Jump to content

Talk:Fred Thompson/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

BLP tag on talk

I'd like to encourage editors to actually read the tag that was added to the top of this talk page, particularly the phrase "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous". The addition regarding Life Lock is well sourced - in fact it has two reliable sources - and nothing in the wording is libelous or even derogatory. The sources and our article lay out the facts, the reader is left to make his or her own determination about them. That is what a good encyclopedia article should do. I personally would like to see all of this material incorporated into the appropriate sections rather than stand as a separate "Controversies" section, but I am comfortable with the wording we now have in the section, and hope we can reach consensus on it so that the protection can be lifted far in advance of 6 weeks which is rather long for a political article (and I think not warranted). Tvoz |talk 01:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am on the fence on the inclusion of this particular piece of information and previously tried to remove it from the article (thinking that consensus was reached). However, as per above this is not a wp:blp issue. This is a simple content dispute and I hope the editors on this page understand that and work toward consensus and compromise. Turtlescrubber 01:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The BLP policy covers more than just the tag. For example, it covers bias. WP:COATRACK (yes, it's an essay not a policy) says it all far better than I ever could. The current text is more suitable, though I still don't think the incident is worth mentioning. Thompson made an advertisment under contract. The ad was for the company, not for the man. As soon as the story broke, the man was given the boot "resigned". Including it here is nothing but insuating that Thompson has done something wrong. On the sliding scale of bad, the original post was very bad - it didn't bother to mention that the ad was an ABC obligation, it made it sound like the alleged criminal issues were current, and included a direct quote from the source article characterizing Thompson's voice. The text was blatant bias and highly inappropriate. News media outlets don't have the BLP restrictions that we do. A news media article is here one day and gone the next. (And, by the way, the source article has been roundly criticized on blogs for its blatant bias.) The text currently in the article [1] is more neutral. I still think it is irrelevant because it has NOTHING TO DO with a biographical article, but it is not a bias issue. Please note the important differences - (1) it tells that the spot was a contractual obligation and does not make it sound like something Thompson did of his own accord, (2) it tells that the alleged criminal acts of this third party are not current, and (3) does not include the offensive characterization of Thompson's voice (which, by the way, was copy/pasted from the source article). This is the difference between something that violates BLP and should be removed on sight vs something that is neutral, albeit irrelevant. --BigDT 02:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Good job on the rewording of the LifeLock information. The proper context is now included, which removes the bias and makes it obvious that there's nothing controversial about it. Eseymour 13:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars - where are we?

I'd like to review the bidding and find out just where we are on the edit wars. I wasn't directly involved (on the Fred Thompson page) but I tried to follow the changes. I think there were basically two wars:

  • The age difference between Fred and Jeri. Is this one now settled? After going back and forth between "24 years his junior" and "born January, 1967" there was a third phrasing, "then age 59 ... then 35". Is there a consensus to keep this phrasing and stop arguing about it?
  • Controversies (or not), including:
    • payments from Thompson's PAC
    • Thompson's radio spot for Lifelock
    • Thompson the actor playing an anti-semitic role

That third one (the anti-semitic role) is gone (for now). Is there a consensus that it is gone for good or is it still a controversy?

On Lifelock, whether or not there is still an argument to include it or not, is there agreement as to the current wording or is there an argument about the wording?

Ditto, the Pac payments.

Without going into the merits of the wars, can people verify that these are the elements of the war? Have I overlooked anything? Sbowers3 03:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

For anyone reading, all three points of contention can be seen in this edit [2]. Of all of those, I think the Lifelock issue is the only one that is contested. The issue about playing an anti-semitic role in a movie is a non-issue and is/was nothing but trolling - I don't think (I could be wrong) that anyone has seriously suggested that it should be included. The thing with the PAC transferring money to his son most certainly should be included if it can be properly sourced and context provided, but the source right now is a blog. (It's an ABC news blog, but that's still a blog.) The age thing is settled. So I think the only real issue is over Lifelock. --BigDT 03:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree:

  • The Fred/Jeri age diff is settled.
  • There is clear consensus that the Wiseguy role is irrelevant.
  • The PAC payment information can stay for now, but eventually needs more context or should be removed.
  • There is a content dispute on whether to keep the Lifelock information.

Eseymour 13:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Eseymour's summary is accurate. Italiavivi 13:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
That seems accurate to me. Coemgenus 14:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we really have a "Controversy" section?

Just took a look at the articles for three of the leading Democratic contenders, and of Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton, only Hillary's article has a "Controversies" section--and it is simply a link to a separate article. I guarantee you that's not because Edwards and Obama are pure as new-fallen snow. There are certainly "controversies" around each of them that are just as significant as those which have been added for Fred Thompson. Yet Edwards' article doesn't mention, for example, the huge mansion he built for himself, and Obama's article incorporates his past drug use into the story of his somewhat troubled youth.

This is as it should be for biographies. Biographical articles should focus on an overall picture of a person and mention major events and accomplishments--not list minor incidents which political operatives seize upon. Let's face it--no one would be interested in adding the PAC info or the LifeLock ad to this biography if Thompson weren't a potential candidate for President. The "Controversy" section is shaping up as simply a vehicle for mudslinging. I say get rid of the section and if anything turns into a major point of contention during the campaign, it can be added in the appropriate context. Eseymour 21:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability is permanent. It doesn't have to "turn into a major point of contention during the campaign" to be notable, which is a completely arbitrary measure. I would also argue that the Edwards article has been heavily sanitized, as I can find no mention of Sen. Edwards (extremely notable) $400 campaign contribution haircut in the text or his involvement in hedge funds. Sen. Obama's article is guarded in a similar manner; it took me almost two months to get a consistent note about his attempt to quit smoking into his article, despite how often he talks about it and the "Quit Smoking with Obama" group on his campaign site. I may be willing to back down on the LifeLock situation, now that I've compared Sen. Thompson's article to the other candidates' articles, but I will not back down on the PAC issue. Italiavivi 21:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately it doesnt require you to "back down". Wiki just requires a consensus. Dman727 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
A consensus you will most certainly not have so long as Tvoz, myself, JGoldberg, and others support LifeLock's inclusion. You have confused consensus with democracy, I think. Italiavivi 22:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Others? Who? Every neutral person (everyone who came here after the dispute) has opposed the inclusion of the lifelock thing. At any rate, this is an encyclopedia, not a catalog of news articles. If we were to include every news item ever to be published about Thompson or any other well-known politician, this would be a very long article. The question, in both cases, is whether they are just recentism or something that will matter. I have no problem with the PAC issue being included at some point (not necessarilly right now) if and when there are reliable sources that tell the whole story. How involved was Thompson in the decision process or was it just using his name? Was it self-funded (in which case, who gives a flip where the money goes) or were there donors expecting their money to go to GOP causes who would be upset to know that it was just going to Thompson's son? All of those questions need to be answered at some point. Unlike a newspaper, our job is NOT to print anything that sells. Our job is to write a biography. Again, I see no problem in principle with this being included, but it's important to get the facts straight. --BigDT 22:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:RECENTISM is an opinion essay, nothing more. It also directly contradicts the assertion that notability is permanent. Sorry BigDT, but a link to an opinion essay is not grounds for removal, and you cannot override objections as if Wikipedia were a first-past-the-post democracy. Who are the "neutral people" who came here, by the way? I see a guy with Userbox:GOP on his page, and several other editors with a history of sanitizing the articles of Republican politicians. "Neutral" indeed. Italiavivi 23:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
If we printed everything that had ever been reported about Thompson (or anyone else), we would have a very long article. Notability of an individual may be eternal (though I don't even agree with that), but on some news items, there is the "will anyone care in five years" rule. --BigDT 00:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
You don't have to agree with it, it's still Wikipedia policy. I'm afraid I've never heard of the "Will Anyone Care in Five Years Rule." Is it another opinion essay? I didn't find anything at WP:WILLANYONECAREINFIVEYEARS. Italiavivi 00:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Italiavivi said: "I would also argue that the Edwards article has been heavily sanitized..." Well, you certainly must argue that if you're going to be consistent with the content you're supporting for the Thompson article. However, I'd argue that the Edwards and Obama articles are both well-written biographies. Wikipedia articles about politicians should not be a dumping ground for every criticism ever brought against the candidate. Only incidents that had a major effect on the person's career or personal life, etc., should be included. You can't write a comprehensive article about the Bush presidency w/o mentioning the Valerie Plame affair, or an article about the Clinton presidency w/o the Lewinsky affair, but the Lifelock and PAC incidents don't rise anywhere near that level of importance. Eseymour 12:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Should there be a controversy section? I don't know. Are there any real controversies? All I've seen is some attempts to manufacture controversy. - Crockspot 00:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That's a good point too ... call it "news" or something. Taking payoffs, driving drunk, etc is controversy. Doing a commercial you were contractually obligated to do for a company, one of whose executives allegedly committed a crime ten years ago isn't a controversy. --BigDT 00:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The wiki standard for using Wikipedia's voice to characterize something as a controversy is that there must be reliable secondary sources that characterize something as a controversy or dispute. We can't just put things in a controversy section that we think are controversial. Reliable sources have to think they are controversial. - Crockspot 13:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a part of me that says leave it in, start with "Some people think that the following are controversial:", keep the silly PAC thing, the silly LifeLock thing. At the end a typical reader might very well think, "That's it? That's all they could come up with? Wow! This guy Thompson must be a real saint if that's all there is." Okay, maybe it's not a very professional attitude, maybe it's not appropriate for a Wikipedia article, but it might be useful to stand back and think about how an unbiased reader might react.

As currently written the LifeLock piece does not have the innuendo and guilt by association it had previously. I don't think it violates BLP policy (but I am a real neophyte on policy). Whether the whole section is kept or deleted will have practically zero effect on the article as a whole. Whether you are for against the Controversy section, do you think that you have made any progress on convincing the other side? If it's not possible to achieve consensus, why not keep the controversies with a Content or POV-section tag? Sbowers3 00:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC) (ducking for cover because probably everyone will hate my suggestion)

There is a weasel words guideline that shuns "some people think this" and the like. I will also go on-record here and note that Crockspot has, in the past, tried to exclude content from other conservative-interest articles by simply claiming that "so-and-so isn't controversial because a reliable source doesn't use the word controversial". Once again, controversy isn't in the eye of the beholder -- if it has caused controversy, then it is (by definition) controversial (and claims of original research are spurious). No opinion on the content here, just thought I'd point out that this is an old tactic that's been tried before. /Blaxthos 22:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree partially. What seems to happen quite often is that some website with a particular axe to grind will put something out there that they regard as controversial. Said item then gets put into WP as a controversy. Said item is then argued over as being controversial or not being controversial. Said item is now deemed controversial because of the controversy regarding the discussion of whether it is actually controversial. If the said controversy is being reported by a few or more independent and neutral sites then it should be worthy of being included, but what seems to happen (more often than not) is that the controversy is made by the opinions of a few with a political or social axe to grind and then put on WP as fact. Arzel 23:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who has added "Controversy" sections to articles, I (now) think it's always a mistake to have such a section. This article currently uses a chronological structure (with Political Positions and Personal Life separated out) which works very well, so I advocate putting the inevitable controversies in the appropriate existing section. Cheers, CWC 11:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
In order to justify a "Controversy" section, there would have to be controversy on these topics out in the real world, not here in the WikiTalk section of someone's biography. To me (and to others, I'm sure), 'Controversy' involves something more than "being mentioned in someone's blog." Even being reported by a recognized news source doesn't make it controversial. Unless some more digging by reputable news sources starts to uncover something that truly implicates Fred Thompson in illegal or unethical activities, this Controversy section should remain empty, or preferably, non-existent.64.1.239.98 17:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No Original Research

Wikipedia strictly forbids Original Research (in our oddball Wikipediac meaning of the term), including Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position.

  1. Here's a classic example: (1) John Doe, who does contract work for lots of companies, once did some work for a company named Lifelock. (2) One of the principals of Lifelock once made a plea bargain with the FTC. Neither of those facts is at all notable in an article about John ... until you put them together to insinuate that John works for crooks. That sort of insinuation is completely unacceptable in any Wikipedia article, let alone a biographical one. So the Lifelock stuff has to go.*
  2. Avni Patel's blog post and our current text invite people to jump to conclusions about the PAC payments, but give too little context. That's not encyclopedic. Patel doles out a few hints, such as "retired lawmakers, like Thompson, often keep leadership PACs as a 'slush fund' to help them set the stage for a run for higher office"; we don't give any hints. Unless this issue gets much more detailed coverage by a WP:RS, we can't cover it without violating WP:SYNTH or WP:UNDUE or (much more likely) both. The PAC stuff has to go.*

While I'm here:

  • Whether Thompson played any kind of villain is not in itself notable.* It has to stay gone.
  • Our current wording re the age thing ("Thompson, then aged 59 married Jeri Kehn, then 35") is perfect. It's short and tells you all the relevant info. Let's keep it.
 * Unless there are Dramatic Further Developments.

There are bound to be a lot more controversies, especially if Fred wins the GOP race. Only the ones receiving coverage from at least two WP:RSes can be mentioned in this article, and even then only if several other criteria are satisfied. That's not a bug in Wikipedia policies, that's a feature: 99% of the time, the stuff disallowed eventually turns out to be stuff that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Cheers, 04:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


I disagree that "the PAC stuff has to go". Patel didn't write the bit you mention about retired lawmakers; that is a quote from Sheila Krumholtz, head of the Center for Responsive Politics (AKA opensecrets.org) and she says previously in the article that Thompson's contributions themselves are worthy of note: "It raises eyebrows and calls into question whether this is self-dealing." If he comes into the race, this will certainly get a closer look and will be re-inserted into the article. Where is the rule that two reliable sources are needed in order to cover something in an article? I have seen many controversies covered in an article that are published by only one reliable source. The way it is written is NPOV and just gives the facts as given by ABC News. It should remain in the article. It is not giving undue weight to this, since it's only a few sentences.--Gloriamarie 16:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As of right now, the PAC claim has only one source - a blog. The blog is run by an ABC news personality, but it is still a blog. There is no confirmation independant of that blog as of yet (at least that I have seen using Google news). If it is true and if it is a big deal that Thompson's opponents focus on, then certainly it should be included, but I don't believe it has passed that threshhold yet. I really think that some context is needed, though. (In other words, is this abnormal behavior or was the PAC basically a holding company funded primarilly by Thompson himself?) In short, I would really like to have more information about it. Also, keep in mind that this is a biographical article, not a laundry list - in a month, we should revisit this issue to see if anyone is talking about it or if it is just recentism. --BigDT 17:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I have found another source-- The Wall Street Journal. WSJ does not appear on Google News as far as I have ever seen. The information should remain. We all would like more context, but we have to depend on these news sources for that. Anything else is original research.--Gloriamarie 17:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you subscribe? Is there anything earth shattering after the free preview or a response or explanation from Thompson's people? (Obviously, this answers the sourcing problem ... the blog source should be removed and replaced with this reference.) --BigDT 19:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't subscribe anymore. I looked the article up with a journal subscription I have, and it only shows part of the article talking about other candidates who have done similar things, so I'm not sure what it says about Thompson beyond the free preview. I'd change the cite myself but the article seems to be locked against all edits. How long will that last?--Gloriamarie 01:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
6 weeks or until disputes are settled. --BigDT 01:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) That WSJ report is a Further Development, but I don't see it as a Dramatic one, to use the language of my earlier comment. If this goes anywhere (eg., Thompson's opponents talk about it), there'll be news items and columns we can cite; if no further items appear, I don't think it meets Wikipedia standards. Cheers, CWC 15:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Protected edit suggestions

  • In the passage on the LifeLock bit, there is a link to LifeLock, but that article is currently a protected title, so having a link there is a bad thing. (I goofed and didn't check when I wikified it.)
  • I have created a page at Commons for photos. There are only the two photos now, but hopefully we can get some more. Adding {{commons}} to the external links section would probably be a good idea.

Are there any objections to either of the above two edits? --BigDT 23:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Also, in the "Character actor" section, "traveled" is incorrectly spelled as "travelled".

I have added {{editprotected}} above. Optionally, I can just make these three changes myself if nobody has any objections. --BigDT 16:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

    • Made those changes and updated external links section per below section (don't know why dmoz was removed though). Resurgent insurgent 18:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I object to the 6-week full protection which is a gross over-reaction to a content dispute, and completely against WP:5P and a bunch of other acronyms. This is a political article, in a volatile campaign season, and editors should not have to ask permission to make changes - it is patronizing and absurd. Sprot is one thing - full protection is unacceptable given the circumstances that preceded it.Tvoz |talk 17:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I seriously doubt it will remain protected for six weeks. Once we come up with a consensus as to what should be included and, if applicable, the proper wording, we can request unprotection - six weeks is a maximum, not a minimum. --BigDT 18:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
      • This is not a political article. This is a WP:BLP article, regardless of how strongly people feel. Fred Thompson has not even declared himself a canidate in any future election, and the primary elections are not for close to a year. In any case I suspect we all have to get used to this. I predict all articles dealing with presidential, or presidential hopefuls, to be highly protected as the election moves forward. Arzel 20:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be protected for so long either. I agree, it's a gross overreaction. It is a political article since Thompson was a senator and has hinted that he may run for president.--Gloriamarie 00:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

While we've got a little time, has anyone taken a look at the external links? In the "Grassroots campaigns" and "Entertainment" sections, I think all of those should go. The "awesome facts" link is just stupid. In "Grassroots campaigns", two of the links are just spamtastical advertising sites. The third, "Conservatives against Fred Thompson" is some guy's brand new blog, and an anonymous blog at that. The "Media coverage" should be greatly expanded to include biographical articles (this is a biography, right?) In the "Documentaries" section, several of them could probably go - the CBN link for one doesn't seem useful. Any thoughts? --BigDT 23:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Completely re-write the "External Links" section here on Talk to be in accordance with WP:EXTERNAL (links should be kept to a minimum and be most relevant, etc), then copy-paste it over the current section once the article is unprotected. Italiavivi 00:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Good idea ... see below for the working copy --BigDT 00:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Narrowed "Official Sites" down to three links: Official exploratory committee site, official blog, and official U.S. Congressional biography. Italiavivi 00:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
rm "The Fred Files" - it's a single newspaper column and not a very good one at that. --BigDT 00:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Rmv "Project Vote Smart" link, nothing not available in his official Congressional bio. Rmv badly outdated "Hometown Biography" link, too. Italiavivi 00:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The third Media item duplicates the reference for the PAC "controversy" and is not biographical. Sbowers3 02:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
If the ODP link were put back - {{dmoz|Regional/North_America/United_States/Society_and_Culture/Politics/Candidates_and_Campaigns/Presidential/2008/Candidates/Thompson,_Fred/}} - we could avoid a lot of these problems. And no, Project Vote Smart is NOT just a 'bio' - it has sections for Biographical, Issue Positions(NPAT), Campaign Finances, Interest Group Ratings, Voting Record, Additional Biographical Information, Speeches and Public Statements - which is why it's included for every US politician who has an entry.Flatterworld 04:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
You guys went too far on the removal of external links. Some unofficial sites can have a wealth of information that can't be posted here due to space limitations. I added 4 sites that bring different points of view.--StrumTurner 03:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)--
Strum, you added blogs, which are generally not considered WP:Reliable sources. WP:EXTERNAL states that external links "should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." That other politicians' articles are suffering from severe External Links bloat does not mean Thompson's should emulate their link bloat. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority, are to be avoided. Italiavivi 03:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why you removed my additions so quickly without giving others a chance to respond. I checked both of your links and didn't see anything about blogs having to be avoided. Just about every other candidate has an external links section to blogs/grassroots sites so I think this issue is debatable. I'll restore my additions to see what others think about this.--StrumTurner 16:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Conservatives against Fred is an anonymous blog. In no way, shape, or form is that an appropriate link - we don't do blogs and we don't do anonymous websites. It is wholly inappropriate and there really isn't anything more to say about it. The Fred Thompson Blog Network is problematic from the standpoint of being nothing but a list of blogs - it is not an original publisher of content (see Links normally to be avoided #9 and #11). My Man Fred is just some guy's fan site. It isn't an official Fred Thompson campaign site and it doesn't even seem to have very much in the way of content. There will be hundreds of people with Geocities fan sites come election time. Fred Thompson FAQs seems to be rather devoid of content and still under construction. It might, in the fullness of time, become a well-recognized source of Thompson information, but as of now it is not. In short, I concur with the above - all four links are inappropriate. Please understand that there will be hundreds if not thousands of websites for and against every major candidate. It is not our place to be an indexer of these links. We link to official sites and well-recognized media sites. We don't link to some guy's website. --BigDT 17:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Here are some of the external links sections of some of the other candidates:
They all have a grassroots section. They all include blogs. The reasons you came up for striking down my links are not based on any rules I've seen. I fail to see why Fred Thompson should be the exception when all the other candidates have a small section for blogs.--StrumTurner 17:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Most of those should be removed as well. I will take a look this afternoon - thanks for pointing them out. As for you having never seen the rules, they are right at WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. #11 says "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." We don't include links to some guy's website. There are plenty of articles that have bad collections of external links and they really need to be cleaned up ... but the fact that trash exists elsewhere doesn't mean it needs to exist here, too. --BigDT 17:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The rule is clear: they are "normally to be avoided". There is section on that page about links that should be restricted "without exception". Blogs are not included. The fact that we are talking about candidates running for office I think justifies the inclusion of blogs under an unofficial sites or grassroots heading. Most other candidates have it. I can give many other examples besides the ones I posted. I have seen pages of senators, congressmen, governors, mayors all with blogs among their external links. There is a clear precedent for adding them.--StrumTurner 18:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous blogs are unambiguously inappropriate. The fact that some guy wanting to promote their own website comes here and adds a link to it changes nothing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an index of links. Spam links should be removed on sight and it's a great disservice that links to blogs in campaign articles haven't been reverted on site. If the blog is well-recognized and has either official party or candidate recognition, media recognition, or is maintained by a notable individual, then it is appropriate. Otherwise, we don't link to blogs. There will be hundreds of blogs talking about whoever wins the nomination - we certainly aren't going to link to all of them. Wikipedia isn't a place to come to promote your website. --BigDT 18:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
This is all debatable. All this rigidity with regards to the Fred Thompson page will just result in it being locked indefinitely. You talk as if you are that owner of this site laying down the rules and what not but a quick look at all the other pages linked to blogs prove you're wrong. As long as they are up you have no case. And I'm talking about the pages of all the governors, senators, etc.. as well. If they all link to blogs the same should apply here despite personal opinions--StrumTurner 18:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with BigDT. Inappropriate link bloat at other politicians' articles does not justify link bloat here, Strum. We need to abide by WP:EXTERNAL and make Thompson's article the example, not the bandwagon. Italiavivi 18:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
As I posted before, nothing at WP:EXTERNAL says that blogs are not allowed. You two think it should not be allowed based on personal opinion but no rule clearly states that. So if you don't what the specific blogs I suggested included then what we have here is a content dispute. All the other pages linked to blogs clearly prove they are allowed, but I guess this particular page is blocked for a reason...--StrumTurner 18:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Blogs and personal websites not published by a recognized authority are to be avoided. All the other pages' link bloat proves is that those articles need their Externals sections trimmed just like Thompson's did. Italiavivi 18:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
What I'm suggesting is a small section dedicated to blogs/grassroots just like every other candidate has. It's not as if I'm sourcing a controversial claim to a blog with no recognized authority. You are being too rigid here. Just because they should be avoided doesn't mean they are ruled out. You think all the other pages linked to blogs are wrong but the folks there obviously came to an agreement to keep them. What we have here is a content dispute.--StrumTurner 19:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's a content dispute. But links "to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority" are specifically mentioned as links to normally be avoided. You can't point out inappropriate external links to justify other inappropriate external links. If it's Fred Thompson's personal blog, the blog of his campaign manager, or a blog sponsored by a legitimate news source, then you might be able to justify it. Otherwise, blogging should not be linked to, due to lack of editorial oversight, POV pushing, soapboxing, and so on. This is an encyclopedia article, first and foremost. Not a campaign tool for Fred Thompson or anyone else. MoodyGroove 19:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Umm ... no. It's a policy issue, not a content dispute. Linking to a non-notable blog is spam. Spam is not a content dispute. If the blog is notable, it can be added. If it is some guy's website (and most of these are even worse - they are some ANONYMOUS guy's website) it cannot be. Find multiple non-trivial non-self-generated media references to the blog and there's no problem. Until then, it just isn't appropriate. I don't know what the dollar value of Wikipedia advertising would be if we sold such a thing, but I guarantee you it would be pretty high. For Fred Thompson, we are the first g-hit. A link in our external links section has to be worth at least 5 figures, if not more. Now, if we allow that section to be free advertising for unvetted external links, then we're going to have more spam than we know what to do with. That's why there's a very tight control on it. We don't link to non-notable websites. Period. --BigDT 19:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) It's a content dispute involving an interpretation (or misunderstanding) of our editing guidelines. I agree that self published blogs are undesirable, for a multitude of reasons that are not worth debating, especially if emotions are involved. I'm just trying to educate StrumTurner so he has a better understanding of our guidelines. I've not been watching this article long enough to know whether or not tendentious editing is going on, so I'm assuming good faith. MoodyGroove 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
"We don't link to non-notable websites. Period." Unless you are the owner of this site that statement only reflects your personal opinion. You've presented nothing to back that up and there is no consensus here.--StrumTurner 19:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Umm ... every single person who has replied to you has told you the same thing - the links are inappropriate. I'm not sure how that's no consensus. At any rate, you have been pointed in the direction of WP:EL, which says not to include blogs. Another place to look is Wikipedia:Spam#Inclusion of one spam link is not a reason to include another. The solution is to remove the spam links from other candidate articles, not to add them here. --BigDT 19:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) That's not exactly true. On the Wikipedia, when consensus on a particular topic occurs frequently, it becomes an editing guideline. So the burden of evidence is not on BigDT to prove that "links normally to be avoided" do not belong in the article. The burden is on you to demonstrate why they should be, and the fact that other articles contain self published blogs is not acceptable proof. MoodyGroove 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
MoodyGroove, we are in agreement about the content dispute. There are no rules expressly forbidding blogs from being linked. And I have not provided examples of inappropriate links. I provided examples of all the other candidates pages and they happen to have blogs listed on their external links section. That proves the links are not inappropriate.--StrumTurner 19:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) On the wikipedia, all content disputes stand on their own. It is specifically frowned upon to drag other articles into the debate. But for the record, I have gone to the pages you captioned above and trimmed the external links of self published material. MoodyGroove 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

By the way, if POV pushing is not allowed, Fred Thompson's official site should be removed. His own website cannot be considered to be neutral by any standards imaginable. He solicits money on that website. That should have been removed long before the blogs if this page is going to be the exception to all the others. --StrumTurner 19:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You really need to read some of the editing guidelines. I'm assuming good faith on your part, but we should not have to explain the nuances of guidelines you haven't even looked at. MoodyGroove 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

MoodyGroove, you said it all: "when consensus on a particular topic occurs frequently, it becomes an editing guideline." In every other candidate's page there is a small section for unofficial links. That IS the editing guideline. If you went to those pages and erased those links you probably did a disservice to the consensus they have reached probably after long discussions. I don't have to prove anything. Someone removed a list of sites that had been part of the main page for months without any discussion whatsoever. "Links normally to be avoided" is not the same as "Links not Allowed". The standards being applied here are much more rigid then anywhere else. That is why this page had to be locked and that is why it will probably have to remain so indefinitely.--StrumTurner 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Now you're just being an incredulous dick. MoodyGroove 21:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
This page was locked due to a content dispute concerning Thompson's involvement with 1) LifeLock and 2) a PAC that gave money to his son. It had nothing to due with the External Links section. The editing guideline is WP:EXTERNAL and Wikipedia's Manual of Style, end of discussion. Italiavivi 21:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Italiavivi, and a content dispute is what we are having. Even MoodyGroove agrees. We have already gone over the WP:EXTERNAL rules and as I stated before nothing forbids blogs from being added. "Links normally to be avoided" is not the same as "Links not Allowed". And the editing guideline of the other candidates pages clearly indicate that blogs are appropriate in this situation. --StrumTurner 22:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The other candidates' pages indicate that their External Links sections need trimming per WP:EXTERNAL, not that this article should emulate their disregard for the Manual of Style. Nothing more. Italiavivi 23:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
That's not very convincing. But at least it's now clear that what we have is a content dispute as others have agreed. --StrumTurner 23:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I've changed my mind. At this point I'm forced to conclude this is tendentious editing by a single purpose editor with no desire to understand Wikipedia's editing guidelines. I'm particularly concerned with StrumTurner's comment that the page will have to be protected now indefinitely. That suggests to me that he is determined to be disruptive if the protection is lifted or if he does not get his way. Very bad form indeed. MoodyGroove 00:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
Strum, to expand on what Moody said, when nobody agrees with you that these links should be there, that's not a ringing endorsement. The fact that you have no edits outside of this topic and you are championing a link also championed by fellow SPA RalphReed (talk · contribs) who is most likely another SPA we've come to know and love in recent days doesn't do too much to enhance things. You have been told repeatedly that these links are inappropriate. If you choose to ignore what you have been told by every editor of this article, there really isn't anything more to discuss. If you decide to be disruptive, you can and will be blocked from editing Wikipedia, along with any other sockpuppets or meatpuppets that you may be involved with. --BigDT 00:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
You are the one who doesn't seem to be getting what is going on here. Those links have been part of the article for a long time and you single handedly removed them without discussion. You and mr. MoodyGroove resort to threats and personal attacks while ignoring that there are hundreds of pages on wikipedia with precisely those types of links. You provide different reasons for not including them and when I refute them you come up with different ones. The bottom line is that as long as the other candidates have blogs listed I see no reason for this page not having them as well.--StrumTurner 06:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Of the four disputed links I agree that three of them should go. The one I think should stay is Fred Thompson FAQ. And the reason is that it has a complete list of Thompson's speeches as audio recordings or video recordings. (I wish that it also had a list of written op-eds.) When I want to find out what Thompson has said on an issue, that FAQ web page is a very good place to start looking. It is more accessible than the ABC Radio site, and more convenient than searching through Fox News, C-SPAN, Google, or YouTube. And by the way, it isn't really "under construction" any more than this WP article is under construction - i.e. it is an ongoing project. Sbowers3 00:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a subsection called Compilations, which lists all of Thompson's audio and video. Sbowers3 02:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
There's broad agreement that non-notable self published blogs and discussion forums should not be linked, so there's really no incentive to compromise on this issue, other than to placate a handful of single purpose editors. While it's true that the Wikipedia is always under construction, there are some key differences between the Wikipedia and other collaborative projects on the internet. We have editing guidelines that articulate sound principles like neutrality and verifiability, and there are extensive mechanisms in place to ensure appropriate peer review and editorial oversight. That makes the Wikipedia different than other collaborative projects, including other wikis, even ones that share the GFDL license. It's only natural that these projects like to be linked to their corresponding Wikipedia articles, but I think it's pretty clear which of the websites benefits more when this sort of thing happens. MoodyGroove 02:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
Yep ... and if we start adding one not particularly notable blog site, then how do we say no to any of them? The only thing we can do is use our notability guidelines. If this website (or any other) starts getting mentioned by the official campaign or the mainstream press, then we link to it. If not, we don't. That same rule goes for the rest of the hundreds of political blogs. --BigDT 03:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Sbowers3, I agree with your contribution. I am sure others will as well.--StrumTurner 06:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The radio commentary "compilation" is simply a duplication of Thompson's ABC Radio blog archive. It doesn't belong in the External Links. The compilation of speeches and other videos...maybe useful, but I'm on the fence. Eseymour 13:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikiquote has quotations related to Fred Thompson/Archive 3.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Fred Thompson/Archive 3.
Official sites
  • I'm With Fred, Friends of Fred Thompson, Inc. (Thompson's official exploratory committee)
  • The Fred Thompson Report, ABC Radio Networks
  • United States Congress. "Fred Thompson/Archive 3 (id: T000457)". Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
Documentaries, topic pages and databases
Media coverage
Compilations
Unofficial sites

LifeLock, proposal

I don't think there's any serious dispute that would bar the article being unprotected other than LifeLock. Google news [3] has no new news articles about it. Several older ones mention that Rush Limbaugh, Paul Harvey, and Howard Stern also pitch for them.

I would like to propose this compromise. LifeLock is unquestionably notable. The article has been salted because of personal information being posted in it. (See ANI discussion). Apparently, the article had the founder's SSN. The offending revisions have been oversighted and there is no reason that an article couldn't be created about LifeLock - they are notable now. (I will, of course, discuss with the deleting admin before recreating/unsalting.) This controversy and the fact that Thompson, Limbaugh, Harvey, and Stern are or were all spokesmen for the company can be mentioned in a LifeLock article. Fred Thompson can have a one liner that links to the article. That way the content is covered in an appropriate place - I think that would take care of all objections on both sides. Does that sound reasonable? --BigDT 00:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd definitely support this, so long as the LifeLock article is up and running before this article is unprotected. A good idea, and good eye researching why LifeLock has been protected. Italiavivi 01:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The deleting admin has given his approval to recreating the article [4]. I have started a draft at User:BigDT/LifeLock. It would probably be useful to have more information about what the company actually does ... right now, it's just a coatrack about the scandal. I can, at any time that this page is ready, unsalt the page and move the contents of this draft there. --BigDT 01:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I have recreated LifeLock. For anyone reading this, please consider adding LifeLock to your watchlist - we do need to carefully guard against privacy violations. As far as what to do in Fred Thompson, I would propose that we remove the LifeLock text from the "controversy" section and add the following sentence to "2004 to 2007":
In June 2007, Thompson, as part of his radio contract with ABC, created radio commercials for LifeLock, an identity fraud protection company that was the subject of national attention when its co-founder resigned.
Does that sound reasonable? (I am not opposed to rewording it ... I'm much better at writing about football than about business.) --BigDT 03:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me, however, the LifeLock article mentions him as being a presidential candidate, and as far as I know he hasn't yet declared himself to be a candidate, it may also be undue weight to focus on Fred Thompson in that article, perhaps it should be simply "several well known people, such as senator Fred Thompson, ... have pitched ads for them." or something along those lines. IMHO. Arzel 03:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Oops ... I changed it to "former US Senator". The LifeLock article is live, so, as in all things, feel free to be bold and further refine the wording. --BigDT 04:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I like your idea and the sentence you've drafted, but instead of putting it in "2004 to 2007" (which is part of the "Lobbyist" section), I suggest you put it under "Post-Senate activities," right after the sentence "In 2006, he signed on with ABC News Radio to serve as senior analyst and vacation replacement for Paul Harvey." It flows very nicely and logically in that context. Eseymour 13:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep ... you're right ... I was in error ... that's where it should go. --BigDT 15:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Updated Polls

A CNN Opinion Pole released 6/25/2007: http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/06/25/rel7a.pdf

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/25/poll.bloomberg.schneider/index.html States Thompson is second in the poles with 19% in the poles.--FiftyOneWicked 04:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference Needed in Speculation Section

Under the Speculation Section it is noted that a reference is needed for this statement.

"On June 12, 2007, Thompson appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. He would not announce his candidacy, but referred to his "testing the waters" committee, which he stated yielded positive prospects. Leno, feeling that he was being coy and modest, pointed out that Thompson had risen to an impressive #2 in the polls (see below), and asked Thompson if he would at least state if he would like the job of President. Thompson responded that while he did not crave the job itself, that there are things he would like to do that he could only do by holding that office.[citation needed]"

A reference from Fox News - You Decide 2008 can be used if that is good enough.

Please see. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281596,00.html

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Thompson Tells Leno He Would Like to Be President

"Asked by Jay Leno on "The Tonight Show" if he'd like the nation's top job, the former Tennessee senator said, "I've never craved the job of president, but I want to do some things that only a president can do.""

Eck3970 19:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Churches of Christ Affiliation

While it is quite accurate that Fred Thompson is a member of the Churches of Christ, it is incorrect to assume the same of James Garfield. Garfield was in fact a member of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), a distinct branch of the Stone-Campbell restoration movement. While at one time the Churches of Christ and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) were one movement, during Garfield's day there was a clear schism of the movement. He was in fact ordained as a Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) minister and taught at a Disciples college. Anyone who is Churches of Christ, as I am, knows there is a very discernible difference between the two movements. The Churches of Christ are conservative (favoring a traditional, non-instrumental worship) while the Disciples are more liberal (favoring ecumenism, gay ministers, etc.). Please note,therefore, that Fred Thompson would be the first President who is Churches of Christ.Jimmytexas 23:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I read that and it didn't even register. Thompson is Churches of Christ, Garfield was Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), correct? --BigDT 00:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Yup. --Orange Mike 19:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, as was pointed out, it is important to remember that the distinction was less clear then. Schisms start somewhere. It is similar to arguing 100 years from now that someone was not a member of the church of Christ who perhaps approved of hand-clapping, or had certain beliefs about missionary work, or schools for preachers, etc. I could name so many issues that congregations or individual Christians disagree on. Anyway, back to the issue, obviously the Disciples of Christ and the churches of Christ are not the same faith today, but when did this occur? Same can be asked of the ICOC or anti- or liberal congregations today. Look at Luther, who never sought to have a separate religion established--merely a "correction" to the Catholic church. But out of his movement came of course the Lutheran church and most of the Protestant religions of today.

Unprotection?

Are we ready to have the article unprotected? This is where I think we stand:

  • The LifeLock story gets reduced to a single sentence in the "Post-Senate activities" section. ("In June 2007, Thompson, as part of his radio contract with ABC, created radio commercials for LifeLock, an identity fraud protection company that was the subject of national attention when its co-founder resigned.")
  • The four links (under "Disputed links" above) stay out. (I would suggest that we put a message in HTML comments suggesting that any new links be discussed on the talk page prior to being added in the article.)
  • The current text about the Thompsons' relative ages ("On June 29, 2002, Thompson, then aged 59 married Jeri Kehn, then 35") is fine.
  • The statement about Thompson's PAC stays in for now subject to readdressing the issue down the road to see if there's more to the story.

Does all of the above sound good to everyone? If so, I (or anyone else) can make a request at WP:RFP for unprotection. --BigDT 00:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

After further thought, I don't think the relative ages aspect should remain as such. The implication is that their difference in age is somehow wrong in some personal moral judgement. If it is commonplace to state ages when married then I don't have a problem, but I don't think it is. The PAC issue is notable, however, it is my understanding that this is not unique to Fred Thompson and is quite common. Is this something that is noted in other BLP's with political motivation? It should probably be consistant with other politicians. Other than that I agree. Arzel 02:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, but the current wording was a compromise with other editors who wanted the phrase "24 years his junior" to apply to Thompson's wife. The current text doesn't have nearly as much implication of moral judgement. The age difference is, after all, a fact, and people are eventually going to notice anyway and form their own opinions. Eseymour 13:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I support unprotection if User:BigDT's summary is held as consensus. I do not support unprotection if it is the intention of Arzel to make the age difference a matter of contention again via edits. Italiavivi 23:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I did not start the original edit issue, and I am not sure what you are implying. I'll agree with consensus, but I still hold that stating the ages in this way serves no purpose other than to show that he is quite a bit older than she. Of the other recognized candidates (granted Thompson has not yet decleared) none have ages when married stated, although John Edwards does have the Junior wording, which doesn't seem to make any sense either in its context. Arzel 13:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the current wording should stay unless/until someone comes up with something better. Not telling her age at all is not a good idea and using loaded language isn't a good idea either. The current language represents a nice compromise - it gives the facts without implying anything. I agree that rekindling this issue would be a bad thing and a dealbreaker. --BigDT 00:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I concur. Italiavivi 00:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok ... I'm going to go ahead and make the request. Arzel hasn't edited since posting the above message ... if he/she changes it, I think we can settle with the option of politely point him/her in the direction of this discussion - there's no reason to hold up waiting for a reply. --BigΔT 00:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I moved the link to the "compilation" of Thompson's radio commentaries to the "Disputed Links" section, since that page is simply a re-hash of Thompson's ABC radio blog archives. I think we have enough consensus now to unprotect the article. Eseymour 13:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
This article needs to be unprotected. There is absolutely zero justification for continued protection of the article. A simple content dispute. That is all that is happening here. Turtlescrubber 00:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Unprotected - all done - Alison ☺ 00:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The change

I made the change to the LifeLock text here [5]. I also moved a few other things around - I moved the "Scooter Libby defense" paragraph above the ABC news one so that we don't go 2006-2007-2006. I moved the PAC $$$ issue up to that section because it doesn't make sense to have a one-issue "controversy" section. I'm not at all picky on either of these ... they are formatting issues, if there's a better way to format it, please do so with my blessing. --BigΔT 00:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate?

Is is technically correct to have the Candidate Banner on this article when Thompson hasn't yet declared he is a candidate? WiccaWeb 02:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It is in fact not correct to call him a candidate. He has an exploratory committee, however THIS IS NOT THE SAME as being a candidate. Wikipedia is about FACTS. Calling him a candidate is not factual. WiccaWeb 01:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


Thompson leaking committee information to the White House

The Globe wrote an article about Thompson's memoir in which he states he lacked the "authority" to give information to the White House and did it anyway. User:Eseymour without justification removed it and with an edit summary "rmv speculative criticism". Considering its reference is Thompson, I fail to see how it is "speculative."

Anyway wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is WP:V, not "truth." C56C 16:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Users Plantocal and C56C have added content about allegations that Thompson served as a "Nixon mole" during the Watergate investigation. WP:V is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for including content in Wikipedia. In my opinion, this violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. The only reason anyone would be bringing this up 35 years later is because Thompson is the leading contender for the GOP nomination for President. It is clearly not encyclopedic content. (For the record, Plantocal's edits also included a new subsection to draw attention to Thompson's involvement with Libby's legal defense. This editor seems to be intent on highlighting "controversial" aspects of Thompson's life. Eseymour 16:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:AGF. Interesting how you shot back with political rhetoric. Do not removed sourced material from WP:RS, which includes quotes from publications by the subject of the article.
    • Also since you seem interested in downplaying controversial elements of Thompson's bio (looking at your editing history), this article will be balanced as long as your edits are fair.
    • Your claim that a few lines about Thompson's book and his role in Watergate is WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE is laughable. C56C 17:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The fact that Thompson is leading the GOP primary is not rhetoric, it's a fact, and it has brought many editors to this article who are intent on adding "controversial" information which they feel has been improperly left out. That's not attributing bad faith, but I do think Plantocal's and your edits are biased. This is a biography, which is not the place for hashing out every criticism that has ever been leveled at a person.
      • You also added a sentence about Jeri Kehn being a "trophy wife." That's just reprehensible. You may have a source, but does anyone think that it would be proper for an article on Barack Obama to quote a source which calls him a n****r? Eseymour 17:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I didn't add the source. The source was there. I expanded what was in the Sunday Times article. Looking at your edit history here, I notice a pattern.
        • Stop removing sourced material. C56C 17:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
          • The Sunday Times article doesn't even attribute the slur; it just says "some have called her a 'trophy wife'". But that's beside the point, it's completely inappropriate. I'm not going to continue fighting with you here; when the other editors committed to maintaining an unbiased article check in, we'll clean up after you together. Eseymour 17:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Indeed, more opinions are needed. That's why I contacted the AN/I board.[6] I'm trying to figure out why CJC47's only edit in two weeks is to get involved without a single explanation or reason. Maybe we'll find out in the future. C56C 17:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
              • To remove a blatant POV change to an article that appears in my watch list. CJC47 17:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
                • What edit are you referring to? If you want to add a NPOV tag give a reason. However, do not remove the sourced material I added about him holding a fundrasiser for Libby in his home. C56C 17:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
                  • I took out the trophy-wife inflamatory nonsense. CJC47 18:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
                    • And? You did a wholesale revert. You readded in a NPOV tag among other edits, and gave NO reason. C56C 18:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
                    • Regarding the "trophy-wife" citation. If the source is good enough to put positive information in about his ex-wives then why isn't it good enough to put in criticism too?[7] Its POV when you only include the positive. C56C 18:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
                      • Fair enough, their voting intentions shouldn't be included. The POV tags should remain until someone has the time to fix those sections. I'm at work or I'd handle it. CJC47 18:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
                      • First of all, they are not ex-wives, they are ex-girlfriends. To answer your question, the reason not to include the "trophy wife" slur is that it is inappropriate and anonymous. The source just gives a weasel-worded "has been described as." Personally, I don't see any reason to mention every woman Thompson dated in the 17 years he was a bachelor unless they have some other significance to this biography. Eseymour 18:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • First off, don't edit war; discuss changes here rather than going back and forth on edits while discussing. As someone who has never edited this page and isn't aligned with any political movement, I'll simply add an outsider view content from Thompson's own bio pertaining to the Nixon presidency probably would be of some interest here provided it is neutrally stated and we are not giving it undue weight in relation to the rest of the article. Beyond that, some of the stuff that it also appears is being reverted over is the claim that Thompson's wife is a "trophy wife" as well as some of his previous relationships. I would say that even if sourced, the "trophy wife" claim is needlessly disparaging and simply doesn't add anything of value here. Additionally, his past relationships don't appear particularly relevant or useful as article information to me, but if consensus is that these should be in the article, it would be a good idea to source them. The fact that his ex-wife and ex-girlfriends would campaign for him apparently just indicates he knows how to break off a relationship without making enemies. Maybe he should be writing a book about that.--Isotope23 18:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I've edited the new Watergate section to a less accusatory wording, and left out the loaded "mole" comments. Also corrected a few copyright violations. I don't know that there was any actual wrongdoing by Thompson in disclosing this information to the White House. Isn't this the sort of thing that must be disclosed by prosecutors anyway? They aren't allowed to introduce "surprise" evidence in a trial. I'm not sure this event meets the standard of notability on its own, but for now at least it has a more neutral tone. Eseymour 21:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
      • For future reference what were the copyright violations? I agree with your comments. Thompson wrote about it in his book so he must not have thought he did any wrongdoing. The witness who disclosed the information was a White House employee who presumably would have already notified his supporters. I also don't know that it is notable. Twenty years from now - long after a political campaign - would anyone care? But I won't object.Sbowers3 22:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Eseymour, STOP pushing POV. Quoting a word with a QUOTE is not a "copyright violation."[8]
          • I do find it funny, that people want to argue filling in the context of Thompson's work on Watergate, the most famous presidential scandal of the 20th century is undue weight. Compared to the whole string of unrelated, unimportant polls from months back. --Plantocal
        • The bolded text in the following former passage was a copyright violation:
          • "Even though I had no authority to act for the committee, I decided to call Fred Buzhardt at home" to tell him that the committee had learned about the taping system, Thompson wrote. "I wanted to be sure that the White House was fully aware of what was to be disclosed so that it could take appropriate action."[1] Former investigator for Democrats on the committee, Scott Armstrong said "Thompson was a mole for the White House."[1] In response to the Boston Globe's story Thompson said via e-mail without addressing the specific charge of being a Nixon mole:
        • Both of these phrases were copied verbatim from the Boston Globe article and were included as though a Wikipedia editor had written them. The first one is a paraphrase within a quotation; the paraphrase itself is copyrighted by the Globe. It's a technical point, but we shouldn't be copying any text without attribution. Eseymour 22:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of additions... why has Eseymour is the last three months removed ONLY negative things about Thompson[9][10][11] and only add POSITIVE things.[12] All the while downplaying, and reverting other people's edits?

When is citation needed?

Some statements certainly need a citation but not every statement needs one. What is the threshold? User:Plantocal added "citation needed" to several statements:

  • On May 30 2007, he asked to be released from the show.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]
  • Thompson concurrently played the role on the original series and the short-lived sister series Law & Order: Trial by Jury.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]
  • Political insiders in Tennessee expect the inner circle of a Thompson campaign to include, in addition to his politically experienced wife, a number of functionaries with whom Thompson has been associated in the past.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]

I would have thought that these statements were sufficiently unimportant and apparently undisputed that they did not need citations. (The last statement if it needs a citations would seem to be covered by the citations in the rest of the paragraph.) I'm certainly not an expert on all of the guidelines so can others help educate me and possibly other fairly new editors? What are the specific guidelines that help us to decide which statements need citations?

Plantocal, since you thought they need citations, could you please explain with reference to Wiki guidelines your reasons? I don't dispute the changes but I would like to use them to further my education about the guidelines.

Thanks in advance to my teachers.Sbowers3 00:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

They claims were NOT sourced, so I added a {{Fact}} tag. What's the problem? I came to this article just to add something I saw in the news. It was removed by someone who only removes negative material, and only adds in positive material. Noticing this unfair balanced, I added more mateial. Then you come in, attacking my edits.
Like the editor above you edits are based solely around Thompson's articles. You are clearly pushing an agenda, which is why someone else asked Do you work for Thompson or his campaign?. To which you wrote: "I don't work for him - not yet." Do objective users usually get asked if they work for a political campaign? Do objective users plan on joining a campaign?
Since you want to work for him, plan on working for him in the "near future," and your edits are based solely on Thompson and downplaying issues, I fail to see how me adding fact tags are an issue here.
So far, there are two accounts here dedicated to this subject, and both have attacked me and my motiviations. --Plantocal
Plantocal, I did NOT attack those edits. I wrote "I don't dispute the changes." There are hundreds of sentences in this article that do not have a "citation needed." I am merely asking what is special about those three sentences. Maybe there are other sentences that should have citations needed. A clear explanation of how the guidelines fit or don't fit a sentence will help all of us be better editors. Maybe more of us will see the need to add citations. Will you please help me understand the citation guidelines instead of complaining about motivations?Sbowers3 01:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
OK I apologize. But you started a new section here to discussion my edits when you have engaged in changing material I added. You also ignored others that added fact tags today, but instead focused on my additions. Don't you think that can be perceived as unfriendly?
I looked at your edits (mostly friendly to Thompson), and Eseymour's edits (mostly friendly to Thompson) and comments (unfriendly, paranoid stuff to me). My above response should be direct at Eseymour and not you.
According to the posts mentioned WP:V above all claims should be cited. It doesn't say just controversial ones. I'd be interested in seeing a rule that things don't need cited. I followed Istope's lead and was wondering who reported some of these claims included in the article. And so I added the tag. --Plantocal
I'm sorry if I appeared to be attacking you or your edits. It was the fact tags I was questioning. I honestly don't know what the right answer is - whether those statements should be cited or not. I wish that a more experienced editor would chime in with an explanation of the guidelines.
And I'm disappointed if my edits appear to be friendly to Thompson. I try to write with a NPOV. If I see something that I think is non-neutral I will try to make it more neutral. Perhaps I have just seen more things that had a negative POV. I'd like to think that if I saw something that had a positive POV I'd try to make it more neutral - and that would come across as being unfriendly to Thompson. Mostly I try to avoid loaded words and I try to put things in context.
Please read my edit of Thompson's gaffe about Cuban immigrants. I hope you don't think it appears friendly to Thompson. I added negative quotes from both friend and foe. What I tried to do is put it in context so that nobody could say that it was taken out of context.Sbowers3 04:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
If my edits appear to be friendly to Thompson, that's because I have removed a lot of anti-Thompson POV content that various editors have tried to insert. This is politics, and people generally seem more motivated to take potshots at someone than insert irrelevant "best Senator ever" nonsense. My intent is to make this article as high-quality and NPOV as possible. I wrote a compromise description about the Thompson/Michael Moore exchange (see section "Too many small details" above), and I've removed Thompson "fan sites" from the External Links section.
This article cannot and should not document every criticism ever leveled at Thompson, nor should it repeat in detail his campaign platform or repeat every endorsement he gets, etc. This is a biography; it should document major events in his life and career. I will remove anything that does not meet that standard, or that is unnecessary praise or criticism. Eseymour 14:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is the conclusion/analysis of the Globe article getting removed? Shouldn't we show all views about his dealings? --Plantocal

Because it is opinion/commentary. Let the facts speak for themselves.Sbowers3 04:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
All views should be presented. Even the ones you don't like. Should we remove all the analysis and conclusions about Hitler's image as well? Or just subjects whose campaigns you aim to work on? --Plantocal
The "mole" comment by the Globe article is indeed commentary and doesn't belong here. Furthermore, the term "mole" implies Thompson was actively spying for the White House--an implication which is not supported by the facts. Eseymour 14:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It is a fact --- and a notable one --- that the Boston Globe saw this episode as counter to Thompson's image. And Thompson's non-denial is highly notable. Both should be replaced. — goethean ॐ 14:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
We can't include every commentary written about Thompson because "it's a fact that so-and-so saw it this way." It's still an opinion. Furthermore, the idea that a "non-denial" of a non-event is notable is wrong. If he'd engaged his critics on this, someone would come here and argue that it constitutes a controversy and therefore should be included. It's like asking someone "So, when did you stop beating your wife?" Eseymour 14:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Strawman argument. No one here is saying include "all." Notable events, such as his activity in Watergate is to be included. To purposely leave out this type of material woul be POV. Eseymour, you haven't explained how is WP:NPOV. Read that policy; all views are to be presented, even the ones you don't like. You can't just claim something that isn't friendly to his election should be removed. --Plantocal
If you include commentary (not just facts and events) about Thompson's role in the Watergate investigation, you will have to allow commentary about everything else that is included here as notable. For instance, I think everyone agrees that Thompson's first marriage and subsequent divorce is notable as part of his personal history. Well, suppose someone publishes commentary saying that they see the fact that his ex-wife supports his campaign as evidence that Fred is just the sort of kind-hearted, fair-minded person that can unite the country. You'd have to include that too.
The reason that using the term "mole" is POV is that it is a loaded term which presumes he intentionally engaged in nefarious activities. Unless someone can find a source which explains what law or universally-accepted rule of ethics Thompson broke, we should let the facts speak for themselves without bringing in additional commentary. Readers will make up their own minds. Eseymour 16:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
If you are worried that it is commentary then WP:ATT. Why'd you remove Thompson's say in the article too? Excluding something because it isn't positive is POV. It should be included. Regarding ethics, since Thompson admitted he had no authority, I think that says it all. Regarding illegality, the article does not reference/make any claim. So why bring it up on this talk? C56C 18:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Commentary doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, period. The article shouldn't try to tell people what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves. I removed Thompson's response for the same reason. Eseymour 19:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV says "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should each be presented fairly." You removing this perspective is a violation of WP:NPOV. ALL perspectives are to be given weight, including Thompson's response, which you removed. What policy are you citing as the basis for the removal? Opinions and facts are to be included together. C56C 20:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
You are misreading the policy. It doesn't mean perspective as in an analysis or commentary. It means differing opinions on what the facts are. For instance, if Joe Jones said that Thompson disclosed the information to the White House but Sue Smith said that it was Howard Baker, then you have two perspectives that must be presented fairly. WP:NPOV doesn't mean that any commentary on a particular fact must be included. Eseymour 21:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Also if you are going dispute the neutrality, you must leave in the material so people know what you are disputing. If you remove the material, then you arn't disputing what's in the article. I readded it, for this discussion. C56C 20:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're wrong. You don't get to add biased material to an article and then keep it there until the dispute which you started is settled. Since you added the Globe's commentary, the burden is on you to prove it should be here, and you haven't shown that it adds anything worth keeping. The tag directs people to the talk page so they can see what is in dispute. I won't risk WP:3RR by removing it again, but I'm going to edit the quote to ameliorate the bias somewhat. (By the way, please stop editing my talk page. Anything you have to say about this content dispute can go here on the talk page.) Eseymour 21:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Wrong how so? So you disagree that WP:NPOV says "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should each be presented fairly." STOP CHANGING THE MATERIAL TO DOWNPLAY THE CLAIM because you don't like the statement. --Plantocal

Back to my original question: What is the threshold for when a statement should have a citation? Sbowers3 15:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:CITE, "Wikipedia:Verifiability says that attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." I'd say that anything which is common knowledge or universally agreed-to need not be cited, but when in doubt, add a citation. Eseymour 16:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Cuban remark

Thompson has taken heat for his comments last week.[13] Should this be included? C56C 21:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It is currently included. Are you suggesting it should be removed? I am borderline. It might turn out to be notable or it might fade away in a couple of weeks. Sbowers3 23:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe remove it down the road. It should stay as its discussed in the press, and someone might look for info on it. --Plantocal

Watergate section

OK, let's have a rational discussion about this without policy lawyering. In my opinion, the whole discussion about Thompson disclosing the knowledge of the Watergate tapes to the White House is non-notable, because: 1) it's based on a single newspaper article featuring a former Democratic official who clearly has a axe to grind, and 2) there is no real accusation of wrongdoing, other than from the aforementioned axe-grinder, and no evidence that any laws were broken. (Thompson himself is a lawyer--would he have incriminated himself in his own memoir?)

Indeed, let the facts speak for themselves. According to policy: As noted above, EACH perspective is to be included in a fairly. Don't change the quotes around to down play what others said. Where does wikipedia rules back up your wanting to exclude the author's conclusions?
Inclusion must meet WP:V, not "truth". Plantocal 00:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That being said, I will agree to leave the incident in as long as it's described fairly. What I object to is: 1) use of the word "mole"--this implies a pattern of activity that Thompson was putting the White House's interests above his duties on the committee. This is not verifiable; 2) inclusion of the Boston Globe's commentary--analysis and commentary of events does not belong in an encyclopedia article. Let the facts speak for themselves. Eseymour 22:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like the word, write the author of the article. However, don't modify a quote to downplay criticism. If you think Thompson's investigation of a President who had to resign because of the investigation is non-notable, that's fine. But I disagree. However, you cannot remove a section just because it is critical of Thompson. That is, POV. Plantocal 00:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The Globe article is a mixture of fact and opinion. The verifiable fact that Thompson disclosed committee information might be notable. The opinion of a Democratic staffer that he was a "mole" is not a verifiable fact. The Globe's opinion is not a fact. Verifiable, notable facts can remain. Opinions should be removed. Sbowers3 23:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV says "policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should each be presented fairly." And it says "we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion." We discuss facts, and opinions drawn from facts.
Where does it say wikipedia does not include opinion? This article is full of opinion (you better start removing large chunks of positive material if you really think ALL opinion should be removed), and so is Hillary Clinton. Plantocal 23:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Sbowers3 you are aware you added the NR's opinion to the article recently?

[14] Plantocal 18:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Opinion vs. fact

Suppose I went out and found all sorts of laudatory statements about Fred Thompson. Suppose I obtained quotes from lots of Republicans about how he was absolutely correct on all the issues, how his positions were so well thought out and convincingly expressed. Suppose that every quote was "attributable to a reliable published source." Suppose I added that story to the Thompson article, properly citing every quote.

Would you defend inclusion of such information because "All views should be presented", that it met WP:ATT, that "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should each be presented fairly"? If someone disputed the neutrality, would you reply that "you must leave in the material so people know what you are disputing"?

If you were to defend such an addition, you would be wrong. Opinions no matter how dressed up they are with citations are not verifiable facts. If someone were to add opinions that were favorable to Thompson I would remove them as opinions.

The Boston Globe comments are opinion. The "style vs. substance" paragraph is opinion. If we allow opinion - whether favorable or critical - then we are opening the door to megabytes of opinion.

This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, a biography of a living person. It should contain verifiable facts that are notable events in the person's life. Those notable facts whether favorable or critical should remain. Opinion should be removed. Sbowers3 00:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What policy are you citing? It'd be impossible to write an article without citing people's opinion. The whole section of "opinion polls" is OPINION. The section about Thompson's acting ability is OPINION. The section "Speculation" is OPINION. Should we also remove Thompson's opinion that his Democratic opponent "never seen the inside of a pickup truck"? Or should we just remove the opinions that are critical of Thompson?
There is ONE sentence... one sentence in the whole article that is critical and thus, you want it removed. Start citing policy, and stop with this rhetoric. Wikipedia includes opinion(as cited many times above), this article is not an exception. If you want to change how wikipedia includes material, this talk page is not where to do that.Plantocal 01:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
You're right about the "Speculation" section. At the very least, it needs to be heavily trimmed. Ultimately, it will probably be reduced to a single sentence such as "After months of speculation and anticipation, Thompson announced..." However, Thompson's pickup truck quote is relevant (if we're going to include that incident at all) because it's a direct quote from the subject of the article. His opponent's response should be included if we have a source for that. Eseymour 14:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sbowers3 is right, but I think it's important to distinguish opinion from commentary. Opinion is sometimes necessary in an article. Historians have different opinions about the impact of certain events, or about the origin of certain things. Those should be included. However, the Boston Globe statement about Thompson being a "mole" is commentary We can't possibly include every piece of commentary published about every notable fact in Thompson's biography. Speaking of which, this is a biography of a living person, and must adhere to WP:BLP. The application of policy to biographies is slightly different than for the rest of Wikipedia. Eseymour 14:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of BLP says you cannot insert opinions made by the media? Opinions make up the bulk of this article: Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies.
You need opinions such as: "In a June 6 appearance on Hannity and Colmes, Republican pollster Frank Luntz described Fred Thompson as the "Six-million-pound gorilla" of the Republican primary race." This articles needs positive and negative opinions in order to describe him. You don't seem to want the former removed, but only the latter. Plantocal 15:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Direction of future discussion

A post on my talk page requested I review the current discussions. Your discussion should take the following into account:

  1. Article standards NPOV, V, NOT, OR, and BLP are exclusionary policies, not inclusionary policies. In other words, material may be kept out of an article based on these policies, not included merely by meeting these policies.
  2. When you discuss including information in this well written article, it not only needs to meet the article standards requirements, but you should justify your inclusion request based on Good article criteria and Featured article criteria.
  3. This article should have more critique similar to Hillery_clinton#Controversies and Barack Obama to be broad in its coverage per Good article criteria #3. Thompson is a politician and such critique goes with the territory. (Note - The term "critique" may be better since it is widely accepted as a noun in a neutral context where as "controversies" and "criticism" carry to much negative connotation and likely will lead to NPOV problems. See Critique usage note.).
  4. The place to get the critique information is not some half-baked theory receiving little press. As the moment, the place to look for proper critique information to be added in this article may be from the opposition in Thompson's last political race. As the opposition to Thompson's present political goals increases, such information will become more wide spread and potentially viable for this article based on based on Good article criteria and Featured article criteria.
  5. To move this article forward, someone should nominate it as a Good article (GA) candidate. It seems to me that the GA reviewer may note that the article is not broad in its coverage in this case per Good article criteria #3 because the article lacks critique, such as through a critique section.

I think this important to repeat. Future discussions about including in this article information that meets article standards NPOV, V, NOT, OR, and BLP should center on whether the new information meets or furthers the goals of Good article criteria and/or Featured article criteria. If you focus your material inclusion/exclusion discussions around Good article criteria and/or Featured article criteria, I believe that you will avoid the problems that lead to the article being protected and should be able to resolve any disagreements amicably. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The controversies sections of other politicians is a good model. There is a whole lot of opinion in those. I looked at Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies and started a controversy section for this page. Plantocal 17:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies is not a good example. It's POV and raised a lot of issues as evidenced by its talk page. I would suggest basing the development of critiques of Fred Thompson on one or more of the FA Politics and government articles. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Good in the sense that it includes cited criticism. Whereas, any criticism that has been added has been repeatedly removed from this article over the last month. Plantocal 17:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers, Jreferee. I am curious about your endorsement of a "critique" section, though. I checked a handful of the Featured Articles on political figures, and none of them have such sections. I haven't edited a lot of Wikipedia bios, but it seems to me that a "critique" section both makes it easier for critics to dump non-noteworthy criticism into the article, and allows defenders to sweep noteworthy criticism into this section near the bottom of the article. The critique section ends up being cluttered and detracts from the quality of the article.
Ultimately, I think noteworthy criticism should be incorporated into the article in the appropriate context. Of course, this is difficult to manage with a prominent political figure involved in an election, because there are so many barbs and accusations flying around. I don't know what the best solution is. Eseymour 15:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Which "Featured Articles on political figures" are you referring to? Plantocal 16:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I checked Wesley Clark, Gerald Ford, Barack Obama, James K. Polk, and Margaret Thatcher. None of them have "critique" sections. Have you found any featured article that has one? Eseymour 17:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Many politicians have sections that criticize them, so get over it. This includes Bill Clinton[15] that has information about the Whitewater (controversy), which Clinton was found of no wrong doing, despite a blood-thirsty congress.
What I don't understand is if, the president of the country,George W. Bush, has a whole section,on criticism and even has a whole article on criticisms: Criticism of George W. Bush and so does the Hillary Clinton articles that [16] mentions crazy Vincent Foster conspiracies, why make Thompson immune from the criticism of Clinton and Bush?
I mean, geez the Clinton article has a section by a National Enquirer author claiming she said anti-Semitic things.[17] However, you flipped out over anything negative said about Thompson. A little hint, just because its negative, does not make it partisan.C56C 18:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Also interesting examples you have there. Not suprising a president from over 100 years ago would lack a criticism section, Thatcher's article was featured more than two years ago, Ford more than a year ago, and a military general lacking criticism is hardly suprising. As for Obama, since he hasn't been involved in politics for the 30 years Thompson has (or even a full term in the Senate), I can't say I'm surpised there isn't much on him. The longer someone is a politician, the more criticism they are likely to receive. C56C 19:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Please re-read my original comment in this section. I am not talking about any criticism in articles, I am questioning whether it is a good idea (from an article quality standpoint) to have a "Criticism" section. Eseymour 19:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This article didn't have one until people started removing things in various parts that you deemed "partisan." Now it is neatly organized in one section, like George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton. It is a good idea, given the climate you have made this. C56C 19:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean, "people started removing things"? You are pretending that the content in question was there all along when in fact it was you and Plantocal who started adding campaign mudslinging to the article. And talking about "the climate [I] have made this" is really, really rich coming from the person who tried to call Fred Thompson's wife a "trophy wife" in this article. Eseymour 20:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Something has to be in an article before it can be removed. I didn't call her a trophy wife, I included that she has been called one and a NY Times citation. If you still object to the term, contact Ferrylodge who inserted it at Jeri Kehn Thompson. And the full quote from the NY Times that Mrs. Thompson is a "trophy wife," according to what that term "originally meant."C56C 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
What strikes me is the insubstantiality of the "Criticism" section. I just changed the language about Michael Moore's repetition of a totally unsubstantiated charge that Fred Thompson owns Cuban cigars to reflect its nature as a undocumented cheap shot. The "Criticism" section is nothing more or less than a repository of mudslinging, and if it isn't removed, the neutrality of this article needs to be disputed. 209.234.71.190 22:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Aquaeus
I generally agree that the Critique section is not helpful in this article. Regarding the material there describing Thompson as an alleged abortion lobbyist, if that material has any relevance it is with regard to his issue position on abortion. Therefore, I plan to move it to the appropriate article.Ferrylodge 22:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
209.234.71.190 did you look up your information? Again another laugh. Fox News didn't doubt Thompson's Cuban cigars. Here it is at CBS. Moore's reference for the cigar claim is The Weekly Standard, which is friendly to Thompson. The Weekly Standard said Thompson owns "box upon box of cigars--Montecristo from Havana."[18] Montecristo are Cuban cigars[19], and as such are illegal in the US. Plantocal 04:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rented truck

Despite two sources, Eseymour all of sudden declares I don't think we can say definitively that it was rented. What reason do you have for not believing the sources? This seems to be a recurring theme with your edits. C56C 18:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, dude. What do you mean "all of a sudden"? This claim has been added and deleted several times (and not by me) in the past month or so. First of all, both sources are clearly anti-Thompson. Noam Scheiber calls him a "poseur" and Kevin Drum calls him a "phony." Secondly, it's really only one source, because Drum is just referring to Scheiber as his source. Thirdly, neither of them mentions on what basis they claim the truck was rented. (I believe I read a claim somewhere that it was leased which, if true, is an important difference--lots of people lease vehicles and consider them their own--and maybe that's where the "rented" idea came from)
Considering the above, I think it's entirely proper to say that "Thompson's critics claim/assert/argue that the truck was rented..."
As for a "recurring theme with [my] edits," folks who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, C56C. Eseymour 19:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I learned two very interesting things from the above: Because a paper doesn't say how they know something you doubt it. First, time in my one year on wikipedia I've heard such an excuse. Wikipedia's policy is WP:V. That's fine if you personally doubt a source for that reason. But it is not good enough for wikipedia as we don't judge claims made by sources.
Secondly, you mention that you "read" it was "leased." But rather than looking for/or documenting this you just remove it.[20] Interesting, given that plus:
Your main interest in your wikipedia history is this Thompson article and these edits are completely sympathetic to Thompson: [21][22] and your first ever edit to me was"You, sir, are the one who has barged in here and littered the article with POV bombs" when I was simply adding in news information. Don't you think I might be a little tired of your games, and be skeptical of your removals? C56C 20:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The first time I edited this article I didn't care about the subject. But now that I see how off balance it has been because anything negative that has been added has been removed, I will now be keeping my eye on this article. Also please read WP:SPA. C56C 20:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
C56C--The New Republic is not a newspaper and Noam Scheiber is not a reporter. He is an opinion columnist and TNR is an opinion publication. You wouldn't support the unchallenged inclusion of claims where the only source is a column in National Review. Also, after a reference was finally added, I didn't remove the claim, I simply attributed it to Thompson's critics, which Scheiber and Kevin Drum definitely are. I am getting tired of your constant accusations against my editing when what I'm trying to do here is ensure a neutral encyclopedia-quality article that isn't littered with campaign mudslinging. Eseymour 20:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The sources are WP:RS, and need-not be papers. That is a rather small point. As for the "accusations," you shouldn't have kicked this off claiming I added "POV bombs." That was not true. The accusations are your fault, and caused you scrutiny because you appear to be a WP:SPA interested in removing criticism and WP:TE.
You need to stop thinking that everything negative from a WP:RS is "mudslinging." An encyclopedia-quality article is going to include criticism of a 30+ politician, washington lobbyist. As time gets closer to the election, there will no doubt be more critical information added because wikipedia includes WP:RS of notable criticism. C56C 20:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
You are correct, opinion journals can be reliable sources in some cases, but they usually do not fact-check as thoroughly as newspapers. (And you referred to TNR as "a paper," so I corrected you.) Whether or not Thompson's red truck was owned, leased, or rented is an important fact insomuch as he made it part of his Senate campaign's image, therefore if he didn't actually own it, it looks rather phony. WP:RS states that "Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known" qualify as "exceptional claims" and "should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in biographies of living people. " (emphasis added) One source from a left-wing critic of Thompson is not enough for this article to definitively state "the truck was rented." Until you have a source for this claim that amounts to more than hearsay, I think I am being generous to allow it to remain at all. Eseymour 21:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Does google work for anyone else?
  • "Yet most Tennesseans do not lease their trucks, or work with Kevin Costner, Robert De Niro, Jessica Lange, Tom Cruise and Nick Nolte. He turned down a part in Michael Crichton's "Congo" so he could campaign. Once, Paul Newman apologized to him for blowing his lines (in "Fat Man and Little Boy")."[23]
  • "One of Cooper's television ads says: "His opponent is a lobbyist and actor who talks about lower taxes, talks about change, while he drives a rented stage prop and plays the role of senator.""[24]
  • "Never elected to a political office, Thompson campaigned across the state in a rented pickup truck, charming people across party lines. He was elected to serve the remaining two years of Gore's term and elected to a full term in 1996."[25]

In addition to these three and the two above, there plently more sources. Thanks for the laugh about hearsay and "left-wing critics." Is every negative from the "left"? The Oak Ridge newspaper "left-wing" too? Do you have a source that he owned it? Plantocal 04:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

First, Noam Scheiber and Kevin Drum are both left-wingers, and are both critical of Thompson. Ergo, they are "left-wing critics" of Thompson. That shouldn't be a controversial statement. Anyway, the additional sources you Googled are helpful. The first two are op-eds, but the third is a genuine news article, huzzah! I did a little Googling of my own, and it appears that Thompson still has the truck. From Newsweek: "Parked in Thompson's mother's driveway is the rusting red Chevy pickup that the former senator turned actor drove all over the state during his two U.S. Senate campaigns." [26] From Bloomberg: "'Fred Thompson was a truck driver long before we got the truck,' Ingram said...For now, that red truck is parked behind Thompson's mother's home outside Nashville, with an expired registration and more than 300,000 miles on the odometer." [27] Has Thompson been renting the truck for the past 14 years while it sat in his mother's driveway? It seems to me that from the Bloomberg quote we can conclude that the truck was acquired specifically for the campaign (perhaps even rented at first), but that Thompson has kept it (i.e. bought it if it was originally rented). Eseymour 16:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Where in those articles, which are published in 2007, say it he owned it in 1994? It seems you are likely right "bought it if it was originally rented." I removed the word "nevertheless" as it is out of place and sounds dismissive of the three previous sources.
Find any that predate his decision to run for president taht claims he owned it? C56C 18:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I've been ignoring this dispute until now, but now that I have evaluated the sources, I see a problem. My take is that the "rented pickup" line was used by his opponent, and then parroted by a couple of left-leaning sources. The Newsweek and Bloomberg sources make us wonder, why would a rented old truck still be parked at his mother's house? I have seen nothing that actually verifies that the truck was rented. I do not believe using Wikipedia's voice to proclaim it rented is proper. At the very least, the characterization should be attributed directly to those who make that claim. I am also not a big fan of a lot of commentary in the footnotes. - Crockspot 23:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I propose the following wording: ... drove around in a red pickup truck, which was characterized as rented,(cite)(cite) but was recently reported to still be owned by Thompson(cite)(cite)... . - Crockspot 23:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I just removed the word "rented." Perhaps that will take care of it.Ferrylodge 23:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

thompson 2008 primary bid

I simply added that Thompson is leading in some polls, there are others showing him in second place. Also, the way the article put it, he was totally in the lead, yet Wikipedia has an article on the 2008 Republican primary that shows Giuliani in the lead by a fairly significant margin (Thompson is shown in third place).-John

John Dean

Why is it useful to include this material about John Dean in the Watergate section?

John Dean, the Nixon adminstration's former White House counsel who is now a registered independent supporting impeachment of President Bush,(ref)Rothschild, Matthew. "An Interview with John Dean," Progressive Magazine (2006-05-20)(/ref) has said he believed that Howard Baker and Fred Thompson were not impartial players: "I knew that Thompson would be Baker's man, trying to protect Nixon."(ref name="GlobeJuly4"/)

Isn't it obvious that Baker and Thompson weren't impartial? They were in the same political party as the president. Moreover, this quote from Dean doesn't cite any particular partiality by Thompson or Baker that Dean thinks was especially egregious.Ferrylodge 19:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not obvious. A reader doesn't assume party loyalty played a factor in the criminal investigation of a President any more than any other investigation of wrong-doing. The quote by John Dean paints a fuller picture of the situation. A quote doesn't have to contain "egregious" information to be part of a paragraph. The WH counsel's opinion is just as important as Thompson's co-investigators' opinions that are cited. Its important to have perspectives from other angles, including the WH. C56C 19:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The Dean quote hardly provides the White House perspective, and Dean's quote is also extremely uninformative. It is a bit of hindsight, 35 years later, from a person who despises both Nixon and Bush. Even if this Dean quote were from someone who shared Nixon's views, it is an empty quotation that includes no basis in fact. If stuff like this is included in the article, then the article will become extremely long, and extremely uninformative.Ferrylodge 19:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
That the WH counsel considered Baker and Thompson sympathetic is informative.[28] The article does not mention this perspective. Also no one said anything about "Dean sharing Nixon's view." Right now, after your move, it does seem out of place since you moved it to its own paragraph and out of the context of perspectives. It should be put perhaps with Nixon's opinion. C56C 19:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Nixon's contemporaneous view is more than adequate. John Dean's hindsight from 35 years later is just cluttering up the article. It also will confuse readers, because Dean today is highly critical of the Nixon White House and Republicans, whereas the White House in 1973 viewed Dean as one of them. The Dean quote is also completely unsupported by any reasoning or evidence.Ferrylodge 19:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Dean is critical of "neo-Conseratives" now, not Republicans. Whatever that has to do with discrediting his claims is beyond me. C56C 20:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The Dean quote was inserted into this article two days ago, on July 7.[29] There is no consensus for inserting this quote, so I'm going to remove it until consensus is reached here at this talk page.Ferrylodge 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
There also isn't consensus to remove it. But we'll leave it off as more views come in. C56C 20:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't you use one of the quotes from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19675541/ instead? Assuming that Nixon's quote isn't sufficient to cover off what needs to be said in this section, which is itself a large assumption. I agree with the idea that a "contemporaneous view" is more useful.Bdell555 21:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

arthur branch / law & order

first appeared in episode 13.1 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0629156/

I like the new wording concerning Fred Thompson's poll numbers; it tells readers that he isn't really in the lead, but is doing well.-John

Watergate Hearing Image

Recently I added an image to this page in the Watergate section without first seeing if it'd be needed in the article/section. If it's felt that this image doesn't add anything to the section, I'll gladly remove it quickly. Stills64 04:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Libby Distancing

I have noticed a lot of changes in this article relating to his relationship with Libby. At this point, it looks like someone is making it a point to say that Thompson never knew Libby before the trial. Seems to be pretty deeply involved with the guy. If he's not a close personal friend, then he's a political operative. So which one is it? ~ Infrangible 11:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think Thompson has said clarified either way. According to this: "Thompson is either a longtime acquaintance of Libby or someone who rushed to the side of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff when he determined that an injustice was being done."[30] C56C 16:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Lack of rumored announcement

Shouldn't something be said of the fact that for months the rumors were that Thompson would declare his campaign for president around July 4th and yet nothing more has happened? There seems to be something (the abortion lobbying?) that is causing his campaign to delay or postpone the announcement. Should this be put into the article? EdRooney 16:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is why rumors of announcements shouldn't be in these articles in the first place. No, we should not document that rumors were false. This is an encyclopedia, not a rumor tracker. - Crockspot 16:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Conservative?

Can we add, or should I say leave in, a source that questions the extent that he is conservative? This point mentioned everywhere in the press, but not on this page.[31][32][33][34] Or leave in the mention that his position on abortion has changed? C56C 19:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The article currently links to a Washington Times editorial that analyzes his conservatism (see the section in this Wikipedia article on his political positions). Our article provides his ranking from the American Conservative Union, and compares it to that of John McCain and Bill Frist. If you want to have more detailed info on this subject, perhaps our article about Thompson's political positions would be a better place to get into more detail.
I didn't just link to one article. Here's another. I said it should be mentioned on this page. C56C 19:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding abortion, there is a detailed section in our article on Thompson's political positions, and I think that material is accurately summarized in the main Thompson article. Is there anything inaccurate or incomplete in the article on Thompson's political positions? Is anything in that Wikipedia article inaccurately summarized in the main Thompson article? I don't think so, but am open to specific changes to improve both articles' treatment of this controversial issue.Ferrylodge 19:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it is detailed. It seems selective to only mention his current views in intro to the section. C56C 19:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
What evidence do you have that his views have changed? Many people oppose the Roe v. Wade decision, and yet believe that state legislatures should protect a statutory right to abortion. See here.
In 1994 he stated that the abortion decision "should be up to the woman". Now he says, as you noted, he "opposes the Roe v. Wade decision," which makes it a state choice. So in 1994 it should up to women now it should be up to the state. That is a change. C56C 19:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I respectfully believe you are mistaken. Thompson has consistently said that the legality of abortion should be a state choice instead of a Supreme Court choice. Here's what he said this year: "I've always thought that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision, that they usurped what had been the law in this country for 200 years, that it was a matter that should go back to the states. When you get back to the states, I think the states should have some leeway. I might vote against one approach, but I think the state ought to have it. And I would not be and never have been for a law that says, on the state level, if I were back in Tennessee voting on this...to criminalize a young woman...." As far as I can tell, Thompson has consistently said that the state should decide to honor a woman's right to get an abortion in certain limited cirumstances (e.g. "early term"). Ferrylodge 19:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
So the paper is wrong when it said the abortion decision "should be up to the woman"? Quesiton: If its the states choice then how can it be a woman's?C56C 20:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, I would very much appreciate if you would properly format new footnotes when you insert them into this article. Thanks.Ferrylodge 19:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
You need to calm down on your tone. I have overlooked it in various instances. You seem boderline hostile. C56C 19:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
"I would very much appreciate if you would properly format new footnotes when you insert them into this article. Thanks." This is called politeness, not hostility.Ferrylodge 19:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
That's wasn't referring simply to your above comments, or this page. C56C 19:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. And another thing. Some sections of this article are summaries of longer related articles. For example, that is what the section on his political positions is. Therefore, please don't put stuff in the summary that is not already in the main article. If you want to include new material about his political positions, then why not put it in the article on his political positions? If there is consensus to put it there, then it may be appropriate to subsequently include it in the summary contained in the main article. This would make this whole process a lot more manageable. Thanks.Ferrylodge 19:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
So his position summary should just include his current ones? No I don't think so. And don't me tell what to put in. If you feel it needs included for that reason, include it. But that is not a reason for exclusion. C56C 19:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Please do not insert comments in the middle of other people's comments. It makes the conversation very difficult to read. Thanks.Ferrylodge 19:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That is common on wikipedia, in order to respond. I would very much appreciate you to stop telling me what to do. I've on wikipedia much longer than you. Thanks. C56C 19:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
You are edit warring.[35] I'd like you to cite the policy for the reasons in which you removed the material. C56C 19:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Removing an inappropriate edit once is not edit-warring. I would be glad to cit policy. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and not by putting material into an article against consensus. See WP:Consensus. Also, Wikipedia discourages weasel words about what "some" people think. See WP:Weasel. Also, Wikipedia encourages footnotes to be in uniform format. See Wikipedia:Footnotes. Also, Wikipedia urges that a section written in summary style should summarize rather than introduce new material. See Wikipedia:Summary Style. I hope that helps.Ferrylodge 20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you didn't understand what I wanted. Cite a source that says you can "remove" an "unformatted footnote." Or where you can removed the entire claim because of one weasel word. If you are still confused let me know.
Consensus is important. Where is consensus to support your edits? C56C 20:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
C56C, getting back to your first comment in this section, I have followed your advice, and written a section about the controversy regarding the extent of Thompson's conservatism. See here. You made a good suggestion, and I hope you like the way that I have developed your suggestion. This new section is in another article, but I will link to it imminently. Sincerely,Ferrylodge 01:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll add my two cents to it in the near future. C56C 18:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A politician's American Conservative Union rating is a widely-recognized metric of how conservative their voting record is. Stating the rating directly is better than citing the Washington Times' commentary on the rating. Also, to answer C56C's question above, "So the paper is wrong when it said the abortion decision "should be up to the woman"? Quesiton: If its the states choice then how can it be a woman's?"--It seems to me that Thompson thinks a woman should legally be able to choose a first-term abortion, but he also believes that abortion laws should be made by the states, not the federal government. (See Federalism.) If Thompson were a state senator, he'd presumably vote to keep first-term abortions legal, but he doesn't think the Supreme Court should have taken that decision away from the states. Eseymour 21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If a state decides to outlaw it then it is no longer woman's choice. You can't have it both says. That is the contradiction. C56C 18:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7
  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference GlobeJuly4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fred_Thompson/Archive_3&oldid=1251935534"