Talk:Thomas Kean, Jr.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
WikiProject Dartmouth College This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dartmouth College, which collaborates on articles related to Dartmouth College.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
No This article is on a subject of no importance within WikiProject Dartmouth College.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] RINO

The following sentence was removed from the main article: "He has been accused of being a Republican In Name Only (RINO) by conservatives.[1]"

While the charge is out there, the us of a post to a blog to support the statement is questionable. A search of Google News was unsuccessful in identifying a more mainstream source. Please reinsert with an appropriate link. Alansohn 16:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highly questionable and unsourced claim

Regarding the following passage:

"There has been much speculation that Kean will drop out of the race because of heavy conservative opposition in relatiation for his father's role on the 9/11 Commission, which was criticized by some conservatives..."

This seems to be highly likely to be POV (or maybe the author's wishful thinking) and also UNSOURCED.

If after the press conference on March 27, Kean is still in the race, then let's take the passage out.

69.39.172.90 09:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Median Income Data

Hi Abe. You're obviously an experienced Wikipedia user. You are no doubt familiar with the concept of original research, and how it is highly discouraged here. You have repeatedly added material of original research to the Thomas Kean Jr. page today. I removed this material because you did not provide a source. You reverted this change, and tried to use Wikipedia as a source. The pages you linked to also do not cite their source. This is clearly a case of original research. I must ask that you remove this material until you can provide a reputable source for these facts. I am not disagreeing with the facts, or claiming that they are in any way incorrect or falsified. I just want a reputable, verifiable source.

Furthermore, I fail to see the significance of the median income value of these districts. It appears out of context and does not relate to the paragraph.

Thank you for finally adding the proper sources.
They were already present in the wiki links. Review WP:Cite. And find another editor to stalk. Abe Froman 23:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Senate campaign

Please note that there is an article specifically for this campaign/race/election. The section on the election in the Thomas Kean Jr. article (and in the Menendez article, which I've already changed) should be a BRIEF summary of the race; interested readers can then go to the main article. Among other things, this means that there should only be ONE place to get into discussions about text related to campaign events, rather than THREE places (Kean, Menendez, and election article).

I'd welcome someone else moving most of the campaign text out of this article (I suspect that most of it is already in the campaign article); if no one else does it in a day or so, I will. John Broughton 12:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Changes by Atarpatel

Normally I'd just revert changes by a new user that are so blatantly POV (in favor of Kean and against Menendez), but given the number of edits that Atarpatel did, I'm hoping that he/she might be willing to abide by wikipedia rules in doing edits in the future. So some comments:

  • If you don't explain (using edit summaries) what you're doing, people are likely to be more suspicious that you aren't following wikipedia guidelines.
  • If you delete five out of eight references, and two out of six external links, as you did, you've automatically lost any credibility that you might have for the edits you've done. (Exception: spamlinks, which, obviously, these were not.)
  • The purpose of PREVIEW is to look at your work before you finalize it. If you'd done that, you might have noticed that you had SEVEN cases of starting a reference (with a <ref>), but failing to close it (with a </ref>). Also, you need a "References" section and a <references/>tag for references to appear.
  • Don't assume that you can make a lot of changes to an article that biases it significantly and still not have anyone notice. Or that you know enough about wikipedia to prevail in any ensuing edit war. John Broughton 18:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's remember that this is a new user and not be quite so brutal. I agree with you that these changes completely undo what is a pretty decent, weel-documented article. As a new user, Atarpatel is unlikely to view the discussion here or read the edit summaries you and i have entered. I'd strongly suggest toning down the rhetoric and adding this to the user's talk page, which would show up on top of a page and be more likely to be clicked on and read. Alansohn 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for having deleted some of your edits that were mixed in with changes by Atarpatel; I should have checked. As for Atarpatel, I withhold judgment about whether he was acting in good faith - I've never seen that kind of a butcher job by anyone other than someone uninterested in any kind of reasonable discussion - while admitting that I was irritated when I posted the above. John Broughton 18:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bias?

I quite enjoyed reading your accusations that I am biased. I will admit to being new to wikipedia, but I'm trying to get rid of the blatant bias already existing in the article, such as citing the swift-boat ad as pretty much the only major occurrence in the race. Also, saying that Kean screwed up in the debate when comparing Westfield and Union City is completely wrong and judgmental - I actually believe it was a great move on him part. Also, where's all the info about how Menendez tried to prevent free speech during a Kean press conference in Jersey City?

Too be honest, you have no standing to say that I am biased when you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word. I do intend to continue editing this and other articles to make them as objective as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.229.154 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 17 July 2006

Welcome to wikipedia. Some suggestions:
  • Sign your comments on talk/discussion pages (four tildes). Otherwise, it's confusing for the reader to figure out who said what, and when.
  • If you're a named user (for example, if you're Atarpatel), then login before you post. Otherwise, wikipedia software records the IP address that you used, not your user name. (You can tell you're logged in if text like "my talk" and "my preferences" are visible in the upper right of your screen.)
  • Avoid sarcasm (such as "enjoyed reading your accusations"). As in real life, if you're trying to convince people that you want to be objective and reasonable (and thus that your comments should be taken seriously), it's best to avoid insults, sarcasm, etc.
As to the issue of making this article "objective", you seem to misunderstand wikipedia's policies. DELETING a lot of text, as you just did (again?) isn't the way to make an article objective. If there are (in your opinion) too many negatives, then ADD some positives. If the negatives are overstated, then either (a) trim them a bit, leaving enough so the reader understands what is being claimed, and can still go elsewhere to learn more, or (b) take the issue to the talk/discussion page, and explain why you feel the way you do.
Turning to specifics:
  • Attacks on Menendez for "corruption" seem like they're going to be the main theme of the Kean campaign - after all, he's a junior NJ legislator, so he can't compete on experience, and the Menendez political positions are pretty mainstream for NJ. So a fair amount of text for discussions of attacks on Mendendez ARE very appropriate, particularly since there seems to be so much saying that the attacks are unfair/untrue.
  • I've read the NYTimes article that mentions the "gaffe". It's notable that the article doesn't use that word, I think. I'd personally vote to have the item dropped from the article, unless someone provides a citation to a newspaper story or other source saying that the matter (comparing locations where the two live) is a significant issue in the race.
John Broughton 12:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


The paragraph with the median income data is not only blatantly slanted, it distorts the facts. Anyone who watched the debate knows that Kean's comment had nothing to do with the relative wealth of Hudson County or Westfield. As the linked NYTimes article makes clear, when Menendez asked if he was casting aspersions on the people of Hudson County with that comment, Kean responded, "You know better than that, Bob." Kean was casting aspersions on Menendez's record, as is obvious from the quote already in the article: "Are you willing to invite people into Hudson County, Bob, to look at this record?" This "incident" is so trivial that I would vote to remove it entirely, but for now, I am just removing the irrelevant income data and the "gaffe" phrasing.
JPannucci 17:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)JPannucci
Let us try to keep the Tom Kean, Jr. article neutral.
Do not add passages containing terms like:
EMBRYO-DISECTING
GUN-GRABBING
JIM JEFFORDS-WANNABE
CLOSET-DEMOCRAT
POPE-HATING
LIBERAL
..and the article will be a lot more balanced.
71.168.129.132 06:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social Security

While the article states that Kean opposes the administration's Social Security plan, I believe it needs to be made more specific. Senator Menendez claims otherwise, and the truth - from the article cited here - seems to be a little of both. Kean appears to support a slightly less drastic version of the administration plan - putting 2% into private accounts instead of 4% - which may not be the biggest distinction in the world, but I believe it's worth expanding upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.100 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 9 October 2006

The citations given in the article do not support (in fact, contradict) the blanket statement that he opposes privatization. I agree with you that some elaboration will be necessary to present his position accurately and neutrally. JamesMLane t c 19:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] New Yorker column on this article

"Dirty WikiTricks" Bwithh 20:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)