. | |
 |
Please explain ratings you add or change by editing this article's ratings summary page. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
 |
Jay Rockefeller is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category." |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low." |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event." |
I only hear this guy referred to as "John D Rockfeller IV" outside of this article. Shouldn't the article be titled as such? I don't know in what contexts he goes by "Jay," but it's not the way he's best known, so I think the title should be changed...
- In his home state, he is always called 'Jay' and he is called that on a social level, too. I would strongly oppose any such title change. Youngamerican 14:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It appears that this individual is very stupid or is a traitor to this country. He freely admits on a national tv program to telling our enemies what he believes we are about to do prior to the start of the iraq war. This is based on his own words as follows;
QUESTION
WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The — I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq — that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.
- I don't exactly understand how it is traitorous for a U.S. citizen to express his/her perception of another person's foreign/military policy. But, unlike you, I'm not afraid to attach my name and the date of its stating to it.Mphamilton 06:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Oil stocks ?
Does anyone know if Senator Rockefeller owns oil stocks? His family got their $$ from Standard Oil, (which started Exxon, etc.). Is Rockefeller against the Iraq War because losing that war will keep the price of oil up?
[edit] Accusations and investigations of leaking
In July 2005, the Justice Dept. began an investigation concerning whether Senator Rockefeller is guilty of criminally leaking government secrets. [1] According to media personality Rush Limbaugh, Senator Rockefeller is also suspected of leaking NSA wiretap details in December 2005. [2]
After a nexis and google search, I'd like to propose the following for the last sentence of this section: There are unconfirmed rumors that Senator Rockefeller is also suspected of leaking NSA wiretap details in December 2005. Kschlot1 01:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Partisan rumors have no business being in an article, period. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Dragon695 02:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Senator Rockefeller's office just called to complain about this. There is no investigation. The source cited above (Newsmax) is not reliable. Unless and until this turns into a bigger story, a random suspicion thrown out by Rush Limbaugh does not seem notable to me either. Let's not include this stuff unless and until we have reliable mainstream sources.
(To be clear: Rush Limbaugh can be a valid source, but there is a question of importance here -- if he said something once on the radio, that hardly merits inclusion in this article. If he's on a crusade and other media take notice, then it becomes interesting enough to include.)
--Jimbo Wales 17:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Accusations and investigations of leaking removed
I have removed this partisan piece of hackery, and I would do the same if it were a Republican. Rush Limbaugh and NewsMax are about as NPOV as Al Franken and Mother Jones are. Until you can provide evidence from some other source (EVEN FOX NEWS) less POV-pushing then those two, the section must go. --Dragon695 02:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed.--Jimbo Wales 17:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- This NPR web broadcast seems to support that Rockfeller is being investigated or named for investigation concerning at least one leak. 70.85.195.238 11:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Do you have a transcript? A specific quote? Bear in mind that we really aren't a forum for speculation about investigations or what not. --Dragon695 07:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Another link from American Thinker. 192.168.224.130 12:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like Rockefeller also blabbed secrets to Syria 192.168.224.130 12:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm... Big mouths in Congress inhibit secret-sharing 70.84.56.177 05:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Those are partisan, political mags/websites with a definite slant. Can't you find something in the Moonie Times? Fox News? New York Post? Wall Street Journal? If what you say is true, why isn't it more widely reported? Again, we are not here to provide a forum for speculation. --Dragon695 07:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Please keep your insults off this page. There is no need to say "Moonie Times", etc. 70.84.56.166 03:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 2002 Trip to Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia
In 2002, Senator Rockefeller travelled to certain Middle East countries and revealed United States military intentions to the leaders of those countries. Rockefeller was quoted admitting this in November 2005 "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq". [3] As a ranking Senator, Rockefeller is privy to many internal military planning details on which he is able to form his personal views.
- I've revised the source to point to the orignal Fox News sunday transcript, de-cropped the quote, and removed the bold emphisis. Otherwise, it would seem to be a fair thing (he did after all say it). However, it still could probably do with a rebuttle, if any, from the senator or his supporters. --Dragon695 07:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Rebuttal? As in a denial? What's there to "rebut"? 70.84.56.166 03:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 2002 Trip to Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia
In 2002, Senator Rockefeller travelled to certain Middle East countries and revealed United States military intentions to the leaders of those countries. Rockefeller was quoted admitting this in November 2005: "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11." [4] As a ranking Senator, Rockefeller is privy to many internal military planning details on which he is able to form his personal views. Regarding this trip and Senator Rockefeller's communications with Syrian and other leaders; as these facts became known, there have been suggestions made that Rockefeller may have violated the Logan Act and could be subject to criminal prosecution. [5]
[edit] Explanation of my edits
Here's what the anon ip number wanted this paragraph to say: "In 2002, Senator Rockefeller travelled to several Middle East countries and revealed United States military intentions to the leaders of those countries. Rockefeller was quoted admitting this in November 2005: "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11." [1] As a ranking Senator, Rockefeller is privy to many internal military planning details on which he is able to form his personal views. Regarding this trip and Senator Rockefeller's communications with Syrian and other leaders; as these facts became known, there have been suggestions made that Rockefeller may have violated the Logan Act and could be subject to criminal prosecution. [2]"
This is a highly POV presentation, to say the least. The word "revealed" suggests what is later asserted... something which is completely unsupported by the references... that Sen. Rockefeller was privy to secret information which he revealed. Danny version notes that he made the trip, had the discussions, but does not prejudge whether the discussion did or did not reveal secrets -- we are not in a position to judge, nor in a position to suggest, one way or the other.
Even including the incident at all, in an article of this length, is fairly POV, but the solution to that is to make the article better and longer overall. I hardly think that the man's entire career is best summed up with this reference to a fairly minor event in that career.--Jimbo Wales 21:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- With all due respect Jimbo, your personal feelings about Rocky are not ipso facto NPOV. As I see it, you are letting your emotions cloud your vision here. Please read all the above, including the conjectures about Rocky's family oil ties and see if there is a drive to poison the well here. Indeed, there is not. Rather, the effort is to be sure that people understand the context. 1) A high ranking Senator 2) took it upon himself to address foreign leaders 3) while at the same time, being in personal knowledge of various USA intentions 4) as a result of sitting on very important Senate committees 5) yet he went ahead and did it anyway.
- Jimbo, 1st you delete the Limbaugh assertion. Now you sweep the Logan act allegation under the rug. By your own admission you've already reacted to complaints from Rocky's office. That being the case, you have chosen sides in a partisan battle. Rocky's staff wants this info excised because it's true and it makes him look bad - and you are helping them.
- All that said, since you are indeed the grand-poobah around here, you are entitled to deference and in this case, as best as reasonably possibly, you shall have it. Even so, mark my words: When more facts about these blabbings and leaks finally come out, you will come to see that your intercession here was ethically wrong and not only that, these allegations against Rocky are true. Loose lips do indeed sink ships and Rocky is a blabbermouth.
- Now as to whether he blabs out of senility, spite, avarice, hubris or a simply a stupid understanding of current world events, I'll leave that to the history books to decide. In the meantime, I'll do my best to respect your wishes here - even though you are both ethically and factually wrong on this point. PS: Love the wiki - this is truly a paradigm shifting happening. Thanks for all you've done so far - keep up the good work. 192.168.227.195 09:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)(Actually posted by user:70.85.195.227)
[edit] Section title
According to Rocky "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria..." he went to 3 specific countries. There is no reason to obfuscate that fact and/or infer he went elsewhere. He went to those countries, stop deleting this true NPOV section title.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.98.130.204 (talk • contribs)
