Talk:Fred Thompson controversies

"Controversy" must be sourced

Anything that appears in this article must be characterized as controversial by secondary reliable sources, or it will be removed, per WP:BLP. Just sourcing events and putting them in this article as controversies is not allowed. Notable reliable sources must be cited showing that there is an actual controversy over an issue, not just ranting on blogs. - Crockspot 16:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Chasing women"?

Speaking of unsourced "controversy," how is it that dating four women in 17 years is controversial? For a single man, I'd call that underachievement! There's only one source, and far from documenting a controversy, it merely refers to his dating life as "colorful." This is just silly. Eseymour 17:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are blogs banned as factual or analytic sources?

I understand why nothing should be deemed a "controversy" unless it clearly has that status among notable reliable sources. However, that does not explain why blogs cannot be used for their discussion of facts. For example, if there is a controversy over Thompson's PAC's payments to his son, and it has been noted as a controversy in the NYTimes, etc., why can't Wikipedia link to a fuller analysis by a blog that actually cites and links campaign finance laws, FEC regulations, online records of the PAC's finances, etc.? While blogs often are merely ranting, sometimes they genuinely provide fuller coverage of a matter, and particularly its factual background, than can be done by news articles that have to get under 800 words and don't give links. Blog posts are a useful shorthand; otherwise, you would have to just reproduce all of the links given at the blog itself. Unless the blog lacks sources -- i.e., if reproduced as a Wiki article would not be up to standards in that respect -- I don't see why it is not useful and linkable. Many other articles on Wikipedia link to blogs -- e.g. the McDonald's Hot Coffee article, which links extensively to the overlawyered blog because it is very knowledgeable about tort law and politics.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.169.227 (talk • contribs) 8:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(Please remember to sign your posts.) What you are saying makes a certain amount of sense, but I think in most cases it is preferable to not use blogs as shorthand. For starters, a blog may be shorter-lived than the original sources it links to. Also, if a particular bit of information is truly notable and verifiable, it's likely that a more reliable source will pick up on it. You may want to read the verifiability policy--particularly the section about self-published sources. Eseymour 21:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thompson & the 1st Amendment

From a conservative standpoint, Thompson's wholehearted support for the McCain-Feingold Act certainly puts him in hot water, as a direct assault on the 1st Amendment. - MSTCrow 17:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Conservatism

It appears there's some question about how conservative Thompson is, particularly in relation to McCain-Feingold (see above) and abortion. In both cases, he now claims to hew to more standard conservative/GOP positions. These questions are getting shoved into unrelated sections of the article right now (often in very POV forms) and deserve their own section. Anyone want to take a stab at starting this section? I won't have time until probably this weekend at the earliest. Jdb1972 20:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems to me like a good idea. I'll get started on it.Ferrylodge 00:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see controversy pages about other Presidential candidates

It seems to me that this page violates the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines as regards content forking. I don't see "controversies" sections for other presidential candidates. A "controversies" section should either be a standard for all current candidates or should be unacceptable. --Dtoler 20:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

At some point, this article should be merged with the Fred Thompson article. It seems very natural to me that every politician would have a criticisms/controversy section. - MSTCrow 00:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't my idea to create this article, but I have no problem with it as of now. There's a similar article for Hillary Clinton and for Rudy Giuliani. It seems a useful way to keep the more bland and undisputed stuff separate from the more contentious and disputed material. All the stuff in this article can be briefly summarized in the main Thompson article.Ferrylodge 00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Dtoler, how can you say: "I don't see controversy pages about other Presidential candidates?" There is Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, Controversies of Rudy Giuliani, a section at John McCain.[1] Put it up for deletion then. PS, Welcome to wikipedia. Plantocal 01:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for my ignorance. That said, this page does seem like more of a personal attack and doesn't really attempt to maintain NPOV. Perhaps an edit would be more appropriate?Dtoler 14:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, both Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_controversies and Controversies of Rudy Giuliani have been dismantled, with their contents disbursed and integrated into the other articles on those subjects. Controversies sections/subarticles are a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. The dismantling of the Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies article has worked out well since it was done, with the exception of people expecting to see one because they see them in other candidates' articles. The obvious solution for that is to fix the other articles. To those who argue that controversies sections/pages should exist, I suggest you look at comparable Featured Articles of political figures, the best WP has to offer. Look at Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Wesley Clark, Barack Obama, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Theodore Roosevelt; none of them have Controversies sections or subarticles. There's no reason the Fred Thompson articles need one either. Wasted Time R 19:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Great work on Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_controversies. I think the same thing could be done here. I'll get to work on a proposal. Meanwhile, you deserve a barnstar for the HRC work. Eseymour 18:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Trophy Wife

I don't think we need a section about Jeri Kehn Thompson allegedly being a "trophy wife." That whole episode is more focussed on her than him, and it is already adequately covered in the article about her. Additionally, if we start including things like that in this Fred Thompson Controversies article, then perhaps we would need to also cover similar episodes such as the Joe Scarborough remarks about her "working the pole". None of that stuff belongs here in this article, and it is all already adequately covered in the article on Jeri Kehn Thompson.

Furthermore, this new section in this article is written with a POV. The author writes that the New York Times is "explaining" rather than asserting, and the author of this article strongly implies that Mrs. Thompson is "indeed" a trophy wife. Moreover, the new section micharacterizes what the NY Times wrote. The times was not saying that Mrs. Thompson is a trophy wife according to the current meaning of that term, but only according to what the Times believes was the "original" meaning. All in all, I think this section is unnecessary and ought to be removed. Any objections?Ferrylodge 00:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I object, being (mostly) the writer of the section. The age difference in Thompson's marriage is, for better or worse, controversial. Best to cover it and present both sides (charge and rebuttal). As far as what the Times reporter said "trophy wife" meant, I copied the language from the Kehn article. (Incidentally, if you're reading an anti-Fred POV on my part into it, you're reading a POV into it that doesn't exist.) Jdb1972 15:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. But even if there was no intentional POV, I still think the stuff at the Jeri Kehn Thompson article is adequate here, and at most this controversy article should briefly mention and link to that stuff in her article. There was also criticism of this section of this article by jersyko here: "dump the crap about his wife being younger and anything of the same ilk. Lobbyist for abortion group but now pro-life . . . controversial. His wife is 40 years old . . . huh?" This is a very minor controversy about whether the NY Times unfairly used the word "trophy wife". It's really not about anything that Mrs. (much less Mr.) Thompson did.Ferrylodge 15:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

PAC Money Transfer

I put a POV tag on this section of the article. It seems to be insinuating wrongdoing, without balancing the information presented. If no one objects, I will edit this section to clarify that there has been no suggestion of illegality. Moreover, this section should mention that Daniel Thompson runs an office of a charitable fund-raising firm in Nashville. See As Senator Rose, Lobbying Became Family Affair in NY Times.Ferrylodge 01:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Relationships

No reliable source has described his relationships as controversial. Therefore it is just biographical information and it is covered on his bio page. deleting here per BLP as it could be construed as "false light libel" to describe them as controversial. --Tbeatty 04:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the context of that great "caught me" quote was when he was asked if there were any skeletons in his romatic life closet. Jdb1972 15:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Aristide

The section on Aristide was recently deleted here. The edit summary said: "No evidence that Thompson's action was controversial. Not a controversy in anyone else's bio. BLP issue with the tires thing too." I'm not sure what "BLP" stands for, or why Aristide would have to appear in anyone else's bio. However, I do agree that Tbeatty raises a good point about evidence of a controversy.

Check out this link which involves a June 25, 2007 article by Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com, titled: "Why is nobody questioning the GOP front-runner about his lobbying efforts on behalf of a murderous leftist demagogue?" I think the facts clearly show that the author is way off base there, so it would be useful to include this controversy in our article and present the facts. Any objection?Ferrylodge 07:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. One person questioning it (from antiwar.com no less) is not evidence that this was controversial. Especially since they ask a question and are not making a statement. BLP is "Biography of Living Persons" and is a core policy. I'd advise you to read and understand it before editing biographies on Wikipedia. Associating Thompson with murders committed by Aristede will take quite a bit of documentation expecially since it's not worthy a mention on other biogrpahies that did a lot more than make a phone call to put him back in office. --Tbeatty 08:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder about BLP. All these acronyms get confusing sometimes.

A few brief responses. I was not the one who put the material about Aristide into the Thompson articles. That occurred here. I sought to tone it down and to eliminate the POV, and I also supported moving this matter to the controversy page --- away from the main Thompson article. I'm not the one who introduced it into the Thompson pages, and I'm also not going to be the one who insists on reintroducing it.

Nevertheless, you are mistaken on several points. First, this person Raimondo did make statements, as opposed to merely asking questions: "Quite obviously, Aristide was a wild man, a man whose rhetoric condemned him out of his own mouth, and whose actions were inexcusable – yet Thompson signed on to the campaign to prettify this yammering tyrant, empowering him and deepening the misery of the Haitian people." Second, Raimondo is merely the tip of the iceberg. You can also see for yourself that Associated Press has smeared Thompson in the same way:

He also was a lobbyist for deposed Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who was widely criticized for endorsing "necklacing," the gruesome practice of execution where gasoline-soaked tires are thrown over a person's neck and set ablaze. In September 1991, Aristide said: "The burning tire, what a beautiful tool! ... It smells good. And wherever you go, you want to smell it."

So, my preference would still be to include material about Aristide at the Constroversy page, in order to get all the facts out there in the open (e.g. Thompson did not earn a dime here). But I won't insist on it.Ferrylodge 08:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are some of these things here?

Viewing illegal immigration as a threat is not a controversy. Not being conservative enough for some people is not a controversy. A controversy is having sex with an intern or blowing the cover of a CIA operative because you don't like her husband. Having a viewpoint that some people disagree with is not a controversy. If these three episodes are somehow controversial, then the article needs to explain how they are. --B 13:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There is some controversy about how "conservative" he really is. So, the article discusses that controversy at some length. This seems like an appropriate type of thing to include here. If there's something clear and undisputed about Thompson, then it can go in the main Fred Thompson article. Otherwise, this seems like a good place for it. If Thompson makes some remarks that are widely criticized or misinterpreted, causing him to issue a clarification or retraction, then that's a controversy too.Ferrylodge 13:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether he is conservative or not does seem to fall under the label of controversy, although it's not as clear-cut as the other issues discussed.--Gloriamarie 23:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Another Fraudulent Article

Business as usual, using op-ed pieces to push an agenda. Apparently, all I need to do is get a position at the New York Times, then I can rail on anyone I want and it will be included in Wikipedia no matter how fallacious my points are - forget journalism. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 18:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If something is false Thompson should take it up with the newspaper. Good luck with getting a job at the Times and putting your journalistic ethics and job on the line everything you write there.

It should be pointed out that Richard Viguerie is not a writer for the Times, and appears to doubt how Thompson has been casting himself to conservatives.

Please sign all your comments with four tildes(~). "Apparently, all I need to do is get a position at the New York Times, then I can rail on anyone I want and it will be included in Wikipedia no matter how fallacious my points are - forget journalism." Thanks for my laugh for the day; it's notoriously difficult for even the best journalists to get a job at The New York Times. It's probably the best-respected newspaper in the world. The inclusion of these articles is appropriate.--Gloriamarie 23:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to dismantle this article

At the suggestion of Wasted Time R and following his example at Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, I propose we dismantle this article and merge its sections into appropriate articles. Here are my proposals for what to do with the sections:

• 1. Watergate tapes-->This is probably the most notable of these items. I propose creating a new article which would contain the details (both favorable and unfavorable) of what Thompson did during the Watergate investigation. A summary would remain in the main article.

• 2. Political action committee payments to son-->delete, as no evidence of wrongdoing has emerged since this was mentioned several months ago.

• 3. Lobbyist for abortion group-->brief mention in Political positions of Fred Thompson

• 4. Cuban health care/embargo debate-->Fred Thompson presidential campaign, 2008

• 5. Castro and immigration remarks-->delete (I don't see the controversy here), or Fred Thompson presidential campaign, 2008

I welcome your comments. Eseymour 18:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not sure what the point of this article is, either. The controversies section in the main article or campaign 2008 articles could be beefed up, most notably with issues 1 and 3-- the only two of which have had any major airplay so far. Issue 4 got a lot of airplay in conservative circles prior to Thompson's entry into the campaign, but that's one or two sentences worth of material. Issue 2 and 5 don't appear to be notable. A presidential candidate gets dozens of controversies-- the coverage can easily become disproportionate.

Wellspring (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

An update on the dismantling of these kinds of controversies/criticisms subarticles or main article sections in Wikipedia. Of the 16 Dem and GOP candidates currently still running for president:

• Never had such articles/sections: Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Gravel, Romney, Paul
• Had them but since dismantled/disbursed: Clinton, Richardson, Biden, Giuliani, McCain, Hunter
• Still have them: Dodd, F. Thompson, Huckabee, Tancredo

So even more reason to progress with the dismantling and disbursing here. Wasted Time R 18:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I support the dismantling and merging of this article, as I have with similar 'X Controversy' articles. Be bold and go for it. Terraxos (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I support dismantling, because that is the current trend in biographies. The reason why I previously supported having this article is because I didn't want all of this info dumped into the main Fred Thompson article, thus giving it undue weight in that main article. Eseymour plans to instead farm this material out to various other articles, which avoids the undue weight problem.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will go ahead with this as soon as I have some spare time. Eseymour (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Since Eseymour is off for the holidays and people are still complaining in other talk pages about inequitable treatment of candidates in this regard, I've gone ahead and done the dismantling/disbursing/integration work. My disposition was a little different from the above plan:

1. Watergate tapes → Footnote in main article, which already had a good treatment of much of this.
2. Political action committee payments to son → Brief mention in main article, in the context I added of both his sons going into lobbying after he became senator, but generally avoiding conflicts of interest.
3. Lobbyist for abortion group → Footnote in main article, where it was already mentioned. Also added mention in campaign article. Removed a wlink back to here from the political positions article, which by the way has an incoherent (to me) description of this.
4. Cuban health care/embargo debate → Was already in political positions article, just moved over one needed cite and removed a back wlink.
5. Castro and immigration remarks → Was already in political positions article, nothing more needed.

This article has now been redirected to the main article. In all cases I stripped out some of the verbiage and lower-level detail when I did the integration; the former contents are still available in the article history, for anyone who wants to check or refine what was done. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)