Talk:Christine Todd Whitman

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

frisking incident[edit]

I've been hoping someone would write details of the frisking incident here. Thank you to all who worked on it. I've never seen the picture in COLOR before. WTF was she thinking?! Kingturtle 19:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some OT commentry of a living person was removed Nil Einne (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV problems[edit]

This article is really negative. It needs allot of balance and more information anyway. I'll be back later to improve it. I hope others participate. Arminius 21:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think I've addressed the neutrality problem, if you agree please remove the NPOV template :) - Jord 15:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, but if it's really negative, there's probably a good reason. By the time Whitman left office she was extremely unpopular among Republicans as well as Democrats, and she burned her last bridges at the EPA. Many people will never forgive her for the EPA covering up the toxicity of the air around Ground Zero. She has a new book coming out, about moderates in the GOP, maybe you can talk about that. --JamesB3 22:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't typically this biased. This needs to be more informative than negative. Even the article on Hitler isn't this bad. --Darrinrasberry 21:45, Feb. 15th, 2006

James, the use of phrases like "failed to fund" rather than "did not fund" or "diverted funds from" are clear bias. This article was written not to deliver facts but to deliver opinion. Absentee (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The frisking photo[edit]

I think that the discussion of the "frisking photo" misses the point. The big issue at the time, as discussed at length in the newspapers, was really not whether the young man's civil rights were violated. The courts determined that they were not. The issue was that the then-governor was depicted smiling while frisking this suspected criminal, as part of a ride-along with the police. You cannot see the smile in the photo as it appears in the article, but you can see it (barely) in the slightly larger version that you get when you click on the photo. The smile was much more clearly visible in the versions printed in the newspapers at the time. That was the problem. It was not a legal problem, it was a p.r. problem, and an issue of inappropriate behavior. The governor was involved in a law enforcement operation, and leaving aside whether that was appropriate in the first place, the issue was that she was not taking what she was doing seriously. It was a joke to her. Let's have some fun frisking this guy on the streets of Camden at night. Unless my memory deceives me, that is what caused the furor.

I have therefore added in that she was smiling at the appropriate place in both this article and the Sherron Rolax article, and have posted this note in the Talk page for both articles. Neutron 03:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You say: "The courts determined that they were not." You mean the 16-year-old's rights weren't violated? Actually, the appeals court indicated that they probably were violated.

After all, once the police had made sure he wasn't carrying anything, there was no conceivable justification for the search by Whitman except the need for a Photo Opportunity.

The reason the suit failed was that the kid had waited too long to sue. Not that he wasn't wronged. He was.

Whitman should have known better. Just imagine if someone had done the very same thing to her son. Do you think she would have found that acceptable? Of course not. So this wasn't either.Thefactis (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Birth Abortion[edit]

There should be an entire section of her veto. (I am not up to it right now so maybe someone else can give it a try). I knew she did veto the ban but I did not know until today the legislature overrode her veto. That is a big deal and all the details of the fight should be in here. This is a cutting edge issue. -- mccommas [04:52, December 4, 2005 Mccommas]

Financial complicity in WTC collapse aftermath[edit]

A major section of text claiming that Whitman's financial dealings contributed to her failures in the aftermath of the WTC, was removed and placed here:

Some have wondered if the finances of her and her husband may have influenced her decision to refuse to call an environmental emergency after 9/11. Whitman is a major stockholder in Citigroup, whose insurance subsidiary Travelers Insurance faced millions of dollars in medical claims after the attacks; her husband managed hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of Citigroup assets. Whitman was also heavily invested in the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owned the World Trade Center and was the principal liable party for damages and claims. However, no proof that her financial holdings influenced her decisions has surfaced.

Not only is no source provided for any of these allegations, it's worded as gossip, e.g., "Some have wondered..." Who wondered? Is there any proof of such a claim? Even the concluding sentence that "no proof... has surfaced" is in the classic "when did you stop beating your wife" attack mode that is impossible to address. Furthermore, it's hard to understand what it means to be "heavily invested in the" PANY&NJ, when it is a bi-state public agency, not a public corporation. Unless some more definitive documentation of a claim is made it should not be reinserted. Alansohn 19:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 19 edits[edit]

I removed/edited a lot of suspect claims, as per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I felt that using the picture featuring Sherron Rolax as one of two images in the article was inappropriate because he has such a highly negative connotation; it's equivalent to the article on GWB having an image from the whitehouse.gov and the Mission accomplished pic.

I'm happy to discuss any of the particular changes I made; mostly I just tried to remove statements that were biased and unsourced. Doctofunk 05:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State pension soundeness[edit]

I was around when she failed to fund state pensions and replaced them with ious. I thought it was scandalously irresponsible because state workers would be counting on them. I also though that it was abberant behavior for state governors. Apparently the NYtimes article says that it has continued so I needed to supply that information. Either her successors have followed her lead or she is just like all other governors in pension irresponsibility. If others know about the state pension soundness and funding of other states during her time and after, it may be helpful as a comparison. thx. Chivista 13:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pension funding is serious, not fluff. This is a ticking fiscal problem that Corzine is failing to fix now. Chivista 19:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Progress[edit]

"Under her environmental leadership as governor, the number of days New Jersey violated the federal one-hour air quality standard for ground level ozone dropped from 45 in 1988 to 4 in 2000."

This is factually true but the wording makes it sound like Whitman was wholly responsible. However, much of the change was driven by the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act. [16:08, May 11, 2007 64.0.88.180]

EPA tenure at Agency[edit]

I had thought I was submitting a possible new part to the article on her leaving EPA and suddenly it appeared as the new material telling of the change from new info in the WASHINGTONPOST dot-com article - - Should I backtrack and delete the sentences? Thanks for advice on next steps! Timothy Shaw

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/leaving_no_tracks/index.html

It was Cheney's insistence on easing air pollution controls, not the personal reasons she cited at the time, that led Christine Todd Whitman to resign as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, she said in an interview that provides the most detailed account so far of her departure. Timothyjshaw 13:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)timothyjshaw[reply]

Question about son's name and occupation[edit]

I have searched for her sons name and occupation but have not been able to find it. can someone contribute this information? [ 23:24, July 7, 2007 66.14.223.232 ]

Quotes[edit]

I have deleted the following quote:

"It is time for Republican moderates to assert plainly and forcefully that this is our party too, that we not only have a place, but a voice - and not just a voice, but a vision - a vision that is true to the historic principles of our party and our nation.[1]

I have added the following quote:

”Nuclear energy is one of the safest, low cost and most efficient energy sources . . . Nuclear plants in the United States are built with exacting standards that include redundant safety systems to protect public health, as well as ensure plants are able to continue operating in the most severe weather circumstances.” [2]

The deleted quote was not found at the reference given, and is blandly political. But many readers interested in nuclear power will find the added quote eye-opening. Nuclear power is being increasingly debated among environmentalists, with the issue very much in doubt among them. Whitman is pro-nuclear, and people should know this about her.Eye.earth 17:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine that you deleted the quote that links to mypartytoo. I'm not sure what you mean about blatantly partisan, though. She did say it, and it's obviously core to her beliefs. Regardless, I see absolutely no point to including the nuclear energy quote. Within the first two paragraphs, it is stated that Whitman is pro-nuclear energy. The quote that you have included is non-notable, it merely describes nuclear power, not even her opinion, and could easily have been printed in a textbook. Maybe it belongs on the nuclear energy page, but it doesn't belong here.Athene cunicularia 18:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write "blatently [sic] partisan". I wrote "blandly political". But in any case it didn’t have a good reference-source.

The nuclear quote IS her opinion, and for anyone well-versed in nuclear power it is a really remarkable one. As for it easily appearing in a textbook, I’m sure Whitman would be delighted to hear you say so.

Whitman and those who agree with her presumably would want the quote included (and why would they not?). But those disagreeing with her would also want it included, knowing it would attract critical notice from readers familiar with Price-Anderson. It seems the only people who could want it deleted are those innocent enough to imagine the quote “non-notable” or repetitive. But it isn’t repetitive either – it shows that Whitman is prepared to state her support on the record. It buttresses her co-chairmanship of the CASEnergy Coalition. Eye.earth 23:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see it. Why is it surprising that Whitman supports nuclear power? What information does her statement contain that isn't already widely assumed to be true about nuclear power? And why does the quote need to be there, if the information is in the second paragraph, already "buttressing" the CASEnergy Coaliton information. As for your [sic], I have no idea what you're [sic]ing. Did I spell "blatant" incorrectly? I do, however, sincerely apologize for completely mis-reading "blandly political" as "blatantly partisan."Athene cunicularia 01:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're even: I [sic]'d my own typo.

I think you’re taking a proprietorial approach to this article. Since space isn’t an issue like it would be on paper, and the quote isn’t offensive per se, or irrelevantly off-topic, it should stay if a dispute about keeping it in exists. This is Wikipedia, not Encyclopedia Britannica. Why tweak a house of cards in a hurricane? But at least you don’t seem to be trying to save Whitman the embarrassment of being quoted – that would be intolerable. It sounds to me as if you actually believe the quote to be a boringly accurate description of nuclear power. It’s not. There are some good books about nuclear power out there. I recommend two: “The Careless Atom”, by Sheldon Novick. It’s old, but the physics doesn’t change (nor does the underlying technology); and (this should give you pause) “We Almost Lost Detroit”. Eye.earth 20:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite possible that I do have a sense of ownership of this article. I do see what you're saying, and in fact, we probably even see eye to eye on nuclear power. It just seems to me that there should be plenty of better quotes in her op-ed, instead of something that doesn't really reveal anything about nuclear power, or her personality, or her (delusion?) or whatever. I mean, to me, even "How do we fuel our lives without compromising our environment? The answer - nuclear energy," says more about what she's thinking and how she defines "compromising our environment," etc.Athene cunicularia 13:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Rollins controversy[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Rollins#1993_Gubernatorial_Campaign

I don't see any mention of this in the article. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.19.215 (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's alluded to, in this text: "Charges of suppression of minority votes were raised during this campaign.[9]" Wasted Time R (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Whitman[edit]

I see the entire paragraph on Kate Whitman has been deleted. What is the justification for this? (I also am leaving a note on the talk pager of the user who deleted it.) It was one thing when the separate article on her was deleted. A number of people had suggested a "merger" into this article, and although there was no official merger, I expanded the material on Kate Whitman. Now it is gone. I am going to put it back unless someone has a really good reason why it should stay out. Neutron (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support reinsertion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is off topic unless Whitman has some role in her activities and if so it should be spelled out. If you check the articles on other politicians you'll see that they may list the offspring, perhaps even state jobs and locations, but that's all.Thefactis (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IF the "topic" is Christine Todd Whitman how are her daughter's accomplishments "off-topic"?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Governor Whitman and her daughter are separate persons. Moreover, the daughter is an autonomous adult. As such her activities don't necessarily tell us anything about her mother. So why include them? Unless you can show that they do reflect on her mother, I would suggest that you make a case for creating a whole article about the daughter.Thefactis (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion of family members have been included in biographies since Adam. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did create a separate article about Kate Whitman, which was deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Whitman. I think I (and others) did make a good case for keeping it, but the closing administrator thought otherwise. In the AfD, several people suggested a merge. So the choice right now is between having one little paragraph on someone who is an increasingly prominent politician in Somerset County and elsewhere, in the article about her mother, and having nothing at all. I am not seeing any rule that requires deleting the paragraph. Neutron (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm putting the paragraph back. Neutron (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast. The burden of proof is on the editor who wishes to restore material. You haven't met that burden. You don't even have a source. The only citation listed is a dead link to a campaign site. That's hardly the high quality source Wikipedia requires for biographies of living persons. Moreover, the focus of this material is the daughter, not the mother. That the daughter can't merit her own article certainly does not justify commandering space in the mother's biography. Because the material was restored without justification or consensus, I am prepared to correct it. I would suggest that you list Gov. Whitman's offspring in this section, and then mention the daughter in other sections each time she played some significant role in her mother's life, including appropriate sources. That way you will have preserved the material without distorting the mother's biography.Thefactis (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still very biased[edit]

I still find the article to be very biased, not only in its references to Ms. Whitman, but more especially to the Bush-Cheney administration. For example, citation #21 is used to support the statement that "The report was dismissed by President Bush who called it the work of "the bureaucracy." I read through the volumnous document referenced (over 9MB in size) and I can't find anything to support this statement. Closest I can find is on page 28. But in any case, what is the point of including such a quote? It seems to me that it is simply a jab at Bush. It does not belong here.

There is also an underlying tone of blame and error on many other their actions, and the reference material for these quotes is often editorial opinion, not fact-based. Source #33 "Leaving No tracks" is referenced five times, each time being cited as a document of fact, when it is actually an opinion based article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.226.230.36 (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christine Todd Whitman. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Christine Todd Whitman. 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) 14:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Christine Todd Whitman. 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) 08:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christine_Todd_Whitman&oldid=1210208608"