Talk:Megan Marshack

message: I think this article should be nominated for deletion, she has no importance and no claim to fame other than having had sex with a former vice president. 
FDR MyTalk 1:15, October 4, 2006 (UTC)
This article in its present form is unacceptable, there are not even any sources cited, I think it should be deleted altogether since this woman has no importance in her own right. 
FDR MyTalk  4:33:45 October 8, 2006 (UTC)
This article in its present form IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, it does not cite any sources at all. The person in the article is not even somebody of importance. Would someone who knows how to please nominate this article for deletion. 
FDR MyTalk  6:44:50 October, 2006 (UTC)
This article should definitely be kept. Notable and encyclopedic. Right up there with all other presidential hanky panky.Edison 05:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However that's for you and other editors to prove. Just because she may have slept with a US Vice-President, doesn't mean an article is merited. Currently, the article doesn't establish that she has sufficient notability to merit an article of her own. Nil Einne 20:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's quite right, because right now there is no substance at all - it all was removed.  Other editors are working on reinstating and editing the text that was removed from this article,  this time with reliable citations.  There is ample precedent on Wikipedia for an article about a person whose name has been long associated with a famous person, and with unusual circumstances surrounding his death.  It may be a stub at first, based on the information at hand regarding the well-documented incident,  with hopes that editors will do research and expand the article beyond that.  There is precedent for that as well.  A partial list off the top of my head:  Donna Rice, Jessica Hahn, Fanne Foxe and likely others, as individuals whose notability directly derives from their private lives, because of who their private lives included.  Tvoz 11:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As mentioned in edit summaries there is more text with citations coming for this page (much had been deleted earlier); there is precedent for articles on such people whose notability derives from their private lives, as outlined above.  Tvoz 00:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps so for Donna Rice, marginally,  but Fanne Foxe has noting else and even Jessica Hahn has little else. I have no intention of suggesting anything like a conspiracy - in fact I have never heard anyone in real life do so regarding this incident - it was a sex scandal, not a murder conspiracy, and since it involves a former Governor, former Vice President, it is encyclopedic and should be included, with references. Let's not pre-judge whether a piece that doesn't appear yet will meet anyone's standards. Perhaps there are researchers who have more verifiable information to add.  (Didn't realize we cross-posted - I've said elsewhere that more info was coming, maybe not here. Sorry.) Tvoz 01:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DOn't know what you mean by "there's nothing" - please explain.  this is a stub, to be expanded. Tvoz | talk 01:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't know what I mean by "there's nothing"?  As of this writing, there are four lines of text, which could easily be integrated into the Nelson Rockefeller stub.  To say that this is a stub that should be expanded could be said for just about any living, breathing human being in the world.  It seems that Tvoz is the only person on here who seems to think this is an important person/stub to keep.  Everyone else seems to think it should be gone.  I'm not going to lose any sleep if Tvoz insists this stub stay in place, but it's just ludicrous.  If you're so insistent on keeping this entry, why not expand the stub yourself?  Based on your December 15 entry, it's nearly two months, and all we have is four lines of text.  Again, if it's so important, expand it yourself.  If not, let this be deleted. Asc85 15:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've responded over there - just saw this. I didn't say it's so important, I just said it is valid. I think she's not "any living, breathing human being in the world", she's the person with whom the name of a former Vice President of the United States and long-time Governor of New York is linked in the popular culture and his personal history.  You're right, I haven't had a chance to edit and reinstate material that had been here previously and was deleted a few months ago, and I'll try to get it to it - but this is a stub that's not hurting anything by being here. And check back, I am not the only person who has said so.  Why is it so important to you to remove it? Tvoz | talk 21:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Merge - not worth an article --Orange Mike 23:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: Nothing much has changed here in quite a while, and also not much in the way of merger comments. In an attempt to get a wider audience and more opinions I'm considering putting this article up for AfD so that it can be merged as discussed above. I'll allow another week before the AfD in case anyone wants to make a serious attempt at turning this into a biography. --Dual Freq 03:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of an AfD, I've just redirected the article. If this is not adequate I will proceed with an AfD suggesting a redirect. Nothing notable has been added here, I can't find anything in the last 25 years about her on lexis so I assume the brief discussion on Rockefeller's page is more than enough.  --Dual Freq 00:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: @Professor Von Pie I knew Megan in high school. When the Rockefeller death made her a fifteen minute celeb I was mystified, she had been a studious "good girl" with all the sex appeal of a math textbook. A few weeks later an old buddy explained it to me; his girlfriend, a writer at CBS news heard the real story: Nelson had his fatal heart attack while dallying with his actual mistress, an African American lady. The family covered it up by faking a more "respectable" affair by summoning Megan who was actually his research assistant for a book. She got a Manhattan brownstone for pretending to be Nelson's squeeze. None of this can be verified of course (except for the brownstone), but it makes far more sense to anyone who knew Megan. Aubando (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD 

message: Megan Marshak may rightly be considered the cause of death for a man who was a member of one of America's most famous families, a vice president, a governor of New York, and a symbol of a political faction. While it's true that her only notoriety can be attributed to a single other person, the same can be said of Abraham Zapruder.
If you find the state of the article deplorable, do some research. If you find credible sources that indicate she was not "involved" in Rockefeller's passing, feel free to delete this article after updating the Nelson Rockefeller page. 24.184.97.102 (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't delete the article; improve it 

message: Correct spelling is MARSHACK - I've asked that the page be renamed to retain history and the redirect be done from MEGAN MARSHAK to here.  Tvoz |talk 20:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  name 

message: It's absurd not to say what everyone obviously thought at the time Rockefeller died - that he was having an affair with Marshack.  For claims that she was Rockefeller's mistress, see here, here, here, here, and here, for instance.  This is ridiculous.  The only reason she's famous is because people think Nelson Rockefeller died while having sex with her.  And now we can't even mention that there's been speculation that Rockefeller died while having sex with her?  This is absurd. john k (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a bunch of blogs to me. Nothing has been proven in this regard, no tell all book by Marshack, etc. This is not a coat rack for Nelson Rockefeller's article, which says none of this. Lets stick to what is known, we're not supposed to speculate in BLP articles. --Dual Freq (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A bunch of blogs?  The sources were the Canadian Broadcasting Company, TV Guide, the Chicago Tribune, and the New York Daily News.  Beyond that, the issue is not whether they had a sexual relationship.  It's whether there was widespread speculation in the media that they did.  Which obviously there was.  And which, just as obviously, we are saying in this article, no matter how it's worded.  The only question is whether we should obfuscate what we are really saying with a euphemism.  And of course it should be mentioned in the article on Rockefeller as well.  What on earth does it mean to say there was speculation about a "personal relationship"?  That's obviously nonsense.  The speculation was about whether she was Rockefeller's mistress.  If we're going to have an article about her, it's ridiculous not to talk about the thing which made her famous. john k (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

text: To imply that the Chicago Tribune backs you accusation with that article you linked is a bit over the top. One sentence is certainly not very compelling considering they do exactly what you say you are against. They say compromising situation and leave that to the reader to infer what that means. This article is a biography about a living person, and if the Tribune "obfuscates" and leaves it up to the reader to decide, so should we. Your CBC opinion piece also mentions Marshack only in passing. Not a very reliable source for a biography. Radar online, which appears to be some kind of tabloid / blog type page also does not spell out the relationship and is not about Marshack. Not very compelling. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Compromising situation" is at least a clear euphemism, unlike "personal relationship" which is meaningless.  At any rate, the New York Daily News story is pretty clear and detailed on the subject - no conclusive direct evidence of an affair, but pretty compelling circumstantial evidence that that was what was going on.  And we're not even arguing about whether we should say Marshack and Rockefeller had a sexual relationship, merely that there was speculation of such.  Are you actually denying that there was and has been speculation that Marshack and Rockefeller had a sexual relationship?  john k (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

text: "The nature of the relationship" is much better than "personal relationship," though.  I'm willing to stop arguing over it for now, although I think the Daily News article provides enough material to expand this discussion a bit. john k (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with Rockefeller 

message: Megan Marshack attended Nelson Rockefeller's funeral alongside Happy and the rest of the family.  One doesn't need to look far to see that her putative status as "girlfriend" or "mistress" is a misreading of the facts.  You won't get anyone from the family officially answering these questions but you should be able to figure it out for yourselves.  And the wording of this article should be changed accordingly, as you have no proof of what almost everyone incorrectly assumed at the time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.77.74 (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  you are asking the wrong questions 

message: She is notable only for sex with the governor 35 years ago. She is now an old woman and current bio info like her relatives seems improper for an encycpedia because that is not notable. Can we remove it? 69.193.8.98 (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  seems to be a private person now 

message: This is the most obvious case of WP:BLP1E that I have ever seen.  The policy reads:
::If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.
If Rockefeller had not died while humping her, no one outside of her immediate family would ever have heard of her.  This is not like Lewinsky, who brought about impeachment, this is a true single event person.  Delete this article and replace with a redirect to Nelson's death section in his article. Unschool 13:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As the only person present at the death of an important 20th century politician and Vice-President, I believe Ms. Marshack is obviously notable under the terms of WP:BLP. Added secondary ref covering the episode (from a 2017 perspective) showing "significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention" as the notability template requests. Pleonic (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Pleonic on this - the piece is amply sourced and as I've said before, she is easily as notable as several other women who are known only for their association with very important people.  Rockefeller's death is a significant event, especially given the circumstances. Perhaps you had to have lived at that time to recognize the importance? I say again, Fanne Foxe.Tvoz/talk 02:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obviously unwarranted article - WP:BLP1E