Talk:Gerald Ford/Archive 3

Ford's assessment of fellow presidents released

Just an interesting piece here. They're certainly very enlightening views and may work as an addition to this article in some form. Thoughts? --AWF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.54.155.58 (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Canada and the G7

Good work on copying right out of the CBC article, perhaps a rewording that is not so opinionated, ie "Gerald Ford did Canada a huge favour", perpetuating once again that Canada needs to and does ride on America's coat tails.

Vote: football first

"Ford also “became the only future U. S. president to tackle a future Heisman Trophy winner when he brought down halfback Jay Berwanger, who won the first Heisman the following year.”"

isn't this getting a bit into minutia? -- johno95 03:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be properly cited. It's a bit obscure, but S.I. thought it was interesting. Wahkeenah 03:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to remove. This titbit is totally obscure. I mean, would you read this in Britannica? This is an encyclopedia, not a trivia book. Veracious Rey talk↔contribs 18:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i also vote yes to remove, if it hasn't been already. -- johno95 20:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I put that in there. But taking down Berwanger is no mean feat. And what about the long paragraph that follows? That drawn-out paragraph had to do with what could only have been a regular-season game, probably the 11/03/1934 game listed at U. Mich.’s site (since obviously, you don’t get to a national championship with a 0-6 conference record). Why not delete that entire following paragraph instead? (By the way, I originally meant to put the above historical note in the article’s Trivia section, but then found that there wasn’t one, and I certainly wasn’t going to create a Trivia section in an article on a U. S. President.) So yeah, an interesting anecdote and testament to Ford’s not-your-average-President status. Vote to keep (even though I’m ineligible to vote); football definitely comes first. —Muhandis 07:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the other presidents have Trivia sections. 72.189.197.44 20:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

longevity

"Harry and Bess Truman are the presidential couple who have lived the most total years, with 185 (88d and 97d respectively). Gerald and Betty Ford (93d and 88), are currently in second with 181 and Ronald and Nancy Reagan (93d and 85) are currently in third with 178."

What does "88d" or "97d", for example, mean? i am just unaware of it.

If you use the word "currently", when is current? wouldn't the meaning of "current" always change? since this piece isn't (only) about Ford's death, it may not be wise to include facts that have to be updated each year (since Nancy Reagan is currently still alive). -- johno95 04:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume 88d means 88 at death. "Current" is slippery. A specific date should be used: "as of..." whatever. Wahkeenah 05:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was already discussed. The concensus was to keep this information. Veracious Rey talk↔contribs 18:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, maybe we should change this "88d" stuff. -- johno95 20:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

when you google any age, with the letter "d" tacked on, you don't get much that indicates we should use it. sometimes 93d might mean ninety third, for example. -- johno95 05:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

does this look right?

Gerald and Betty Ford hold the record as the longest-lived First Couple at ages 93 and 88, respectively. The previous record (calculated using the combined ages of the two spouses) was held by Ronald and Nancy Reagan at ages 93 and 82, respectively, at the time of President Reagan's death in 2004, at which time Gerald and Betty Ford had already tied their record at ages 90 and 86 respectively. Prior to 2003, Harry and Bess Truman had held the record for more than 30 years — at the time of President Truman's death in 1972, they were aged 88 and 87, respectively.

is (93 + 82) tied by (90 + 86)?

Also, if the Reagans held the record when Ronald died, how could the Fords have tied it at that time? If so, they would have BOTH held the record. -- johno95 14:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

another question:

"Ford was the third longest lived Vice President at the age of 93. The two oldest were John Nance Garner, 98, and Levi Parsons Morton, 96."

I don't think we should get into longevity stats regarding the Office of the Vice President. Garner and Morton. Who cares?

It's simple, the Ford couple was always older then the Reagan couple (I've made the correct edit, on the article). Furthermore, the VP trivia being non-important, is strictly your opinon. GoodDay 18:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

duplication: starting coaching job

under "college" it reads in part:

"...and Green Bay Packers of the National Football League in order to take a coaching position at Yale and apply to its law school..."

under "law", it reads:

"...Starting in September 1935, Ford worked as an assistant football and boxing coach at the university..."

can't this be combined and placed under "college"? -- johno95 04:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the two sections, and agreed a change was needed. I reworded the sentence on his assistant coaching job in football and boxing, and moved it to the Football section. Seems to fit better now. Veracious Rey talk↔contribs 18:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, Rey. -- johno95 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's official now. Gerald R. Ford passed away in December, 2006 at age 93. This makes him the longest-lived U.S. President to date.

Athletics heading

I changed the heading "College" to "Athletics". It was originally titled "Football" before someone changed it. Athletics is a better title because it discusses Ford playing football in highschool, college, and his assistant coaching days in football/boxing at Yale. This segways into the Law section. Veracious Rey talk↔contribs 18:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who changed that heading. I reasoned that since there was information about his fraternity there, not related to athletics, a more generic heading of college was in order. Also, someone else may, in the future, add other academic information there. Since the subject of the article is not someone who is more notable for his political achievements than his athletic ones, I thought that heading was more appropriate. Also, why did you remove the information about his summer job as a park ranger at Yellowstone? It was fully referenced. --rogerd 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly 90% of that section is devoted to Ford's history in football, both in high school and college, with some mention of boxing. If you summed the section up in one sentence, it would be Ford was especially gifted in sports, particullary football. That's why it is titles Athletics. College was too vague, and anyway it was titled Football by me before you changed it. So, Athletics is a compromise between the two.

Concerning your info on Yellowstone, it has no bearing in that section. How do you go from talking about Ford playing football to a tidbit on him at Yellowstone? That's more of a "did you know" bit of info, which isn't encyclopedic. If there was a section of Ford's outside interests, other than sports, it might fit. But remember, this article already gained "featured status". So any additional sections would more than likely be unneccessary. Veracious Rey talk↔contribs 21:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

longevity and death

I am reading this piece, and Ford is getting sicker. Then i am hit with longevity stats. then i learn that he dies. i think the longevity section should go after the death seaction. logically, it makes sense. -- johno95 00:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the longevity section has stats and records about Ford's age and years after the presidency. The death section naturally follows this. What comes after death? I'd leave it alone. Veracious Rey talk↔contribs 02:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the longevity section is a bunch of stats. Best left at the end. This section implies Ford died at age 93, but he is merely ill, according to that point in the text. Stats, footnotes, and references belong at the end. The stats would summarize things nicely at the end.

if you look at the Nixon page, for example, a lot of things come after death. including trivia. -- johno95 05:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia is a poor addition to biography pages. Use them for a movie page, or something similar. I'd leave this section alone. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 06:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that there are sections that can follow death. we don't have a trivia section to move, but we can move that longevity section. -- johno95 06:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me here. Leave it. Thanks. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 06:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::::::Wait a sec, the Reagans were the oldest first couple (until Reagan's death in 2004)? In 2004 (for example); the Reagans were 93+83=176, the Fords 91+86=177. Point is, weren't the Fords? the oldest 'first couple' 1993-2006, (from Pat Nixon's death to Jerry Ford's death)? GoodDay 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry

This section seems overly cumbersome and potentialy unnessecary. But, is anyone interested in cleaning it up, maybe wording this section better. Someone who is knowledgable in freemasonry would be our best bet. I've already taken some poorly worded and quoted material out. It was such a mess I didn't know where a quote started or ended, or when a new paragraph started. I wouldn't mind deleting the entire section, but someone thought it important enough to spend a good amount of time adding it. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 02:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more I read, the more I believe this info has a place in the article if properly written. I don't know though... Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 04:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this section doesn't have much that is original writing. Just google any phrase. And i don't think Gerald's brothers should be mentioned, unless their joining encouraged Gerald to join too, or something interesting like that. -- johno95 05:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole point, Johno - you don't want original research in Wiki articles. Ford's brothers are an iffy subject. I'd leave them in, because it's interesting all his brothers were initiated. Freemasonry was obviously important to Ford's family. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 06:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was you, but maybe it was someone else, that was saying you don't want to cut and paste stuff without attribution. that is what is being done here. i think. -- johno95 06:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't me. Like I said, I'm open to remove it, but better to leave it for now until other qualified editors have had a chance to look it over. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 06:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that I provided comprehensive attributions regarding brother Fords Masonic record. Being new to this, including my registration, I will learn from my mistakes and look forward to learning more, but being a Freemason, perhaps I can be of further assistance on this topic? Your comments on this new section were most helpful. Apologies if it was a source of frustration for any of you. Thanks DoubleEagle32 talk ↔ contribs 01:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: Freemasonry section

All editorys, after reviewing the Freemasonry section, please cast a vote to Keep or Remove with your rationale. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 11:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove, unless: After reviewing the section, and listening to others, I think the section needs to be removed, unless there is some serious reworking of the section, including rewording much of the info. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 11:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shorten it down to a single paragraph. In 35 years of watching news accounts about Ford, I have never seen his Fremasonry mentioned. I think the only ones who care that he was a mason are other masons and the conspiracy theorists who think that secret organizations control the world. --rogerd 14:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revise Maybe mention, "It is rumored that Ford was a member of the freemasons." But i don't know where to put it Brian23 19:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rework This seems pretty verifiable and somewhat interesting. However it should probably be rewritten with block text quotes removed and shortened overall. I think it is notable enough for this article but not for the space and page dominance it now commands. One paragraph should be more than enough and maybe the header could be change to something like "professional affiliations" and it could list his other clubs and rotaries. I don't like the Freemason header. Jasper23 20:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something like this:

see Edit below

Clubs and Rotaries

Ford was initiated into Masonry on September 30, 1949 along with his brothers Thomas Gardner Ford (1918–1995), Richard Addison Ford (1924– ) and James Francis Ford (1927– ). In 1959 he became a Shriner, joining Saladin Shrine Temple, A.A.O.N.M.A.S. in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Ford was also a member of several other organizations including: The American Legion, Veterans of foreign Wars and AMVETS. Jasper23 20:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

I've reworded and compacted the section, removing various minor details, added links, and changed the title from Freemasonry to Organizations. Much better, I think. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 21:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revise I like the way it reads today. Except I don't see the need to list his brother's names, or that he was inducted with his brothers, which is mentioned twice as it stands now. I like the Ford quote, where he mentions his brothers. That's enough. (I hope I aded this in the correct place!) -- johno95 13:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is imporant to have Ford's brothers mentioned. As I stated before (hint) having all of his brothers involved is significant. One or two, maybe not. But the whole family of men. That's intersting, and says something about the family's interests. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review me 16:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agreeMowens35 16:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The compacted version that you cite above uncder "Clubs and Rotaries" captures the essence of Fords membership in the fraternity, and is very good, and if I may vote, agree it should stand. Please consider, one last opportunity, to include a mention of an important honor that was bestowed on our late President, to wit: "..Three years later Ford was made a Sovereign Grand Inspector General, 33°, honorary." after the sentence ending in "...Temple in Grand Rapids.". The 33° is of the highest honors within the Scottish Rite body of Freemasonry. In hindsight, though, the use of the word "coroneted" instead of "made" is more technically correct, it's not that important to the integrity of the sentence. By the way, the use of the word and punctuation ",honorary." after "33°" is the correct nomenclature within Freemasonry to describe this honor. Again, not critical it be included, but this high honor is relatively rare, and is indicative of his service and dedication to the order.DoubleEagle32 19:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death section photos

I've removed a few photos over the last couple of days from the death section, for two reasons:

This section is a stub in the main Ford article, and redirects to the article on Ford's death and state funeral. Please do not add photos in the main Gerald Ford article.
Each photo was either horribly cropped, or of poor quality. The section ended up being distorted, and looked bad compared to the rest of the sections. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 21:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just because it reverts to his death article does not mean a reader will continue to that article. The picture I added was very appealing and at your request I made it much smaller. I feel that the photo of his tomb is highly necesary in this article and at the very least does not take anything away from the artcle. --Eman1114

DISCUSSION OPENED: Ford's Biological Father, Abuse, Et Cetera

Fellow Wikipedians, I have added the graph (which keeps being removed by an anonymous Wikipedian, who also keeps removing it from the Discussion section) re Ford's biological father, ie his spousal abuse and alcoholism and a physical attack which sparked his divorce from Ford's mother. Basically and literally, Dorothy Gardner King (later Ford) fled an abusive marriage and a threat of death by butcher knife, all of which was discussed by Ford later in life when James Cannon, who worked with him in the White House, was working on a book about the former president. I would like to start a discussion as to why and/or why not this information is appropriate for Wiki. I happen to believe that it is. Any insights, comments? Basically, I'm just tired of putting it back into the section.Mowens35 22:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree it is appropriate. This shaped Ford's path in life as much as any other event. It's well worded, properly cited, and encyclopedic. Vote to keep. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review me 00:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of it is appropriate I don't like the following line, as it is extraneous,and should simply be accorded a footnote:

"James M. Cannon, who was the executive director of the domestic council during the Ford administration, wrote in a biography of the former president that..."

Keep the remainder of the sentence. -- johno95 13:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started all the articles about Ford's biological parents, grandparents, birthsite and even Rudolff in the last few days. I was shocked to come back and see the vandalism to this article (including deleting the link to the birthsite!!!!!). The worst offender now appears to be User talk:Eman1114 who when you look at the contributions appears to be a p.c. booster of Grand Rapids. Ford's childhood should be the least controversial aspect of the article. The abuse and his mother's response played a major role in Ford's character (clearly revealed by the full quote about his formal meeting with his father). All this is not demeaning to Ford and in fact shows what kind of timber he was from. It's very discouraging to see this sort of vandalism. Fortunately though the quotes and references are still in tact (and even expanded) in the articles I wrote and I will make sure they stay there. Americasroof 14:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1934 Michigan football

At one point, the article says, "The team suffered a steep decline in his 1934 senior year, however, winning only one game." Then, "During the 1934 championship game, during which Michigan held heavily favored Minnesota (the eventual national champion) to a scoreless...."

If Michigan only won one game, they didn't play in the championship game. Alecjp 05:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did football seasons straddle calendar years then as they do now? Agreed that this is unclear. --Rostov 22:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Quality Standards regarding naming conventions

The first sentence shoud clearly state: Gerald Rudolph Ford (born Leslie Lynch King, Jr.). Editors sometimes argue that it is redundant to provide this information when there is also an article section that elaborates on name changes. It is standard practice, however, to provide both the actual name and the birth name in a bio, and most articles follow this precedent even where name info is provided later on. The reason for this is to conserve an article's encyclopedic quality. A user should not be burdened to search within the article body for first-order data that identifies and classifies the subject-matter. Birth name is regarded as one of the core elements of introductory info that is mandatory for a responsably written reference article. If the introduction to the section that elaborates on his name seems too redundant, then it can be reworded for aesthetic purposes, but the section should not detract from the encyclopedic responsabilities in the opening paragraph.--Supersexyspacemonkey 03:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit. Surprised no one thought of it earlier. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review me 03:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Tomb

I feel that it is very appropriate and adds to this article to have a current picture of his recently completed tomb. I'll cut down the size if you feel it is necesary, but I would appreciate it if you would at least communicate witth me before removing for no real reason other then the fact that you dislike me. I am not committing any vandalism, I just respect Ford and felt i was adding spmething positive to his article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eman1114 (talk • contribs)

I would like to know why this editor received no response but had his edits reverted. I see no justification for the removal of this picture in either the talk page or in any edit summaries. Jasper23 02:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can maybe understand why it was reverted when it was first added as just a picture instead of a smaller, thumbnail-sized image but after Eman1114 resized it, I'm not sure. Metros232 02:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my comment: you didn't read the above post before you placed your photo in this section. Why did you upload your photo without replying to that post? Anyway, I strongly feel this smaller section doesn't need two pics, especially when there is another article covering Ford's death. Numerous images doesn't make a good article. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review me 02:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my comment: I think you are a good editor who has worked very hard on improving this article and keeping it safe from vandalism. However, in this particular case you should have kept a dialogue with this editor and you shouldn't have reverted his edits without comment. Jasper23 02:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I DID COMMENT. I commented here about this section, I commented on the history page. Does no one think he should have commented why the pic was needed in this tiny section?? Answer me that. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review me 02:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you commented after you reverted his photo multiple times and you never gave any rational whatsoever for removal. No, he did not need to comment about why the pic was "needed" before his first edit and he did so on the talk page after being reverted. He resized his photo, politely asked for input and a reason why his photo was being reverted. Realize that you are in the wrong on this issue, apologize and move on. Jasper23 02:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment in the history of the page is rv uncontributive edting, user has been warned. That's not exactly explaining why its uncontributive. Metros232 02:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I give up. For a hundred good contributions, I get chewed on for this. Okay, you guys win. My only intention was maintaing a high standard of quality in this article. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review me 03:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come off it. This isn't all about you. This is about the image. What are your objections to the use of the photo and how is its use "uncontributive"? You said you don't feel that section deserves the two images, why? How is the addition of this photo taking away from the overall quality of that section or the entire article? Metros232 03:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're coming close to biting. And I've explained why I don't think the pic is needed.

Article section is too small
There is currently another article about Ford's death, better placement for this pic

If you don't agree, fine. But don't tell me to "come of it". I'm done talking about this. I said you guys have won, so leave it alone, please. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review me 04:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here longer than me and you're accusing me of biting newcomers? What? Metros232 04:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a newcomer, but newcomers are not the only victims of biting, as you've demonstrated. I directed you to that page for this very reason. Biting is biting, no matter whom you direct it towards. Remain civil, please. If you feel the need to comment further, please do so on my talk page. This isn't the place. Article talk pages are for discussions regarding the article. Take your disputes to my talk page. Thank you. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review me 04:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veracious, you're overreacting. You were wrong, and all people wanted was you to apologize to that editor. You failed to do so even after others told you to do so, and you consider their responses biting? We're all human; we make mistakes. Just apologize, and move on. This is about the article, not about you. Nishkid 64 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys for sticking up fpr me. I was getting really discouraged but you all showed that there are plenty of good editors out there. Thanks guys.--Eman1114

I'm willing to admit I went about this the wrong way. But I need everyone to know how hard I've worked on this article and others. I guess I got caught up in editing, and forgot to realize everyone has an equal claim here. For that, I apologize. Please don't insinuate I'm not a good editor, I'd like to think I am. And if you decide to click "review me" after my signature, please review my collective work on Wikipedia, not just in the last two days. Thanks. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review me 02:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not calling you a bad editor, you just frustrated me becasue I felt like I was actually adding something constructive to an article for the first time. I have seen the many great things you have done in this article, and as a citizen of Grand Rapids, MI and a huge Ford fan I thank you. It means a lot that you are honoring Ford with your time here on wikipedia. --Eman1114

I am going to quote myself on this one; "I think you are a good editor who has worked very hard on improving this article and keeping it safe from vandalism." We all get carried away sometimes. Jasper23 05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. Eman, sorry for stomping on your contributions. You know, one thing I've learned, Ford really was a great guy, and tends to be overlooked by history. It's a shame his death brought the accolades he deserved while living. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review me 08:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging both Ford articles?

I did a test run by merging Ford's death article with the main Ford article. The resulting page is terrribly long. We would serve Wikipedia users better if both Ford articles were kept seperate (in my view). For example, the main Reagan article is still seperate from his death article. In fact, info about his death in the main Reagan article is very short, with no pics either. Perhaps we could shorten the death info in the Gerald Ford article as well. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review me 02:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This (main) article currently has 44KB of prose, which is high. Getting it under 40 is desirable (see WP:LENGTH for how to calculate prose size, and Dr pda's script). Better use of summary style in areas like his death could help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ford and Human Rights

While it is important that there is a too-brief mention of Ford's role in supporting Indonesia's invasion of East Timor in the article as written, there is not currently an analysis of Ford's human rights record, especialy his support for other repressive regimes around the world, and I believe this is very important.

One of Ford's only achievements in the human rights area was the signing of the Helsinki accords, which put the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites on record as supporting political human rights which they so ruthlessly repressed. As Ford rightly claimed, human rights activists in these countries were able to point to the Helsinki Accords to bolster the cause, eventually helping lead to the nonviolent revolutions which overthrew these regimes in 1989.

Yet, in other countries around the world, Ford routinely allied with despots who supported the US in cold war struggles. Ford supported several dictators in Latin America, including [Augusto Pinochet in Chile] during some of the worst of the repression there. Ford also supported the [Shah of Iran], [Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines], and [Mobotu in Zaire], despite their atrocious human rights records and, at least in the case of the latter two, their kleptocratic style of rule.

Ford's opposition to sanctions against [South African apartheid], and his support for South Africa's invasions of Namibia and [Angola], had devastating consequences for the people of the region.

Ford's support for the war in Angola was so egregious that it is one of the few occasions when Congress reined in a President's military intervention For more on Ford's role in Angola and Zaire, see also the book by Jonathan Kwitney, a Wall St. Journal reporter, Endless Enemies. (The same Congress also curtailed Ford's power to continue fighting the war in Vietnam).

Some of this is enumerated (Zunes would probably supply footnotes upon request, as he is a respected scholar) in Professor Zunes' article at Reasons Not to Like Ford.

Le Monde Diplomatique also describes how the Ford administration supported Morocco's invasion and occupation of the Western Sahara. Most infamously, Kissinger told Ford, "Hassan has pulled back in the Sahara. But if he doesn’t get it, he is finished. We should now work to ensure he gets it. We would work it through the UN [to] ensure a favourable vote." According to the article above, Moynihan's memoirs confirm that this is the policy Ford followed.

--Sam Diener 07:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's called "acting in America's best interests". We've been messing around with other countries' affairs since at least the days of James Monroe. Wahkeenah 10:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on Ford and Watergate

Ford became president because of the watergate scandal. I think this should be mentioned in the first paragraph. What do you think? (I hope you try to set aside your personal feelings for me in voting. I'm trying.) -- johno95 00:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

It should be possible to close this article's FAR without a FARC; however, the prose size is currently at 45KB (see WP:LENGTH) and the article could benefit from moving about 5KB to daughter articles, via summary style. Can anyone work on that, and give us some feedback on the FAR (see link at top of page)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for no daughter articles here. Sumoeagle179 23:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LENGTH is a guideline and I don't think 5k needs to be treated as a deal-breaker. This is a late 20th century US president; some extra K are to be expected. That said, I think "Canada and the G7" should be cut it in half. It gets too much play. Marskell 12:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did the abbrevating myself. I think it better summary style now. Marskell 15:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminati "News"?

Somebody slipped this link into the External Links section. In addition to the spurious subject matter and the source's lack of credibility, the biased and exaggerated title ("Ford forced to admit the Warren Report fictionalized") makes me suspicious of the contributor's intentions. The matter of Ford and the Warren Report is already discussed in this article, so I went ahead and removed the link. Mr. Accident 21:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting us know. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy

In the section on Gerald Ford's post-presidency it should be added that he is also the namesake for the University of Michigan's Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. I believe there is a link to the Ford School in the links section, but there is no mention in the body of the text. As a new user I cannot make changes to this page. Could someone please make this change for me? Schroeda 17:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)schroeda[reply]

Okay: I will in just a moment. Extremely sexy 17:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out it was mentioned though. Extremely sexy 18:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]