Talk:Fred Thompson/Archive 5

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Religion

User:Threeafterthree deleted the sentence noting that if elected Thompson would be the third Campbellite president in USA history, commenting "rm per wp:not#ball". I think he means this, but if that's his objection I don't think it's appropriate. (Bear in mind that as written the policy is about what articles should exist on WP, not about what facts should be mentioned within articles. The principle must be adapted if it's to apply at all to this discussion.)

That his religious group has already provided two presidents, and he would make the third, is a verifiable fact, not speculation. The only speculation is whether he will be elected, and by its nature the article already has a lot of that; he's a leading candidate, after all.

As for notability, which hasn't been raised yet but I'm sure will be, I think it is notable that a small and rather obscure religious group might provide three presidents. I think it's also notable that Mitt Romney, if elected, would be the first Mormon president, and that if Giuliani, Richardson, Brownback, Dodd, Biden or Kucinich were elected they'd be only the second Roman Catholic president ever; I think it's remarkable that RC is (I think) the biggest religion in the USA, and dozens of RCs have been serious candidates over the past century, and yet only one has been elected so far. I think this belongs on all of their articles, though only as a short sentence, not as a whole section or article.

PS: It's even more remarkable that the Campbellites could have already provided three presidents, and now have stood a chance of a fourth, if they'd managed to hold on to Ronald Reagan. But that's a really obscure footnote-to-a-footnote, and doesn't really belong on WP. It's more of a Trivial Pursuit question. (Anyone up for proposing WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not Trivial Pursuit? :-) )

Zsero 20:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Zsero. This article has lots of info about what Thompson would do if he becomes president, and that is not speculation either. The Crystal Ball guideline says: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis." The material deleted here is not crystal ball stuff.Ferrylodge 20:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it's notable. I having difficulty phrasing my objection exactly, so bear with me. Most of the presidents have been from the mainstream Protestant Christianity. Catholics and Mormons are notable as candidates because they are outside of this mainstream. (Yes, I know you mentioned that Catholicism if the largest single group, but IIRC, the sum of all the Protestant groups is much larger.) Campellites would only be notable if their beliefs were also "out of the mainstream." - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 20:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'm going to reinsert the material into the footnotes, instead of into the text.Ferrylodge 20:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I had thought of that, and my first instinct when I saw Threeafterthree's edit was to do so; but then the bit about LBJ looked funny - it really belongs either in parens, which you object to, or in a footnote to the footnote! Zsero 21:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The church of Christ is not a Protestant religion. This is why many are pointing out its difference. The Protestant churches come out of the movements led primarily by Luther and Calvin, and then the domino affect thereafter. The churches of Christ hold that they are the only church (one continual church since the day of Pentecost--although there was a period of Restoration) and that salvation is only possible through one means. This is very different than most other religions. Yes, there are others, and that is where the distinction for religions such as the church of Christ, the Mormon church, Catholics, etc., comes in. Unlike most Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, and other faiths that believe for the most part that more than more religion can be saved. As for the term "Campbellite," it is not appropriate. Campbell was involved in the Restoration, but he was not alone. Members of the church of Christ, the Christian church, and the disciples of Christ, do not use the term. It would be similar to using the old terms Papist or Romanist to refer to a Catholic.Todd Gallagher 05:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Umm ... Baptists and Lutherans do not believe that anyone can be saved apart from saving faith in Christ. We don't believe you have to be in a particular denomination, if that's what you mean. Are you saying that the Church of Christ teaches that you have to be in their denomination to be saved or that you have to be a Christian to be saved? Nearly all Christian denominations believe the latter ... only a few believe the former. In any event, I don't think this has anything to do with Fred Thompson. --B 05:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am saying. However, the churches of Christ refuse to be labeled a denomination as well. A denomination is a division, and the Bible explicitly forbids division in the church. Therefore, any denomination would be a sin. As for your statement, "Nearly all Christian denominations believe the latter ... only a few believe the former," that is true. That is exactly why I listed several faiths such as the church of Christ, Catholic church, and Mormon church. There are others, but as you noted, most religion believe in faith only and that you do not have to be a member of a specific church to be saved. However, certain religions believe that faith alone does not save; rather, faith through works as written in James, and thus a person must obey the word of God to be saved. A key teaching of the church of Christ, as taken from the New Testament, is that faith is demonstrated through obedience to the word of God. As is used as an example in the Bible, even the devils believe in God, but are they saved? The church of Christ (as well as certain other religions) uses this as an example of how works (obedience to the word of God) are necessary for salvation, not just faith alone.

As for the application of this to Thompson, it is important because this is his religion. We were discussing the difference between several terms used for his religion and how one key belief of the church of Christ is that there is only one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. Therefore, the generalization that the church of Christ is a part, or denomination, of a larger religion (in this case, the terms were "Campbellite" and "Protestant") would be contrary to basic teaching within the church. Todd Gallagher 06:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, I remove the stuff about "If he becomes President, he would be...." again. You want it in the footnotes? I guess I could I live with that. Again, you could fill a library with fluff about what would happen IF he became Prsident. The guy isn't even a candidate..YET. Why not just stick to facts of TODAY and not include stuff about IF?? Fair enough? Thanks, --Tom 15:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

New article on presidential campaign

I've started a new article: Fred Thompson presidential campaign, 2008.Ferrylodge 00:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Image

One of the Thompson images was recently removed, but was subsequently restored. The comment at removal was, "removed a picture that served only to emphasize how tall he is and show him making a funny face." Even though it's been restored, here are a few brief comments about this photo.

Many featured articles about people have head-to-toe standing photos, including the featured articles about Barack Obama and Harry Truman. There's nothing wrong with full-length standing photos. Here, the image is one of only three Thompson images in the article from 2007, and the only one of those three that includes formal attire. For details about Wikipedia image policy, see here. Although this image is long, it is not wide, and therefore does not overwhelm the article text.Ferrylodge 15:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Image at Top of Article

The image at the top of the article (the "old picture") is from the 1990s:

I suggest replacing it with this one instead from July of 2007:

However, B indicated that she (?) doesn't think the image immediately above (the "Dallas picture") is encyclopedic, and instead B suggests the following image (i.e. the "Indianapolis picture") instead:

I think we can all agree that the old picture is not very flattering, and looks a bit morose, and in any event ought to be replaced with a newer image from this millennium, if possible. The articles for other candidates have nice smiling pictures in formal attire, as in Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. Therefore, I don't see anything at all unencyclopedic about the Dallas picture. As for the Indianapolis picture, there are several reasons why it should not be preferred to the Dallas picture: (1) it is already used lower in the article, (2) the head is very small in relation to the total size of the picture --- unlike the top pictures of all other candidates, and (3) there is no smile as in the top pictures of all the other candidates. It is true that Thompson is not looking directly into the camera, in the Dallas picture, but that should not be a requirement. See the photos of Obama, Dean and Warner here.Ferrylodge 06:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo #2 is hideously bad in terms of the blur, angle, background, facial expression. #1 and #3 aren't spectacular, but they are acceptable. What would be nice is a high quality version of his official senate photo ... but barring that, #1 or #3 would do. Another possibility ... and I don't know how to go about asking for it, but he was the head of the USCC from 2004-2006 ... they have a photo at [1]. Maybe we could get a higher res version from them?--B 06:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

B, I have already requested the exact photo that you point to, but without success. I would urge you to please reconsider picture #2. There is far more detail in #2 than in #3. #3 is plainly far blurrier. As for facial expressions, a smile cannot be inappropriate for Thompson, and yet be appropriate for every single one of the other candidates, right? #1 and #3 don't have smiles. And regarding the background, look at all of the various backgrounds that have been deemed acceptable for Democratic candidates. I hope you will please take another look at #2.Ferrylodge 07:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Having a background isn't bad. On the other hand, having some random guy with the same color jacket as the subject is bad. As for other candidates, for everyone who is/was in congress or otherwise has an official government photo, we use that photo. Where no such photo is available, we use what we have. #2 is the type of thing that we would use only if it is all we have available. As for the facial expression, I don't know that I would call it a smile. A smile would be fine ... but this expression looks ... strange. --B 07:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

B, it's a beautiful smile. The man is glowing.Ferrylodge 07:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Gee, Ferry, sure hope your judgment about POV/NPOV editing overall isn't clouded by your opinion of his smile! Tvoz |talk 18:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry, my judgment is completely unclouded. Just like Mr. Spock.Ferrylodge 18:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there's nothing wrong with the smile. Of the three, I think the smiling picture is the best; it would be better if Random Guy could be photoshopped out, but it's not as if he could possibly be mistaken for the subject of the picture. -- Zsero 15:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I would vote 1 or A. Smile aside, the second (B) isn't very flattering. The Third (C) looks like he is saying "Moooooo", not a good picture at all. I agree that the first picture is not the best possible picture, but it is the most encyclopedic of the bunch. IMHO. Arzel 15:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What about (a cropped version of) either one of these: [2], [3]? --Ali'i 15:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The top picture in the article is supposed to be formal (with necktie). So, I guess we'll stick with the status quo for now.Ferrylodge 15:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, I just wanted to offer some other free (as in speech) alternatives. They might still be useful down the road, however (in a Thompson campaign article, for instance). Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Iran should be taken seriously"

Maybe this should be changed to "Iran should be considered a serious threat", since "taking Iran seriously" could also mean "entering into some serious discussions with Iran" which, judging from the referenced article, isn't what Thompson has in mind. -- 212.63.43.180 16:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Too Many Images?

Anyone else think that this article contains too many images of Thompson? --ukexpat 12:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I just removed a picture of him portraying "Arthur Branch" on the show "Law & Order." There's no indication that the photo was released by NBC for promotional use, so its use in this article was questionable. Now there are 10 photos of Thompson in this article, which seems okay. For example, the article on Hillary Rodham Clinton has 11 photos of her.Ferrylodge 13:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the Image:Trailer1.JPG pic should be removed. There is no need for another fair use image on this article (there already is one: Newsweek cover). It doesn't significantly improve the article, nor is it needed to help explain or specify something that cannot be provided as text. (Perhaps next to Last Best Chance in the filmography section, just note that he played the President. No need for this decorative fair use image.) In fact, I think I've just talked myself into removing it. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that image from Last Best Chance is of poor quality compared to the other images. I have no objection to removing it.Ferrylodge 14:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And don't get me wrong... I have no problem with an article being overrun with images... as long as they are free. Would that we had such a quandary. But I saw that you had uploaded it, and didn't want to unnecessarily step on your toes. :-) Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Global warming skeptic

Does Thompson belong in this category. Does he promote skepticism? TIA. --Tom 17:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

He is skeptical that global warming is caused by man. He has said nothing AFAIK about the existence or magnitude of global warming. Sbowers3 18:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that sourcable? Does he "promote" that therory? It seems that is the standard for inclusion in that category? Anyways, --Tom 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

See [4] for a transcript of his radio commentary about "Pluto warming". It is more a commentary than a statement of position. He does not promote any particular theory. (In particular, he does not mention Abdusamatov by name so I have always been "skeptical" about including Abdusamatov's name in the article.) BTW, I did not see a Wiki category named "Global warming skeptic". Did I miss it or does it have a different name? Sbowers3 18:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fred Thompson

Hey amigo(to Ferrylodge), please knock of the POV editing and stick to the facts. The facts are what they are and there's no need to protect or sugar coat them. Unless you've got something positive to add, leave facts alone and keep you POV to yourself. rosspz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosspz (talk • contribs) 21:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

We can discuss your POV pushing at the article talk page.Ferrylodge 21:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and make your case, amigo. This fact will be in all the press in the next few days, as well as in depth articles about the persistent rumor that Thompson fathered a child by another man's wife in the 1980s. She allegedly was a Republican county official in eastern Tenn. You're hiding your head in the sand and avoiding clear, relevant facts. But make your case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosspz (talk • contribs) 21:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC) rosspz

Pre-marital sex

Rosspz wants to emphasize that Thomspon had pre-marital sex with his future first wife. I reverted here. The paragraph in question initially said, "In September 1959, at the age of 17, Thompson married Sarah Elizabeth Lindsey. Their son Frederick Dalton 'Tony' Thompson Jr. was born in April 1960." Anyone can do the math and see that they got married after she was pregnant, which was a very upstanding thing to do in those circumstances.

Rosspz would like to change it to read like this: "In September 1959, at the age of 17, Thompson married Sarah Elizabeth Lindsey after she became pregnant. Sarah's father, the mayor of the couple's hometown of Lawrence, was against the marriage, but finally consented. A son, Frederick Dalton "Tony" Thompson Jr., was born to the couple in April 1960, seven months after the wedding" (emphasis added). This seems to me like clear overkill and POV-pushing.

At my talk page, Rosspz wrote: "Hey amigo, please knock of the POV editing and stick to the facts. The facts are what they are and there's no need to protect or sugar coat them. Unless you've got something positive to add, leave facts alone and keep you POV to yourself." There's quite a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, there.

Rosspz added: "Go ahead and make your case, amigo. This fact will be in all the press in the next few days, as well as in depth articles about the persistent rumor that Thompson fathered a child by another man's wife in the 1980s. She allegedly was a Republican county official in eastern Tenn. You're hiding your head in the sand and avoiding clear, relevant facts. But make your case." Actually, Rosspz, it's your reposnibility to make the case for inclusion of this material. Consensus is required. ThanksFerrylodge 22:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, amigo, it seems elementary in an biography of a candidate for president of a party that espouses to a large extent socially conservative values that the marital history of a prominent candidate, as featured in leading newspapers like the LA Times, should be noted. You're trying to hide an obvious fact and cover it with some kind of judgmental value (having premarital sex, getting pregnant, keeping the baby and getting married and staying married for 25 years is bad). Not many would agree with you. You're hiding behind consensus as if it means "we can only say things that are good and reflect well on people." Most people would say Thompson did the right and honorable thing by doing what he did in 1960. Why try to avoid it and act as if it's a defamatory thing. You're really looking at this backwards and standing in the way of truth, comprehensiveness and objectivity. I'm not sure what your agenda is, but it's not full and fair disclosure of the relevant facts, which is what I thought Wikipedia was all about. Get you head out of the sand and start seeing what this is all about.

Now it's your turn to put your case for not including these relevant facts. Have at it, amigo. rosspz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.116.131 (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Rosspz, maybe there should be more detail about this and maybe there shouldn't be. I certainly think Thompson did a very honorable thing, assuming the LA Times story is correct. However, the way you presented this material was POV. It was already clear from the dates that they got married after she was pregnant. But then you pile on, reiterating that they got married "after she was pregnant" and having a child "seven months after the wedding." That's a double redundancy, without adding anything informative. And your POV comes across even more clearly (if that's possible) in the comment you left at my talk page, emphasizing "the persistent rumor that Thompson fathered a child by another man's wife in the 1980s. She allegedly was a Republican county official in eastern Tenn." This article is the wrong place for POV, whether it's pro- or anti-Thompson.Ferrylodge 22:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a pathetic, non-response to a fact acknowledged by everyone. It you think "seven months after the wedding" shouldn't be in, then take it out, but you don't even address the other information I added. You think you trying to help Thompson, but you're not and you shouldn't even be trying to do that on Wikipedia. You just don't seem to understand this process. What you call "consensus" really means "whatever I, Ferrylodge, think is right." Your marginalizaing this article, and that's sad. rosspz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.116.131 (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Before that most recent comment of yours, I edited the article to include more info about the circumstances of his first marriage, in a non-POV way.Ferrylodge 22:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Fair enough. Thanks. rosspz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.116.131 (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed "expecting" to "pregnant" - I think we should avoid euphemisms that may or may not be understood by non-Americans. Pregnancy is the wikilink - that word is presumably understandable. Otherwise this subject is handled in a neutral way and is sourced - it's fine now. As for rumors, we're going to be careful that anything that goes in is well-sourced from really reliable sources, not partisan blogs and the like - we do have BLP policy, regardless of his status as a public figure. Tvoz |talk 06:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back to the version that existed at the time you posted this. It'd been changed to read that she told him she was pregnant in September 1959, which isn't what the article even said. Marieblasdell 17:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, does anyone else here think that it's ludicrous that an encyclopedia article written in 2007 should feel that it's so darned important that everyone realize, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that a man's wife was pregnant when he married her? Marieblasdell 17:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Marie, we do run the risk of being ludicrous here. On the other hand, we don't want people like rosspz to think we're covering anything up. I do not think it's helpful for you to repeatedly delete the footnoted LA Time article. Maybe the text of this Wikipedia article should be changed, but why keep deleting the footnoted LA Times article? The LA Times article says: "In the summer of 1959….Lindsey told Thompson she was pregnant. He responded, friends say, by asking her to marry him…. Freddie and Sarah exchanged vows in a Methodist church during the second week of his senior year. Seven months later, in April 1960, 17-year-old Thompson had a son." Does this seem ludicrous? If so, we can rephrase it, ~~but let's at least keep the LA Times article linked in the footnotes, okay?~~Ferrylodge 17:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the media doing with this? Is the media making a big deal out of it or is it just something that people are amusing themselves with on blogs? Ronald Reagan's daughter Patti Davis was born 7 months after he and Nancy were married and his article doesn't see the need to point that out. I'm not inclined to think there is a need to here, either. I can't imagine that any mainstream media source really cares that Thompson and his wife slept together 50 years ago before being married. I'm sure I'm in a tiny minority of people here that is a Bible-believing Christian and believes such behavior is wrong, but on a personal level for me and on a corporate level for Wikipedia, it is not our place to judge Thompson. I can see no reason to include this other than for the sake of making a moral judgment - as the fact that two people had sex 50 years ago is hardly a notable detail. --B 17:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, B. I've edited to move the detailed LA Times quote to a footnote. Anyone can read the text, and do the math, if they are so inclined.Ferrylodge 17:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point, though - he was 17 years old when he married - that is unusual, and should be explained. I'm not making any moral judgments at all - not that it was "immoral" to do it or that it was "honorable" to get married. The fact is that it is notable that he married at 17, and the reason is well-sourced - the LA Times article is mainstream media, the blog post only confirmed one detail, and we don't necessarily need it. Readers can draw whichever conclusion, or neither, about the morality here. That's not our job. But as a footnote is ok with me for now - unless other reliably sourced information comes out about his past that might make this point more article-text worthy. Tvoz |talk 18:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That may be unusual today. It was not unusual in the past. My grandmother was married at 16 and my grandfather was 24. Today, they would probably put him in jail, but it wasn't that big of a deal at the time. --B 18:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

For a girl, maybe so, but for a 17 year old boy I'm not so sure. In 1960 NY, it would have been very unusual - in Tennessee, I can't say. Tvoz |talk 18:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Shifting image to the right

An image was recently shifted from left to right, in this edit. The edit summary was, "moved pic to right per MOS suggestion for keeping level 2 headers flush left." This doesn't seem correct.

The MOS says: "When using multiple images in the same article, they can be staggered right-and-left." The MOS further says: "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings." This image that was shifted from left to right was not directly below a heading. And, moving it to the right disrupted the staggering. Am I missing something here?Ferrylodge 06:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK - I may have my levels wrong (it's 3AM, too late for me to recall what's level 2 and what's not) but the reason I shifted the pic right is that the header "2008 Presidential Election campaign" was not coming in flush left when the pic above it was on the left - it made the section appear to be a subsection (despite its larger font) even though it's not. So I think that having the section heads prominently viewable on the left trumps having the pics staggered. Lots of articles have unstaggered or semi-staggered pictures - I didn't think it worth the effort to realign the others - I think it's ok this way. But I don't have strong feelings about it - all of this stuff about staggering pics etc in MOS are guidelines that can be ignored if there are other more compelling reasons to do something else anyway. (As you say, "they can be staggered".) I do think, though, that main headers - whatever level they are - ought to be prominently flush left. Tvoz |talk 07:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha - this was the version I was working with when I moved the pic to the right - as you can see, that header was kind of obscured. But now that there's more text in the previous section the subsequent 2008 Pres campaign header is flush left even with the pic on the left, because there's enough text to carry it. So that's fine with me. (I hope that was more comprehensible than I fear it might be. Good night.) Tvoz |talk 07:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. And why are some dates and years in this article wikilinked, while some aren't?Ferrylodge 07:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The simple answer, probably, is that different editors have different opinions about wikilinking dates, so there are variations based on who entered the material. My own opinion is that I think wikilinking dates is usually stupid (no offense to those who love it), unless there's some context. So for example, if I'm editing an article about a musician or a band, I'll wikilink the year a record of theirs is released with a pipe like, say, [[2002 in music|2002]] - same for films - because it's relevant to Sgt Pepper to know what else went on in music in 1967 when it was released. I rarely deliberately wikilink month/day - I guess it's mildly interesting to see who else has the same birthday, but other than that I see no point to wikilinking the date someone announced for the presidency to that month/day - who cares what else happened on that day in history? I'm not fanatic about it, so I don't always remove wikilinks to dates when I'm editing a paragraph for some other reason, but I'd be inclined to if I noticed it. I really don't see the value at all. Your mileage may vary. Tvoz |talk 07:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. At some point maybe I'll look up the style guidelines if I get a chance. I don't like wikilinking dates either.Ferrylodge 13:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I rarely deliberately wikilink month/day - I guess it's mildly interesting to see who else has the same birthday, but other than that I see no point to wikilinking the date

No, that's completely wrong. The reason why day and month should always be wikilinked has nothing to do with looking them up; it's so that the date can be formatted according to the user's preference. Whenever you have a full date, day month and year, or just a day and month, wikilink it no matter how insignificant the date is. When you have just a month and year, or just a year, only wikilink if it's significant. -- Zsero 16:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

But the fact is the wikilink takes the person to that date, and most readers don't have preferences indicated, they are just here reading an article. Could you point me to some place that says this has become a requirement? The link you provided just says what it is, not that we have to follow it. Thank you. Tvoz |talk 18:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually linked up Zsero's comment. More info is in the Manual of Style. --Ali'i 18:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Where it says that the inclusion of this in MOS as policy is in dispute, I believe. My point still is that regardless of whether the date got formatted by the brackets, when you click on the wikilink that is showing on the page, you;re brought to a page that talks about the significance of the date in history - so if you go to 2008 campaign and click on March 11, when Thompson appeared on Fox News and which is wikilinked, you find out that King Thutmose III died that day in 1425 BC. I am saying that this piece of information is not needed, overkill, and pointless, and there are way too many dates to make wholesale wikilinking them valuable. So, I would not wikilink that date, despite the fact that some people's preference for date style might therefore not be followed. Tvoz |talk 20:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

2008

I don't mind the subheads that Ferry put back so much as I think we need to pare the prelude/testing the waters/exploratory sections down in this article significantly and/or move them to what we're saying is the "main article" about the campaign. Now that he's in, presumably there will be more to talk about than how he got to this point, and this main bio should focus on broader strokes, I think, than the level of detail we have on the run-up to the campaign. Following a lead from other major presidential candidates, this is too much here and not enough in the other article. Tvoz |talk 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that as we move away from the prelude, that stuff can be pared down more and more.Ferrylodge 20:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Freddie Dalton Thompson

"Fred Dalton Thompson (born August 19, 1942 as Freddie Dalton Thompson[1])"

'As' suggests that he has changed his name. I don't think the evidence is in that he has changed his name. Maybe someone can find something to suggest otherwise.

--RobbieFal 19:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? That his legal name is still Freddie? -- Zsero 20:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

His legal name might be Freddie, but i'm not sure. --RobbieFal 21:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the source - we can't know what legal steps he did or didn't take, and it doesn't matter - what matters is that he was born Freddie and in 1967 started calling himself Fred. We say that in the early life sec (I think that's where it is) and we have the LA Times areticle and the blog post about the article as sources (the blog has some info the article didn't mention), so I think we're ok. If someone finds other source material, great. Tvoz |talk 05:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you post the source that shows what his birth name was? TIA --Tom 04:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The LA Times article clearly says that his name was Freddie at birth and marriage. The blog has an image of the marriage certificate; that seems a RS in this case, unless you think it likely that it's a forgery. -- Zsero 04:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The LA Times article that discusses his birthname is: Matthews, Joe (6 September, 2007). "Thompson wed his ambition". Los Angeles Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help). This piece makes the point about changing his name in 1967: Malcolm, Andrew (6 September, 2007). "Shocking truth about Fred Thompson revealed!". Los Angeles Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help). And I just found another one from a tennessee paper that I'm formatting and will add: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/sep/07/fred-freddie-8212-hes-still-fd-thompson/. Tvoz |talk 05:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Top Picture, Again

Jc37 recently edited the picture at the top of the article. Why? Jc37's edit replaced a very recent, high-quality image with an old low-quality image. This 71 KB image was taken this month:

but was replaced with this 17 KB photo taken many years ago:

How come?Ferrylodge 18:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not sure exactly how old the low-quality image is, but it's at least five years old. See here at archive.org from September 6, 2002.Ferrylodge 18:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I merely restored the image that was removed today (and which is apparently used in other articles which refer to the person) apparently without any reason except that it's "newer". And since this appears to have been the subject of some discussion, reverting a bold change to m:The Wrong Version doesn't seem wholly inappropriate. In any case, I welcome further discussion on this from interested parties. - jc37 18:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"m:The Wrong Verion" implies that there was an edit war and article protection regarding this issue. That is incorrect. The recent image that you removed has not been objected to since it was inserted on 7 September. Quite the contrary, it was selected to address objections to a previously proposed image. Are you objecting to this most recent image, Jc37?

As I said, the recent image is much more recent, by at least five years. Additionally, as I also said, the recent image is of a much higher quality (i.e. 71 vs. 17 KB). Please let me know if you are objecting to the more recent image, and if so why. Thanks.Ferrylodge 18:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that the recent image (recently taken) is an improvement to the article. I can't think of any reason why the old and grainy image was restored. Is there any reason? Turtlescrubber 18:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Only problem I could see is whether it is preferable to use a Public image (the old one) over a cc-by-sa Creative Commons licensed image (the new one). I don't see any difference, and the new photo is definitely much better. Italia^vivi 19:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

CC-by-sa is fine for our licensing requirements. We don't really have any preference. If anything, CC-BY-SA is better for promoting free content because of the viral nature of it. If you create a derivative work of a PD work, you can impose your own restrictions on it, which hurts free content ... whereas if you make a derivative work of something CC or GFDL, you have to use that license, allowing others to expand on it. But as far as Wikipedia is concerned, either is fine. --B 20:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming

Should his views on global warming, an obviously important issue of the day, be presented?

See this website: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/7/12747/26118

His comments thus far are quite noteworthy, and without doubt he will be questioned on then as the campaign progresses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.254.144 (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

His position on global warming is already summarized in the section on his political positions, and further detail is provided at Political positions of Fred Thompson. Thompson has left himself some wiggle room to acknowledge that it's a very serious human-caused problem, although that has not been his position so far.Ferrylodge 02:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Children by second marriage

The couple has two children. We know which children these are because the article says so. We don't need to distinguish between the different children by describing some of them as "small". --Tom 06:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but what's your objection? What do you think "small" implies that's inaccurate or POV? -- Zsero 07:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Its sort of like my penis size or my kids. Some people might say they are "small" but I would beg to differ that that is their point of view. --Tom 07:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Gross edit warring: Six reverts today by User:Ferrylodge.

Enough is enough.

Ferrylodge, "this is how it has been since 2004" does not entitle you to making ~~six~~ seven reverts to your preferred version in a single day. Please cease your edit war over this, and return to Talk discussion (as you so often recommend in your edit summaries). Italia^vivi 18:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said at my talk page, I have no intention of reverting you again at Fred Thompson, and I intend to heed your warning. You previously received at least three separate warnings from administrators on August 22, for your conduct regarding the Fred Thompson article. Now you and Tvoz are edit-warring here. Despite objection from me an Zsero, you two are insisting on changing the first three words of this article that have been unchanged since 2004. You refuse to seek consensus first.

Both LessHeard vanU and Tango warned you here, and ElinorD warned you here. Thank you for your warning about 3RR, but I urge you to correct your own behavior, and stop edit-warring. Seek consensus at the talk page before changing the first three words of this article, which have remained the same since 2004. As I said, I have no intention of reverting you again at Fred Thompson, and intend to heed your warning. I hope you will heed my warning too. And I will respond to your long list of diffs soon.Ferrylodge 18:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks, please discuss changes here instead of constantly reverted. Note that it does not have to be exactly three reverts, or complete reverts for blocking. Let someone know when a consensus is reached. No blocks this time, but if the disruption starts again, it will have to be prevented. Regards, Navou ^banter 18:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC) I forgot to mention that I've protected the page. Navou ^banter 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If there is no consensus for a change, then it should remain at the status quo ante. And that is exactly what Ferrylodge is doing; restoring that status quo ante, while we discuss whether to change it. It's strange to accuse him of edit warring, rather than those who insist on imposing a change. Ultimately this will get resolved - we will find out the fact, one way or the other, and the article will reflect it. In the meantime let's keep our tempers. -- Zsero 18:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

One of these is my fault. I added a free promo photo from Flickr with a note that it was ok to revert. I don't recall the time but it was in the past day and didn't see what happened in the other cases. -Susanlesch 18:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, Susan. Tvoz |talk 18:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Zsero, he's accused of edit warring because he (alone) reverted to his preferred text seven times in the last day rather than leaving the initial change and coming here to talk about it. This is not a question of removing vandalism which could justify multiple reverts - the wording that now stands, which I and several other editors have put in the lead sentence, is completely supported by WP:MOSBIO and numerous very similar articles, such as John Edwards, etc., and no cogent argument has been raised about why it should instead be Ferrylodge's wording, other than the murky question about a legal change, which we have no answer for. The appropriate action, in a case like this, then, is to go with the Manual of Style and the precedents set in many other articles, rather than going with the incorrect previous wording (since 2004 not having his correct name, probably innocently so) or with the unsupported preference of one editor. We all agree that "Freddie" has to be in there (ignoring the time Ferrylodge removed it last night in favor of the 2004 wording), and we're talking about the Manual of Style. I'd like to hear any arguments about why this article should use the "born as" construction, rather than the far more common construction we're now using. One other point again - I hope we will leave the personalities of the various editors who have opinions on this out of this discussion - whatever disputes that have happened elsewhere on different topics I hope will not color this discussion, all around. Tvoz |talk 19:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Everyone brace yourself. The Mail's just printed an article with lots of details about Thompson's personal life, including details of the divorce settlement etc. If that is picked up in other RSes, we had better decide what to do about the Personal Life section. Hornplease 17:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease, is there anything notable and interesting in that article that is not already covered in this Wikipedia article? I did notice anything, but I only glanced over it briefly.Ferrylodge 18:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read it, and there is absolutely nothing that is both new and notable. In fact the only thing that jumped out at me was his Oscar Lindsey's barely credible claim that he never knew his sister was pregnant when she married Thompson until he read it recently; I wonder what he thought when their baby was born two months premature but at full weight, so to speak. I suppose he might have been innocent or just a bit slow, and only now realised what was staring him in the face for years. In any case, there's nothing else in the piece that's of any interest. No bracing of any sort required. -- Zsero 18:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not quite; first, the information that his first wife filed for divorce citing "cruel and inhuman treatment"; secondly the pregnancy thing is confirmed, including, as you mention, a direct quote from Oscar Lindsey. Seeing as two days ago I see people saying on this page "What is the media doing with this? Is the media making a big deal out of it or is it just something that people are amusing themselves with on blogs?", I think that question is answered. In any case, the article is protected for now, so I suppose the immediate fallout is minimised.

Incidentally, when I googled Fred Thompson yesterday, this article was no. 2 after fred08.com. Today it's the first result. I suspect this is a byproduct of all the edit-warring....Hornplease 05:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Cruel and inhuman treatment" is standard boilerplate in divorce filings. It means absolutely nothing. And the fact that she was pregnant when they got married is obvious to anyone who does the arithmetic; the months of the marriage and of their first son's birth have been in the article for some time now. There's no need to harp on it, but this is not some shocking revelation, and if her brother claims that he didn't realise it until now then he's either lying, an idiot, or just very innocent and naive. The rest of the piece had nothing of interest; unlike the Daily Mail, WP is not a gossip sheet. -- Zsero 06:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Mail is a little more than a gossip sheet, actually. It certainly is used as a reference in living people articles on WP, unlike the genuine tabloids. (Also, it is usually pretty conservative in orientation.) That being said, the "seven months after" thing is, of course, in the article. Not the point. The point is that this article at least answers the question of whether the pregnancy is being made a big deal out of by the media. "Cruel and inhuman" is not precisely boilerplate, incidentally[5]; it raises the bar quite a bit, which is why I suspect the later filing was toned down. As far as I know, less than 5% of divorce filings cite it. Hornplease 06:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 91 in the article already fully covers the 7-month business: "In the summer of 1959….Lindsey told Thompson she was pregnant. He responded, friends say, by asking her to marry him…. Freddie and Sarah exchanged vows in a Methodist church during the second week of his senior year. Seven months later, in April 1960, 17-year-old Thompson had a son." As far as the details of his divorce in 1985, I haven't seen anything particularly notable in the Daily Mail article.Ferrylodge 07:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

About the divorce, the Mail broke the story first, so it is unlikely to be notable enough unless it is generally picked up by other profiles. About the 'seven month' thing, I think it is a little weaselly, frankly. Hornplease 07:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for immediate edit

This article has been appropriately edit-protected. However, the wrong version has been protected. So, this is a request for an administrator to undo the final edit that preceded page protection. In other words, the first three words of this article should be restored to "Fred Dalton Thompson" as they have been since 2004, pending a consensus that they should be changed. There is currently no consensus to change them. I and Zsero are against the change (see discussion above), whereas Tvoz and Italiavivi are for it.

There is a legitimate discussion about what wp:mosbio requires in a situation like this, and that discussion needs to continue before the 3-year-old status quo is changed. The first paragraph of the article should be restored for the time being, and should begin with "Fred Dalton Thompson." Thanks.Ferrylodge 18:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You are attempting to solicit sysops to continue your edit war on your behalf. Italia^vivi 19:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't revert the final edit before protection unless it contains false information. This is because that revert just lengthens the edit war and drags previously uninvolved admins into it. See m:The Wrong Version for a humorous essay that attempts to justify this further. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. However, the protected version does contain false information. It starts as follows: Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson. There is no document on the face of the Earth that writes the man's name like this. It has never been written this way anywhere by anyone. The editor who wrote it has not cited any instance in human history where it has been written this way. It is false.Ferrylodge 19:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake, please read other articles in the encyclopedia, Ferrylodge. No one is making the claim that anyone writes his name like this. This is merely Wikipedia style, as Crockspot outlines below. Most likely no one renders Judith Giuliani as Judi Ann "Judith" Stish Giuliani or Bill Richardson as William Blaine "Bill" Richardson III except for us either, or the countless other examples thoughout the project. Tvoz |talk 19:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, Richardson is often referred to in this way. See here. And, the Wikipedia article about Judith Giuliani is wrong; she was born Judith, not Judi.Ferrylodge 19:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Using a Google search as evidence will get you into hot water, Ferrylodge. Many of the hits just pick up the Wikipedia wording - that's circular and proves nothing. Once again, we are not claiming that anyone writes the name like this - we're talking about how Wikipedia style presents names in bios. (Oh, and last time I was editing Ms Stish Nathan Giuliani, good sources were provided saying her birth name is Judi Ann, not Judith. I haven't looked in there lately so can't say what it says now.)Tvoz |talk 00:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Protecting the wrong version" is indeed a WP in-joke, but the fact is that the practise of protecting the "current" version invariably leads to gamesmanship, where someone reverts to their preferred version and immediately calls an admin to protect it. This practise also encourages edit-warring, since everybody wants to increase the chance that their preferred version will be the "current" one when it gets frozen. Any exercise of restraint in edit-warring is thus "punished", and editors get the message that next time they should be quicker to revert.

Be that as it may, in this particular case there is a strong argument for why you should freeze Ferrylodge's last version rather than Tvoz's. There is no substantive dispute here; eventually we will find out the true fact, and then we'll all agree which language to use. The dispute is over what language to use in the meantime, while we don't know the facts. And the general rule on WP is that until there is consensus for a change, the status quo ante should be preserved. -- Zsero 19:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The argument here should focus on what language will be used when the protection comes off, not whether the protected version should be changed. That is one of the points of protection. Let's get productive here. - Crockspot 19:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read the two reliable sources cited, and it appears that Freddie is or was his legal name. MOS calls for article titles to use the most common name, and to start the article with his legal name. That appears to be the case. I don't see why there is even an argument here. If his legal name were Freddie The Cat Killer Dalton Thompson, then maybe we could argue about it, but this seems pretty straight up to me, and I am hoping to see this man in the White House. I don't see any downside to his reputation. It's a non-issue to me. - Crockspot 19:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Is or was" is precisely the question. As I've explained several times above, we all agree that if Freddie is his current name, then the currently-frozen version is correct. (And I'd still like to restore the link to the marriage certificate, unless in the meantime we come up with something even better.) But we don't know that Freddie is still his name. The LAT article is - I think deliberately - vague about whether Fred is now his real name, or just a nickname. I think we all agree that if he has changed his name to Fred, no matter how he made that change, then the previous version ("Fred...born as Freddie") is correct. And we don't know what the fact is; all Ferrylodge and I are saying is that until we find out the status quo ante should be preserved. -- Zsero 19:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if he "changed" his name, legally or otherwise, you need to mention his birth name in the lead. Ferrylodge would have no mention of his birth name which makes ZERO sense it seems. Also, I love the part about the wrong version being protected. Thats priceless :) --Tom 20:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Crockspot - I believe your reading of MOSBIO coincides with the way I've edited the lede. And I would point out to Zsero that the other source that I added to the LA Times piece early on, when I removed the marriage certificate because it is unauthenticated (but I think it's back in - haven't checked the latest version) is a Knoxville Tennessee News Sentinel article that quotes Thompson's son, who confirms that not only is his father's name Freddie (without saying if it ever was changed legally) but that his name is Freddie Jr and his own son is Freddie III. So you don't have to worry about whether the LA Times is "deliberately" being vague (this sounds like editing with a POV, by the way) - presumably his son knows his father's name, his name and his own son's name. Tvoz |talk 19:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the LA Times was very specific. I also assume that if they are going to be that specific, they fact checked it. I should also refactor that the lead name is not necessarily verbatim a legal name, but is usually an all-inclusive combination of legal and common names. We can discuss it further, but when the protection comes off, I think further edit warring would call for a block. - Crockspot 19:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would (further warring). Navou ^banter 19:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just came in to concur with Crockspot's assessment as an another administrator opinion. The current lead seems to be well sourced and falls under the guidelines of the manual of style. And I also agree with Crockspot's statement that "further edit warring" will result in blocks. Metros 19:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am open to some fine tuning of the lead name. But it should be discussed and agreed upon while it is protected. Personally, it seems fine as it is. - Crockspot 20:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Italia^vivi 20:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too. --Tom 20:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems fine, and consistent with policy, as it is now. Tvoz |talk 00:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead should have an all-inclusive combination of proper name and commonly known names. The question is what is his proper name now? The article currently says "Freddie" is his proper name, but he virtually stopped using that name 40 years ago. That name may sound funny at the beginning of this article, but it is not accurate. If you want proof that his second marriage certificate says "Fred" and that his driver's license says "Fred" and that his passport says "Fred", in order to correct this error, then we'll just have to wait until that info is available. At that time, we can restore the first three words of the article to what they have been since 2004, and begin the article like this: "Fred Dalton Thompson (born August 19 1942 as Freddie Dalton Thompson)". Until then, it will be wrong, which is not a huge deal, but is nevertheless unfortunate.Ferrylodge 20:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Or we may have to wait and see what Chief Justice Roberts says if and when he swears Thompson in.Ferrylodge 21:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to keep our biases in check, ok? It's not wrong - it's Wikipedia style. And I object to your characterization just above: That name may sound funny at the beginning of this article, but it is not accurate. . What are you talking about, Ferrylodge? Has anyone said or even implied that he or she wants to include "Freddie" because it sounds funny? I am beginning to wonder how to take your editing - are you insisting on its being put in an incorrect placement because you want the candidate to sound serious? I hope you're not letting your politics interfere with your reading of Wikipedia policy. Tvoz |talk 00:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, the LA Times reported that 40 years ago "Thompson stopped using the name Freddie in his professional dealings and became Fred." Yet for some reason you have insisted that "Freddie" should be the very first word in this article, thus implying (per wp:mosbio) that "Freddie" is his proper name. I do not know what your motives are. But I think any objective person would have to agree that a name "Freddie Dalton Fred Thompson" is a very funny-sounding name. My only goal here is to comply with wp:mosbio. Instead, you refused to develop consensus before changing this article. You simply joined Italiavivi in steamrolling Zsero and myself, instead of engaging in talk.Ferrylodge 00:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Steamrolling? Not engaging in Talk? Gee, I could swear that most of my commentary on this has been here, on Talk - with only 2 reverts to the article first sentence throughout this - and one of them was done when you removed all reference to "Freddie" in the first sentence in clear violation of the spirit of the discussions and MOS, reinstating just Fred Dalton Thompson, no mention of Freddie even as birthname. As compared to your 7 reverts. So come off it, please - read contribution histories and Italiavivi's user talk page if you want to get an idea of how well he and I get along, but it just so happens that sometimes we agree on substance and unlike some, I'm not going to fight with him when he's right just because I've fought with him when he was wrong. We're not in junior high school here - at least I'm not. I've asked a few times here that we keep personalities out of this and deal with the facts. As for my interactions with Zsero, I don't see them as steamrolling either - I responded to Zsero's points, just as I responded to anyone else's. If you find the strength of my argument too hard to resist, well, that was the idea. But the fact is you asked for outside help by putting the request for a change in protection above - and I didn't object to your doing that - and the result was that it was explained to you why the current version is protected and Crockspot and Metros both said that the current version "seems fine", is "well-sourced" and "falls under the guidelines of the manual of style". That is all I have been saying all along, and I appreciate that concurrence from these two uninvolved individuals. I also think this has started to get kind of pointy, Ferrylodge - this is an extremely unimportant matter and the text is correct, and consistent with wiki style, as it stands. Exactly like John Edwards, et al. Can we agree to move on so that protection can be lifted and we can get back to improving the article? Tvoz |talk 00:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No reply, Ferrylodge? You make accusations, I respond, and you ignore it. This has happened repeatedly on this page. Ok, fine. Tvoz |talk 03:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought I would let you have the last word in this section. We are, after all, having an ongoing discussion in the next section.Ferrylodge 03:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

His name: what do we agree on?

Do we agree that his birth name is Freddie? If we do not agree then the discussion should first resolve that point. If we are agreed then it is just a question of style.

I am satisfied that his birth name was Freddie. The citation that provides his son's name as Freddie Jr. and his grandson's name as Freddie III is particularly convincing. Does anyone disagree that his birth name was Freddie?

Assuming that his birth name is Freddie the article has been wrong for three years because it did not have his birth name. So the argument that it has been that way since 2004 is irrelevant, because it has been wrong since 2004.

Now suppose that three years ago we knew that Freddie, not Fred, was his birth name. How would the lede have been written? Would it have been displayed for the last three years as Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson or as Fred Dalton Thompson (born Freddie Dalton Thompson)? On the basis of Jimmy Carter and John Edwards I would go with the former but there are many bios that do it the other way.

Does it matter whether he legally changed his name? From the discussion I don't think so. He de facto if not de jure changed his name to Fred and that is the name he uses and people know him by. Most of the article should use Fred. Does anyone think it makes a difference whether he legally changed his name?

As a "Friend of Fred" I don't care whether it is Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson or Fred Dalton Thompson (born Freddie Dalton Thompson). I don't think it will make the slightest difference to his campaign. As a Wikipedia editor I care that we use appropriate style. It is very clear that his birth name should be in the first sentence of the lede. It is not clear to me which style is more appropriate or that there is a clear preference from all the other bios. Sbowers3 00:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as Wikipedia editors, we should use appropriate style. There is no argument about his birth name: it was Freddie. The only issue is whether the article should start with Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson or instead Fred Dalton Thompson (born Freddie Dalton Thompson). The latter, by the way, would leave the first three words of the article unchanged from what they have been since 2004.

Sbowers3, I urge you to consult wp:mosbio. That is the pertinent Manual of Style here. According to wp:mosbio, the resolution of this question depends upon whether Thompson changed his name. The evidence is not 100% clear at this point, and that is why the wise course seemed to be to leave the first three words of the article as they have been, while adding a parenthetical. Incidentally, that's how wp:mosbio handles Bill Clinton's name (Clinton changed his last name rather than his first name but wp:mosbio does not make a distinction based on last name or first name).Ferrylodge 00:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's use common sense. If he self-identifies as Fred, let's use Fred in the first instance. MOSBIO be damned. -- Y not? 00:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Y, I think consistency combined with MOS should be the determinant - see John Edwards, Bill Richardson and lots of other similar articles. That's wiki style for better or worse and I don't see why Fred Thompson gets different treatment from Ji9hn Edwards. And Ferrylodge, there is a world of difference betwen changing one's first name an changing one's surname. Tvoz |talk 00:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Reid? Oh my Lord! -- Y not? 00:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, where does wp:mosbio say that there's a style difference in changing one's first name versus surname? And I think Y has this right, though I wouldn't mind a parenthetical (a la Bill Clinton) saying "(born Freddie Dalton Thompson)".Ferrylodge 01:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Parenthetical is right and proper. Agree on a form and I will implement. -- Y not? 01:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I read wp:mosbio - I also read a version from June in case there had been any recent changes. The John Edwards and Bill Clinton examples both appear to be relevant and would support either form. Sbowers3 01:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Suppose that his birth name had been Frederick, and he went be Freddie as a youngster, then by Fred as an adult. In that hypothetical case what would the lede say? My guess is that it would say Frederick Dalton "Fred" Thompson. If that is true for Frederick it should also be true for Freddie. Sbowers3 01:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, suppose his birth name had been Frederick, and he went by Freddie as a youngster, then he completely changed his name to Fred so that there was no official trace left of Frederick or Freddie. Then we would do just what we did for Bill Clinton: Frederick would only be mentioned afterward in parentheses.

If you look at Thompson's Official Congressional Biography, there is no Freddie. Likewise, if you look at his official archives at the University of Tennessee, there is no Freddie. So, this is just like the Bill Clinton situation. To the extent that there is any doubt, we ought to leave the first three words of our article as they have been since 2004, until the doubt is resolved, IMHO.Ferrylodge 01:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Take my case. I have a long first name, which I use on all legal documents. But I have had a nickname since before I was born. Everybody who knows me uses my nickname; most don't have any idea what my legal first name is. I introduce myself by my nickname. I have credit cards and utility bills with my nickname. Do a Google of my nickname and you'll find a few entries. Do a Google of my longname I think there is nothing. By mosbio would I be Longname "Nickname" Smith or would I be Nickname Smith (born as Longname Smith)? Sbowers3 01:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice to meet you, Sigismund Bowers. -- Y not? 02:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Aw! How'd you guess? Sbowers3 08:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Y, I'm surprised at your edit to the pagein the midst of this discussion - that's not consensus here, it's incomplete, and it is premature to change it to that. Navou protected the page so that we could avoid further edit warring until we reached some kind of agreement, and no one who has been editing the page, nor the two uninvolved people who came over to comment, took the position that "Freddie" should be expunged from the first line - the discussion was about how to include his birth name. In fact the references right there (1 and 2) talk specifically about his birth name as Freddie. Further, it says later on in the article that he shortened his name from Freddie to Fred, but now it doesn't say that his name had been Freddie - the context is gone. I object to this wording - and since when is the subject's preference taken into account in naming and lede? Tvoz |talk 02:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The name in the lede right now is as it has been for years, and it makes some sense to preserve that, pending consensus. Tvoz, would you please answer something. Suppose that 40 years ago Thompson had gone into court and had a judge officially change his name from Freddie to Fred, while leaving the rest of his name as is. Would that affect how you think his name should appear in the lede?Ferrylodge 02:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if his legal name is Fred, then I'd probably go for "Fred Dalton Thompson (born [date] as Freddie Dalton Thompson)". Let me ask you one back. Are you going to go over to Talk: John Edwards and make as passionate an argument there for his name to be John Edwards (born [date] as Johnny Reid Edwards)"? or is it just your boy's image that you're concerned with? Tvoz |talk 03:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, you seem to require a "legal" change of name for men like Fred Thompson, before you are willing to reformat their names. But men (like women) can sometimes change their names without a formal legal process. wp:mosbio says: "In some cases, subjects have changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well...." There is no requirement there that the name change be legally accomplished by filing court papers. I don't understand why you would require Thompson to have done so.

In answer to your question, no, I won't make an argument at John Edwards about how his name is presented, although I may well make that argument at wp:mosbio where his name is also presented. According to the Charlotte Observer, Edwards "changed his name, although not legally. In law school, he started referring to himself as John. He believed that sounded better for his new career." Edwards changed his name, and so it should be treated just like Bill Clinton. This also happens to coincide with the BLP principles mentioned by Y.Ferrylodge 03:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I have just started a discussion at wp:mosbio about John Edwards. See here.Ferrylodge 03:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Fred dalton Thompson is the only acceptable full name. He doesn't use the dimunitive in any way. Meither does John Edwards. Keep them as they are known. --DHeyward 08:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What is this guys name??

We can't even get his name straight?? What does his birth certificate say he was born as? Did he ever legally change his name or not? Might be a good starting point. Thanks, --Tom 04:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, there's similar ambiguity with regard to Hillary Clinton, and I don't think we should make more of a fuss about Thompson's name than is made about her name in the Hillary Clinton article. She went by "Hillary Diane Rodham" long after she got married. Bill Clinton's advisors thought her separate name was one of the reasons for his 1980 gubernatorial re-election loss. The following winter, Vernon Jordan suggested to her that she start using Clinton as her name. She began doing so publicly with Bill's February 1982 campaign announcement. Who the heck knows what her "legal name" is.Ferrylodge 04:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't get me involved with Hillary's article, I am begging you :) Seriously, that should have zero impact on this discussion, especially since you are taking maden name, yadda, yadda, yadda. Again, why not just stick to the sourcable facts and leave it at that? --Tom 04:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Completely and utterly different, Ferry. If there's anything to compare to, look at Johnny Reid "John" Edwards, which is a similar Southern-boy name, updated at manhood. No big deal. (Indeed, maybe our lead sentence should be Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson, following that model.) But Hillary is less relevant: her birth name is Hillary Diane Rodham, which she has every right to continue to use for life, whether or not she's married. I can't say for Arkansas, but in New York a woman is not required to change her name at marriage, nor does she have to do anything to "keep" her name - all that they want is that you be consistent - in other words, don't use one name for one bank account and another name for another. But it is a social convention that you can take on your husband's name - she didn't have to do anything in order to do that, just had to start using it. And by the way, millions of women use their birth name professionally and their husband's last name socially, simultaneously. This is not controversial. Thompson';s name change isn't particularly controversial either - and we are barely noting it. We say he was born Freddie Dalton Thompson and we reference it (I personally think the LA Times article is sufficient, and we don't need the marriage certificate, but it doesn't matter one way or the other) and then in 1967 he dropped the "Freddie" and was called "Fred". We're not making any claim about what his "legal" name is, and why would it matter anyway? We're just stating his birth name and when he assumed the shorter version. And Three, glad you don't want to get involved in Hillary's article - we have enough to contend with there :) Tvoz |talk 05:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, I realize that it requires a bit of extra typing, but would you please refer to me as Ferrylodge? Or FL? Thank you.Ferrylodge 05:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no offense intended, and "fairy" (as per your edit summary) never even entered my mind. I was just being informal. Tvoz |talk 05:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm Ferrylodge, he's Fred Dalton Thompson, and she's Hillary Rodham Clinton. So simple!Ferrylodge 05:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

NOthing is simple, I'm afraid. Tvoz |talk 05:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

OK- I removed the marriage certificate because I couldn't get to any post that talked about it - just found the pdf file itself - so I think its verifiability could be questioned, and it's not really needed anyway because I also found a second source to back up the LA Times article, which is mentioned above: the Knoxville News Sentinel talks to Thompson's son Tony (whose birth name is Freddie Dalton Thompson Jr, btw, not "Frederick" - that's been corrected too) and he confirms his father's birth name. I think this is all more than enough citation for this non-controversial tiny point. Tvoz |talk 05:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I tweeked the name per wp:mosbio but if that is the case, we would need a new page name? The "born as" mention dose not seem appropriate unless he had a legal name change it seems --Tom 05:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No we don't need a new page name. wp:mosbio says "In some cases, subjects have changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well:(from Bill Clinton): William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946)."Ferrylodge 05:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[ec]

First, no - we would not need a new page name, because naming conventions are that you go by the most commonly used name, and Fred Thompson is correct for the title of the page. Second, to Ferrylodge: the appropriate comparison, again, is to John Edwards, not Hillary Clinton. Hillary went from her birthname to her married name, like millions and millions of women - and often not at the time of marriage, but sometime later, like when they have children. It is just not relevant to Fred. John Edwards, though, is also a good-old boy (no offense to any Southerners reading) whose parents named him Johnny, but he later adopted the more mature "John". His page first sentence is constructed as Tom did - and I tend to agree with him that this one should be too. Tvoz |talk 06:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And Bill CLinton is yet another situation, a different last name - not relevant here. Look at John Edwards. Tvoz |talk 06:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe wp:mosbio needs to clarify about those people that change their names legally vs otherwise. As is pointed out, Clinton's named changed legally I believe. --Tom 06:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I reread mosbio, and its pretty clear about this point. Unless Thompson legally changed his name, his legal name should be used. I did tweek mosbio to add legally. --Tom 06:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Tom, first of all, would you please refrain from changing Thompson's name as it has been stated for years in the first sentence of this article, until we reach some sort of consensus about what wp:mosbio requires? There is no need for an edit war about this.Ferrylodge 06:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Second, please point out and quote the part of wp:mosbio that you are referring to.Ferrylodge 06:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

<outdent> Ferrylodge, mosbio seems pretty clear on this, so please leave the name as is until consensus here is reached. Also please see "Care must be taken to avoid implying that a person who does not generally use all their forenames or who uses a familiar form has actually changed their name legally." I did add the word "legally" for full disclosure :) Cheers! --Tom 06:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Tom, you have just edited wp:mosbio so that it says what you want it to say. And then you come here and quote yourself.

The issue here is whether Fred Thompson has changed his name, not whether he has changed his name "legally." If a person changes his or her name, that person should not be required to file court papers before Wikipedia will recognize the name change.Ferrylodge 06:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the issue is what do reliable sources say. Do you have reliable sources that say Thompson has changed his name legally or otherwise? If you would like to revert, I will not revert it again, even though I feel this is a BLP issue. Anyways, --Tom 06:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have revert to "your" version but would like others to weigh in. Thanks --Tom 06:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether he changed his name. "Legally" doesn't really mean much - a person's name is what he goes by, and if he decides to stop calling himself Freddie and start calling himself Fred, he doesn't need to file any paperwork to make it legal - he may want to do so so he's got proof for bankers and bureaucrats, but if he chooses not to it doesn't make the change any less valid. But did he really change his name, or did he just start using Fred as a nickname? The LAT article is vague on this - I suspect because the author wasn't sure either:

On the advice of the Lindseys, Thompson stopped using the name
Freddie in his professional dealings and became Fred. "I told him
one day," recalls Ed Lindsey, "that if you've got any ideas of
wanting to be in politics, I would highly recommend that you get
rid of this 'Freddie' business."

That's not a clear statement that he did change it, but it sort of implies it without quite getting there. That bit about how he stopped using it "in his professional dealings" implies that he kept using it socially, which would fit with Tom's version. But it's not a lot to go on. What I'd like to see is his second marriage certificate. I wonder whether that's available online anywhere. -- Zsero 07:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zsero, thanks for the imput. IMHO even what his 2nd marriage certificate says means nothing, just like his first one. What matters is his legal birth name, which according to wp:mosbio should be pointed out in the lead, which it currently is not. --Tom 07:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC) ps what is the difference between Thompson's article naming convention and John Edwards? TIA

Tom has raised a good point, and I don't have any objection to discussing it further, because it's still not 100% clear how this article should start off. Tvoz was correct that the closest thing to Thompson's name situation is John Edwards. According to the LA Times, "Thompson stopped using the name Freddie in his professional dealings and became Fred." Likewise, according to the Charlotte Observer, Edwards "changed his name, although not legally. In law school, he started referring to himself as John. He believed that sounded better for his new career." So, it may well be that Wikipedia should treat Edwards and Thompson the same vis a vis their names. However, I'm not sure Wikipedia currently treats Edwards correctly. wp:mosbio says: "Care must be taken to avoid implying that a person who does not generally use all their forenames or who uses a familiar form has actually changed their name." But according to the Charlotte Observer, Edwards did change his name.

Given the continuing uncertainty on this issue, I would support continuing to say at the start of this article that his name is "Fred Dalton Thompson" but if his second marriage certificate comes to light (as Zsero mentioned) or his passport or driver's license, and it says Freddie instead of Fred, then maybe we could change how this article starts out.Ferrylodge 08:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Leaving "Freddie" off is completely unjustified - how we put it in perhaps is subject to discussion, but the fact that it was wrong since 2004 doesn't mean we should continue having it wrong now that new information in the form of two reliably sourced citations that you removed has come along. The man's birth name is Freddie, he shortened it in 1967 to Fred for sound professional reasons. We don't know or care if it was a legal change. There is no scandal here, it's not even mildly controversial. But this is an encyclopedia article and it needs to be accurate. The way we have John Edwards' name rendered is the way it should be done here - it is virtually the same situation - we (the editors of Edwards) went a few rounds and settled on the way it is now rendered and there it has remained. That would be, as it has been on and off tonight, Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson. I do not understand what the discussion is about actually - this is pretty straightforward. No one wants to change the name of the article and we should not change the name as it is rendered above the picture/infobox - Fred Thompson is how he is best known, hence the article title. Fred Dalton Thompson is as close to his "official" name as we know - regardless of whether he went through any formalities to shorten it - so that's what goes on the infobox. WHat is the issue? How about looking at other articles that have more in common with this one - say Rudy Giuliani, for instance. Or John Edwards as I've said 100 times. Or even Ron Paul. Try Judith Giuliani too. I don't get it- what's the problem, Ferrylodge? Do you think it makes him sound silly to say his name is Freddie? It's his birth name and it may be his legal name and it's the name he gave his son and it's the name his son gave his son - accept it and let's move on. I don't see any consensus for removing Freddie and I'm putting it back, with the citations. Tvoz |talk 09:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And here's something curious: on June 14 his name mysteriously became Frederick - by an anon who made only that one edit, with the edit summary "formal name". None of us questioned it, and it stayed as Frederick, with an occasional "Fred" inserted in quotes, until now when his real name of Freddie has emerged, but this time with citations. It's his name, and that's what we're going to go with in boldface in the first sentence - there are so many precedents throughout the encyclopedia that it's silly to even discuss this. Try Bill Richardson. Al Gore. Mitt Romney. Admittedly it's less common for the birth name to be the one that sounds less formal - like Johnny Reid and Freddie - but that's the way it is, and we're not going to twist this article around so that this candidate sounds more mature. It's ridiculous. Tvoz |talk 09:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are other examples of birth name not matching the commonly-known name. There is convincing evidence that Freddie is his birth name. The citation for Freddie Jr. and Freddie III is especially convincing as to his birth name. The birth name should be in the first sentence of the lede. It would be acceptable to say "Fred Dalton Thompson (born Freddie Dalton Thompson)" ala Bill Clinton, but Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson ala John Edwards is shorter and simpler. I gather there is no disagreement that Fred rather than Freddie is what should be used throughout the rest of the article. Sbowers3 11:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Carter is a great example, Clinton is not because he was adopted or had a step dad or whatever the case, I don't know, nor do I care. By saying "born as" in the lead, it implies that his name has "changed" legally or otherwise and wp:mosbio is clear in spirit that this should not be done in order to avoid the implication that his name has "changed". If Thompson signs legal documents or really did "change" his name, then I guess I can live with that. Just because somebody decides to use a shorter version of their birth name does that mean that they have "changed" their name? I say no. There are probably alot of other bios that do the same thing we haven't used as examples yet. At the VERY minimum his legal birth name needs to be in the lead sentence, preferably as it is done in Edwards bio. --Tom 12:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thompson's birth name (like his birth date and birth place) is a minor bit of significant information; if we have a reliable source for it, it should be somewhere in the article. Once. Other "by name" references should be by last name only, or by common name, which is "Fred Thompson". The LA Times article makes it clear that Thompson does still use both names (although he shows a preferences for "Fred" in his public life that should be respected) and it's the type of information that isn't going to go away; now that it's out in the world, references to Thompson. And since a Google search for "freddie thompson" (with the quotes) just brought me a paid link the Fred08 website, it looks like his campaing isn't exactly disavowing his birth name either. Studerby 12:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever if the article says "Fred Dalton Thompson (born Freddie Dalton Thompson)" ala Bill Clinton. That seems to be how it's done when a person changes his name. That is also how Tvoz previously urged that it be done here. So I could please do without the outrage and indignation, Tvoz, when I have merely advocated doing what you yourself previously advocated.

Part of the situation here is that Threeafterthree decided to amend the Manual of Style a few hours ago in order to enhance his argument about this trivial issue. That made this discussion more difficult than it should have been. But now the Manual of Style is back to how it was, so let's try to follow it please. The only issue is whether Thompson changed his name to Fred, as discussed by the Manual of Style:

“

In some cases, subjects have changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well:

(from Bill Clinton): William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946) …

”

or instead has he adopted Fred as a "pseudonym", as discussed by the Manual of Style:

“

For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym:

Louis Bert Lindley, Jr. (June 29, 1929 – December 8, 1983), better known by the stage name Slim Pickens… Alternatively, the legal name can appear in apposition to the pseudonym:

Boris Karloff (November 23, 1887 – February 2, 1969), born William Henry Pratt, was an actor best known for his roles in horror films. He was initially billed as "Karloff" and sometimes as "Karloff the Uncanny". It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. Care must be taken to avoid implying that a person who does not generally use all their forenames or who uses a familiar form has actually changed their name. Therefore: "Johnny Reid "John" Edwards (born June 10, 1953) …" is preferable to saying that John Edwards was born with the name Johnny Reid Edwards.

”

So, the issue is whether Fred is his name, or is it instead a pseudonym. This is not a huge issue, but I don't see why we can't try to get it right, and why people cannot refrain from jamming their preferred version into the article before consensus is reached. The LA Times says, "Thompson stopped using the name Freddie in his professional dealings and became Fred." That certainly does not seem to prove that "Fred" is a pseudonym. Does anyone have any other proof that "Fred" is merely a pseudonym? Until there is consensus about that, why is it appropriate to change the first three words of this article which have stood unchanged since 2004? Why can't we just write "Fred Dalton Thompson (born Freddie Dalton Thompson)"?Ferrylodge 16:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, please don't misrepresent what I said - my edit which you quoted did not at all "urge" anything - it provided a better reference for Freddie as his name, and did not address how the first few words should be phrased. And when I took a closer look at other similar articles - John Edwards being the salient one, not Bill Clinton who changed his last name which would presumably require some kind of legal involvement - I realized that the format was not quite right based on the information available to us. My previous edit here was to remove the completely incorrect "Frederick" and I was not focusing on how "Freddie" should be incorporated. In looking at it further, I agreed with the people who had rendered it in the same way as John Edwards, or Bill Richardson, which is Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson . You keep referring to how this page was since 2004, but the problem is that it was wrong information since 2004 - presumably innocently done - and now we have correct information, so the change needs to be made in the first sentence. It's a matter of encyclopedia style, and you have no more reason to think he legally changed his name than not, or at least you haven't presented any such evidence - so the correct phrasing at present is not to imply that he did legally change his name until we know that is the case, with verifiable sources. Phrasing it the way I and others did - Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson - does not imply anything other than he was born Freddie and is known as Fred. Saying "born as Freddie.." suggests that he made a legal change. So if you have such evidence, please provide it. Otherwise, please stop changing this back to the way you like it. I don't see consensus for your change here, and I'm not even sure that consensus is what we're looking for - MOS is more relevant, as are other similar articles. Neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton are at all relevant to this discussion, so can we focus on the articles that actually are relevant instead? Tvoz |talk 17:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What is this obsession with a "legal" change? A person can change his name without filing any sort of papers; he might find it difficult to convince bankers and bureaucrats, who like to have a piece of paper to look at, but we are neither. If he did change his name, the article should reflect that change, by saying "Fred...(born Freddie)"; OTOH if he didn't change it, but merely adopted "Fred" as a nickname, then 'Freddie "Fred"' is correct. I don't know which is true, and the LAT article seems deliberately ambiguous on the point, but let's not get distracted by red herrings like the term "legal". -- Zsero 17:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Zsero, please cease characterizing those who disagree with you (and most seem to disagree with you here) as "obsessed." It is not WP:CIVIL. Italia^vivi 17:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There you go again. I haven't called anyone obsessed. I have called this harping on and on over the distinction between the different ways of changing a name an obsession, because that's exactly what it appears to be. If you can't tell the difference between calling something an obsession and calling a person obsessed, then that's your problem, not mine. -- Zsero 18:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, I am not ruling out that this article should end up being changed in exactly the way that you are now urging. However, I am not persuaded as of now, because I do not agree that you are correctly reading wp:mosbio.

You say that putting the words “Freddie Dalton ‘Fred’ Thompson” at the beginning does not imply anything other than he was born Freddie and is known as Fred. That is incorrect. It implies that he did not change his name from Freddie to Fred, and implies that Fred is merely a pseudonym. (Incidentally, I might add that it is also a weird and confusing way to begin the article, but I can accept that if it turns out that Fred is merely a pseudonym.)

You also say that "born as Freddie" suggests that he made a legal change. Not so. wp:mosbio says that “In some cases, subjects have changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well…” There is nothing in the sentence I have just quoted that refers to changing the name “legally”. Even if the name is changed without filing formal court papers, still the birth name should be given as well.Ferrylodge 17:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Placing "born as" implies a legal name change, and we have no evidence that he legally changed his name. Italia^vivi 17:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It implies no such thing. A change of name is just as valid whether it was effected through a legal process (i.e. a deed poll) or not. -- Zsero 18:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, even if a person changes his name without filing legal papers, wp:mosbio explicitly requires that "the birth name should be given as well".Ferrylodge 17:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Italiavivi's reading is correct here. Tvoz |talk 18:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I restored the marriage certificate. It provides powerful visual evidence that whatever his name may be now, when he was 17 it was Freddie. Blogs aren't generally considered RS for bare statements of facts, because who knows who wrote it or how that person knows it to be true. But this is an image of the original certificate; unless someone seriously suspects it to be forged, it's reliable, and it should be linked.

PS: We're spending far too much time and energy on this ultimate trivium. -- Zsero 17:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

His name isn't "ultimate trivium" -- and Wikipedia has a serious responsibility to get things right. This discussion is not preventing you from editing other parts of the article. Italia^vivi 17:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

His name isn't trivial, but the fact that he used to have another name is. In any case, everybody here agrees that both names should be listed; we're arguing about what style to use, and that is about as trivial as anything can possibly get. -- Zsero 18:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

So let's follow WP:MOSBIO then. Tvoz |talk 18:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

We are following MOS, the question is what is the correct style to apply here, which depends on whether Fred is now his real name, or just a nickname that he uses. And that question remains unresolved. If we find good evidence that he never changed his name, then we will all agree to the 'Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson' style. And I hope that if we find good evidence that he did change his name (regardless of how he made that change), then we'll all agree on the 'Fred...(born Freddie)' style. The only dispute is over what language should be in the article until the question is resolved, and it seems clear to me that until it's resolved the status quo ante should prevail. Until a few days ago none of us had any idea that he'd ever been called anything but Fred; we still don't know that Fred isn't his real name now; so we shouldn't change the status quo ante without consensus. -- Zsero 18:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason I removed the marriage certificate, by the way, even though it supports the position I'm taking that "Freddie" has to be here, is that it's posted as a pdf on that blog without any context - there's no authentication possible, and it is in effect a first-party source which is not considered acceptable here. I dthink we'd be better off not using that particular rendition unless we can find some wya to authenticate it - I couldn't find the accompanying text which might do that, however - if you see it, please add it. This way I think it's a problematic source. Tvoz |talk 18:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any reason to suspect that the image is forged? It's not a first-party source - that would be if one of us made it up. It purports to be a picture of the actual certificate, and we have no reason to suspect otherwise. Sure, it might be a forgery, but why should we suspect that? And without any evidence against it, it is a valuable addition to the encyclopaedia, which is what we're supposed to be building here. Remember that? We're not here to comply with an arbitrary set of instructions, we're here to build an encyclopaedia, and documentary evidence such as this contributes to that goal even if we can't be 100% sure that it's genuine. In the extremely unlikely event that it proves not to be, we can always take it out then. -- Zsero 18:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No need to remind me that we're building an encyclopedia, thanks, and you'll notice I did not remove it a second time. Tvoz |talk 19:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you did. -- Zsero 19:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

See below. Tvoz |talk 04:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am merely expressing the concern that I expect others may voice, that this is an unauthenticated piece of evidence that shouldn't be here unless we can authenticate it. Again, having the certificate in the article supports my position about his name - but nonetheless I think that people looking for problems in this article may flag it as a questionable primary source, so I raised the point. And all I asked you to do was to see if you can find any text that accompanied its posting on the blog - since you are the one who provided it - which might spell out how it was obtained and give authentication. I didn't make this stuff up, Zsero - see WP:PSTS. Tvoz |talk 19:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of making it up, but I think you misunderstand what is a primary source. The blog is only a primary source if it forged the certificate; otherwise it's a secondary source. It purports not to have forged it, and it seems very unlikely to have done so, so unless we find out otherwise we should keep it. Oh, and I wasn't the one who originally provided it; the first edit to introduce "Freddie" was from this blog post, which was then replaced by the LAT article; the only thing the blog had that the LAT didn't was the image of the certificate. The LAT article refers to the certificate but doesn't provide an image of it, so I re-added the image from original blog. -- Zsero 19:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for my error, Zsero - I didn't see your responses from yesterday about the marriage cert until just now - and you are right, I looked back and see that I did remove the cert again, but it actually wasn't deliberate: I was focused on reverting what Ferrylodge's edit summary said s/he changed - the first three words of the article - and I never saw that more was involved in the edit, namely the marriage certificate. Actually my intention was only to change the lead words - which is why I said somewhere here that I thought the certificate was still in. I think it is questionable because we can't authenticate it - we have nothing that says where and how it was obtained or that it is legitimate, so I think we're better off not including it even though in fact it supports the position I've taken regarding including his birth name in the lead. So if Ferrylodge had said in the edit summ that s/he was reinstating the marriage cert along with reinstating the first 3 words, I would have selectively reverted - but I should have looked myself. In any case - when the page opens you can decide if you want to put it back in, but I am on record as questioning whether it should be there without authentication. ABout primary sources: I wasn't saying the blog is a primary source, I was saying that the certificate is a primary source. And if it's real, it's may be a good one - but all I asked for was some text from wherever it was found that says something about its authenticity - where it came from. I doubt it's a forgery, but on its own as a pdf without any context I think it's a problem. Anyone could have created it - it proves nothing. If it was obtained from some official Tennessee government source, or from a family member perhaps, then great. But now we just don't know. Nonetheless, I only intentionally removed it that first time when I said I was removing it. The other time was inadvertent. Tvoz |talk 04:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Zsero, "legality" was brought in because WP:MOSBIO says ""It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. Care must be taken to avoid implying that a person who does not generally use all their forenames or who uses a familiar form has actually changed their name. Therefore: "Johnny Reid "John" Edwards (born June 10, 1953) …" is preferable to saying that John Edwards was born with the name Johnny Reid Edwards." (Italics added). My argument is not really based on whether he legally changed his name or not - we do not have that information. So I am saying we should follow MOS and not imply it - and use the Edwards construction. I've provided numerous examples of articles which use the Edwards construction - they are everywhere in the encyclopedia - and I've not seen too many with the "born as" construction except for when we're talking about a clear pseudonym or a surname change like Bill Clinton or Bob Dylan. (I also don't like the word "pseudonym" in the context of either Edwards or Thompson - I think their uses of John and Fred are just a matter of maturation, years ago, and are totally not controversial. It's a cultural thing - Tommy Thompson was also named thusly, but he chose to keep it that way. No big deal all around.)

And Ferrylodge, at least one of your edits last night (here) completely removed Freddie - that's what I was reply to in my comment above that begins "Absolutely not.". I think I am reading WP:MOSBIO quite correctly, as I just said to Zsero, which says the care that must be taken is in implying an actual name change. It does not speak to whether care should be taken in implying that a pseudonym is being used. You find that construction "weird and confusing", but it is literally everywhere in the encyclopedia and specifically in the articles on presidential candidates and related people, as I've listed over and over, so it's just not viewed as weird or confusing by others, and I'm changing it back, to follow MOS. You are well over 3RR, by the way, on this, so how about leaving the change stand as it follows policy - and let's see if others come in. Tvoz |talk 18:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you prefer edit-warring to consensus-seeking. I don't intend to revert your most recent edit, but I would point out that it is inappropriate to insist on jamming your own POV into this article.Ferrylodge 18:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You are the one who has made seven reverts to your preferred version today, Ferry. You have no place chiding anyone on consensus-building. Italia^vivi 18:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

~~OK, Ferrylodge, you did revert Italiavivi's last edit - the current one is mine, and I did it so that we be consistent with MOS and the information now in hand.~~ [struck out my misreading of the above] Ferrylodge - Two edits (by me) is not edit warring. Discussing it here on talk is not edit warring. Reverting it 7 times is edit warring. Also, I haven't noticed or made any POV edits on this subject - this has been a discussion about MOS biography style and naming conventions. I've asked, but gotten no response to why having the encyclopedia standard bothers you - as Sbowers pointed out above, it is "shorter and simpler" and it is clear. "Born as", I think, introduces an implication that we should not be making. Can we please keep this conversation to that, and not discuss the various personalities who have weighed in here? And please show me where I'm "jamming my own POV" into this article, or don't make such accusations. Tvoz |talk 18:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I edited the article twice. Edit warring? Italia^vivi 18:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, have you ever in your life seen the man's name written "Freddie Dalton 'Fred' Thompson"? Moreover, wp:mosbio says, "In some cases, subjects have changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well: (from Bill Clinton): William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946)." Why would this case not be like Clinton's? Because Clinton's name change was somehow "legal"? wp:mosbio does not make any distinction (in the portion I have quoted) between legal and other name changes. I think the first three words of this protected article are currently wrong, confusing, and they sound weird. Obviously, they should not have been inserted without consensus.Ferrylodge 19:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen it written that way. In the two reliable secondary sources that are cited. If you can find a reliable secondary source that says he legally changed his name, then cite it. This is like Ricky Schroeder becoming Rick Schroeder. What is the big deal? - Crockspot 19:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The article on Ricky Schroeder says: "Richard Bartlett "Ricky" Schroder," which is nothing like how you say this article should read. And, no, neither of the two reliable sources you mention wrote "Freddie Dalton Fred", which sounds and looks silly and confusing. This was not a big deal in my mind, but it became one based on the lousy procedure being followed (e.g. editing the Manual of Style to support arguments at this talk page, plus altering stable stuff in this article without consensus).Ferrylodge 20:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I was driving more at the "who really cares?" factor than any specific wording example, but have you ever heard Ricky Schroeder called Richard Bartlett Schroeder anywhere? I think you just proved my point. The wording and title of Ricky Schroeder is exactly the same as this article. It is titled by the name that we all know and love them by, and the lead is an all-inclusive combination of their proper legal name, and commonly known names. - Crockspot 20:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

His name - new section

We have two styles:

Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson
Fred Dalton Thompson (born Freddie Dalton Thompson)

Are there any objective criteria for choosing one over the other? WP:MOSBIO provides examples both ways:

William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III

(Perhaps this should be William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton, born William Jefferson Blythe III)

Louis Bert Lindley, Jr. better known by the stage name Slim Pickens
Boris Karloff born William Henry Pratt
Johnny Reid "John" Edwards

I'll add a few more:

James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, Jr.
Addison Mitchell "Mitch" McConnell
Charles Ellis "Chuck" Schumer

As far as I know, Jimmy Carter never legally changed his name from James but he did go to court to insist that his name be listed on ballots as Jimmy instead of James Earl. And as far as I know Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer have always gone by those names, not by their birth names. So it could be said that they changed their names de facto if not de jure.

So ignore for the moment the question of Fred's name. Consider the other names above. Are there objective criteria for choosing when to list the name one way and when to list it the other way? Sbowers3 09:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If consistency and precedent have any meaning in this encyclopedia, you should note there are many dozens more that fall into the Charles Ellis "Chuck" Schumer category - they are literally everywhere in the encyclopedia, because that is what WP:MOSBIO has clearly suggested. So to change this because someone is uncomfortable with the name "Freddie" is to me absurd and POV. Tvoz |talk 19:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOSBIO doesn't explicitly say so, but the "born as" style seems to be for instances where someone has legally changed their name. I believe that Bill Clinton legally changed his name, for instance. The guideline also says: "Care must be taken to avoid implying that a person who does not generally use all their forenames or who uses a familiar form has actually changed their name." Again, it doesn't say legally, but I think it is implied, and I think it's a good guideline to go by.

So, I think we should use "Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson" in the lead paragraph only, and then use "Fred Thompson" throughout the rest of the article. "Freddie" is apparently the only legal name we have a source for. If it turns out Thompson legally changed his name to "Fred," then we can switch to the "born as" style. Eseymour 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Tvoz |talk 19:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you use the same name on all of your legal documents for a period of some years (can't remember how many) then that name becomes defacto your name, as my mother has done. It can cause some problems when applying for a passport or traveling to other countries that only required a birth cirtificate (which also happened to my mother), because your BC has your given name, and your drivers licence, credit cards, and so on have the name you have been using. If he was Fred Thompson in his most previous election, then he should be listed as Fred Thompson. For one, it is most likely the name on his DL and it is clearly the name he is known as and goes by. Arzel 20:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the use of the most recent election is the best way to determine what someone's legal name is. The name on the ballot is dependent on the laws of the jurisdiction in which the election takes place. As an example, Texas allows the candidate determine the name they use (within reason, of course), so it's Tom DeLay, not Thomas DeLay.[6] However, Washington requires people to use their legal name, so "Michael Nelson" in 2004 [7] but "Michael Goodspaceguy Nelson" in 2006.[8] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please bear in mind we are not talking about renaming the article - that is and should remain "Fred Thompson" - we are talking only about the first line in the article, refering to this passage in WP:MOSBIO:

It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. Care must be taken to avoid implying that a person who does not generally use all their forenames or who uses a familiar form has actually changed their name. Therefore: "Johnny Reid "John" Edwards (born June 10, 1953) …" is preferable to saying that John Edwards was born with the name Johnny Reid Edwards. Tvoz |talk 21:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the Wikipedia:Style guide's recommendation of Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson... although where would the "Fred" go if you look at the idea that he sometimes goes by "Fred Dalton Thompson" (as on Law and Order, etc.)? Would it be Freddie "Fred" Dalton Thompson, or the aforementioned Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson? And of course, the title of this article should remain "Fred Thompson". Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should use his what is in the Congressional Bio. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=t000457 At this point it is clear that no one here knowns one way or the other which is his legal name. As I stated with my mother, if you use your stated name on legal documents that becomes your legal name. Her's was a similar situation in that her new legal name is a common nickname or parsing of the original name, and is on everything save her birth certificate. This may not be the case if you choose a name which is completely unrelated to your given name, I don't know about that. For Fred Thompson, the vast majority of evidence is that he uses Fred, and has for some time. Arzel 21:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Does Tennessee have any kind of elections website that would give his legal name? --B 21:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tennessee's elections website is http://www.state.tn.us/sos/election/index.htm. Unfortunately they only have record of elections back to 1998 (so after his last election) and my rummaging through the site hasn't turned up any reference to what name one would use on the ballot, legal or preferred name. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) After leaning toward Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson, I am changing over to Fred Dalton Thompson (born Freddie Dalton Thompson) for two reasons:

Other major references (e.g. the IMDB) will continue to list him as Fred Dalton Thompson. He is listed that way in the credits to his movies and TV roles. I think his official Senate biography listed him that way (although I've been unable to access that site).
The Jimmy Carter and Chuck Schumer examples do not quite fit because they never (AFAIK) used their middle names with their nicknames. I've never seen Jimmy Earl Carter or Chuck Ellis Schumer, but Fred Dalton Thompson appears almost everywhere. If it normally appeared Fred Thompson without the middle name then I would lean toward Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson ala James Earl "Jimmy" Carter and Charles Ellis "Chuck" Schumer but because it's normally Fred Dalton Thompson, I lean toward Fred Dalton Thompson (born Freddie Dalton Thompson. Sbowers3 05:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. His official financial disclosure forms from the Senate list him as Fred D. Thompson so that is an indication that his official name (whether or not legally changed) was Fred Dalton Thompson. Sbowers3 05:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

IMDB may not be the best example as the point of IMDB is to document the actor, not the encyclopedic person, so the name under which he filed at the Screen Actors Guild is appropriate for IMDB, but is not necessarily appropriate for an encyclopedic article on the person (see William Bradly Pitt for an example of this in action). The Senate page might be apropos (He's listed as THOMPSON, Fred Dalton)[9], but even then it seems to rely more on the preference of the person (Barack Obama is OBAMA Barack, not OBAMA Barack Hussein[10] or the multitude of non-legal names listed for current year's Senators[11]). However, that being said, I'm still back to "does it really matter that much". There's been a lot of text spent on arguing over where three characters should be placed. It's not like anyone is arguing over changing the article title or that all references to "Fred" should now be "Freddie". --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I agree, it isn't important as long as all the info is there - but we have to pick one and stop the reverting, so I think we go with MOSBIO, the shorter version. Tvoz |talk 06:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

some reliable sources that consider the age difference worthy of mention

Do with them what you will, but note these are reliable sources, not blogs or moonbat/wingnut screeds:

Tvoz |talk 16:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The NYT article was a hit piece, trying to create controversy, not reporting on one that already exists. It was part of a deliberate campaign to paint Kehn as some sort of bimbo in order to damage Thompson's campaign; planting innuendo in readers' minds while appearing to take the high road of defending him from it. (No, I have no obligation at all to AGF of the NYT.)
The Reuters piece starts out serious; it does mention their respective ages, but two paragraphs apart. On page 2, though, having run out of substance, the piece turns into a gossip column, certainly not something we should look to as a guide to what is notable, and that is where the age difference is discussed.
The WaPo piece is about her, not him. It goes into such things as her ex-boyfriend, something that surely doesn't belong here.
The Novak piece is about the negative gossip campaign being waged against Thompson - their ages are given not as something notable in itself but to explain what it is that the sleaze-mongers have been talking about.
The Newsweek piece only mentions the age difference to criticise the NYT for bringing it up.
As for the NY Post, well, it's the Post. It's a reliable source for actual facts, but certainly not for what's notable. Its political reporting is pretty good, especially for NY city and state affairs, but it's a yellow tabloid written to a sixth-grade level, heavy on the sleaze (so long as it can be verified so the paper doesn't get sued).

Zsero 17:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, an article from the "Fashion & Style" section does not qualify as a reliable source for a politician's life. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 18:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz mentions six sources, and it may also be useful to note the titles of the six articles to which she links:

NYT: Will Her Face Determine His Fortune?

Reuters: Thompson wife Jeri caught between two stereotypes

WaPo: The Rise Of Jeri Thompson

Novak: 'Trophy' slur unfair to Thompson's accomplished wife

Newsweek: Not-So-Hidden Power; She wields tremendous influence over her husband's would-be presidential campaign. But who is Jeri Thompson—and why won't the campaign discuss her?

New York Post: BABE WIFE, 40, BOOSTS GOPER, 64

All of these headlines indicate that the articles were substantially about her. In contrast, the present Wikipedia article title does not mention her. Their ages --- and the silly controversy about them --- are currently given in context at the Jeri Kehn Thompson article, and that should be enough, IMHO. And note that Novak calls this a "slur", which is not exactly the kind of thing that needs to be plastered all over Wikipedia's biographies of living persons.Ferrylodge 17:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are seriously going to stick with this tactic of treating Jeri Kehn Thompson's article as an infodump for everything surrounding their marriage, I want a brief introductory section in Fred's article with a Template:Main pointing to her article. Italia^vivi 17:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just inserted a pointer at the beginning of the "personal life" section pointing to her article. Moreover, characterizing her article as an "infodump" is incorrect and derogatory. There are a ton of sub-articles for Hillary Rodham Clinton, for example, and no one calls them "infodumps". It's just a sensible way of handling information.Ferrylodge 17:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read through all of the references, and I think the issue should be expande well beyond just stating their ages:

New York Times

Is America ready for a president with a trophy wife?

The question may seem sexist, even crass, but serious people — as well as Mr. Thompson’s supporters — have been wrestling with the public reaction to Jeri Kehn Thompson

THE term “trophy wife” was coined by Fortune magazine in 1989 and immediately entered the language. Although it often has a pejorative spin, the term originally meant the second (or third) wife of a corporate titan, who was younger, beautiful and — equally important — accomplished in her own right, which describes Mrs. Thompson.

She is a former Senate aide and a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee. And she is not a home wrecker. Mr. Thompson had been divorced from his first wife for almost two decades before he remarried in 2002

So far, they have not dealt with it, which is perhaps fueling the fire of speculation. Both Thompsons declined requests for interviews about their marriage..

It is too early to know what kind of role Mrs. Thompson would play in a Thompson administration. Or, for that matter, what role any other first lady or first gentleman would play.

Reuters

Washington gossips have merrily wagged their tongues at the couple's difference in age.

Thompson had been divorced for a long time and was active on the dating circuit, with such girlfriends as country singer Lorrie Morgan.

Jeri, a former spokeswoman at the Republican National Committee, came on the scene and they were married in 2002. They have two young children.

Late-night comics are getting into the act, such as Conan O'Brien of NBC's "Late Night With Conan O'Brien" show, who joked recently:

"Fred Thompson is now busy defending his much younger wife. In a recent interview, he said all criticism of his wife should be directed at him. As a result, conservative groups told Thompson he's been showing too much cleavage."

And for now, Thompson is keeping his wife from playing a public role.

"She's not going to become a public commentator and personality as a candidate's wife until there's a candidate," he told National Review.

The Washington Post

May said it was no secret that Kehn was dating Thompson, who divorced his first wife in 1985 and developed a reputation as a ladies' man linked to, among others, country singer Lorrie Morgan and cosmetics executive and GOP fundraiser Georgette Mosbacher.

"A smart, good-looking woman in Washington in her 30s dating a member of Congress doesn't come as a shocker," May said.

Robert Novak in Chicago Sun-Times - well he might be a bit of a wingnut, but is considered respectable

'Trophy' slur unfair to Thompson's accomplished wife

That ended the discussion. I asked Williams, a respected journalist, whether he had regrets about his trophy wife comment. He did not, but explained he got the idea from the New York Times of July 8 in a Style section report by Susan Saulny. Is America ready for a president with a trophy wife? she asked. Subsequent to that, Williams told me, I heard the same thing in conversation with people in other campaigns -- about her being so young, so attractive and so powerful.

The archetypal trophy wife (a phrase coined by Fortune magazine 18 years ago) conjures up the image of a rich corporate executive who tires of and abandons the woman he married when they both were young and has grown old with, and turns to a young, chic new wife, usually seen as a home wrecker. Mrs. Thompson does not fit that mold. Thompson had been divorced for 17 years and was on friendly terms with his first wife when he married Jeri Kehn in 2002. They also have two small children -- not the trophy wife caricature, either.

Nor does Mrs. Thompson's background fit the caricature.

Indeed, Fred Thompson's close associates maintain there was no chance he would be a candidate for president were he not married to Jeri.

Newsweek

The real Jeri Thompson isn't the one depicted in gossip columns, where she is the occasional subject of catty items dwelling on her good looks and revealing clothing. At 40, she is thin, blond—and 24 years younger than her husband, prompting The New York Times to question if America is ready for a president with a "trophy wife," which is, to be fair, a condescending and inaccurate caricature.

Jeri turns down all requests for interviews—and the Thompson campaign refuses to discuss her.

New York Post Tvoz |talk 16:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[this sig was mistakenly copied from above - comment was not made by me Tvoz |talk 17:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)]

BABE WIFE, 40, BOOSTS GOPER, 64 HOT RUNNING MATES THOM & JERI

He had been linked to country singer Lorrie Morgan and GOP fund-raiser Georgette Mosbacher.

Fans of Thompson say Kehn is a sassy political pro who could help his cause in the White House - and point out that unlike Rudy Giuliani, Thompson was divorced well before he began seeing his current wife.

But critics contend Kehn is a political liability: a trophy wife whose mother is four years younger than Thompson.

Here is what needs to be in the article:

Jeri has been refered to in the gossip media as a "trophy Wife"
She has serious credentials (mentioned in the articles - some articles are all about her credentials)
She is assumed to be playing a pivotal role in his campaign
She is being kept in the background, refusing interviews, supposedly until he officially runs.
He was big on the dating scene, a real ladies man (dating Lorrie Morgan was mentioned in several of the articles)
She was not a home wrecker.

Hope this helps. Bytebear 17:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does, and I agree that it should be stated and expanded upon with context, as long as it's balanced. But this needs to be in Fred's article as well as Jeri's - not doing so would be like having an article about Hillary that didn't mention Lewinsky. This is not just about Jeri at all. Tvoz |talk 17:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Monica was a genuine issue that affected Bill C's career, and therefore also Hillary's (who was at the time only notable for having married Bill). But gossip about Hillary's alleged affairs with Vince Foster doesn't appear even on her page, let alone Bill's! Zsero 17:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

But there may be other things in these sources about their age difference to be included, however, like, what impact it was anticipated to have on his campaign (NYT, for one. Tvoz |talk 17:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no! We do not report on what the NYT speculates might have an impact on the campaign. We only report on it if it does turn out to have a significant impact. Otherwise we're just participating in the NYT's deliberate attempt to make it an issue. Zsero 17:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Did I miss something? Was Thompson impeached for trying to cover up the age difference with his wife?Ferrylodge 17:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bytebear, have you looked at the Jeri Kehn Thompson article? Does the treatment of their ages in that article look okay to you? Do you think that everything in that article about their ages, and about her political experience, needs to be repeated in this article?Ferrylodge 17:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem repeating whats in the Jeri Thompson article. I also have no problem with the information appearing in both articles. Maybe add a section in this article called "Jeri Thompson" and have a {{main|Jeri Thompson}} to start it off. This would be appropriate in my mind:

The couple first met on July 4, 1996.[3] They were married on June 29, 2002 at First Congregational United Church of Christ in Naperville. In October 2003, Fred and Jeri Thompson had their first child. A second child was born to them in November 2006. Mr. Thompson also has children and grandchildren from a previous marriage (which ended in a 1985 divorce). Mrs. Thompson had not been married previously.[4]

A July 8, 2007 New York Times article considered whether the "May-December marriage" could become a campaign issue, noting that "she is not a home wrecker" and is "accomplished in her own right."[5] The Times also suggested that Mrs. Thompson is a "trophy wife," according to what that term "originally meant." Mr. Thompson has in the past been at odds with the Democrat-favoring New York Times.[6]

No. The NYT's malicious speculation about what might become a campaign issue is not notable and doesn't belong on WP. If it succeeds in making it an issue, then it will belong on WP. Zsero 18:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If Mrs. Thompson becomes First Lady, the 25-year age difference would not be unprecedented. For example, Frances Folsom Cleveland was 27 years younger than President Grover Cleveland. And First Lady Julia Gardiner Tyler was 30 years younger than President John Tyler.

I think it could be cleaned up a bit and the references above could be added where appropriate. Perhaps even a bit added about his "Ladies Man" days should preceed it. I really like the way the Post describes the situation, "Fans of Thompson say Kehn is a sassy political pro who could help his cause in the White House - and point out that unlike Rudy Giuliani, Thompson was divorced well before he began seeing his current wife. But critics contend Kehn is a political liability: a trophy wife whose mother is four years younger than Thompson.":[12] Bytebear 17:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The NY Post is a gossip sheet. This garbage does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Zsero 18:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow.. I type slowly... I had I nice response ready, and now all this shows up. Anyway, I support ByteBear's wording above. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 17:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I would still like to hear your ideas. Also, her political experience has been tied to his political campaign and should be included. We should add as many references as we can, to give the reader the most broad coverage, but we should be consise in our text and not get carried away on tangents. Basically, we just need to add a few paragraphs summarizing the references above. The stuff from Jeri's article is a good starting point. The question is, how do we weave it into personal life and his presidential campaign section. Bytebear 17:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Speculating about how their marriage may affect his (potential) presidential campaign seems a bit iffy. If anything actually does happen and is mentioned in reliable media, then it can bee added to the page. I'd rather not use the term "trophy wife" in the article, since (even when qualified with "in its 'original meaning'") is quite derogatory. WP:BLP is very important here; extreme caution should be taken to ensure that this article is written in a neutral manner. I'd even suggest forming a draft page somewhere (probably in a subpage on someone's userspace). - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 18:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

We (the Wikipedians) aren't speculating. Other reliable sources are, and this speculation should be mentioned. She has been called a "trophy wife". We have many sources that say the term is ill conceieved, and that will give balance to the article. We are not producing WP:OR here. It is well documented and verifiable. I think we have enough good sources to give NPOV treatment to the issue. Bytebear 18:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no such thing as a WP:RS for speculation. The NYT is no more qualified than you or me to speculate as to what might happen. We do not report such speculation, ever. The fact that the NYT speculated about it is not notable, unless that speculation itself becomes an issue, in which case it will belong on New York Times, not here. Zsero 18:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said... if it becomes an issue and then is mentioned by RS, it can be included. Right now the only source we have for the "trophy wife" terminology is a Fashion and Style writer and the NYT. As I said earlier, that is not a reliable source for political matters. Nor is it evidence of any controversy. It's the speculation and opinion of one writer. Under no circumstances should speculation be an a {{WP:BLP]]. I apologize if I was not clear earlier. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 20:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You were clear. I was agreeing with you, and disagreeing with Bytebear. Zsero 20:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

NYT is a valid source. It just needs to be balanced with other sources. SunTimes is a good counterbalance. Clearly, aside from NYT, this is an issue. 208.203.4.140 20:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the NYT is not a valid source when it is merely speculating. Its speculations are are no more noteworthy than mine or yours. Zsero 20:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is if you strip out the speculation and focus on the facts presented in the article. For example you could say, "The New York Times asserts that serious people — as well as Mr. Thompson’s supporters — have been wrestling with the public reaction to Jeri Kehn Thompson." That is a fact. Bytebear 05:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you try to get the Jeri Kehn Thompson article into what you consider optimum shape, and then see about summarizing the most pertinent material from that article in this one. However, putting everything from that article into this one would violate WP:Undue Weight. And keep in mind that the burden is on those seeking inclusion, according to WP:BLP Ferrylodge 18:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

So what was the consensus here? Currently the ages, years of birth, age difference or any other mention of age is omitted from this article. I'm just asking because I'm wondering if we should use the outcome of this discussion as a sort of precedent for Dennis Kucinich, which currently has the phrase thirty-one years his junior in regards to his wife (a similar wording found objection here at this discussion).-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andrew c. Have you looked at the article on Jeri Kehn Thompson? The age issue is handled there fully, with context. I think the consensus is that either all of that age material should be copied here into this article (including the context), or none of it. I think it would be a very close vote. And WP:BLP says to err on the side of excluding stuff like this.Ferrylodge 22:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the age difference belongs in the Kucinich article either. Another editor claimed here that Italiavivi added it to that article too, perhaps in order to bolster his position here; I haven't checked the history to be sure, but it wouldn't surprise me. For that matter, I don't think the age difference belongs on the Kehn article either, just as it isn't on the Dolley Madison article. But I have no interest in editing Kucinich or Kehn so if it's there let other people worry about it. -- Zsero 03:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is all speculative nonsense. The age difference is an obvious fact, and it's reflected in Wikipedia by the accurate presentation of Fred and Jeri's birth dates in their respective articles. Until this actually becomes a significant issue in the campaign (e.g. one of Thompson's opponents or a pundit criticizes him over it), that is all that needs to be said. Eseymour 21:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What next?

It appears that there is not yet any clear consensus as to what the first word of this article should be: Fred or Freddie? I wonder if an admin would please explain what happens when protection comes off, assuming there is still no consensus. Are we going to be stuck with the protected version, or are we going to be stuck with the first three words of the article as they existed from 2004 until last week?

The opinions expressed so far at this talk page indicate two primary favorites: "Freddie Dalton 'Fred' Thompson" which might be called the John Edwards style, versus "Fred Dalton Thompson (born Freddie Dalton Thompson)" which might be called the Bill Clinton style. There are legitimate arguments for both styles, based upon ambiguity in wp:mosbio, and also based on general wp:blp principles. But even if wp:mosbio clearly indicated that the John Edwards style should be used for Fred Thompson too, I think wp:mosbio is wrong about John Edwards. There is continuing discussion at wp:mosbio about how John Edwards should be treated.Ferrylodge 03:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Without getting into the dynamics of the content dispute itself, I won't do that as I had protected the article... perhaps I can offer some general guidance. There are some useful recommendations in the dispute resolution process including third opinion or a request for comment. No matter what, remember that a revert duel will most likely lead to a block, so avoid that. But do look into DR if it is still disputed once protection expires. Navou ^banter 03:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought Crockspot and Metros did give us outside opinions. Tvoz |talk 04:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there that big of a difference between "Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson" and "Fred Dalton Thompson (born Freddie Dalton Thompson)" Either way the fact that he was born "Freddie Dalton Thompson" remains the same, just one is a longer version of that fact. As far as the "But it's been this way since 2004" argument goes... That argument doesn't hold much water for me. Prior to the LA times article, there wasn't a reliable source noting that his legal name (at least at the time of his birth and wedding) was Freddie Dalton Thompson. Information within articles is always going to change as reliable sources become available, especially as a person becomes more and more into the public eye. (True, Fred was in the public eye thanks to his acting, but there's a difference between being a supporting actor on a TV show and running for President).--Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed in this entire discussion because it's a lot of time and energy that could be better spent elsewhere and I personally don't think it makes any difference. Clearly there are many examples that support either way and there are no objective criteria for choosing one way or the other. Some may prefer it one way or the other but both ways should be acceptable to most people. So instead of trying to find the way that most people prefer can we measure the acceptability of each way? Without any additional discussion, how about if we simply list the two choices and each mark whether that choice is acceptable or unacceptable and optionally indicate a preference? If you feel compelled to discuss, please limit to one line or put in separate subsection after the two choices. Sbowers3 04:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm nosing around a bit since I haven't been involved in this discussion, but I wanted to stick my head in anyway. For what it's worth, and aside from MOS guidelines and such, I like the way John Wayne handles the name issue, covering it in the "early years" portion of his article and leaving the intro free of the little factoid. Anyway, that's about it. · jersyko talk 16:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

As I read it, consensus comes down on the side of Option B. He is most commonly known by that name and it is also the name which he prefers to use in his professional careers as a lawyer, actor, and politician. Option B does not hide his birth name and also does not cause any possible embarrassment to the subject and, therefore acts both to accurately portray his birthname and give due respect to Thompson. youngamerican (wtf?) 19:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Option A

Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson^[1]^[2]

Acceptable. Sbowers3 04:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Primary preference. In light of there being no real difference between the two options as they have been presented, the shorter wins out. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Preferred - shorter and simpler, with no implications of anything. Tvoz |talk 05:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Preferred, same as Tvoz. Eseymour 13:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Not Preferred, I see this being a point of edit warring in the future for what is an extremely minor point of issue. Arzel 14:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Does "No" mean not acceptable, or not preferred? Sbowers3 15:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Preferred. It's really the most commonly used presentation for full name with a strongly preferred knickname Studerby 19:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this appears reasonable. Hornplease 23:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. To many people, it will not make any difference. However, to many other people, Option A will make Thompson look ridiculous. It is not necessary to begin this Wikipedia article with a word (Freddie) that Thompson has deliberately tried to keep out of the public eye for more than 40 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrylodge (talk • contribs) 02:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Prefer. on the grounds that wikipedia precedent dictates this is the proper procedure to follow. If wikipedia does not want to make people look silly, it has to change it’s rules. As it stands, the rules/precedent force this one Nickjbor 08:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Option B

Fred Dalton Thompson (born Freddie Dalton Thompson^[3]^[2] on August 19 1942)

Acceptable/preferred. Sbowers3 04:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Secondary preference. As I said in the first option, there substantively isn't a difference between the two options, so this one is an acceptable option in my opinion, just the redundancy of repeating the name where the only difference is three letters knocks it into second place for me. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Acceptable if information comes forth about a legal name change, otherwise it's better than no mention of birth name but not my preference. Tvoz |talk 05:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Acceptable (but not preferred). Eseymour 13:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Prefered, This what the vast majority if people know him as. Arzel 14:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Preferred - name preferred by subject, matter of fundamental respect. -- Y not? 15:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Preferred - Per above. Nobody knows him as "Freddie" and it would seem odd to a casual non-Wiki editor to see "Freddie" first. To put Freddie first would be the source of endless reverts of inexperienced IP editors. --David Shankbone 15:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the way the Bill Clinton entry reads: "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III[1]". I would go with this format and then let's move on to important edits. Rosspz 16:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)rosspz
Not acceptable (by itself). I think it strongly implies to some people that the name has been formally changed, for which we have no source. If we use this, then we need a sentence or two somewhere (possibly not the lead) explaining the nature of the name change, as best we we have sources. Studerby 19:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Preferred - Clearly the subject prefers and uses 'Fred Dalton'. This conveys the fact about his birth name as well as the name that everyone knows him by and preferred usage. I am a bit surprised by all the drama surrounding minor point though. Of all the facets of this subject the extra 'd' 'i' and 'e' on his birth certificate seems be the least interesting and noteworthy.Dman727 20:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Preferred.Ferrylodge 02:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Acceptable. I dont see what all the fuss is about Nickjbor 08:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Footnotes vs. References

The Footnotes section should be called "References." These are not notes that provide additional reading if you care to spend additional time on the subject, they are the location of the documents corroborating the facts requiring the reference. As such, they are not footnotes, but references to the location where that quote is contained or where that fact is published. I would have edited it myself but this article is protected. I can understand the protection given the fact that he is a presidential candidate, but this section should be renamed by someone who is an admin or has some way to do it. -Mike Payne (T • C) 05:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The protection is temporary, Mike - pending resolution of a disagreement the editors have had. It will be open for editing soon, but meanwhile thanks for your input and I agree with your point. Tvoz |talk 07:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement on church

Bloomberg reported Thompson saying he isn't a regular churchgoer and doesn't plan to speak about his religion during the campaign. Since Thompson's religion has been an open question on this page for some months and his church attendance was also discussed in the media by persons such as James Dobson, this statement should be added to the end of the sentence on religion in the personal life section when the article is unlocked. Bregence 13:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thompson has played 2 historical presidents

As an actor, Thompson has played 2 former presidents, which is interesting and undoubtedly unique (I don't think Reagan had ever played a president of the US). He played Ulysses S. Grant in Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (2007) and voiced Andrew Jackson in Rachel and Andrew Jackson: A Love Story (both produced for TV). I think this should be included in the "Character actor" section after "A 1994 New York Times profile wrote that 'When Hollywood directors need someone who can personify governmental power, they often turn to [Thompson]'." Awbeal 14:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit section on the Marie Raghianti story

{{editprotected}} Could someone please add in that Thompson played himself in this movie, and that it was his first acting job?Alan 19:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Got a source? -- Y not? 19:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's already in the article, in the first paragraph of Fred Thompson#Character actor. -- Zsero 20:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I knew that sounded familiar - missed it when I looked just now. Tvoz |talk 20:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I added that to the earlier section, since it makes sense to me to have the info in the earliest mention of the film.Alan 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Another option

Since I'm not seeing a strong consensus forming, how about this:

Fred Dalton Thompson (born August 19 1942) is an American politician, lawyer, lobbyist, and character actor. Born Freddie Dalton Thompson, he has used "Fred" publicly since the early 1960s.^[4]^[2] He represented Tennessee as a Republican in the U.S. Senate from 1994 through 2003.

It doesn't bury his birth name, it doesn't suggest a formal name change about which we have no source, it strongly acknowledges Thompson's preferences. I dislike the undue weight of having a whole sentence devoted to the issue, but it seems clear that what I think of as normal knickname style isn't working here; exceptional situations call for exceptional solutions (see WP:Ignore all rules). Birth name is important, and unless there's going to be a whole paragraph devoted to name issues in the body (see Gerald Ford), it should be in the lead paragraph somewhere. Studerby 20:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with this solution. - Crockspot 20:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I can live with this ~~and I am the guy who open this can of worms :)~~ Cheers! --Tom 14:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

While we may not be seeing a strong consensus in terms of preferred option, at least we are seeing that both options are acceptable to almost everybody.

If we are going to explore alternatives here is another one that I saw somewhere: Fred (née Freddie) Dalton Thompson. All of these options are acceptable to me. Sbowers3 20:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of the use of "née" in any other situation than a maiden name. Is it common usage elsewhere? Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nee, by definition, is a female's maiden name, so I don't think that is an option. Perhaps Fred (born Freddie) Dalton Thompson? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had time to follow the last couple of days' discussion, but I just noticed this. Née (always spelled with an accent) is female; the (much less common) male version is né. -- Zsero 21:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I support Option B described in the previous section, as well as all of the other options suggested in this section. However, I strongly oppose Option A. To many people, it will not make any difference. However, to many other people, Option A will make Thompson look ridiculous. It is not necessary to begin this Wikipedia article with a word (Freddie) that Thompson has deliberately tried to keep out of the public eye for more than 40 years.Ferrylodge 02:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if any of this really matters to Fred himself - you may be projecting a bit with that last sentence - a word that he has deliberately tried to keep out of the public eye? Where is this coming from? All I've seen is that in 1967 it was suggested to him that Fred sounded more mature than Freddie - I haven't seen any evidence of a massive deliberate coverup of the name. And if you're so concerned about that, I don't know why you'd support having Freddie just a few words away. I hope Fred is concentrating on presenting his positions and qualifications, and not worrying about what the first three words of this article are. Tvoz |talk 07:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Its aim is to present facts, not to make individuals look either good or bad, sensible or ridiculous. That's why we have our NPOV policy. In any case, why should "Freddie" make him look ridiculous? Many adults call themselves Freddie, as you can see here. Your claim is in itself POV. So a blogger thinks it's ridiculous. So what? -- Necrothesp 08:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz, the LA Times reported that in 1967 "Thompson stopped using the name Freddie in his professional dealings and became Fred." Since then, Thompson has deliberately tried to keep that name out of the public eye for more than 40 years. He probably doesn't think "Freddie" is in any way ridiculous, nor do I. However, some people do.Ferrylodge 12:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, where are you getting "Thompson has deliberately tried to keep that name out of the public eye"?? Have you spoken to Thompson about this? This to me is the essence of original research. Option C at least tries to explain all the hub bub, which is probably limited to here :) --Tom 14:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Necrothesp, I might add that Wikipedia has other policies too, such as a policy against undue weight (e.g. making the first word of this article a name that Thompson has kept private for forty years), and a policy for biographies of living persons that emphasizes how a person self-identifies. No one is trying to hide any facts here. The issue is how they are presented.Ferrylodge 13:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I still prefer Option A, but I am OK with Studerby's "Option C." Eseymour 14:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Putting a word first is not giving it undue weight. If that were the case then we would not list the full name of someone commonly known by their second name. His name is a fact. Period. The undue weight section of the NPOV policy does not deal with word order, but with viewpoints. WP:BLP does not deal with issues of what a person wishes to be called - the only mention of self-identification is actually in the section on categorisation, which is designed to prevent people being categorised as, say, gay if they do not so identify. A rather different issue. As I said, we are not here to make people, living or dead, look good or bad or to slavishly write about them as they would wish us to write about them. We are here to record the facts. And the fact is that his name is Freddie. Whether he likes it or not is irrelevant. I don't particularly like my middle name and I don't use it in everyday life, but if I was notable enough to have a Wikipedia article written about me then I wouldn't object to it being recorded since it's a fact. And if I did then tough! -- Necrothesp 14:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good explication of what was wrong with some of the arguments presented, but since it's not important enough to pursue, will move on for now. It's not the first time that people have disagreed about fundamentals. But if it comes up again, or if more information surfaces, it is possible that this decision will be revisited. There was certainly not an overwhelming consensus for this change. Tvoz |talk 01:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Writing/flow issues

Just figured I'd make a note of it since I'm supposed to be working right now.. In reading the article it seems that a vast majority of sentences begins with either "Thompson" or "He", this is particularly true when the reader hits the section on his Senate career. This is generally considered poor writing technique, so we should probably work on altering changing the wording in the first of the sentence. Also, I know this article was built sentence by sentence, but the article really shouldn't read like it was. The flow is rather choppy, so that could do with some cleanup as well. I'll work on it as I get time, but figured I'd get the suggestions out there so the others out there can help out as well. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

New Coke

Some material has been added to the article, about George Will's comparison of Fred Thompson to "New Coke." I agree with Rosspz that this should be removed, and will do so pending a consensus to insert it. There are many reasons why this kind of material does not belong in this Wikipedia article. First of all, it is in a section summarizing Wikipedia's article about Thompson's presidential campaign, whereas the Wikipedia article being summarized says nothing about George Will or Coca Cola. Additionally, this material gives undue weight to the opinions of George Will, and adds nothing factual to the present Wikipedia article. More reasons for deleting this material are available upon request.Ferrylodge 01:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess the section would probably fit better into the full article on his campaign, which is supposed to be in-depth, as compared to a summary. Life, Liberty, Property 07:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The George Will quote is right on point with the description of the launch of the campaign. It adds some flavor (no pun intended) to a somewhat dry article, and really has nothing to do with undue weight - that applies more to giving both sides of a debate, and this is not that (nor can one say that this article has a shortage of positive statements about Thompson). This is a respected columnist, referenced, giving a comment on the launch of the campaign which is discussed in the same paragraph. Nowhere does it say that the section in the article has to be a literal summary of the longer article - there can be things in here that aren't in there: it's not supposed to necessarily be a duplicate -- but if you feel that way, add the Will bit to the other article too. This is a good addition, and you can always look for commentators who say that the launch presented a comprehensive look at his views if you really think this needs counter-weighing. I don't - I think it's a short comment that adds a different perspective to the article, which is needed. If other appropriate comments are found, a section can always be created about his political and cultural image, like in Obama where there are well-referenced opinions by commentators included. Opinions are commonly included in articles - just not the opinions of the people editing them here. I see no reason to remove this one while discussion goes on here - we'll never get anywhere if we have to do that with every edit that has anything less than 100% praise. Try to explain why you don't like it in - the summary argument doesn't really wash. Tvoz |talk 10:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the relevant quotation from the Will piece:

Sean Hannity, who is no Torquemada conducting inquisitions of conservatives, asked Thompson: "When you look at the other current crop of candidates -- Republicans -- where is the distinction between your positions and what you view as theirs?" Thompson replied: "Well, to tell you the truth, I haven't spent a whole lot of time going into the details of their positions."

For years, people have been complaining about how negative the campaigns are, that politicians take too much time talking about the other guy. In real life when you are interviewing for a job opening, the conversation is never about what is wrong with the other guy. Only in politics, do candidates complain about the other candidates.

In this campaign at least so far, Thompson has always turned aside questions about the other guys. E.g. in another Sean Hannity interview, Thompson said, "Well, I don't want to talk about other candidates. I'm really thinking about running for the presidency and not against them. I'm sure that they're good guys."

I think the line "Thompson wasn't able to tell Sean Hannity how his positions differed from those of the other Republicans running for President" is not an accurate summary of the interview. It is more the case that Thompson prefers not to talk about the other Republicans. So, I object to inclusion of the New Coke line because it does not accurately paraphrase the Will column, and because in the context of a Fred Thompson biography it is little more than trivia. It is not one of the 500 most notable events in his life.

Having said that, many articles do have a trivia section and they are usually marked, "These trivia items would be better spread among the rest of the article" (or some such). The "New Coke" formulation is a clever turn of phrase and somewhat appropriate as a piece of trivia. But it should be edited to more accurately reflect what Will wrote. Perhaps something like: George Will compared the launch of Thompson's campaign to the launch of New Coke, noting that Thompson has not answered the question, Is this product necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbowers3 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has again been edited (by Tvoz) to reinsert the following material (which was previously reinserted by Life, Liberty, Property who concedes above that it should "probably" not be in this article):

“

In the September 13, 2007 edition of the Washington Post, George Will compared the launch of Thompson's campaign to the launch of New Coke, when Thompson wasn't able to tell Sean Hannity how his positions differed from those of the other Republicans running for President.

”

Again, I agree with Rosspz that this is not appropriate here, and I agree with SBowers3 that it is not an accurate summary of what Thompson said. I would urge all editors to please work by consensus, and not insist on inserting material into the article when it has been removed (by myself and by Rosspz) and rejected by multiple other editors. George Will is entitled to slam Thompson and distort what Thompson said, just as other columnists are entitled to flatter Thompson and distort what his opponents say. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with a policy of a Neutral Point of View. Thanks.Ferrylodge 14:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it should not be included. Random criticism of individuals without any context (ie he was criticized for this specific thing) is not encyclopedic. Arzel 15:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, please correct your comment above, and try not to misrepresent what happened - this seems to be a recurring theme with you. Yes, I added the material - ONCE, not "again" - but I did so BEFORE Sbowers3's comment here, not after it as you imply. Sbowers3 has a disagreement with the item, but did not remove it, understanding that discussion can take place here on Talk about a minor item without removing it and turning it into an edit war. You came along and removed it again - your second revert of this item. Do you see the difference? In fact my reinstatement, as explained in detail here on talk when I did it, was based in part on a disagreement with the arguments you gave here to remove it - that the section is supposed to be a summary of the other article which doesn't mention Will or his commentary. Not so - and I explained here that I felt that adding some other material which is done all the time in sections that refer to forks made some sense here, and this quote added another dimension to this piece which is somewhat one-sided. I also disputed your argument that the quote is not adding anything factual- it is opinion of a commentator which is not inappropriate, but could be enhanced by adding some others. It had not been "removed and rejected" by "multiple editors" at the time I reinserted it - in fact two other editors saw fit to include and refine it - Life Liberty and Bobblehead plus me - that would be three - and at that time only you and Rosspz objected to it, and I did not think your arguments were sound. No consensus had been reached, and a conversation had begun here. There was no more reason to remove it than include it at that time - things that people disagree about are left in frequently, unless it becomes a major dispute. SBowers3 raised an interesting point after I commented, but left the sentence in the article and I'm going to look closer at what s/he said, and determine if I agree with that interpretation. But please try a little harder to accurately reflect what transpires when you comment - stick with the truth, disagree with an editor if you want to , but don't distort and suggest that someone has "insist[ed] on inserting material into the article when it has been removed and rejected by multiple other editors" when in fact you're the one who reverted what "multiple editors" wanted. This is now the third time you've misrepresented me directly or by innuendo, and it's getting tedious.Tvoz |talk 20:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've inserted two additional parentheticals into my comment above.Ferrylodge 02:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm generally opposed to including commentary such as this in articles, particularly in biographies. Clearly, it's often added by people wanting to get in a slap at someone. This might be suitable in the campaign article, but not here. It doesn't add anything informative about who Fred Thompson is, what he has done, etc. Eseymour 17:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Information in Fred Thompson's Personal Information Section

I've just read through the Fred Thompson listing and while I believe it does a solid job of covering most aspect of his life, there is very little information on his marriages and family. Since I've heard multiple references in the MSM to this aspect of Fred Thompson's life and didn't understand the basis for it's significance, the reason I was checking his Wikipedia entry was to bring myself up to speed.

Surprisingly, I found virtually nothing of substance on this aspect of Mr. Thompson's life. Since I'm not a Wikipedia expert I decided for comparison sake to look up the the entries for Ronald Reagan, George Washington, and Johnny Carson, all of whom had multiple marriages, only to find substantially more information and depth of coverage. Is there any specific reason for minimizing this coverage in the Fred Thompson's entry?

It is purely my opinion, but I believe few decisions in our lives have as profound an impact on us and the subsequent direction of our lives, as who we choose to marry. The circumstances around a couples meeting, the closeness and type of relationship they share, and the roles they assume in each other's lives is all relevant information and should be covered, to the extent is is knowable.

The brevity of the Marriage & Family/Personal Life section in Fred Thompson's Wikipedia listing raises into question whether there is true impartiality being exhibited in determining which information should be presented. Now that Fred Thompson has decided to run for President all public aspects of Fred Thompson's life, whether controversial or not, should be open to scrutiny - just it should be for all other candidates. Leave the obvious gossip out, but regarding other information, when in doubt, include and let us readers determine relevancy.

I am not about to make recommendations regarding which content should and should not be included, only that this aspect of Fred Thompson's biography needs substantially more information.

DCgent 15:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your hesitance to not wanting to add content, but is there anything in particular that you'd like added? The Personal life section covers his first marriage, divorce, romantic ties before second marriage, second marriage, his cancer, and his religion, while the Early life and education section covers those aspects of his life. The two sections aren't right next to each other, true, but there is some content there. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is Karen Hanretty?

I saw this quote on [13] - ""I'm pretty sure the people debating 'Fred' versus 'Freddie' are the same people who debate whether or not Britney Spears looked too fat at the MTV music awards," said Karen Hanretty, who is working for the Thompson campaign. "Seriously, how many hours do these editors spend on the site?"" 198.6.46.11 21:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

She's the Deputy Communication Director for Thompson's campaign[14] and apparently a previous winner of the Republican Babe of the Week.[15] Hey, don't look at me, it's the #1 hit on google with her name--Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[e/c but what the hell] She is a conservative Republican political strategist from California working as Deputy Communications Director on the Thompson campaign - a sometime Fox news commentator, has been on O'Reilly - far from an impartial observer. To my mind it's a rather lame and dismissive analogy. Too bad they can't do better than that. Tvoz |talk 21:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

But is she notable enough for a WP entry?--Pleasantville 21:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, considering the lack of reliable sources that I've been able to find, I'm going to have to say no. Most of the links on reliable sources are either quotes from her that identify her position at the time, or they are articles written by her. Here's the closest I've found, but it seems to be a bio from a blog she wrote for the Sacramento ABC affiliate up until the November 2006 election.[16] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say no too. Tvoz |talk 22:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree; no entry for now. Hanretty is apparently a minor functionary in the Thompson campaign, and, if this is how she responds to a site which gets six billion hits a month (per the same article in which she made her mistake), she's not likely to develop into much more. A WP entry of her own would be inappropriate, unless she becomes a campaign issue herself at some point. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 05:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Freddie (redux)

It's crap like this IP's edits that convinces me that the Freddie business is at least in part partisan in nature. -- Y not? 02:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Y, maybe you're overreacting a little here? I think you're jumping to conclusions - couldn't this be just a member of the public who saw the inherent correctness of the argument that quite a few people here (despite the dubious "close") thought was right? :)Tvoz |talk 06:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe :) You don't like the close? Awww :) -- Y not? 10:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a Washington Post story about the dispute linking to the page ... I doubt it's anything organized. Personally, I hate the "I was reading a message board today" articles that some news media types think qualifies as news ... but ... whatever. We can s-protect the article if it continues. --B 02:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

URL? -- Y not? 02:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[17] ... take a look at the topic right above this one. --B 02:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm so glad I didn't use my real name. The article was generally okay, but who wants their real name connected with all these trivial battles?Ferrylodge 02:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So do you think Britney Spears looked too fat? :) Sbowers3 03:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not exactly a CIA mission, Ferrylodge - I had no problem giving my name. I think all the concern about anonymity - and I'm not directing this just at you - only adds to the misconceptions about Wikipedia, and I personally have no problem standing behind my 7500 edits. The article was about as fair as these things ever are, I guess, although I know I said a great deal more than was quoted, and I didn't "insist" on anything here, contrary to what the article said. My position in the Great Name Wars was just that consistency and accuracy trumped worrying about making the candidate look "silly", and I still think that is correct, as do some other legitimate editors who've come by here during and after the discussion - we can take a breath, but I'm sure no one thought we had closed off discussion permanently on this, right? Y - if it's partisanship you're worried about, I trust you're considering the effect of it on both sides of the dispute? And SBowers3: funny, but you're not going to get me to say anything beyond the NSFW and highly inappropriate video (be warned) found as the third link down here. Tvoz |talk 06:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fred VS Freddie

is this what all the fuss is about? I just stumbled across this this morning. Lets look at some real facts here. Remember, Wikipedia is an encylopedia. so lets reference other encylopedias. Britannica^[5] lists "Fred Dalton Thompson" as well as Bill Clinton listed as "in full William Jefferson Clinton orig. William Jefferson Blythe III"

Encarta ^[6] lists "Fred Thompson" and "Bill Clinton"

Congress ^[7] lists him as "Fred Dalton Thompson"

also, to counter the claim that "nowhere" lists names a certain way...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_B._Pearson refers to Lester B "Mike" Pearson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_St._Laurent refers to childhood/baptismal name in this way: Louis Stephen St-Laurent, PC, CC, QC (Saint-Laurent or St-Laurent in French, baptized Louis-Étienne St-Laurent) starting with the name he went by. Louis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Clark Charles Joseph "Joe" Clark

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfrid_Laurier Sir Wilfrid Laurier, PC, GCMG, KC, baptized Henri-Charles-Wilfrid Laurier

then again, we have alternate examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, PC, CC, CH, QC, FRSC (18 October 1919 – 28 September 2000), usually known as Pierre Trudeau or Pierre Elliott Trudeau

while there are examples that would support the freddie argument, at the moment wikipedia's standard (as derived from precident) would be to use "Fred" Thompson.

I could care either way really. I just wanted to get to the bottom of this and see who's right, from the looks of it "Fred" has a much stronger case. what's needed is a standard set of rules on these things so we dont have silly debates like this. Nickjbor 08:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

humm, perhaps the best canadian example is this (I am canadian). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charest when it was found out his first name was John, not Jean, there was a huge ruckus in Quebec. His opponents used that information to make him look silly - as is being done now with fred thompson. How did wikipedia resolve this? "John James Charest, PC, MNA, known as Jean Charest". more precident for Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson. Nickjbor 08:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples, Nickjbor. There are tens of thousands of biographies of living persons at Wikipedia, and lots of examples could be cited on all sides. Someone already mentioned above how "John Wayne" is handled. No one argues that names at Wikipedia should never be presented as John Jacob "Johnny" Schmidt. But in 99% of those cases, the nickname is only used in conjunction with the last name (as in Jean Charest), rather than in conjunction with both the middle and last names (as in Fred Dalton Thompson which suggests a desire to replace the first name). To most of us here, this is a silly controversy. However, the fact remains that putting "Freddie" as the first word of this article needlessly emphasizes a name that many other people find ridiculous, and a name that the subject of the article has therefore refrained from using publicly for over 40 years.Ferrylodge 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, your frequent linking to a random blogger is hurting the credibility of your position. So some blogger (and what appears to be a non-Republican one at that) finds his name ridiculous, that is not Wikipedia's problem. It's more detrimental to the project if we allow the opinions of a blogger to dictate what information can be presented on Wikipedia. You need to come up with a better argument. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Most common name in English, isn't that the standard? Just give the birthname in the opening line, period. The world does watch us, you know. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 11:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My vote is for "Freddie Dalton 'Fred" Thompson". Ferrylodge's comment presumes that Thompson considers his original first name ridiculous, but that has not been established, has it? My father's birth name is Sammy (alas) but has always always been known as Sam, writes his name as Sam, and is Sam on his personal checks; however, on all legal documents, military records, etc, he is Sammy. Unless Thompson has legally changed his name, the article should start with his legal name, whether or not people find that name ridiculous. It is not our job as editors to determine whether something is ridiculous; it is our job to determine whether something is accurate.Kitchawan 11:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Kitchawan, I said above that Thompson "probably doesn't think 'Freddie' is in any way ridiculous, nor do I." Can't we let this rest for awhile?Ferrylodge 13:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Freddie Dalton 'Fred' Thompson" should be the title if it is his legal name. - Draeco 15:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There are three ways to legally change your name in the US:

By Marriage and you change your name to your husbands and then have a "maiden name". (not applicable)
Petition to have your name legally changed. (Also not applicable)
Simply use a name long enough that you become known for that name. This is applicable, and so if Fred Thompson has used that name regularly, then it (along with his given name) is his legal name.

Fred Thompson *IS* his legal name. If it is used in television and movie credits, if his paychecks are paid out to it, and if his SAG card all say Fred Thompson, then there is no question, and the wording should reflect this.Bytebear 21:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

this claim has no basis in law whatsoever! even marriages have to file legally at the DMV or elsewhere! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.238.255 (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. California law says that if you use a name long enough (specifically, if you notify those you are doing business with of the name change, and use the name exclusively), it automatically becomes your legal name. It's called a "Common Law" name change. Thompson has clearly done this. See Name_change#The_usage_method_of_name_change. Bytebear 21:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I see the 'file legally at DMV' requirement as being part of the 'notify those you are doing business with' requirement. Naturally, if the DMV knows you under one name, it wants to know if you're now using another name--how else would the name change GET on your driver's license? That doesn't imply an overall demand to make a formal 'name change'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marieblasdell (talk • contribs) 22:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If he now goes by "Fred Thompson" that what the article's title and captions should reflect. If he was born "Freddie Dalton Thompson" that name should only appear in reference to his birth name. Other versions are irrelevant. --- Taroaldo 21:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Both articles citing the "Freddie" name say that he now goes by "Fred". Bytebear 22:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification needed

{{editprotected}}

Please change Thompson asked to be released from his television duties, to Thompson asked to be released from his television duties,{{Clarifyme|{{subst:DATE}}}}

I have never edited this article before, am not a party to the disputes on it; this edit has nothing to do with those disputes, but is a simple cleanup-tagging edit. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected now, but I've gone ahead and edited in your suggestion.--Kubigula (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bald and Actor

In case anyone wishes to add that he would be the first bald president, Eisenhower as well as others were just as folically challenged as Thompson. Considering the average age of presidents, it is not suprising that many would be either balding or going bald at the time of their election.

As for the aspect of being the first actor. It is well known that Ronald Regan was an actor prior to political service. Thompson, may be the first (assuming winning) to have been an actor so close to election, but I would consider that to be playing with verbage since he is no longer currently acting. Arzel 04:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Acting is more of a moonlighting career for Thompson, anyway. And both of those claims--even if accurate--are simply trivia. Not to mention that they assume Thompson will win, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Eseymour 12:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Did someone suggest adding that he is bald? But his acting career is not trivial, and should remain in the article. Tvoz |talk 16:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone added that if he was elected that he would be the first bald person to be president and he would be the first actor to be president. Arzel reverted it and then added this section to the talk page. So it's not a matter of removing his acting credits from the article, just that it should not be added to the article that he may be the first president that was an actor as well (which isn't true any way you look at it). --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah - sorry. It sounded like Arzel was anticipating the possibility of someone adding that, not that someone had tried to. I of course agree that's absurd. (But can we say that Joe Biden would be the first formerly bald President? Never mind....) Tvoz |talk 01:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. I didn't mean to confuse anyone. Not sure if Biden would qualify under that category anyway...weren't wigs popular back then? :) Arzel 03:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. Who knows what Reagan's amazing hairline for a man his age truly was. Tvoz |talk 05:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, he probably would be the first president who portrayed two sitting presidents as an actor. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't either. Grant and Jackson were both out of office and dead by the time Thompson portrayed them, so they could not be a sitting president. Drop the sitting and you'd have a case. Not an overly notable one, but a case none the less. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant to distinguish portrayals of actual presidents versus fictional presidents, and didn't mean to imply that Thompson's film career was booming during the Grant administration. It's trivia at best, cruft at worst - but interesting nonetheless. Best, ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

^ Matthews, Joe (6 September, 2007). "Thompson wed his ambition". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2007-09-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ ^a ^b ^c Humphrey, Tom (2007-09-07). "Fred, Freddie — he's still F.D. Thompson: New details emerge on personal life of newly announced candidate". Knoxville News Sentinel. Retrieved 2007-09-08.
^ Matthews, Joe (6 September, 2007). "Thompson wed his ambition". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2007-09-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Matthews, Joe (6 September, 2007). "Thompson wed his ambition". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2007-09-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9439061/Fred-Thompson
^ http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761581953/Thompson_Fred.html
^ http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=t000457

[1] Matthews, Joe (6 September, 2007). "Thompson wed his ambition". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2007-09-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[Knoxnews-2] Humphrey, Tom (2007-09-07). "Fred, Freddie — he's still F.D. Thompson: New details emerge on personal life of newly announced candidate". Knoxville News Sentinel. Retrieved 2007-09-08.

[3] Matthews, Joe (6 September, 2007). "Thompson wed his ambition". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2007-09-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[4] Matthews, Joe (6 September, 2007). "Thompson wed his ambition". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2007-09-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[5] ttp://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9439061/Fred-Thompson

[6] ttp://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761581953/Thompson_Fred.html

[7] ttp://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=t000457

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]