Talk:Jim McGreevey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Gay is immaterial to the FEMA and real estate deals he made and broke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.43 (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Gay Governor?[edit]

Governor. That has simply not occurred yet.

Certainly there have been many, many closeted gays in office over the years who have also been outed. So I don't think this individual deserves the distinction awarded to him.

Sorry.

--69.37.38.64 12:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read a little closer: That's Openly gay there, chief. Aceholiday lumbia University (undergrad) 1978

Georgetown University (law) 1981

Harvard University (masters in education) 1982

offices: New Jersey Assembly 1990-1

Mayor of Woodbridge 1991-4

New Jersey Senate 1994-7

New Jersey Governor 2001-4 (resigned 8/12/2004 due to extramarital affair with a man)

First wife: ?Kari Schutz?

Resignation speech[edit]

I added about 95% of the speech to the article discounting some irrelevant points. I will yield to the community now to see which portions may be irrelevant to the article. Arminius 22:37, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I added a link to the text of the speech for those who do not believe it belongs in the article itself.Arminius 22:46, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Resignation[edit]

Why did he delay the date of his resignation to November? --Patricknoddy 20:49, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)User:Patricknoddy User talk:Patricknoddy 16:49 August 13, 2004 (EDT)

McGreevey delayed the effective date of his resignation to November 2004 in order to avoid forcing a special election, thereby allowing fellow Democrat and New Jersey Senate President Richard Codey to serve out McGreevey's term. Codey, who had served as acting governor before McGreevey's inauguration, will become acting governor again until the next general election in 2005. (Meelar forgot to sign).

It isn't certain McGreevey will be allowed to delay his resignation that long. Most Jersey papers, many politicians and The New York Times are calling for him to resign sooner. -- Cecropia | Talk 20:53, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thus the "may be succeeded by"--please add a section about calls for immediate resignation, as I don't know enough yet. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:54, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

McGreevy needs to let the voters decide who will lead the state until the 2005 elections - so he needs to STEP DOWN NOW (not wait until Nov 15 2004)!

If Mcreevey waits until Nov 15 2003 he will deprive the voters of their right to elect who will govern the state - he made that Nov 15 2004 date for selfish, political reasons and he made a backroom deal to help himself. He needs to do the right thing and STEP DOWN NOW!

He needs to grow a set and stay in office. He's out. It's no longer a secret, and potential blackmailers no longer have anything on him. [[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 07:35, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

He's already past the deadline for a new election, and the fact that he has not submitted any paperwork regarding resignation may well be a sign that he'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming from Drumthwacket. Announcing your intent to resign ("I have decided the right course of action is to resign. To facilitate a responsible transition my resignation will be effective on November 15th of his year.") isn't the same as resigning. - Nunh-huh 07:45, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Or not?[edit]

McGreevey has not yet sent in his letter of resignation to Secretary Thomas. - Calmypal 17:07, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Openly gay[edit]

The further edit Moncrief made is fine. My point is that the previous wording, to the unitiated reader, implied that he was either openly gay when elected or not long after attaining office. That further implies that his "gayness" was tolerated by the public until his affair came to light. In fact he didn't become "openly gay" until the issue was forced, He would have been in a difficult position if he continued to represent himself as straight (which he did by virtue of his marriage to a woman). So I would say he was didn't come out of the closet, he was forced out, and that is not openly gay, IMO. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moncrief, your further change is also OK by me. It removes the ambiguity (I think) of when and how he "came out." Howver, I'm a little uncomfortable with characterizing him as an "openly gay governor," because his openness and resignation went hand in hand, so we'll never know how the electorate felt about his gayness, since it is bound up in scandal and resignation. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia, I understand your points but for the purpose of the introductory paragraph of the article, I think keeping it simple and accurate is the most important thing. Regardless of the electorate's opinions, how he came out of the closet and all of the other details, the fact is that he was openly gay (i.e., he acknowledged that he was gay) while serving as governor of New Jersey and he continued serving as governor of New Jersey while being openly gay. The other details belong, if you want to add them, in later paragraphs. I understand that he would rather have not come out, that he was not elected while he was openly gay and everything else you've said, but the truth is that he was openly gay for several months while in office - and this is the simple distillation of the reality that belongs in the lead paragraph, I think: that he was the first and to date only openly gay state governor in US history. I'm glad we've come to an acceptable compromise. Moncrief 08:47, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
Why is the majority of the article about the fact that he is gay?? Why a whole section dedicated to who he is dating?? This is highly slanted and unbalanced. I don't see other articles about governors that focus so much on this sexual preferences and who he is dating. Let's revise and balance.24.10.184.204 03:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

I have added trivia about the soap opera One Life to Live. It comes from Soap Opera Digest Magazine. User:Dowew May 17, 2005


There is at least one other openly gay "governmental leader" in the US. The mayor of Providence, Rhode Island, David Cicilline, is openly gay.

Gay Government Leaders[edit]

For the internationally savvy, have there ever been any gay prime ministers or governors in any states / provinces anywhere else in the world? user:J.J.

Here's the wiki page on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_first_LGBT_holders_of_political_offices. How complete this is is anybody's guess.VatoFirme (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Succession box[edit]

I reverted edits that were made to the succession box. Please note, following Donald DiFrancesco, the office was occupied by Acting Governors John Farmer Jr., John O. Bennett, and Richard Codey. Accurizer 16:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morag? WTF? =[edit]

Can anyone verify his daughter is named "Morag"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.9.228 (talk • contribs)

"Morag Veronica", according to this ABILITY Magazine article. Accurizer 23:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morag is a common girl's name in Ireland, from where McGreevey's family came Catherinejarvis (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First wife Karen "Kari" Joan Schutz[edit]

I find this article on Jim McGreevey to be extremely lacking in one regard - there is absolutely no mention of why his first marriage broke up. Is it because his first wife found out that he was a homosexual? I mean, she just got up and moved to British Columbia - almost as if she was trying to move her and their daughter as far away from him as possible. Is it a big secret? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.139.97 (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce trial[edit]

I added this start of divorce: Jim and Dina Matos McGreevey's divorce trial in the Union County Courthouse in Elizabeth, started on May 6, 2008, to end their 3 1/2-year separation. Jim asked the court for equal custody of their 6-year-old daughter, alimony and child support. Matos McGreevey demanded $ 600,000 compensation. McGreevey, 50, now lives with a male partner and is studying to be an Episcopal priest. Stephen Haller, his lawyer will present witness Teddy Pedersen, 29: "Plaintiff will testify at trial that he needed to have a disrobed male present in the room with them in order for him to become physically aroused; This tends to prove that plaintiff was at least bisexual, a fact which should have been obvious to defendant prior to the marriage." Matos McGreevey's lawyer John Post, would block Pedersen's testimony.[1][2] --Florentino floro (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ wwsb.com, Gay ex-N.J. governor's divorce trial promises sordid details
  2. ^ www.gmanews.tv, Gay ex-NJ gov's divorce trial promises sordid details

FEMA[edit]

What does FEMA have to do with this?

In her memoirs, Matos wrote that she would never have married McGreevey if she had known he was gay, nor would she have chosen to have a gay man to father her child.[70] On March 17, 2008, Theodore Pedersen, a former aide to McGreevey, claimed that from 1999 to 2001 he had a three-way affair with McGreevey and Matos, a statement later affirmed by email from McGreevey to the Associated Press. That claim has been recently affirmed by FEMA.[70][71] In a statement to ABC News, Matos denied that a threesome ever took place.[72]

JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP and NPOV problems[edit]

Today someone suddenly undid a longstanding and well-sourced part of the intro. He did it contrary to Wiki policy in that instead of assuming good faith or seeking consensus, he flatly accused the writer of seeking "to tar" the subject and undid the text without discussion:

20:28, 25 July 2008 David Shankbone (Talk | contribs) (34,058 bytes) (Removed effort to tar McGreevey with scandals of associates; scandals McGreevey was cleared of. Let's keep the article NPOV) (undo)

After I restored it, pointing out the importance of assuming good faith and seeking consensus, he undid it again, without proper explanation.

He may have a very good reason for deleting that text. If so, there is no need to hurl accusations. Perhaps a cordial discussion of the issue here on these talk pages might be more productive. I would welcome it.Thefactis (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consensus does not mean that just because you slanted the article negatively back in May does not mean it requires consensus to correct WP:BLP problems. BLP is a core policy, and your effort to pair every scandal that McGreevey was shown to never be involved in not only fails the core policy of WP:BLP, but also WP:NPOV. --David Shankbone 22:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My, my: "you slanted the article"? "[Y]our effort to pair every scandal"? That doesn't sound like assuming good faith. It's not even polite, but more like a personal attack, which is also verboten. Let's focus instead on the article, shall we? The simple fact is the Gov. suddenly announced his resignation in the midst of all these scandals involving close associates. That was the historical context. We might delete all the context from the intro and deal with it in the body of the article, but it is improper to mention only one such scandal, because that tends to suggest that it was the sole reason for his resignation, which is not verifiable and violates the NPOV policy. As for the assertion that he was cleared or shown never to be involved, I would support your adding that, assuming there's a reliable source.Thefactis (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no big argument - I just disagree with using the Jim McGreevey article in WP:OR fashion by declaring "historical context" The inference is that issues he was shown to never even know about may have motivated his resignation. BLP does not say that you get to put a charge down, and then I have to find a reliable source to show he was cleared. This also fails NPOV and OR. I'm jus' sayin... --David Shankbone 05:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me get this straignt: we're talking about a statement of fact, whose validity is supported by references to at least three reliable sources, and that's somehow original research WP:OR? Care to explain the logic there? Putting the resignation in conetxt doesn't suggest motivation any more than does the part about Cipel. Of course using Cipel alone does trigger the NPOV problem, so the only solution is to include the full context or none of it in this introduction. Why persist in claiming that the Gov. was cleared, if there's no source to verify it? Thefactis (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is that you are the one who is deciding that the resignation had something to do with "growing scandals" (your words) in scandals McGreevey was cleared of. If you want to write about those scandals, then create new articles. But your "historical context" is simply your POV. Just because you have a citation doesn't mean you aren't using it to WP:SYN your POV. Have you read WP:SYN? Your inclusion of multiple sources about scandals in the lead of an article about someone who wasn't involved in them to portray it as having some effect on the resignation is WP:SYN.--David Shankbone 19:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By that reasoning we would need to delete the reference to Cipel to avoid suggesting that the resignation may have been related to the claimed affair. Is that what you would advocate? And again, what's your source for this repeated assertion that he wasn't involved?Thefactis (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's your source that he *was* involved? You are using old news that was "breaking" without using the updated story, that shows he was cleared. Do you have something that shows he was convicted or the proves he was involved? That's the measure. I don't have to prove a negative. Regardless, if you continue to insert this BLP violation, I will take it to the noticeboard. --David Shankbone 15:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who said he was? Not I. Why would you suggest that I had? I have made quite clear above that my point is that we should either give the full context or give none at all. It's focusing selectively on only one scandal as you insist that is an NPOV violation.Thefactis (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't focusing selectively on one scandal. The other scandals never involved him (I'm repeating myself) and you have yet to provide a source that prove he was involved in any of the scandals you are attributing to his resignation (and which you have also given no source to prove). This is all your own personal opinion, and that is verboten. --David Shankbone 18:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well that I never said or implied that. Why do you keep repeating it? Absent any source for the assertion that the affair was the sole cause, I don't see how this language can stand. If you have any such evidence, now is the time to supply it.Thefactis (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can find more evidence that scandals McGreevey was never involved in had something to do with his resignation instead of WP:SYNing your sources, you will at least need to find someone else besides yourself to back you up. Then we'll go to the BLP board. But right now, your proposal violates too many core policies (and you are the only one arguing for the violations). --David Shankbone 12:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Do you have some reason to believe that he was involved in all these scandals that engulfed his administration during the final days before his resignation? Otherwise how can you say that? There are only so many hours in one day! And what evidiece do you have that the illicit affair was what motivated his resignation? Otherwise how can you you say that? It's important to cite reliable sources. This is a biography of a living person. Think about it!Thefactis (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have forgotten what this issue was about, which was your BLP and POV violations. Please re-read this thread. --David Shankbone 17:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threesomes?[edit]

Now call me a prude, but could find another way to put it? I mean children may read this. Sad what is happening to our culture... 96.250.83.177 (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC) God Bless.[reply]

Ménage à trois, perhaps? French terms are always nice and euphemistic. 24.118.25.211 (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to delete the sentences on threesomes as a violation of BLP - even if there is a source it has been denied, and it is a accusation against someone who are still aliveCatherinejarvis (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Public Opinion[edit]

I noticed that a section dealing with public opinion during McGreevey's governorship is lacking on this page. I propose adding a graph and a public opinion narrative. Mkrayton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

can understand why McGreevey/Matos divorce would be bitter[edit]

I'll try to post this in talk sections of both Jim McGreevey and Dina Matos.

I take it it's understandable that it would take a while to realize one was gay (I don't know what McGreevey knew and when he knew it regarding this). I also recall reading in Ann Landers and/or Abby Van Buren that (considering marriage to be between a man and a woman) one should NOT enter marriage if gay. (I suggest you talk elsewhere about the definition of marriage, because I don't want to be involved in it here and we'd be digressing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

subject order seems misplaced[edit]

In the vast majority of Wikipedia sites I have seen, the personal life section comes at the end of an article, not the beginning. It appears here that the personal life section is put up front to embarrass the subject or color the reader's perspective in advance, whereas a typical article would show his professional career first. In addition, the section on Golan Cipel seems unusually large compared to the section on McGreevey's governorship in general. I suggest the article is overly focused on scandal for its own sake rather than a dispassionate review.Catherinejarvis (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Double dipping/ pension and salary?[edit]

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2015/09/mcgreevey_pension_benefits_hudson_county.html#incart_river

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Jim McGreevey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

See Talk:Fall to Grace (film) for link to move discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jim McGreevey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim McGreevey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jim McGreevey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_McGreevey&oldid=1217252797"