| Revision as of 18:43, 22 August 2007 editItaliavivi (talk | contribs)2,551 edits →Multiple Serious Violations: And I do not appreciate you using a new section to repeat removed uncivility and personal attack.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:02, 12 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,882,811 editsm →top: -activepol=no (Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters); cleanupTag: AWB |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{skiptotoctalk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|blp=no|listas=Thompson, Fred|1= |
|
{{BLP}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|filmbio-work-group=yes|filmbio-priority=Mid|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=Mid}} |
|
{{notaforum|Fred Thompson or the 2008 election}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=Low|subject=person}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Alabama}} |
|
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=B|activepol=yes|a&e-work-group=yes|politician-work-group=yes|listas=Thompson, Fred Dalton|nested=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Tennessee|class=B|importance=High |nested=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Tennessee|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alabama|class=B|nested=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|USPE=yes|USPE-importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Nov 1 2015 (12th)}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:Fred Thompson/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:Fred Thompson/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
<!-- Metadata: see ] --> |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 10 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Fred Thompson/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{talkbottom}} |
|
|
{{archive box| |
|
|
]<br /> |
|
|
]<br /> |
|
|
]<br />}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Press| title = On Misplaced Pages, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet |
|
|
| author = Jose Antonio Vargas |
|
|
| date = ] |
|
|
| year = 2007 |
|
|
| month = September |
|
|
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601699.html |
|
|
| org = The Washington Post |
|
|
| section = |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==You are Dumb As Hell== |
|
==Senator Fred Thompson== |
|
|
Was Senator Fred Thompson ever married to Elizabeth Taylor?<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
In keeping with ] and ] this kind of thing would not be allowed on a talk page, so why ? I think it ought to be removed.] 03:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:] and ] are editors' conduct guidelines. They have no bearing on content (especially not direct quotes) whatsoever. If Nixon said it (assuming there is a source), it's in. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA would have nothing to do with it. ] 04:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Maybe so, but I still think paraphrasing would be better than quoting, in this instance. It gets the same point across without letting Nixon use Misplaced Pages to uncivilly attack Thompson.] 05:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Civility has nothing to do with it; WP:CIVILITY applies to ''Misplaced Pages editors'', not ''Misplaced Pages's subjects''. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, a neutral observer, and direct quotes are wholly appropriate. If Dick Cheney tells Patrick Leahy to "go fuck yourself" , we cover the exchange exactly as it took place. ] 13:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I wouldn't mind sticking it in the footnote, but I don't see that it would add anything to the article, which '''''already describes Nixon's objections'''''. Nixon said a lot of foul-mouthed and stupid things about a lot of people, but that doesn't mean they have to go into the texts of our articles. He also said, "Oh shit, that kid" in reference to Thompson, while acknowledging that Thompson was "friendly." Howard Baker assured Nixon that Thompson was a "big mean fella." Does all this stuff have to go into the text of our article? One thing that I especially don't like about the "dumb as hell" remark is that we don't have a link to the full transcript, in order to put it in context --- but even if we did have the full transcript, I don't think it would be wise to cherry-pick the most foul-mouthed thing that Nixon said about Thompson, in order to put it front and center in our article.] 17:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I disagree; such vituperative language from a President about a Presidential candidate is definitely notable, assuming there is a reliable source to back it up. If the quote can be sourced, it belongs in the main text of the Watergate section. ] 17:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Nasty, vituperative language was one of Nixon's more entertaining qualities. When J. Edgar Hoover died, Nixon said: But do we have to put that in our Misplaced Pages article about ]? And how about all the nasty vituperative stuff Nixon said about others? Which nasty stuff about Thompson do we put front and center, and which do we put aside? And do we know what Nixon said immediately before or after saying "Dumb as hell"?] 17:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I agree with ]. The gist of Nixon's remark can be paraphrased without including a partial quote that serves only to sensationalize the remark. Directly quoting just those three words doesn't add anything useful to the article. ] 17:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Council of Foreign Relations membership? == |
|
|
|
|
|
For some people, this association is considered pretty damning for him, considering their supposed globalisation agenda. |
|
|
Does anyone know where this information comes from? I can find no citations on his membership, and the cfr.org website makes no mention of him as membership, despite the introductory section stating that he is a current member. |
|
|
Any proof or clarification would be well advised. |
|
|
Thanks.--] 04:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: footnoted sources says so.] 05:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The idea that membership in the CFR is "damning" is patently POV, and requires a tinfoil hat. Among the thousands of members in the past appear names such as: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ], just to name a few prominent examples. I don't know how reliable is, but I do not see Fred Thompson appearing anywhere on it. - ] 17:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Here's with Thompson included. I don't know how accurate it is. In any event, membership in the CFR is no big deal. It's not like the ] or ].] 18:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Heh, I don't know how old you are, but you would have loved ]'s radio show back in the late 70's and early 80's. She linked everyone who ever served on Trilateral or CFR to the JFK assasination. - ] 18:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::45 :)] 18:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Two campaigns for U.S. Senate == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm deleting off-topic discussion about a red truck from the article. It may be appropriate to insert a well researched and substantial discussion of Thompson's 1992 senitoral campaign. However, a debate about whether or not the truck was rented is irrelevant and is particularly inappropriate to have in the body and the footnotes of this article. |
|
|
|
|
|
Additionally, the article offers a NPOV analysis on Thompson's victory: "In a good year for republican candidates" which cites an editorial. Let's stick to the facts. |
|
|
:It's not "off-topic," it's a very noteworthy and relevant part of the senate campaigns. I've restored the material. ] 22:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I've supplied a better reference for 1994 having been a good year for the GOP. I've also condensed the material in the text about the red truck, so that almost all of it is in the footnotes. (I don't think the footnotes should be broken up into separate footnotes because it calls undue attention to this minor matter about the truck.)] 23:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The truck should be included; I believe I was the first person to place that in the article and there were many sources for it. Almost any article discussing that campaign will comment on the truck.--] 20:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Endorsements== |
|
|
|
|
|
There are lots of Thompson endorsements listed . Should any of them go in the new endorsements section of our article?] 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'd say include "key" endorsements, like Senators, House leaders, major interest groups, etc. We should probably change this to say, "Individuals and groups endorsing Fred Thompson include..." and pick a handful of the most prominent endorsements. (The reason I added this new section was to keep the fact of D'Amato's endorsement, but leave out the laudatory comments. As I've said before, we can't include everyone's commentary about Thompson in this article.) ] 19:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::No, this is an encyclopedia not a campaign page. ] 16:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Gun Control== |
|
|
|
|
|
An AppealToHeaven recently made . The edit changed this: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>He currently supports the right of citizens to ] if they do not have criminal records.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
to this: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>He supports the right of most citizens to ].</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
I will revert this edit for several reasons. First, no reason was given. Second, the phrase "most citizens" is weaselly. See ]. Third, AnAppealToHeaven has not given us any idea of who --- other than people with criminal records --- Thompson believes lacks a right to keep and bear arms. And, Fourth, this section of the present article is supposed to merely summarize what's in the article about Thompson's political positions, and there does not seem to be anything in that article to support the changes that AnAppealToHeaven has made here.] 21:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This single sentence suggests that Fred is the salvation that all gun owners seek. This is not right. Fred Thompson has a mixed record on gun control; even voting to silence grass roots gun rights groups by making it Federal Crime for them to publish incumbent's gun voting records leading up to an election. Fred is not entirely pro-gun and all that I am trying to do is highlight this simple fact for our readers so that they know to read further into his political positions page before they draw any conclusion. This page is not the Fox News spin machine and does not belong to the Fred Thompson Campaign. Therefore it is my intention to right this wrong. If you are pro Fred I suggest you help us correct this before we force a complete rewrite of this spin machine. Again, this has nothing at all to do with criminal records. This statement is merely your spin attempt to deflect the issue and leave readers confused thinking that Fred is always pro-gun except when it involves a criminal. This is not the full factual history of Fred and we will correct this if you do not take it upon yourself to do so. The clock is ticking; tick, tock.... ] 12:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::If you want to write in the article that Thompson voted to make it a Federal Crime to publish incumbent's gun voting records leading up to an election, then do so, with a footnote. But please do not replace other perfectly accurate statements with vague unsourced statements. Thanks. And my understanding is that Thompson's views about campaign finance were not focussed on gun-related issue ads, much less focussed only on gun-related issue ads from the pro-gun-rights side of the issue.] 16:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::P.S. Never mind, I've just added that material to the article myself.] 19:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Ok. Nothing is ever perfect but you have done a fine job to compromise and be fair at the same time. Thank you Ferrylodge. ] 02:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Anapealtoheaven, thanks for helping to improve the article.] 02:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Questions? Ask them through Wikinews == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them? |
|
|
|
|
|
Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question. |
|
|
|
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or . |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, |
|
|
Nick |
|
|
|
|
|
==Archiving== |
|
|
|
|
|
I've taken every topic through 10 July, and placed it in ]. Best, ] 23:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Church of Christ or United Church of Christ? == |
|
|
|
|
|
A handful of recent edits have been made changing Thompson's religious affiliation between ] and ]. However, all the reliable sources I've seen identify Thompson as a member of the ]. For example: . He was married to Jeri Kehn in a church affiliated with the ], but since that church was in Kehn's hometown, it seems likely that was ''her'' church. ] 13:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It's also possible to be affiliated with two different churches within one's lifetime. It seems that he could be affiliated with both, but whether it's his wife's church or not is original research until a reliable source covers it.--] 23:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:True. I was just saying that the only possible link between Thompson and the UCC was that he was married in a UCC church. Several reliable sources identify his denomination as Church of Christ. It should stay that way in this article until reliable sources are found proving otherwise. ] 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Pov section tag on corruption section== |
|
|
I added this tag because of the non-encyclopedic nature of the writing, but mainly because the section is far more detailed than the section's source. I will go through this soon and make sure that the details match, unless somebody else feels like doing it. As it stands, it feels like this section is written in such a way as to try and get a particular pov across. ] 04:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Here is what the source says:Returning to his law practice, Thompson again entered the spotlight in 1977 with his representation of Marie Ragghianti, a former chair of the Tennessee parole board pursuing a wrongful termination suit against then-Gov. Ray Blanton's office. The case was perfect for Thompson, who'd threatened legal action against the Democratic governor twice before on behalf of state employees allegedly dismissed for political reasons. It wasn't until Ragghinati's case, however, that Thompson went all the way. His work helped uncover a clemency-for-cash scheme that led to Blanton's removal from office.] 04:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't see any POV problem with the section. I've replaced that tag with one that requests additional sources. ] 19:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I have worked to match the text to the sources and have now added an expand tag. I think this is a pivotal moment in Thompson's career and needs to be expanded. ] 22:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Out of context quoting == |
|
|
|
|
|
There is some out of context quoting. |
|
|
|
|
|
For example the article read: "'''His stump speech consists of broad conservative themes, talk of bipartisanship and commentary on issues of the day.'''" |
|
|
|
|
|
But the full quote includes: "His stump speech consists of broad conservative themes, talk of bipartisanship and commentary on issues of the day, '''but it largely lacks any vision for the future of the country.'''" |
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at the page history, that quote cropping was done after the full quote was added. Maybe a messed up edit? |
|
|
|
|
|
Related, Thompson has slipped in the polls and he is not the Rasmussen Reports Poll leader anymore. The ] has Rudy Giuliani 25%, Fred Thompson 25%, which is the best Thompson is doing right now. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:05:21, 31 July 2007| 05:21, 31 July 2007}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
:I cropped the Liz Sidoti quotes in order to get rid of the editorializing. Maybe we ought to get rid of her quotes altogether, if you think she's being taken out of context. Saying that Thompson's stump speech "largely lacks any vision for the future of the country" is pure editorializing. I'm sure his stump speech lacks a lot of other things too (e.g. metaphor, alliteration, quotations, et cetera). And maybe he's laid out his vision for the country more in his online essays than in his stump speech.] 07:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::No, we shouldn't get rid of it. I see no problem with "editorializing." Such as, "In a June 6 appearance on Hannity and Colmes, Republican pollster ] described Fred Thompson as the "Six-million-pound gorilla" of the Republican primary race." (I'm sure Giuliani's supporters who disagree with that comment.) An editorial is an opinion, and opinions are okay. |
|
|
|
|
|
::If you have links to his stump speeches then add them. But cropping those quotes in that manner is grossly misleading. I'm glad I looked at the source. The author's point was in contradiction to the point quoted. This doesn't seem to be an isolated issue. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:08:35, 31 July 2007| 08:35, 31 July 2007}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The Luntz comment should go. It should not be used to justify other editorializing. ] 19:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::First of all, I'm unclear what the significance of that last link is. In any event, Sidoti had two "points." The first point was what was in Thompson's speech, and the second point was what she felt was missing from Thompson's speech. There was no "contradiction". The first statement is factual reporting (what Thompson said), and the second was editorial (what she felt the speech was lacking or didn't say). Misplaced Pages articles can include POVs of the main scholars and specialists in an area, so that major points of view are represented. See ]. Sidoti is an Associated Press reporter, and while it's fine to rely on her for facts, her opinion does not represent any major point of view. Why not quote Michael Moore at length too?] 09:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: You don't consider "broad themes" be be an opinion, but "lacks vision" is? Give me a break. |
|
|
::::] clearly states, "Misplaced Pages should describe '''all major points of view''', when treating controversial subjects." It says to include "main scholars and '''specialists'''." Sidoti's speciality is and . Her job is to write about politics, and has a long history of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The ] means the good, the bad, and the ugly. Moore's criticism is on the other page. As of now, the article lacks criticism on his lack of "substance." |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Also why was wikinews removed? There are many wikinews links in other articles. If people want to read the press related to articles they should be able to. {{unsigned|MMMght|22:15, 31 July 2007}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Edits by MMMght== |
|
|
|
|
|
do not appear to have consensus. Please discuss here before sprinkling wikinews templates throughout the article, and before including editorial statements by Liz Sidoti about what she finds lacking in Thompson's stump speech. The wikinews templates refer to subjects that are covered in the Controversies section of this article, and therefore those templates would be more appropriate in the "Controversies" article than in this one.] 22:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You have only positive material in that section and took that material out of context giving it the false impression that "broad conservative" themes was praise. It seems there are two highly committeed people (Ferrylodge and Essymour) to this article. Why are you so interested in this article and in downplaying criticism? I notice the praise and endorsements don't get as much of a hard time, as including the second half of a sentence. |
|
|
|
|
|
:And yes, it lacks consensus. Ferrylodge and Essymour want parts of the quote removed, I think the quote should be included in whole. Wow... {{unsigned|MMMght|22:28, 31 July 2007}} |
|
|
|
|
|
::Please sign your comments. And , not parts of it.] 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:: ''giving it the false impression that "broad conservative" themes was praise'': This seems to be the root of your misconception. What Sidoti thinks of the candidacy, whether she praises or pans it, is irrelevant. She is quoted only for the facts that she reports. When she characterises his speech as covering "broad conservative themes", that's a statement of fact, which she's eminently qualified to make. She's not praising him, she may well think (and probably does) that conservative themes are a bad thing to have, but her opinion doesn't matter. When she says the speech "lacks vision", that's pure editorialising, and we're not interested in that. If you're looking at the quote for praise or criticism, then of course you'll object to a partial quote, but that's not what it's quoted for. ] 22:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The point was the quote was taken out of context (the second clause was completely removed). Thus, you had something in the article, which was not presented in the manner that the author intended. As a result, the "fact" was misrepresented though it had quotes on it. {{unsigned|MMMght|22:30, 31 July 2007}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Added charts showing hypothetical Thompson v. Clinton and Thompson v. Obama poll data == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've added charts showing hypothetical Thompson v. Clinton and Thompson v. Obama poll data. Full data located here: |
|
|
|
|
|
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election%2C_2008 |
|
|
--] 10:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:As a reader I'd be more interested in Thompson vs. Giuliani (and Romney?) at this stage of the game (i.e. before any primaries). ] 23:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I agree that FT v. other GOP candidates would also be interesting to readers, though I think the FT v. HC/BO polling and charts are highly pertinent to answering the question of whether FT's more viable than RG, MR, JM, etc. In the near future, I plan to add FT v. RG/MR charts and maybe also FT v. JM.--] 23:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::As ] stated in his edit summary, the Obama chart is a violation of ], since Obama is ''far'' behind Clinton in the polls and thus highly unlike to face Thompson in the General Election. - ] → ]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 00:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I wouldn't characterize Obama as ''far'' behind Clinton in the polls, for example, see: |
|
|
::::] |
|
|
|
|
|
== President Garfield was not a Church of Christ member == |
|
|
|
|
|
There was a sentence in this article saying that Thompson would be the second President, after Garfield, to be a member of the Church of Christ. However, the source for that statement was a blog which referred to the Misplaced Pages article on Garfield. The Misplaced Pages article on Garfield used to identify him as Church of Christ, but it has been corrected to Disciples of Christ. Several online sources confirm this: . ] 17:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:The split in the Campbellite movement didn't get serious till after Garfield's day. In his day they were the same church, and who's to say which branch has more right to claim him? Does anyone know how he felt about missionaries and music (the two questions that served as proxies for the underlying issues in the split)? Did he express himself anywhere on them? ] 19:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::OK. I didn't realize those two denominations were so closely related, historically. Should we say that Thompson would be the second President to be a member of the Churches of Christ ''or'' the closely-related Disciples of Christ? Or maybe we should just leave that statement out altogether and avoid the confusion. It seems to be trivia at best, anyway. ] 20:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It would be more accurate to say that he would be the third Campbellite president - that covers all branches. ] 21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Garfield was a strong supporter of missionary work. Thompson's branch rejected instrumental music and missionary societies. ] 20:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: As far as I can tell the branch that became the CoC didn't object to missionary work per se, but to the establishment of a missionary organisation. I don't know what Garfield thought of that. ] 21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
FYI, Lyndon Johnson regularly attended National City Christian Church on Thomas Circle in Washington, D.C. during his time as President. And Ronald Reagan was baptised into the Disciples of Christ as a youth.] 20:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Reagan wasn't a member at the time of his presidency. LBJ is a better case. And he was of the opposite branch. So the Disciples can count him as their second president, the CoC could count Thompson (if he's elected) as their second, and the Campbellites collectively can count Thompson as their third. ] 21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Polling data== |
|
|
What do people think about all the polling charts? Obviously, a lot of work went into creating them, but I think that a link to the polling article should be sufficient, instead of showing lots of poll charts here for various states.] 22:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:For what it's worth, I created these charts, and while I'm not completely averse to the charts being removed, I have posted these charts in the campaign articles for the other major candidates (Giuliani, Romney and McCain), I plan to keep them updated through time, and, in the case of Thompson, I think it's extremely interesting that he is already (a) being included in the statewide polls, and (b) polling so well against the declared candidates. By some accounts, he is already in hypothetical second place without even declaring. My two cents. Also, is 700px too large? Would "thumb" be better, i.e. |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
:--] 22:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I can see maybe having a nationwide poll chart, here in this article. But there are just so many states. Aren't South Carolina and Florida going to have their primaries in January too?] 22:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::We should try to avoid giving ] weight to any one state. Make a national polling chart. - ] → ]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 05:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The poll graphs should be removed completely for a couple of reasons. One, they fall under ] Original Research and ] Synthesis of material. Two, they are contextually meaningless without some representation of confidence limits (+/- points). Three, they give an impression of future performance. Four, the relationship of scale (while good for showing all data points) are misleading in their context of how different public perception is regarding each candidate. I realize that a lot of work went into these, and they are pretty interesting, but they just don't belong. ] 00:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::SigmaEspilon and Ferrylodge: The problem with a national chart is that the primaries, as you know, are not national. Nominees are selected in state-by-state primaries and caucuses and the, whether we like it or not, the first few states have a disproportionate effect on the final outcome. In this case, if Thompson can do well in IA, NV, NH, etc., he has a chance at going forward in the process. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Arzel, thank you for your observations. Allow me to comment to each in turn. I respectfully disagree that these charts are ], because they simply are not "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." They are merely a summary of polling data contained in a related wiki article <ref>]</ref>. The polling sources creating the data for the wiki article are generally accepted and from a wide variety of sources, i.e. Rasmussen, American Research, ABC, various Universities, Strategic Vision, Mason-Dixon, Zogby, various newspapers, etc. As for ], whose position is being advanced? I believe the charts to be an objective presentation of information from public opinion polls; nothing more, nothing less. Confidence limits, a.k.a. margins of error, can be found in the original polling sources. I simply cannot agree that the charts give the impression of future performance. I think, in general, people understand, to borrow an expression from brokerages, past performance does not guarantee future results. As for scale, the addition of all data from zero to 100 would create a chart that is nearly impossible to read without making the chart very large. But, for the sake of argument, I took a quick look at a random sampling of charts on similar subjects, and nearly all that I saw cut off the Y-axis at some point on the range of 0 to 100. If, on the other hand, one were to manipulate or hide the Y-axis, you might have a point, but, in this case, the Y-axis scale is clearly shown. In any event, no hard feelings here; I do appreciate the feedback. How do we proceed from this point. Is there a group of senior wiki editors that can review these threads?--] 02:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The way to proceed is for you to try to create a consensus for including these graphs. Until then, there is no consensus for including them. Misplaced Pages operates by consensus. See ]. Everyone who has commented agrees, except for Rpilaud. The graphs may be a valuable resource, but we can link to them without including them in this article.] 07:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Age difference again == |
|
|
{{RFCbio|Age difference again|Discussion on noting that ] is twenty-five years ]'s junior.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
The exact same editor trying to remove the exact same information as he was two months ago. For the benefit of those deleting: and Tack on and for good measure. That's over twenty pages of Misplaced Pages articles per term (10 articles per page), for those counting. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC) ]<sup>]</sup> 04:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:And the exact same editor trying to add irrelevancies. Back then there wasn't an article about her, because she wasn't notable enough to need one. She had a paragraph in Fred's article, and date of birth is a standard biographical detail, so there was some basis for including it. There was still no need to do the arithmetic, but whatever. Now, though, someone decided she's notable enough for her own article, and her date of birth is listed there. So what is the point of giving her age at marriage, or his, here? How is it relevant to anything at all? ] 05:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Do the articles about the other candidates give their ages when married? If not, then we'd be implying that it's a very significant issue with the Thompsons. But is this really of Anna Nicole Smith proportions? I don't think so, and anyway the age difference is adequately discussed already at the article about ].] 05:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It's listed at ] ("four years his senior"), the Kucinichs, and plenty of other articles. One can only question if the removal of the Thompsons' age difference is culturally or politically motivated, but we hashed through this last time. It reeks of trying to bury the obvious. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: It's utterly irrelevant, and it is '''not''' common in WP biographies (or anywhere else). If people are curious they have to look up both parties' birth dates and do the arithmetic themselves. Taking it out is not "culturally or politically motivated", putting it '''in''' is. The proof is that it was out and you found it necessary to insert it. The burden is on you to show why this trivium should be mentioned, and why giving it any space at all would not be giving it undue ]. Should we mention the names and ages of his pets too? Or what he had for breakfast on his 50th birthday? ] 06:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It is not an "irrelevancy." It '''is common in Misplaced Pages biographies and elsewhere,''' and to assert otherwise is blatant dishonesty. The links are right in front of editors' faces, Zsero. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
(undent) This is making a mountain out of a molehill, and I suggest we err on the side of inclusion. It's no big deal to mention how old they were when they got married. Let people do the math themselves. Misplaced Pages doesn't usually do the math for them. See and . I will edit accordingly.] 07:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's a big deal only because Italiavivi insists on inserting the ages for a reason. Look at any 10 randomly selected biographies on WP, and see how many mention the age difference between the subject and his/her spouse. See ], ], ], ], ], ] (her article mentions how old she was when she met George, but not when she married him), ], ], ], ], ], how far do you want me to go back? |
|
|
: Even when there's a big gap, it's not often mentioned - see ] and ] for instance; neither article mentions the difference in their ages, and the arithmetic is left to any reader curious enough to bother. ]'s article says that ] was only 21 when they married, but it doesn't say how old he was; her article does mention the gap. ]'s article doesn't mention the gap between him and ], though her article does. ]'s article says he married ] on his 80th birthday, but it doesn't say how old she was; her article doesn't mention either one's age or the size of the gap. |
|
|
: The only reason to mention the gap between the Thompsons is that Italiavivi is strangely obsessed with it, and that is not good enough. That he projects his own hangups on to anyone who objects to his insertion, and wants to restore the article to how it was, is peculiar but not terribly relevant to anything. ] 07:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::This is absurd. You feel it ''is'' notable enough for Jeri Kehn Thompson's article, but not for her husband's? If notable enough for one spouse, enough for both. I have linked you to ''thousands'' of articles who use this phrasing, your objection is clearly based on wanting to hide their age difference. By the way, the age difference should absolutely be mentioned in the Madisons' article; it was a part of their relationship's dynamic. I have added it over there, thank you for pointing it out. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I would suggest that you two go .] 15:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I don't see any good reason to list the ages, but the fact that it has kept the peace is something worth considering. --] 16:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:: It has ''not'' "kept the peace". Everything was peaceful without it until Italiavivi insisted on adding it. This must be stressed - I'm not the one insisting on an edit because ILIKEIT, Italiavivi is. I'm just restoring it to how it was - without this trivium. ] 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes Zsero, we are all well aware of your ] problems. It appears that this discussion is reaching the exact same conclusion as last time, including the information, and you will not be able to continually four-revert the information from the article after a ''second'' Talk discussion on it. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I agree with B. The age difference is adequately addressed at ]. Additionally, it may be incorrect to say that they have a 25-year age difference, given that he is slightly '''less''' than 25 years older than she is. The best way to deal with this would be to give both of their ages in this article, or preferably only his age. I am firmly against doing the subtraction and advertising that difference in this article; readers could do the math themselves.] 16:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm sorry, why is the information only relevant to the spouse's article? If it is notable enough for a wife, it is just as notable for a husband. This is a clear editorial double-standard, arguing that it should only be included on the wife's article. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: The age difference isn't relevant in her article either, but her date of birth is. In his article even that isn't relevant and shouldn't be mentioned. ] 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Including it in this article is less of a big deal now that she has an article and her birth date is readily available there. As for why to include it there ... her main notability is being Fred Thompson's wife, so good or bad, the article is about that aspect of her life, even though she was single for 35 years and his wife for only five. Still, though, I think including her age here in a non-judgmental way (like "Jeri Kehn, then aged 35,") isn't a bad idea. --] 16:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Yes, she's notable for marrying him, but not for the age she was at the time. Look at all the biographies I linked to above - I just went through the last 5 presidents and their wives, and none of them mention the ages of either spouse at the time of marriage. All gave the dates of birth and marriage, so a reader who really needs to know could do the arithmetic themselves, but it isn't stated because it's no more relevant than the name of their childhood goldfish or hamster. ] 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Italiavivi, there is no double-standard. Analogously, do you think it's a double-standard for the article about ] to mention ]'s letter to him, whereas the Clinton article doesn't mention that letter?] 16:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Ferry, I think you know good and well that your comparison is apples to oranges. Valdas Adamkus is not Bill Clinton's '''spouse'''. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::As far as we know. :-) And let's please keep the lodge in Ferrylodge. Thanks.] 16:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::P.S. I could cite dozens of Misplaced Pages articles about first ladies that discuss things they did with their husbands that are not mentioned in the articles about the husbands. It's not a double-standard, but is rather a matter of the husbands' articles containing more notable stuff that takes precedence.] 17:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
I don't know why there is fighting over this. As long as it isn't presented in a judgmental nose-in-the-air way, I don't have a huge problem with it being in. I also don't have a problem with it not being in. I see in ], it is handled as: ''He married his third wife, Elizabeth Harper, a British citizen thirty-one years his junior, on August 21, 2005.'' That seems fine. Any implication that there is anything wrong with these age differences, then we have a problem. - ] |
|
|
::This was very recently added by Italiavivi, so it is probably not a good example of conformity. ] 17:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It was added long before my appearance on that article. I simply restored its deletion by editors from here, who removed it to ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:And when he keeps accusing others who take it out of having cultural hangups, we can see what's going on. As for Kucinich, if Italiavivi is upset about the lack of uniformity let him feel free to take it out there. I have no interest in doing so. ] 16:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::You are a '''liar'''. The age difference '''was''' there (first attempted removal of the info was June 6th, I didn't start editing about the issue on Talk 'til June 12th). I was, however, one of the first to restore the info and to oppose your removal on Talk discussion. My only editing prior to you and BigDT removing the age difference was . Your attempts to remove the age difference are what kept me here long-term. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::'''''STOP''''' . Also see ]. It is possible that Zsero meant the info wasn't there subsequent to creation of the ] article and prior to Itiliavivi's edits.] 17:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::'''''NO'''''. His meaning was clear. I am not required to assume good faith when there is ample evidence to the contrary in ]'s case. I ''did not'' first add the information when it wasn't there before. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::] 18:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: ]<sup>]</sup> 18:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Italiavivi, you did not remove anything. You used strikethrough, which is prohibited.] 18:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Very well, I'll remove it with the backspace key. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
"Xxx years his/her junior/senior" is loaded language. It may not have the same cultural connotation everywhere, but in the South, it implies that the person is a trophy wife/grave robber/otherwise doing something not normal. That language needs to be removed. --] 16:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Is that really about the phrase itself, or that Southerners in general consider marriages with age differences to be unnatural? If the latter, it is about the culture down there, not the phrase itself. We cannot change or omit that Sen. and Mrs. Thompson are twenty-five years apart on grounds that Southerners find it "unnatural." ]<sup>]</sup> 18:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:It is not loaded language. It is a very commonplace English expression used in a variety of articles. There is no POV implication whatsoever in this phrasing, as evidenced by its '''thousands of uses''' on the English Misplaced Pages. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Those thousands of uses should be removed. --] 17:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No, they should not. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It is loaded language. It is commonly used when someone wants to make a point that X is Y years older than Z. You see it all the time in gossip columns and the variety pages like Parade magazine. However, it is not common when used in professional articles. The intent is that some people want others to know that FT is much older than his wife. My opinion is that it should not be presented in this way. It adds nothing to the article but a flash point for arguement over NPOV. ] 17:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Excuse me, but why can people ''not'' know that Sen. T is older than Mrs. T? ]<sup>]</sup> 18:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* and Tack on and . |
|
|
*. . |
|
|
*. . |
|
|
* . |
|
|
Your claim seems to lack backing in "professional" sources. I would, in fact, challenge you, B, and Zsero to provide '''any''' ] indicating any controversy over the phrase "years ." Any evidence outside those who oppose its use in ]'s article at all? ]<sup>]</sup> 17:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::That is hardly thousands of instances on WP (336) out of how many Bio's? Also, many of the instances on the newpaper articles are not even relevent to marriage relationships, they deal with a whole host of professional relationships, with many of them appearing to be an integral part of the story. Even then there is hardly an overflowing occurance. ] 17:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::"About" 336 from that one listing. There are four different variations of the phrase. The NYTimes, WashPost, and LATimes all use it for marriage relationships, other uses do not change this. I repeat: '''Proove''' that this is not just about ]'s editors not liking the age difference being plainly noted in years, '''substantiate''' your claim that the language is "loaded." It is becoming clear to me that this has nothing to do with the phrasing "years his junior" or "years her senior," and everything with you all not wanting the quantity of years listed whatsoever. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
If the information is irrelivant, then there is no reason to put up a stink either way. Given that fact, because there is a stink by both parties, the informaion is clearly relivant, but what point does it serve? Is it an issue in the upcoming campaign. I say it will be, and as such it should be mentioned, but for some to say there is no implication to the statement is false. You should be arguing the relevance of the information, and not that it is standard practice, because otherwise every biography template would have a parameter for "age difference of spouse". Argue what you really mean, and don't pussy foot around the issue. Clearly you feel it is vital that this information is included, or you would not fight so hard to keep it. Why is it so vital to this article? to this person? Hiding behind "standards and practics" is cowardly. ] 17:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:"Coward," says the guy who first started trying to hide their ages? Please. The information is relevant because this is an encyclopedia. That Sen. Thompson is twenty-five years older than Mrs. Thompson is part of their marriage, thus part of the encyclopedia section on their marriage. The reliable sources are there, it has been widely discussed by many independent third-parties, the end. We do not hide, cover up, or omit their age difference (on grounds of age differences being "unnatural" in the South) anymore than we hide individuals' sexual orientations. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Excuse me? I have never done one single edit to this article, ever. I also agreed (if you had actually read what I wrote) that the age difference should be mentioned, but because it is relivant to the article, and not because it's "part of an encyclopedia". You really need to avoid personal attacks, particularly when they are aimed at someone who agrees with your position (just not your reaoning). ] 18:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I mistook your name for ]'s former username; he (when he went by his former username that also started with "B") was the first to remove the information, not yourself. My apologies for that. I will not be lectured on personal attacks by someone who implies ''cowardice'' of his fellow editors, though. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::A "personal attack" would be an attack on a person. And I stand by my statement regarding ''cowardice''. Since it was directed at a behavior and not a person, or a group of people, I wouldn't even classify it an attack, but an observation. ] 18:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It seemed to me the last time we discussed this, and still does now, that the age difference is not irrelevant, and is notable enough for a short inclusion. It is the subject of a recent New York Times article. Similar information is included on ] and ], who are perhaps a touch more relevant to this discussion than James and Dolley Madison or Bogart and Bacall. Although what happens on other articles may or may not be relevant to this article, it is not ''irrelvant'' that the age differences of those two candidates is mentioned. There is appropriately quite a bit about it on ], and therefore seems odd to not have a mention of it here - if this is a "May and December" marriage, as the New York Times characterizes it, that is true for both parties in the marriage; if it is notable for her, and it is, it is notable for him as well. We don't need a paragraph, just a phrase. I have seen no arguments here against it that are persuasive. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 18:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: "24 years his junior" is perfectly clear, short, and makes the most sense because this is an article about ''him''; "24 years her senior" works too, but makes slightly less sense because this article should be from his perspective - but that's not a big deal. Saying how old she was at their marriage would require then saying how old he was, or expect the readers to figure it out - but "24 years his junior" is perfectly fine, succinct, has precedent, and does the job.<strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::And, can I suggest that everyone calm down please? <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Multiple Serious Violations== |
|
|
|
|
|
Italiavivi has been editing this talk page in a way that violates multiple Misplaced Pages guidelines. Let's start with ]: |
|
|
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AFred_Thompson&diff=152953640&oldid=152952021 |
|
|
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AFred_Thompson&diff=152954850&oldid=152954707 |
|
|
|
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AFred_Thompson&diff=152968110&oldid=152967903 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Um, no. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AFred_Thompson&diff=152969018&oldid=152968917 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Died== |
|
Additionally each of these edits separately violated the : "Do not strikeout the comments of other editors without their permission." After these edits, Itiliavivi the following part of another person's comment: However, the deleted material was not uncivil or a personal attack. |
|
|
|
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/us/politics/fred-thompson-former-senator-actor-and-presidential-candidate-dies-at-73.html?_r=0"˘Fred Thompson has died.</a> <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Massive amounts of reverts == |
|
Itilaiavivi may be right on the merits of the discussion, or wrong, but that is no excuse for trampling the guidelines.] 18:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:His comments were completely uncivil, and now you are giving him a second soapbox. I corrected my use of strikethrough already, this section serves no point other than to distract from the discussion at hand; you are simply repeating your objections above with a new dedicated section. I will make no further edits to your new section here. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I re-added the "current death" template, since this article has seen an unusually large numbers or reverts in the past hour. Not sure why, but it's unusual.] (]) 00:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
::No, '''''''''' are being uncivil.] 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
I re-added the "current death" template, since this article has seen an unusually large numbers or reverts in the past hour. Not sure why, but it's unusual.Juneau Mike (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
