Talk:Nelson Rockefeller/Archives/2014

Statesman?
"Statesman" is really a judgement of value that doesn't belong in the first sentence of an article. It gives the whole thing an air of hagiography.

The entire first paragraph needs to be refashioned, but I'm going to start just plucking out "statesman".--Dnavarro (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, in light of WP:BOLD, I'm going to try a more "agressive" re-edit of the introduction paragraph. It does look like a hagiography. I know all of this is logged, but just for context, this is the content of the first few sentences:


 * Throughout his life Rockefeller was drawn to finding innovative, inter-disciplinary solutions to public policy issues. He spent much of his career in public service and he served the Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower and Nixon administrations in a variety of positions. As Governor of New York from 1959 to 1973 his achievements included the expansion of the State University of New York, efforts to protect the environment, the building of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza in Albany, increased facilities and personnel for medical care, and creation of the New York State Council on the Arts. A Republican, Rockefeller used a pragmatic problem solving approach to public policy formation rather than adhering to strict ideology.


 * It reads like a paid "Who's who" entry. I figured I might as well "be bold". Please scrutinize.--Dnavarro (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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


 * Here you go.


 * [[image:Nelson Rockefeller.jpg|250px|Nelson Rockefeller]]


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

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)

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)

What no mention of Megan Marshak? :)
Well, y'know, she had someone die on top of her, whaddya expect? :)  &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 07:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) Pathetic assumption!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.77.74 (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

'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.

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)

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)

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)
 * Not that it matters as I agree that this belongs in the Ford article. However it was a New York Daily News headline. In fact the historic newsfront is featured in that article.76.188.183.123 (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. &mdash; 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)

I suppose if you investigated what Rocky did behind the scenes and exactly what the Rockefeller family is all truly about, you'd feel a bit differently on how much "he deserves better."

This is ridiculous, for all their faults, they're a fantastically kind and charitable family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.68.7 (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

Cleanup
After the edit of User:70.182.64.86 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)

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)

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.  Pr oh ib it O ni o n s   (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. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (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. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (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: - 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)

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 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 Biographies of living persons policy explicitly allows users to violate the 3RR to remove content in violation of it says 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)

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)

Diego mural
I removed this: "In a notable public incident, he had the mural of Diego Rivera, that he had commissioned for the lobby of the RCA building in Rockefeller Center, destroyed because it contained the figure of Lenin.

I could not find a source to confirm that Nelson Rockefeller had the mural destroyed - it was indeed destroyed, but this PBS piece has John D. Jr. speaking for Rockefeller Center management, not Nelson, and the implication is that Nelson was not the one who had workmen destroy it in the middle of the night. If someone finds a source laying this at Nelson's feet, then it surely should be reinstated with citation as it would be an interesting counterpoint to his reputation as an art collector. Tvoz | talk 22:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

>>>>>Please, take your time to read this. There are many articles and featured news stories from that period. There are many documents that confirm Nelson Rockefeller had the mural destroyed. Also, there is part of a movie showing this event in that website. (and the movie "Frida" would be terribly wrong and undocumented if what they showed was false (the argument between Nelson and Diego Rivera. I find it incredible that you took it away. This is the result of the investigation: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA04/hess/RockRivera/homepage.html

I find it incredible too. Obviously he or she (Tvoz) hasn't read NR's autobiography, where he talks about this incident.

Dream?
Did Rockefeller have any dreams/asperations? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.199.192.126 (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

??? Tvoz | talk 06:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You know like did he want to do anything while he was growing up? --65.97.16.187 22:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge Megan Marshak into death section and redirect.
Merge, it looks to me like there is only enough information about Megan Marshak to just merge her article and redirect to Nelson Rockefeller. There can't be more than a sentence or two to say about her since she is not notable beyond Rockefeller. Since there's already a paragraph in Nelson Rockefeller's article, it seems that we just need to put a redirect on this article and be done with it. Any thoughts? --Dual Freq 17:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, please merge. I vote for a merge.Asc85 20:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a vote. I intended to flesh out that article but haven't had a chance to - my comment would be that Fanne Foxe is in the same category as Megan Marshack, and leaving the article as it is for now with some time to expand it, would be a better way to go. I'll try to give it some time in the next few days. Tvoz | talk 21:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But what can you flesh it out with, is the question. If she wouldn't be notable enough for an encyclopedia article sans the whole Rockefeller thing, it's unlikely that she's notable enough for an encyclopedia article apart from the Rockefeller thing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The prudes who, for no good reason, want to limit or delete the information about Rockefeller's death should not be allowed to abridge that material on Wikipedia by merging the Marshack article. Let it be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.225.124.174 (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikiproject
I think that this article should be added to the scope of the New York State wikiproject since Rockefeller was from New York state. Prb4 21:07:02 February 14,2007 (UTC)

Death
The section about Rockefeller's death is to long and needs to be trimmed down. Prb4 03:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See the above discussion on this topic. His death is noteworthy and the section is not overly long.--Idols of Mud 03:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Marshack spelling
Confirming that "Marshack" is the correct spelling. More pages found by Google spell it without the "c," but I found several articles inside the New York Times paywall that all include the "c."

Hyperbole
This statement in the Attica riots has no source and really doesn't contribute to the article in my view. "More than 40 people died, including 11 of 38 hostages (most of whom were prison guards), the largest loss of life in armed conflict between groups of Americans since the American Civil War" Any consensus on removing it? Mbisanz 18:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would be sufficient to request a reference for the numbers. However, the bit about it being the largest loss of life since 1865 looks wrong as 171 died in the Wounded Knee Massacre in 1890. - Crosbiesmith 21:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

cleanup in Aisle 3!
If there's any work that still needs to be done, it's in the "Early Political History" section, which is almost incoherent and borders on being a hodgepodge of advanced, if not esoteric, terms and (weasel)words with what I hope are (uncited)facts about a crucial time in his career. Don't get me wrong, I can read and make sense out of almost any sophisticatedly-written English article in wikipedia, but this particular section has no coherency to it, so if someone has the time and patience to weed through this and make it read more like an article and not a political debate, that'd be appreciated.

Thanks, Alan 69.116.186.229 (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The Finger
There is a reasonably famous photograph of Rockefeller flipping the bird. Even if a free version of that image is not available, it seems notable enough to be mentioned.--otherlleft (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Rockefeller Commission on CIA Activities in the United States (1975)
Can't believe there is no mention of Nelson Rockefeller serving as head of this commission. . . [Ronald Reagan] served on it too. The Commission, among other things investigated the CIA's involvement in the assassination of President Kennedy. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is writing this thing?
I have no enormous complaint about bias in this article, except to say that the language is like that written by PR firms or in-pocket biographers. "Throughout his life Rockefeller was drawn to finding innovative, inter-disciplinary solutions to public policy issues." Charming bit of interpretive history, and only one example of a many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.94.167 (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Nelson Rockefeller
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nelson Rockefeller's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "NYT1": From Marcellus Hartley Dodge, Jr.:  From 810 Fifth Avenue:  From Al Gore:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Rockefeller Drug Laws
Tough laws on drug users What became known as the “Rockefeller drug laws” were a product of Rockefeller’s attempt to deal with the rapid increase in narcotics addiction and related crime.

I have a number of issues with your commentary on the Rockefeller Era Drug Laws. You state: "As approved by the legislature in 1973, the new drug laws included mandatory life sentences without the possibility of plea-bargaining or parole for all drug users, dealers, and those convicted of drug-related violent crimes;"

Your simplistic and misleading opinion obviously ignores the responsibility and authority of the prosecutor to reduce the level of the offense if warranted. The laws required certain sentences upon conviction, not arrest. The mandatory life sentences were reserved only for the highest level drug dealers, not users.

You further conclude that the laws: "did not lead more addicts to seek rehabilitation as hoped, and ultimately did not solve the problem of drug trafficking." Again, this conclusory state flies in the face of the facts. How many addicts were in drug treatment in 1973 and how many were in treatment when the Pataki-era drug laws were enacted. Please save your opinion and cite facts.

You state that the Rockefeller era drug laws "are still on the books, albeit in moderated form."[Today’s Patterson era drug laws (euphemistically referred to as the "Drug Dealer Protection Act of 2009") look nothing like thee Rockefeller Drug laws. Mandatory prison upon conviction is gone and the maximum sentences have been decimated from 25 years to 9 years in most cases. As a direct result of the Pataki and Patterson Drug Laws, the prison population, especially those incarcerated on Drug Felonies has dropped dramatically (over 20% overt all and likely 40-50% of drug dealing convicts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.110.50 (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

no article for son
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Nelson_Rockefeller

71.101.43.4 (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)