Talk:Sherron Rolax

message: I think this article (and the discussion of this incident in the Christine Todd Whitman article) 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 articles, and have posted this note in the Talk page for both articles.  Neutron 03:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The court did not rule on whether there was a legal problem or not.  The case was dismissed because it was filed too late.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall, I believe Whitman was going to frisk Rolax, but then she paused and asked for a pair of gloves.  Then she frisked him.  This also looked bad for Whitman and her perceived prejudice against Rolax. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.149.236.86 (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The photo

message: Had Mr. Rolax never had another run-in with the law, I think that this article would not be appearing on Wikipedia.  The man has done nothing deserving inclusion on this site.  In fact, almost all the details included in this article are to be found in the article on Whitman.  The only new details are those about his later convictions, which seem to be in place simply to justify Whitman's original actions.  The ethics of this article therefore seem to me questionable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delvebelow (talk • contribs) 00:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what? You're probably right. I'll submit to AfD and let that discussion run its course. Thunderbunny (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the AfD has failed, and as a result of another recent AfD, we have a situation where Christie Whitman's daughter, who has become a prominent politician in Somerset County (NJ), does not qualify for her own article, but Sherron Rolax, who was frisked by the then-governor for 30 seconds, does.  The argument in the Kate Whitman AfD was that notability is not inherited, though in my opinion she is sufficiently notable without regard to who her mother is.  But even so, it now appears that notability cannot be "inherited", but it can be transmitted by touch.  Does this make sense?  Neutron (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Intentions of this article