Talk:Janet Napolitano/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Illegal Immigration

Napolitano Favors Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants, and She Vetoed Many Measures in Arizona Which Would Have Reflected the Will of the People to Gain Control Over the Border

The article is woefully incomplete because it fails to connect Napolitano's very weak record in Arizona on illegal immigration to her new role where she would supposedly be in favor of regaining control over America's borders. Is Napolitano now ready to urge the wider use of the online database E-Verify to assure that American employers don't hire illegal immigrants? Is Napolitano now a convert to the notion that America simply must, in an era of terrorism, regain control over its southern border? The article gives no clues.

Personal Life

If other politicians have personal lives in their wikipedia profiles, so should Napolitano. It's as if you guys are HIDING her personal life, not asserting relevance. ARE you hiding it? I think you want to quash any discussion of it because of where it MIGHT lead.

"MIGHT lead"? What are you talking about?

Sexual Harassment Suit Allegations

Why is there no information on the most recent claims (as of August 2012) of sexual harassment against Janet Napolitano?

Elections Information

Why is the information about Governor Napolitano's upcoming re-election bid in her Wikipedia biography as well as in a separate article about her re-election bid? Shouldn't there be a simple link to her re-election bid in her biography instead of replicating the information? Just wondering. - Espia 20:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Trolls

Someone please clean up this page... there has been vandalism. (note end of paragraph 3 in "political career"). Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.87.112.2 (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Administration Policies section..

The first sentence in the "Administration Policies" section is a Glittering Generality that reads like a political ad, and needs sources. Also, no mention of her opposition to Prop. 200, or a number of other key points in her tenure as governor. CaptnSpandex 19:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, looks like it was written by a campaign manager or PR person. Want to work on it? --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 19:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I reworded that bit, and it is more neutral than it was so I removed the tag.--Gloriamarie 04:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I live here in Phoenix and I genuinely like Janet, but please, this article reads like it was written by her campaign manager. Come on guys !!!! Fix this up. And one more thing there is absolutely no reason not to mention her lesbianism. Who cares!

2010 election

the 2010 election section is being placed here too early. One poll has been released and she did not commission it anyway. Napoliatano has made no indications that she will run and there are no articles other than that one independent poll to speculate that she will. Until she makes some kind of statement about the election it should be included in the election page only not here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.177.205 (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

The Criticism section only discusses Colorado City-related issues, which really belong in a larger section on her policies as AG and governor/political reactions to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.228.249 (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's really off key and out of place. Although I'm not exactly sure where it should go. Avador 21:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Article Needs More Depth and Citations about Her Terrorism and Border Security Background

She has extensive credential in these areas, although there should also be mention of her critics who say she is more experienced on border security but less experienced in the area of international terrorism. Sean7phil (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Napolitano's Ethnic Heritage

The article currently reads, "She is of Italian heritage on her father's side and Lithuanian and Polish Jewish heritage on her mother's side." While this seems quite likely (as to the Italian) and certainly plausible (as to the rest, which was added today by 98.218.141.121), I haven't been able to find anything to back it up, not even the Italian part which has been in the article for a while. Can anyone point to some authority before we have to delete this sentence? I did find this [1] which might count for the Italian part, but I'm not sure.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure, based on the family tree you linked to (which I've seen before) that her mother isn't Lithuanian/Polish Jewish. Those maternal ancestors listed were all born in the U.S. long before Polish and Lithuanian Jews began immigrating to the U.S. This 2005 Chicago-Sun Times piece mentions that she's Italian ([2]) so I'll add that as a reference for that part. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Cancer Survivor

I've seen her talk about going through breast cancer and having a mastectomy in 2000. There isn't an appropriate section in this article to which to add this information. Any ideas? --→ $JJOlsen$ 15:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Napolitano's position as Arizona Governor should remain at the top (as that's her current position). GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Swapped. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Tvoz/talk 17:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

And it keeps getting switched back... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 13:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

While I wasn't swapping the positions at all, what is the proper wiki styleguide on this, is it currently held office always on top, order of office held oldest (top) to newest (bottom)...? I ask because I have seen it in numerous ordering in many different political bio pages with no clear standard ordering. Lestatdelc (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Secy of HS, when?

There's no quarentee, she'll become Secy of HS on January 20, 2009. She's yet to be confirmed by the Senate. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's why it's "designate" - the text should cover the confirmation matter - infobox can't do everything. Tvoz/talk 18:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

See the Treasury Secretary-designate's Infobox. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

btw, the infobox says she assumed office on or after Jan. 20, 2009. This the wrong tense. Can someone fix it?ABC101090 (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Senate has confirmed her as Secy of HS. But, has she resigned as Arizona Governor yet & been sworn in as Secy of HS, yet? GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am unable to confirm when Napolitano took the oath of office to become Secy of HS, but she submitted her resignation as Governor of Arizona on January 20, 2009.[3][4] --Allen3 ^talk 20:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, noted. PS: I've changed the assumed office dates on the other Cabinet members aswell. The Senate chose to not confirm anybody, on Inauguration Day. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal Life

I removed the section regarding Napolitano's personal life, because it's really of no consequence to this article and has rarely received attention in other media. It looks to me to also be an attempt to insert rumors about her sexuality into the article, which have been reverted many times previously. --JMurphy 18:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The vital statistics of any public official, who makes decisions for the public as a whole, is relevant - regardless of how flattering or unflattering the facts may be. I have no idea what Ms. Naplitano’s sexual orientation is, and I don’t care, but omitting this information is negligent and prevents the public from making their own educated decisions. Please add this relevant information back into this article. Thank you, VWRANCH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwranch (talk • contribs) 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Just because gays have your agendas ("outing" people who are gay but don't want to say and hiding them when we know that they are), does not mean that you should be on a mission to hide facts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.91.23 (talk • contribs)

The personal life of a governor is in bounds. It should be here.---chiefsalsa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.217.244 (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it should be there, but this source isn't a good one, so I'm taking it out until a better source turns up. Cretog8 (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a perfectly good source. It quotes her saying she is not a lesbian. The statement is factual, relevant and sourced, so you can't delete it unless you have a better source. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The statement is in a snide column in a local arts & entertainment paper which (at best) mixes news with gossip. It doesn't give enough information on the quote to track it down (date? speech? interview?). It's not good enough, and not all sources are equal. Cretog8 (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend removing the information about hiking the Superstitions and the Sandias. It's really not that impressive - roughly equivalent to letting people know that someone who jogs has jogged in both Central Park and Discovery Park (Seattle). 68.99.134.118 (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

who in the world put in that she was lead singer of Concrete Blonde ?? i wonder why academia shuns wiki. i will try to remove it from the article. perhaps it might be interesting if they are relatives, however.

Gov Rendell's remark

Is Ed Rendell's remark about her being a great choice for Homeland Secretary because she's single actually relevant? It's credibly sourced, but seems like a flash in the pan. - JeffJonez (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been added back yet again. Some random insult/off-the-cuff remark about someone, even if by another notable person, doesn't really seem significant to me, at least. Qqqqqq (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, there it is. Unless someone -- even an anonymous IP address -- can explain how it's encyclopedic and non-controversial, it'll be removed yet again. - JeffJonez (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Any relation?

Perhaps, given that there is a lot of coverage about Janet Napolitano at the moment, a mention should be made of whether she is in any way related to Giorgio Napolitano, the President of Italy. I'm sure she isn't but many would be interested.--217.201.116.228 (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No relations whatsoever, I believe. They did meet each other when Napolitano was visiting Italy. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think she is related to Judge Andrew Napolitano though, just compare their photos on their wiki entries. They look so alike!--Cantsi Wontsi (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Article is locked

Why is this article locked? Elodoth (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's locked for anonymous and new accounts because such individuals were committing high levels of vandalism on the article. Qqqqqq (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

DHS Assessment on Rightwing Extremism

Unless there's a clear indication that the Rightwing Extremism assessment was specifically authored by Napolitano, this commentary belongs in the United States Department of Homeland Security article. Thoughs? - JeffJonez (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a DHS matter until there's evidence Napolitano was personally involved. Otherwise the controversy is merely against her ex officio. Qqqqqq (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section absorbed into preceding section

Thanks to whoever reedited my criticism section and transferred the content to the previous section. I just realized that a moment ago. Sorry for any misunderstandings. I appreciate your work. Good stuff. --Cantsi Wontsi (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Canada and 9/11

I just read this news story about Janet Napolitano where she recently wrongly claimed that some of the 9/11 terrorists came through Canada.[5] I would like to add this but wait and see if the story gets more coverage. The story is important because knowledge about terrorist attacks on the US and border security would be helpful for a director of Homeland Security. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Good catch on this story, but I think you're right to wait at least a bit on this to see where the story goes and if it gets more press. It sounds like it might have been a simple mis-statement in a longer interview; if she continues to assert a belief that 9/11 terrorists entered through Canada, that clearly would be notable. Qqqqqq (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Amusing Q&A from Janet Napolitano about this: http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=1520295 --71.107.78.149 (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Canadian Press is having a field-day with her statements in regard to terriorist entering the US via Canada (as a Canadian, I thought she was right!), and for the first time, I'm seeing Canadians not so receptive of a member of the Obama Administration. It will be interesting how this turns out given that Canadian will be required to have a passport to enter the US in June 2009. Its weird how US-Cuban relations are thawing while US-Canada relations are turning cold. --Jason Gaudet (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, as a Canadian you thought she was right? The Four Deuces (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So another editor has added mention of this. Thoughts on the phrasing of how it's been included? Qqqqqq (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

She has now denied it[6], so the statement needs to be qualified. Since the story received little coverage in the US or internationally anyway, I don't think it is noteworthy at this point and would not include it. It may become important if there is further discussion in the US about the secretary's competence. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. This story is big in Canada, and has gotten out of control with John McCain now repeating her falsehoods on Fox News. 70.27.147.41 (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the story about terrorists attempting to enter the US through Canada is actually true (and apparently what she though the conversation was about, in context of securing the northern border), the "story" specifically about the 9/11 hijackers coming through Canada is false, which is what makes the topic repeatedly problematic. This row has been going on for a few years now, with various names attached to it (Clinton, Burns, Gingrich, McCain, Napolitano etc.) [7][8][9], where people are conflating the lax security at Canadian entry points with 9/11, and a great deal of poutrage is the result. Ronabop (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The "lax security at Canadian points of entry" is a myth and if there were any truth to it American leaders should point out its weaknesses rather than repeating conspiracy theories. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

First woman to hold this office?

"She assumed the job on January 21, 2009, and is the first woman to serve in that office." What about Condoleeza Rice, the first Secretary of Homeland Security? Please explain, or fix... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.176.123 (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Condy was the Secretary of State until recently, not DHS - JeffJonez (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget she was also the National Security Advisor. 72.201.2.246 (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

National Security Advisor and Secretary of Homeland Security are different positions. Qqqqqq (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to know that she's the first woman- she's only the third secretary, period- behind her are Chertoff and Ridge. 76.211.1.189 (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Family relations, part 2

Does anyone know if Janet is related to former New Jersey Superior Court judge Andrew Napolitano? --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 00:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Is she running?

If a woman is to be the next President of the United States, my pick is this woman and not Hillary Clinton. - Burger

No clue. She hasn't announced anything. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Oooh, I like Kathleen Sebelius too. I wouldn't mind if the next presidential race was just sexy women fighting it out with their beautiful minds. - Burger

Yikes. Napolitano or Sebelius as president. Yikes. Thankfully, Napolitano's p-poor performance as Secretary of Homeland Security puts the kibosh on the possibility of her ever running for president. Doubt that Sebelius (Abortions-R-Us) would ever have a chance either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.9.235 (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"The system worked" section is incomplete / or purposely biased to protect the Administration

THe heavily criticized comment was in her interview with CNN she notes that the passengers and crew took appropriateaction, the system worked. A profoundly stupid statement. The quote cited is from a different interview. See link to CNN interview here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r97fCN0gOHQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.120.228 (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a not a link to the CNN interview, it is a link to a story about the interview. It does not show the full interview.68.223.47.112 (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The "System Worked" section has been DELIBERATELY FALSIFIED

Here's the EXACT QUOTE of what Napolitano said to Crowley:

NAPOLITANO: One thing I'd like to point out is that the system worked. Everybody played an important role here. The passengers and crew of the flight took appropriate action. Within literally an hour to 90 minutes of the incident occurring, all 128 flights in the air had been notified to take some special measures in light of what had occurred on the Northwest Airlines flight. We instituted new measures on the ground and at screening areas, both here in the United States and in Europe where this flight originated. So, the whole process of making sure that we respond properly, correctly and effectively went very smoothly."

So Napolitano very clearly stated that "the system worked" because of passenger efforts to stop the bombing. This is what journalists and politicians criticized: her initial statement that the prior failure to keep the bomb off was excusable because the passengers were able to stop the explosion. The section should be changed immediately to reflect the true nature of the contoversy. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.146.146 (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this section is very poor and far from neutral, because it basically tries to justify what is obviously just rear-covering bureaucratic spin. In common parlance, nobody thinks that a lucky break (the bomber made mistakes that prevented it from exploding correctly), plus civilian passenger response, plus the authorities doing lots of locking-the-barn-after-the-horse-was-stolen afterwards, all represents "the system working." The "context" doesn't change that. PapayaSF (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added some quotes and sourced it to The Wall Street Journal. I hope this resolves the IP editor's complaint. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"Printer Bomb Attempt" Section

The Printer Bomb Attempt section has a References note at the end of it (note 40) that doesn't make any reference to the "genitalia" remark in that section. I think someone should either find a reference to the government instruction about "touching travelers' genitalia" or this References note should be moved or removed so it isn't misleading. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.160.24 (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I deleted that reference since it doesn't have anything in it about "touching travelers' genitalia." I wouldn't be opposed to a rewrite that separated the other information in the sentence, which seems to fit the note, from the "touching" part, but since the "touching" part is the sensitive and sensational aspect to the new government instructions I think someone should find an actual government reference to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.254.178 (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Odd emphasis on "third woman" "first woman" "ninth woman" etc.

Please edit the opening paragraph which unnecessarily highlights the fact that this woman was the "third female Governor of Arizona" and also the "first woman to win re-election" and so on. It seems quite odd. If I go to the wikipedia article for the 12th woman elected, are they going to highlight that as well? How about the "last male" governor, should that also be noted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.172.215.122 (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Father as deal of medical school

Janet Napolitano was born on November 29, 1957, in New York City, the daughter of Jane Marie
(née Winer) and Leonard Michael Napolitano, who was the dean of the University of New Mexico
School of Medicine.

Since he would not have been a dean in New Mexico when she was born in NYC, I suggest, "...who would later serve as the dean of..." and since he was chosen to be the dean of a medical school, he's probably entitled to "MD" after his name. ☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Janet Napolitano/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Leaves most aspects of her non-political life unaddressed, lacking references almost in its entirety, and focuses too much on her current campaign for Governor of Arizona. Tito xd^(?!?) 21:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 19:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Janet Napolitano. 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) 04:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

POV

A consistent problem with this article is that emphasizes criticism and "controversy" without setting forth Napolitano's actions or reasoning first. Especially with a BLP, we need to be careful to also include Napolitano's perspective where possible. For example, what were her priorities at Homeland Security or University of California? Did she have any successful initiatives or proposals? I am fine with including criticism where sourced and appropriate, but the article is too heavily titled in that direction without the proper balance. Knope7 (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Janet Napolitano. 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) 03:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Janet Napolitano. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130717170254/http://www.ucop.edu/napolitano/ to http://ucop.edu/napolitano/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130717170254/http://www.ucop.edu/napolitano/ to http://ucop.edu/napolitano/

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) 12:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)