Talk:Fred Thompson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Children

Has Sen. Thompson had any children, either by his former or his present wife? If so, they should at least be named (unless there's some compelling reason not to do so). 207.69.139.143 03:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• His children from both marriages are mentioned. One adult daughter is deceased, he has two very young children by his current wife. I see no compelling need to mention them -- maybe if they become stories in the press, but that seems somewhat unlikely. --BunnyColvin 02:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• • At least one of Thompson's son has followed his father's footsteps by working as a lobbyist --- given that Thompson is a former U.S. Senator and a possible 2008 presidential candidate, the inclusion of brief information pertaining to his children is significantand should be included within this article.4.129.71.200 13:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Knox Pooley

This is a character from the show Wiseguy he played 20 years ago. As far as I know, it is not a well-remembered role, it is something of an outlier among his roles in general, yet here it seems this minor character now has his own page, which only the top 3 characters on Wiseguy have. It seems this character is adequately described on that page. Especially see the L.A. Times story today about this [1] . I will also place a note on the recently-created Knox Pooley page. It's much out of proportion to both actor and TV show -- sounds like a hit job. I am willing to entertain counter-arguments, but if I don't hear any, I'll reduce it to a mention of his Wiseguy appearance later this weekend. --BunnyColvin 00:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Good call. However I think most people are mature enough to know the difference between an actor and the role he plays. Steve Dufour 11:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Knox Pooley the used-car salesman? Not much of a strech for an actor whose own father was a used-car salesman...4.88.55.227 21:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't helpful. --Ali'i 21:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected the Knox Pooley article to Wiseguy. --Elliskev 14:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I created this article in the first place because when somebody told my wife that Fred was running for president, her first reaction was, "Knox Pooley for President?" and I concluded (correctly, I must say; thanks for the link to the L.A. Times article) that this could become a matter of public interest. I do see your point of view, though. --Orange Mike 14:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove minor detail, or make accurate and NPOV

The "2008 presidential race" section has a paragraph about the Michael Moore challenge. I'm not sure that this event warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia. Are we going to chronicle every article, every speech, every meeting? I'm inclined to delete it. If it is to be included (and I think there is a valid counter-argument for keeping it), then it should provide some context, should accurately quote the references, and should strive for a NPOV.

As originally written:

"Recently, Fred Thompson refused to debate Michael Moore. He made a clip, cigar in mouth, telling Michael Moore he should check into an insane asylum." Footnote: Fred Thompson Refuses to Debate Michael Moore

My comments:

1. Thompson did NOT tell Moore that "he should check into an insane asylum."
2. The referenced item is titled "Thompson Responds to Michael Moore Challenge" NOT "Thompson Refuses to Debate"
3. There is no context of the previous events leading up to this event.
4. "Recently" should be replaced with a precise date.
5. "Refused" is a slightly loaded word; "declined" might be more neutral.

Sbowers3 21:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Even with the new re-wording, that paragraph still comes across as POV pro Moore. Lets try and tweak it a bit more (no pun intended). Coradon 03:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Going back and reading the edit history, Sbowers3 had a decent rewording. Why don't we go back to that. It seemed fairly NPOV. Coradon 03:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I now think this event does warrant inclusion - it is being described as a watershed event for Thompson. I reworded on 17 May. On 20 May Redpoint13 reinserted the objectional (IMO) text. His reinserted paragraph was duplicative of my rewording so I removed his. Sbowers3 16:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Too many small details?

What is the appropriate amount of detail for an encyclopedia? The paragraph on the Michael Moore episode keeps getting larger and larger. A detail, then another, then another. Anyone who wants the details can go to the references. Should we really be copying so much of the references?

Before the 2008 campaign is over there will be thousands of episodes. Are we going to include every episode and quotes from every episode?

I think we should retain this episode in summary, but without the details that can be found in the references. I won't make the change because I am not sure it's the right thing to do. Other users, please chime in. Sbowers3 22:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Providing transcripts is not the job of an encyclopedia. Cheers, CWC 11:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. The episode should be retained since it is a significant recent event (and the section is clearly marked as containing current events), but I suspect that some fans and critics of Moore and Thompson are trying to insert POV here. I will try to write an NPOV summary. Eseymour 16:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Eseymour. Very nicely done. Cheers, CWC 19:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Filmography

The filmography should be placed at the end of the article. 75.68.6.81 20:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Better mention of his acting career in the lead?

I'm sure there're many who know Thompson from his role in Law & Order who might not even know he was a real-life politician. I propose we create a couple of sentences on his acting career to be placed in the lead, of similar length and detail as the lead sentence on his political life. Italiavivi 23:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Feedback on the summary I've introduced? I've tried to condense everything into a relevant lead snapshot. Italiavivi 00:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

External links for supporter sites?

For a long time there were links to various web sites that supported Fred Thompson for President. Then a user separated them into a subsection of the external links. I think that was a good change. Shortly afterwards, another user removed all of the links to supporter sites. I'm not sure this was a good change. On the one hand the linked sites certainly did not have a NPOV - but is that a proper criterion?

I briefly scanned the pages for several other candidates. Just about all of them have external links to an official campaign web site, and to one or more supporters' web sites. So precedent suggests that the Thompson page should also allow external links to supporters' sites. When there is an official Fred Thompson web site (rumor says in about a week), we should have a link to that site.

On the basis that these external links would be useful to a browser of the Thompson page, I vote for keeping some links. Two of the biggest seems to be fred2008.org, and www.fredthompsonnews.com.

If I don't hear a consensus on keeping these links out, I will add them tomorrow. Sbowers3 23:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no feedback here, I added those two external links. User:Ali'i removed them again and explained "see Wikipedia:External Links". I looked there but did not see anything directly to point. If Ali'i reads this, I ask that he explain why he thinks the links should be removed.

I think the links should be kept because those two web sites contain much information that is not here. They have day-to-day activities, including news articles about Thompson and extracts of his speeches. That information is not appropriate for an encyclopedia but can be interesting and useful to readers. And again, the Wiki pages for other candidates is a precedent for including external links such as these.

Anyone who removes these links, please explain here your reasoning so that we can try to form a consensus. If there are any removals without explanations, I will add the links back in. Sbowers3 23:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:EL that would call for those two links to be removed, and I don't have a problem with them being listed. - Crockspot 03:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm not going to fight it. Just seems awfully spammy to have these unofficial sites. Were they being added by the site's creator? What about linking to an anti-Draft Thompson site? They do not add anything to the encyclopedia article, either as a source or as additional reading. The Draft Fred Thompson movement is mentioned in the body of the article, and these just seem like spammy little sites. How many should we list? Do we list any Draft Thompson site out there? Just some questions to think about. Like I said, I'm not going to fight it. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. At one time there were about half a dozen similar links, including some dinky ones. I think two is enough. Anyone who wants more info can find other sites from these two or by Google. When an official site is announced, I think we should add that and perhaps remove the unofficial ones Sbowers3 16:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not free advertising. Unless or until it has official recognition or is considered notable, it is not appropriate to link to it. --BigDT 12:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes should be verifiable

On 2 June, anonymous user 67.127.98.18 made three questionable changes:

He changed "Fred and Sarah both worked" to "Sarah worked". The reference says the first. Unless he can provide a new reference that only Sarah worked, then the text should be the same as the reference. I am going to change it back.

He inserted "twenty five years his junior" to describe his second wife. I question whether this is relevant. A quibble is the number. Most sources say twenty four rather than twenty five. I found one source that says she was born in January '67, which would make her twenty four years and five months his junior. And thirdly, the location of the phrase is ungrammatical. If the phrase is to remain it should be immediately after Kehn, not after the date of their wedding.

He removed the word "amicable" regarding their divorce. The evidence (via Google) leans toward keeping "amicable". The original wording with "amicable" might not be totally verifiable, but the removal of "amicable" is not verifiable. I lean toward restoring the word.

Frankly, I am suspicious of changes by anonymous users, but whether anonymous or registered, changes should have some verifiability, or at least some plausible explanation. Sbowers3 10:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

First Wife / Marriage

It's stated in the article that he has married a second time - what happened to his first wife? death? divorce? Did I just overread it or is it missing from the article? 84.129.177.45 21:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Q: What is the primary cinematic difference between Fred Thompson and Michael Moore?"
  A: Michael Moore didn't have a wife to divorce when he made his first movie.

  Fred Thompson was divorced from his first high school wife during the same year that he acted within his first film role ("Marie", 1985) --- this NPOV information has previously been edited out of the article. 23:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• "After the Senate" mentions that his first marriage ended in divorce after 25 years. Your point is well-taken, however. That information perhaps could be placed better. Sbowers3 02:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• • "Fred Thompson was divorced from his first high school wife during the same year that he acted within his first film role ("Marie", 1985
    
    This is positively NOT NPOV. It is intended to imply something that is not in evidence: that the reason for Thompson's divorce was that he "went Hollywood". If Thompson's ex-wife campaigns for him, it futher undermines this implication. -- 10:05, 5, June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV - fairness of tone

I edited "Thompson married Jeri Kehn, twenty five years his junior, on June 29, 2002 at First Congregational United Church of Christ, Naperville, Illinois, having first met her on July 4, 1996" and removed "twenty five years his junior" because it appears to be an unnecessary violation of NPOV but it was promptly reverted back to the original. It seems to imply a moral judgment against marrying younger women. Just the facts, please. Comments? 70.16.107.10 15:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be considered to have a moral judgment to mention that she was significantly younger. I personally don't feel it's especially useful information myself, but I also don't see anything incorrect about it. If somebody had added the comments made by Joe Scarbourgh this morning that would be another story. Knightw 18:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Extraneous information?

The first paragraph of "Candidate and United States Senator" has information that seems to me to be irrelevant. Why is information about Bill Frist, the Republican twin victory, the GOP still holding both seats, Bill Frist's successor - why is all that part of Fred Thompson's biography? It's probably correct, and may be interesting, but why is it HERE?

"After the Senate" mentions that Kehn is 25 years his junior. Why is that relevant? There was a mini-edit war over the phrase. Nobody explained the motivation for inserting it. The only comment was that it was an accurate fact but that is not a motivation. There are millions of facts about anyone. Why does that fact rise to the level of being included in a biography?

Is Thompson's peripheral role in the defense of Scooter Libby extraneous or important?

I don't feel strongly that these items should be removed but I would like to hear from others as to reasons for including them. Sbowers3 03:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the factoid about his wife being significantly younger is relevant as the role of the First Lady can be rather important. I think it should be noted that she's also a lawyer or something similar to make sure that she doesn't come across as a 'gold digger.'

The Libby thing I would argue is important because it reflects on his politics in relation to other (potential) candidates. Also from what I've studied about the base supporters of the Republican Party, it appears that Libby getting a pardon is an important issue. Obviously my observations aren't scientific, but from what I've seen it's a big deal to at least a vocal portion of people at freerepublic and other places. Knightw 19:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the Bill Frist part being unneeded. The article isn't about the politics of the state of Tennessee.

I think that mentioning that both Thompson and Frist being elected at the same time is appropriate because it shows the major Republican trend in the '94 election both in Tennessee and nationally, but I do agree that paragraph seems to place too much emphasis on Frist. The change of the Tennessee Senate delegation from two Democrats to two Republicans in one election is notable, but everything afterwards is unnecessary.ModRocker86 22:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as "Thompson's peripheral role in the defense of Scooter Libby extraneous or important", the fact is Mr. Thompson has served on the steering committee of the Scooter Libby Defense Fund, has raised millions of dollars for Libby's defense, and last march on FoxNews advocated in no uncertain terms for Libby's immediate pardon. That would seem to be of great interest to any who follow the Libby saga, regardless of which side one is on. While on the topic of "extraneous info", I think these 'factoids' ought to be included in Thompson's bio: 1) Special Counsel to Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander 1980, 2) Special Counsel, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 1980-1981, 3) Special Counsel, Senate Intelligence Committee 1982, 4) Member, Tennessee Appellate Court Nominating Commission 1985-1987 [SOURCE: http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=t000457]. And how about his role in shepherding Supreme Court Chief Justice nominee John Roberts' Senate confirmation? BritYank 23:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Abortion and Federalism

Thompson's Federalism (sometimes expressed by 99:1 votes in the Senate) is very rare and can make his politics hard to read. He voted against two Federal Tort reform bills and a Good Samaritan protection law that he certainly would have supported at the state level. We would need the entire context of his alleged pre-choice statements to really understand if this is the case. As he was running for Federal office he may have been parsing the reporter's questions in terms of Federal restricitons on abortion, which would have been entirely consistent with his Federalism, not in opposition as the main article states. The same goes for the 1994 National Political Awareness Test, he may have parsed the questions in term of the role of the Federal government since he held a Federal office. The referenced source for his alleged pro-choice position is very POV. He was endorsed by the National Right to Life Committee this same year and they rated his voting record highly. Someone needs to look into this in more detail. As a supporter, I am recusing myself from editing the article. 12.10.223.247 01:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, let me say that the paragraph about abortion should be moved to the Political Positions subarticle. Having said that, your comments are relevant and should stay with that paragraph. I agree with your first sentence that Federalism can make politics hard to read - for someone who doesn't understand the principle. Even though you won't edit the article yourself, can you give a bit more guidance to the rest of us? Do you think there should be a general comment to the effect that some of his positions might be hard to understand unless the principle of Federalsim is understood? Or perhaps say something in each section, e.g. abortion, to reemphasize that Federalism is the guiding principle?

(By the way, in his recent interview with Hannity, Thompson said that he didn't remember the 1994 NPAT test and that possibly a staffer filled it out. Thompson went on to explain that he thought it should be decided at the state level.)

Should we mention the ratings of outside groups wherever they apply or should we stick to documenting what the candidate himself states? Sbowers3 03:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

12.10.223.247, re "He was endorsed by the National Right to Life Committee this same year [1994] and they rated his voting record highly." Back then most abortion votes were about federal funding which Thompson opposed; so the high rating is consistent with him supporting Roe v. Wade. For example, Al Gore was also highly rated by pro-life organizations back then even though Gore supported Roe v. Wade. The reason is -- like Thompson apparently -- at the time Gore opposed federal funding of abortions (he's since switched on that one).Crust 13:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"He also made a reference to Wikipedia."

Is that statement really necessary? 72.8.104.11 04:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• I added that statement and I believe it is a notable reference, but maybe I'm just biased as a Wikipedian. NorthernThunder 16:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

When he refered to Wikipedia, he said the only reason people think he was on an episode of Sex in the City was because he thought it said so on Wikipedia, which it does as of this moment ("Sex and the City (2000)."). He then when on to say he was only on a TV screen which was shown on an episode of the show, so he himself was not on the show. I think it was a mild slam on Wikipedia fact-checking, either that or he was blowing off the appearance on the show. I think this entry either needs to be verified, clarified (with an asterisk) or removed. Seeing that it seems to be disputed, I will remove it now, but if someone re-adds it, please be sure to quote you reason(s)/source(s).--207.206.137.212 22:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone actually disputing that he was on the episode? He didn't have much of a role, but he cashes the royalty cheque every time it's shown just the same. Zsero 23:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you verify that? Maybe he didn't get paid, and that is why he made the comment. Maybe there is some SAG rule where if you only appear on a tv screen within a show, you aren't really "in the show" enough to qualify for syndication royalties. The point is, we don't know. We need to verify - Crockspot 15:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive?

This talk page is getting large. Is it time to archive the older sections? I've never done it before but the way to learn how is to do it. So if there is no objection in the next week and if nobody else does it, then I will archive it and pare it down to sections that have had discussion in the last month. Sbowers3 11:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Italiavivi 14:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is Barack Obama's page fully protected (locked) and Fred Thompson's is not?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.34.191 (talk • contribs)

Probably because Sen. Obama's article was experiencing heavy WP:LIVING-violating vandalism (mostly anons changing his religion from Church of Christ to Islam). As I recall, there were 50 edits over the course of two days, only 1 of which was a good-faith contribution. Also, Obama's article is semi-protected, not fully protected; you can edit it if you log in. :) Italiavivi 13:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Needs more red pickup truck.

C'mon, someone must have some good sources on his past Senate campaigns. Italiavivi 14:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeri Kehn is twenty-five years Thompson's junior / younger than Thompson's daughter

You're going to be quite hard-pressed to illustrate why this isn't notable, Zsero. Italiavivi 13:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Listing her date of birth is notable and accurate. Its far more accurate and encyclopedic to list her birth as "January 1967" than "25 years her junior". The actual date is npov, far more accurate and encyclopedic. The "25 years her junior" is far less accurate (sloppy method for determining age) and is clearly meant as a pov dig. While the article is about Thompson, not his wife, certainly we should choose the more accurate info rather than rounded off info meant to emphasize a political point. Wiki users are smart, they can do the math and in fact doing the math FOR the reader is wp:or Dman727 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What political point? What POV dig? I'm sorry that you're culturally uncomfortable with couples that have age differences, but I am restoring the note of difference. You are clearly the one with the POV problem here. Italiavivi 22:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldnt care less, although it doesnt belong in wiki. I'm wondering why you want to press this silly point though. Dman727 22:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You think it's notable? Then tell me exactly what is notable about it. Lots of couples have large differences in age, especially when it's a second marriage for at least one of them. Dolley Madison was 17 years younger than James Madison, and that's not notable enough to be mentioned in either article - and that was 200 years ago!

And please stop referring to WP:IDONTLIKEIT; it's not relevant to edits within an article.

Zsero 16:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You are removing the age difference note because you are apparently culturally uncomfortable with couples who have age differences. Wikipedia is not the place for catering to cultural taboos, and I oppose your censorship of the Thompsons' relationship. Italiavivi 22:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I could go either way on whether or not this is notable. But anyway I think the issue is not so much the age difference exactly, but rather the fact that his wife is younger than his daughter.Crust 17:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if similar information is noted in the Dennis Kusinich article? I think there is even a greater age difference in that case. - Crockspot 17:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If what you say is true, and the age difference is not already noted there, it should be added. I will come support the addition at Kucinich's article if you make it. Update: At Elizabeth Harper Kucinich, the third sentence in her article is "She is some 31 years his junior." There is also a wonderful quote from Harper-Kucinich's article where she says: "I've never seen myself as time-bound. When you make a connection on a soul level, age is not important." Italiavivi 22:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If what's notable is that his wife is younger than his oldest daughter, how does saying that the wife is "25 years his junior" convey that? Having a child older than ones current spouse is certainly unusual, but I'm not sure why even that should be notable. It seems no more than a trivium. But the gap in the Thompsons' ages is not even that. Zsero 17:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Like Crust, I could go either way, but I lean toward not notable. If we are going to include it, let's at least be accurate: It's closer to 24 than to 25 - the difference is 24 years and 5 months.

Secondly, I'd like to know the motivations of those who have inserted/deleted it. Were the insertions by people trying to take a dig at Thompson or by people with a NPOV who thought it notable? Were the deletions by people trying to stand up for Thompson or by people with a NPOV who thought it was not-notable? I don't suppose we will get answer to those questions. Sbowers3 22:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of the precise difference. "25 years his junior" is what I had read from most sources, but we should round down to 24 if that is the case. Italiavivi 23:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My motivation? Accuracy. its FAR more accurate and precise to say "born January 1967" than "25 years his junior". To get her age or birth date with the "junior" quote, you have to undo the author calculations and only get an estimate of her birth date/year. Just put down her damn birthdate and be down with it. Dman727 22:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My motivation is accuracy. Mrs. Thompson is twenty-five years Sen. Thompson's junior, a notable distinction of their relationship, just as with the Kucinich family. Her exact birthday belongs at her article, this article's section is about her relationship with Sen. Thompson, not herself. Italiavivi 22:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"Just putting down her birthday" forces the reader to make just as many calculations, and is an obvious attempt to hide their age difference. This is clearly a case of users with a cultural taboo against couples with age differences. What next, are people going to remove the age difference note from Kucinich's article, too? Italiavivi 22:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually doing the math for the reader is WP:OR Taboo against younger women? LOL. I hope when I'm that old I should be so lucky. In any event. There is no reason to include vague/inaccurate references. Put down the precise date. It would be even better if you could get the day of her birth as well, that way the folks oh so interested can pin down exactly how many days older Thompson is. Dman727 23:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You do not understand WP:OR, it seems. This section is about Sen. Thompson's relationship with Mrs. Thompson as a whole, and the age difference is a notable part of their relationship. Noting a couple's age difference is in no way OR. And yes, I absolutely believe that some editors here are attempting to hide their age difference due to a cultural taboo, and Wikipedia should not be censored for the sake of those who can't handle couples with age differences. Italiavivi 23:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you perform calculations, even simple ones for the reader its WP:OR Technically, you need a WP:RS that states the age difference (although that should be trivial to find). I ran into this on other articles awhile back when I tried to include member counts for another article. I do think its a hyper-technical reading of WP:OR though so I won't oppose the addition on those grounds (although someone else might). As for your continual beating of the TABOO drum. I suggest you read WP:CIVIL. You've stated your unsourced opinion on it and now you are being uncivil.Dman727 23:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"His wife is twenty-four years younger than him" is not original research, you clearly don't understand the policy. Your repetition of this absurd claim doesn't make it true. I am not being uncivil, I am pointing out the obvious and transparent attempt by some here to hide the age difference between Sen. and Mrs. Thompson. Italiavivi 02:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

WIth that clarification, you didnt WP:CIVIL. You are violating WP:AGF . Dman727 03:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Dman: On the contrary, simple calculations are expressly permitted by WP:OR. But the calculation would not be needed: USA Today reported the age difference in years here. -Pete 02:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Pete. I didn't realize that simple calcs were expressly permitted. FWIW, I would be shocked if it wasn't already well sourced. My point has been that we should prefer a precise fact, as opposed to a generalized time span relative to another date(elsewhere in the article), then rounded to a year. Dman727 03:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, you clearly did not understand WP:OR despite your citing it as a rationale. At least you are not in denial about it now. WP:AGF does not require editors to continue assuming good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. Italiavivi 12:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with italiavivi on this one. Using a date format is a pretty transparent attempt to hide the age difference. I think the difference is notable for an article about a (possible) future president. There has already been discussion about the age difference and will probably be much more in the future. Btw, both the Kucinich's articles have this info. Turtlescrubber 23:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we use the date format and write it out. Then everybody should be happy. Turtlescrubber 23:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically do both? No objection here. Dman727 23:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably overkill, but that would certainly nail it. But if we go with only one, it should be the "24 years younger than" or whatever the correct number is. I agree that listing just the birthdate is an obvious attempt to distract from the fact of their age difference which is notable because it is somewhat unusual. Tvoz |talk 23:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but its not my intention to distract. Its a pretty well known fact and if he proceeds it'll be really well known so call it out. I just think that the "junior" quote is vague and imprecise and should not take the place of precise information. Dman727 23:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "[x] years one's junior" is extremely commonplace English, for which we have plenty of reliable citations. It is neither vague nor imprecise. Italiavivi 17:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the people who insist on including this to explain why it's notable. Italiavivi goes on about "cultural taboos" and how free of them s/he is, but if so why does s/he insist on inserting this utterly trivial datum? Zsero 23:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the argument is thats its transparent to oppose it because its only a trivial taboo which makes it noteable, and that exact precise dates are meant to obscure generalized rounded timespans. Dman727 03:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at a more mundane example, to demonstrate that less precise, but more comprehensible numbers are often advantageous. Some weeks ago, I changed the Oregon article to state that the population was estimated to have grown from 3.5 million to 3.7 million between 2000 and 2006, deleting the specific numbers (which are available in the cited source.) The result is less precise, but it is far easier for a reader to quickly get a general sense of the growth of the population. This article is frequently edited by intelligent people, and nobody made an objection. In this case, I would say that a specific birth date is essentially useless. If there is notability, it is in the fact that Jeri is so much younger than Fred; if that is the fact to be presented, it's better to say "25 years younger." The idea is to make the article as useful as possible to the reader. Please note, I'm not stating any preference as to whether the fact is included, merely saying that using the precise date of birth is not a good option. Either say 25 years, or omit the item entirely. -Pete 00:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pete makes an excellent point. Italiavivi 01:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's my opinion that this inclusion is meant to provide a "wedge issue" to reduce the support of someone who not much other dirt can be dug up on. Similar to the repeated attempts to paint Thompson's stand on abortion as "inconsistent". The only problem is that most of his supporters don't have an issue with age-difference in marriage (as long as both are adults), nor do they have a problem with his actual history on the abortion issue, or see anything inconsistent about it. (I happen to like his abortion position: It shouldn't be illegal, but taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for it. That has been a moderate-conservative position for as long as I can remember.) That's how I see it anyway. Much ado about nothing. - Crockspot 12:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt those who keep deleting the note on age difference are comfortable with age differences, else they wouldn't be removing it or hiding it. I would oppose deleting the age difference note on the Kucinich family's articles, and I oppose the deletion here. Italiavivi 17:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt those who keep adding the age difference are comfortable with it, or they wouldn't think it notable, and wouldn't keep cluttering up the article with irrelevancies. The age difference is simply not an important fact, not even mildly notable, and doesn't belong, so why do you keep adding it? And stop projecting your own hangups onto others. Zsero 18:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The age difference (as well as when they met) are both pertinent to his biography. The only reason anyone would remove this is (I see "trivia" is your new argument?) if they're uncomfortable with it. Italiavivi 19:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There is something abnormal about an 18-year-old and a 43-year-old (25 years) marrying. (There is nothing wrong with it - it is just outside of society's normal expectations.) But by the time you're talking 40 vs 65 ... who cares? That happens frequently. Once you get to a certain age, 5-10-20 years difference isn't a big deal. This has nothing to do with the article. --BigDT 17:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's not a "big deal," why are people constantly deleting or trying to hide it? Italiavivi 19:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a big deal if Fred Thompson ate breakfast at McDonald's this morning. If you were to add that little McNugget of information, I would "delete or hide" it as well. --BigDT 19:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's get some facts in here. Italiaviva is acting as if the phrase is obviously notable and naturally belongs in the article, and has been there all along, and now some people have come along to delete it, for which the only explanation must be that they have some sort of hangup about it. The history says otherwise. This line was first added to the article on 1-Jun by an anonymous editor at 67.127.98.18. It was removed the next day by 70.16.107.10, and restored half an hour later by Italiavivi, who has kept adding it every time someone removes it. For Italiavivi to keep putting it in and then calling on others to "stop deleting it" pending the outcome of the discussion here, is simply chutzpah. The onus is on Italiavivi to demonstrate just why this is in any way notable, and why it belongs in the article. Until s/he does so, it should remain out. Zsero 19:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That looks more like an attempt by you to set the terms of the debate than "some facts" to me. It is "obviously notable" (your wording) per sources, and does naturally belong in the article as a part of the Thompsons' biography. Comparing his relationship with his wife to his breakfast at McDonald's is absurd. You have stated no argument in your objection other than "It doesn't belong," whereas others have provided sources and comparative examples from other articles (the Kucinichs' articles specifically). Zsero here asserts that the Thompsons' age difference isn't notable, yet the information meets WP:N's standards in every way (nor does it fall under WP:TRIV in any way). "I don't like it" isn't an argument for removal, sorry. Italiavivi 19:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Italia - merely your saying that it's "obviously notable" and "naturally belongs in the article" doesn't make it so. Citing "other articles" like the Kucinich article also isn't relevant - perhaps Kucinich is wrong too? I'd also invite you to demonstrate how spelling out this age difference in detail satisfies WP:N "in every way." As has been said, the onus is on you to show why this should be included - not the other way around. --Folic Acid 19:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I was using Zsero's phrasing, not my own. You, Folic, should read WP:TRIV before referring to notable biographical facts as "trivia." We have reliable sources for the age difference, including secondary sources discussing the age difference in particular. This is a part of their relationship, and fully satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines; myself and others have satisfied the onus of demonstrating this already, whether or not you and Zsero choose to ignore what's been shown for the sake of hiding the information is your problem. The amount of policy shopping going on here is laughable: First it's OR (which it's not), then it's TRIV (which it's not) now it's not WP:N (which it is). One by one these misinterpretations of policy are shot down, and another poorly-crafted policy misinterpretation immediately rises in its place! Italiavivi 20:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Let's talk about the elephant in the room. The problem isn't that it's trivia. The problem is that it is innuendo. In isolation, without context, saying "Bob divorced his wife and married Susie, who was 25 years his junior", makes Bob sound like a bastard who dumped his wife for a young supermodel. That's the only reason that anyone even wants it in the article. If the article said "Thompson, who was 65 at the time (or whatever) married Mrs. X, aged 40 (or whatever)", then there's not a big problem. It still doesn't need to be in there because ... umm ... who cares, but it isn't a WP:BLP issue. Any time, though, that you add innuendo that paints a false picture about a person, that's a problem and it needs to be removed on sight. This isn't a political issue - it's a BLP one. --BigDT 23:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I like your analysis and resolution. Your explanation that it is innuendo and a BLP issue goes straight to the point. Your solution - age 59 and age 35 - is a good alternative to either "24 years his junior" or "born 1967". Sbowers3 02:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

His "analysis" and citing of BLP is bollocks, further inapplicable policy shopping. His claim that "[innuendo] is the only reason anyone wants it in the article" is the most grievous abandonment of WP:AGF on this entire Talk page. I see no difference between "59 and 35" or "24 years his junior," and don't object to the wording, but the repeated false invocation of Wikipedia policies in this discussion has been asinine. Italiavivi 02:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I love how we haven't seen any of these deeply apolitical and BLP-concerned editors rushing to the Kucinichs' articles to apply similar changes. Italiavivi 03:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like it was removed about 22 hours ago [2]. 58/27 is a little different from 59/35. I still don't like the "31 years his junior" language. If anything, give her age, and leave it be. --BigDT 03:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"58/27 is a little different from 59/35" is simply your POV. The information is still present at Elizabeth Harper Kucinich, the example used in this discussion. You admit that you've opposed the wording because "you don't like it," which is not a reason for removal, but I am satisfied with a sentence mentioning both their ages at marriage all the same. Italiavivi 13:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not change the Kucinich article? It's current wording is terrible, does it really matter if she is a natural red-head? Fixed. I agree with BigDT. Arzel 00:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well ... "nn years his junior" is innuendo. As for the relative differences ... you're right - that is my POV. When you go to the store and some item is $9.99, the reason it is $9.99 instead of a nice round number is perception (or POV). You perceive 9.99 as being a heckuva lot less than $10.05. Similarly, 27 vs 35 isn't a lot in the grand scheme of things, but the perception of a 60-year-old marrying a 20-something is a lot different culturally than the perception of 35/59. Even so, "nn years his junior" is never good language to use because it's loaded. Since we are both in agreement that simply stating the ages is sufficient, I don't think there's anything to argue about. ;) --BigDT 15:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversies section

I don't really understand why his role as a white supremacist in Wiseguy needs mentioning in the controversies section. He was an actor playing a role and Thompson is not the first or last actor to play a racist character. I don't know what "controversy" was generated by this role (not withstanding the many years after the fact Los Angeles Times article cited in the section).ModRocker86 23:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that a role he played is not notable (although the source was saying that it could be a problem) - but the Controversies section should not have been removed. Tvoz |talk 02:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In order to characterize something as "controversial", there needs to be a reliable secondary source showing that there was some actual controversy over an issue. Just because a wiki editor thinks that something was controversial is not good enough. - Crockspot 12:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a silly "controversy", apparently based on the absurd confusion of an actor with the role he plays (not that plenty of other political controversies aren't equally silly, but still...). It's maybe interesting to mention in the acting section, but not in the controversy section. Crust 15:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Trying to construe a screen character as a "controversy" ignores the basic premise of performance, the tragedy of David Scarboro comes to mind. Agree with Crust; such attention to an actor's role is almost certainly undue weight. All that aside, it wasn't even a very notable role. Italiavivi 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wiseguy role, again, is not at present notable as a controversy because it is merely an acting role from the past and no one has produced a reliable source that reports controversy - the source presented says that it could become a subject of controversy. That's not enough to include it here - it is speculation. But the Life Lock item is different because it is not fictional - it is current, and it is Thompson endorsing the product with his name. The company president was just forced to resign - this is ongoing news. Tvoz |talk 23:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. The legal trouble that one of LifeLock's partners was in, was 10 years ago. LifeLock has never been in any legal trouble. But in any case it's irrelevant, because Thompson had no personal involvement with LifeLock. They did not pay him for an endorsement, and he did not lend them his personal credibility. They paid ABC for an ad, and ABC had one of its stable of on-air personalities read the script for the spot, exactly as it always does. Thompson was acting as an actor (how's that for a zeugma?), exactly as he was on Wiseguy. He had no duty of care to research the company he was endorsing, and had no reason to know who the partners were, let alone every detail of each of their legal histories. It's not controversial, it's not notable, and it doesn't belong in the article. Zsero 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not "acting as an actor" when you say "I'm Fred Thompson." Tvoz |talk 23:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

When I was growing up in southeast Virginia, I used to hear commercials from Rush Limbaugh advertising for the Freemason Abbey, a small restaurant in downtown Norfolk, Virginia. In the commercial, he said, "I, Rush Limbaugh, dine at the Freemason Abbey when I'm in Norfolk (which he pronounces incorrectly) and you should too." I have no idea if he has really ever been there before, but I seriously doubt that he really cares one way or the other whether or not you and I go there to eat. An advertisement is just that - an advertisement. It's a paycheck for the person doing it - he doesn't care anything the subject of the ad. --BigDT 23:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

At least in the case of Limbaugh, he's his own business, so he might be considered to have some duty of care not to take on shady clients. Thompson is an employee of ABC, and reads the script as its agent. Any duty of care would fall on ABC, not on its employees. Not that there was anything wrong with ABC taking the commercial, in this case; there wasn't and isn't even an allegation of anything shady with LifeLock, but with the past of one of its (now former) partners.

Oh, and saying "I'm Fred Thompson" doesn't change anything; actors regularly play themselves in movies, but they're still playing a role, and their on-screen character is still no reflection on their own persons.

Zsero 00:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As Crockspot said, "In order to characterize something as "controversial", there needs to be a reliable secondary source showing that there was some actual controversy over an issue." Regarding the "he paid his son ..." pseudo-controversy, I have seen absolutely no mention in the press or blogosphere after the first report. I don't see how it can be claimed to be controversial. I'd say the whole controversies section should go. Keeping it with this single item sort of invites, "Is this the only controversy about Thompson? If that's all you can come up with, then he must be a real saint." Sbowers3 02:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. These are not controversies, they are feeble attempts to dig up dirt on Thompson. If any mainstream media source is talking about these items a couple weeks from now, I'd be very surprised, but in that case the info could be re-added. As it is, they are not encyclopedic. (Heck, the whole James Dobson thing was more of a "controversy" than either of these!) Eseymour 20:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing by JGoldwater?

New user (as of today) JGoldwater has made several edits to Fred Thompson or Political positions of Fred Thompson. Maybe he is just a newbie (as I was not too long ago) but his edits look to me like someone trying to push an anti-Thompson POV. He reinserted a "Controversies" section. There had been much previous discussion about that section and the consensus seemed to be to leave it out. His edit summary was totally misleading: "Political positions - added info". If this was just a newbie mistake, it was made without any attention to past discussions, and without a straightforward explanation. Because all of his edits look like POV pushing to me I'd like to delete them all but I'll wait a while for comments by JGoldwater or other users. Sbowers3 23:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

JGoldwater (talk · contribs) also made several other POV edits to Political positions of Fred Thompson. I removed the last two items in "Controversies" as they have nothing to do with Thompson himself. One was the role mentioned in the previous section of the talk page. The other was doing some commercial acting for a company, one of whose execs was accused of doing some bad things... - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 23:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sbowers3, it's interesting that you accuse me of POV pushing because I just found this quote of yours about Fred Thompson at your Talk page: "I don't work for him - not yet. I became interested in him a couple of months ago and probably will work for him" So I think I can make the better case that I am not the one POV pushing here but you are. Especially since you are the one removing the fully sourced information that I've been posting. If you wanna debate specific issues post them here and we'll debate them. Your sources are all biased opinion and my sources are based on his record. I post how he voted in the senate, you post opinion pieces from National Review and proceed to remove my posts or "summarize" them in a way that completely distorts the facts. If you wanna get this debate started I think I can make a good case for removing most of your contributions, aka propaganda that you've added here.--JGoldwater 15:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"lodestar"; external links

Because I am partially undoing another user's edits, I thought I'd give a longer explanation than can fit in an edit summary.

In Political positions, I am restoring the word "lodestar" with quotes. It should have quotes because Thompson used the word. I'm restoring it because I think it is interesting that Thompson used the word. I don't feel strongly about retaining it and won't object if someone else deletes it but I wanted to explain why I am reincluding it.

In External links, another user deleted most of the links. Unfortunately, one of the ones that he left is an inactive page under construction. I am changing it to one of the more active links. Perhaps some other user knows how to determine how many hits a web site gets and can choose the most active. For now, I'm doing it by guess and based partly on how up-to-date the page is. For the record, I think it is useful to have more than one "pro" site and perhaps more than one "anti" site because external sites often have day-to-day information and candidate's op-eds or speeches. That information may not be appropriate in a Wikipedia article but can be useful to a reader.

Sbowers3 00:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sbowers3, I'm the one who deleted "lodestar" and I like your new wording.Crust 15:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahem! Thank you anyway :-) Zsero 16:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:-) Yes, thank you. Sbowers3 11:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fred at the top

New Rasmussen poll [3] puts Thompson at the head of the Republican pack. - Crockspot 21:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

LifeLock commercial

For anyone who is inclined to add this nonsense [4], please actually read the source article [5]. The owner of the company in question had legal problems ten years ago. He was never convicted of a crime (he reached an out-of-court settlement where he promised to stay out of the industry where he allegedly committed misdeeds). As part of Thompson's ABC contract (he had a talk show on ABC radio), he was required to do a commercial for this guy's company. There are no allegations whatsoever that this company is doing anything unethical or illegal. There are no indications that Thompson knew about any allegations from this person's past. This is nothing but innuendo and it has no place in a WP:BLP article. Good grief, if someone is in show biz and does ... whatever ... 100 commercials, I GUARANTEE you that at least one of them is somehow going to have a connection to a person with past criminal troubles. That's just a fact of life. If you work for a company with 100 people in it, I guarantee that one of them used illegal drugs last weekend. That doesn't mean you are "associating with drug addicts" or anything like that. My church has something around 1000 people in it. I guarantee you that somewhere in those 1000 people, you will find 5 people with a criminal history. If you were writing an article about BigDT, it would be a perfectly true statement to say "he attends church with 5 criminals". But while it is a true statement, it is innuendo and completely inappropriate. This isn't a political issue, it's a BLP one. If you find any similar innuendo in any article about a living person - Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, neo-Nazi, Communist, whatever - it should be removed on sight. If you want me to remove it, message me and I will be happy to remove it and block anyone who persists in adding material that violates our policy on biographies of living persons. --BigDT 23:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not the only source article, however. Read this other one just posted. Maynard resigned last week - apparently some people think there is a problem with him vis a vis the company. And I fail to see any BLP issue here - the article makes a straightforward statement about Thompson's commercial, with two reliable sources, and the reader can draw his or her own conclusions. There seems to be a resistance here to anything that might be negative toward the subject, and that's not NPOV. Tvoz |talk 23:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it is innuendo - that's a no-no on BLPs (it's a no-no elsewhere too, but especially on BLPs). Saying "Bob did work for a man accused fo a crime" makes Bob sound like a bad guy, when the truth of it is that the man was accused of a crime ten years ago and Bob's employer was hired to do unrelated work for him. This doesn't tell us a darned thing about Thompson - it can only serve a specific aim, that being to discredit Thompson using a WP:COATRACK. My offer is a serious one - if you find something similar in an article about someone from any side, I am fully committed to removing it. This is not a political issue. --BigDT 23:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

BigDT you seem to be completely missing the point. The issue in question here is thompson's credibility. He introduced himself and urged people to do business with a company founded by a man who has a record "including three bankruptcies, a short stint in jail and 1996 Federal Trade Commission charges of false advertising in a prior business." as per the link Tvoz posted. He is vouching for a criminal. You can try to spin this any way you want but this is still relevant information that people should have access to. And no one is making any accusation against Fred Thompson, there is no innuendo. I merely stated the facts. Maybe most people will agree with you and dismiss the whole thing. But your attempt to prevent them from having access to this information is despicable and negates the whole point of this project. --JGoldwater 15:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh huh. I think you somehow misunderstand what the purpose of the project is. You seem to have a rather singlular pupose in being here. You didn't merely state facts - you gave a biased interpretation of the facts. Claiming that Thompson "lent his voice" to this man and that he is "vouching" for a criminal is at best a distortion and at worse, a lie. It is one of who knows how many radio spots he has done. The radio spot was done as a contractual ABC obligation and it was done for the company. As soon as news broke of this guy's past, he was shown the door. This is hardly an endorsement of the guy's criminal past, which you seem to think it is. Your sole purpose in coming to the project seems to be to add this and other biased claims to this article. I don't think you should be lecturing me on my understanding of the project or calling me "dispicable". --BigDT 15:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

BigDT, nice attempt at an Ad_Hominem but I'm not the one interpreting things here. I merely stated the facts. And you should know that you are arguing against yourself. I posted that Thompson "lent his voice" and you are stating the same thing, ie. that what he said was meaningless. But in fact the article also mentions this: "In Thompson's commercials, the deep-voiced actor recounts a tale of military heroism in Iraq, then introduces himself and says...I urge you to contact LifeLock." That's Fred Thompson urging people to contact Lifelock, not a lent voice. Since you claim that I am interpreting the facts I'll just post what thompson said removing the "lent voice" spin. I hope that puts all your concerns to rest--JGoldwater 16:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This LifeLock commercial was part of a contractual obligation the Thompson had with ABC. Thompson has no connection personally to the criminal who worked for that company. Thompson was simply doing his job for ABC, not endorsing a criminal. The company fired the man when they found out about his past, so any endorsement of their company is simply that, and it is not and endorsement of the criminal. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 16:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are stating that it was a contractual obligation without presenting any evidence. But even if that's true, maybe he shouldn't have signed the contract? I said here that he is vouching for a criminal but that's my interpretation. What I posted at the main page is strictly factual. People can make up their own minds. I'll also add that the man was not fired. He is the founder of the company. He just left when his past was exposed by the media. --JGoldwater 16:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

LifeLock section break

Fred Thompson is an actor. He did numerous radio commercials for ABC. He didn't hand-pick "evil" companies to endorse. And it's not up to me to "prove it". Read WP:BLP:

Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.

The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

- SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 16:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The information I added was of a Biographical nature. It's part of his work experience. Nowhere it was claimed that he was guilty of anything. I merely presented the facts. People can make up their own minds. If you insist on removing this your actions will be reported. --JGoldwater 17:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's called undue weight. I don't know if you ever listen to talk radio or not, but I listen to Tech games on the radio and during 3.5 hours of football, most of the commercials that run use the voice of our radio guy or of one of one of the host of some other program the station carries. Just like any other guy who has a show on radio, Thompson has undoubtedly done hundreds of commercial spots. Picking out one of those spots and making it seem like his chosen career path was to represent that company is just plain false. Wikipedia takes biographies of living people very seriously - this is not a forum for making a campaign commercial - either for or against - any candidate. --BigDT 17:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, before you add the claim back, you may want to see WP:3RR, which you are in violation of. --BigDT 17:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

He's an actor who identifies himself as "Fred Thompson"? That is not being an actor. That is lending his name, his reputation, to the product he is endorsing. It is nothing at all like doing a voice-over where the public might recognize the voice but it is not identified. And JGoldwater is correct that the source articles do not make innuendos any more than our article does. You have not answered any of the specific points I made, including about BLP. WP:BLP does not preclude the posting of derogatory information - which this isn't even. It preculdes posting of UNSOURCED derogatory material. Do you understand the difference? You are wiklawyering, and attempting to sanitize the article. I assure you, it won't work. Tvoz |talk 17:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You've been given chapter and verse of specific BLP problems. BLP is more than just a refusal to print unsourced claims. Newspapers have far less of a BLP standard than we do. A Wikipedia article is one of the top few g-hits for anyone's name. Even if a newspaper has the freedom to make this incident seem like more than it is, we do not. --BigDT 17:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahoy, just thought I'd add my two cents. I have to agree with SigmaEpsilon and BigDT: there is undue weight given to this advertisement. After all, can you imagine an encyclopedia that listed the all shady characters associated (no matter how peripherally) with every politician? It would be voluminous, and not in the nature of an encyclopedia article. Do people have "a right to know"? Sure. But the information is already out there. When people look someone up in the encyclopedia, it's not because they want to know such minute details as this. They want the basic outline of a person's life. That is what we should present, in as unbiased a manner as possible. If you want to draw innuendo, start a blog. Coemgenus 17:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are all proving my point. I posted that under the Controversial heading and this discussion proves that this is indeed controversial. It was printed in a major newspaper and no reason has been provided for its removal. If you wanna talk about undue weight I'll very promptly edit the movie career section adding references to his anti semitic character to provide balance to the law and order one. --JGoldwater 18:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And you, thereby, prove everyone else's point - that you're adding this trivium to disparage Thompson's character. An edit war does not create a real-world controversy. And to say that "no reason has been provided for its removal" is not true - there were edit summaries and there is discussion on this page. Coemgenus 19:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The Lifelock ad should not be removed without a reason being provided. GoldWater is right. And many people think like him at the forum we are discussing this. We will not give up.--74.220.207.95 21:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of reason has been provided--it's unsupported innuendo and there's no actual controversy except in the minds of Thompson's political opponents. Also, you re-added the Wiseguy bit which is clearly against consensus. This calls into question whether you're editing in good faith. Eseymour 21:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry friend; say what you like of User:JGoldwater, but User:Tvoz and myself are both long-standing editors who support the inclusion of this controversy. You cannot dismiss content based on the fact that one of its supporters (JGoldwater) is engaging in unproductive conduct. Italiavivi 22:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want me to end the consensus I can get dozens of people to come here and disprove you. You cannot delete information just because you and your friends don't like it. I'll keep the wiseguy bit out for now but if you keep deleting things I'll bring it back. People are coming up with other things that can be posted too so if I were you I would stop with the vandalism--74.220.207.95 21:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me re-iterate my above post:

Fred Thompson is an actor. He did numerous radio commercials for ABC. He didn't hand-pick "evil" companies to endorse. And it's not up to me to "prove it". Read WP:BLP:

Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.

The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

You, the ones adding the material, must prove why it is notable and why it is not undue weight. And threatening to bring in a bunch of people from forums is highly inappropriate. It's called canvassing, and it's not allowed on Wikipedia. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 22:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

An impartial Admin already stated that the article is notable. Check the history page. And I don't have to prove anything before posting here just as you don't. But if you wanna delete what has been posted bu someone else, then you have to provide proof. It shouldn't be so hard to understand. Otherwise I would just start deleting things until someone provided proof that everyting is notable, etc.. but that's not the way it works.--74.220.207.95 23:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Which admin are you talking about? The only people who have voiced any sort of support for this section are you (the anon), JGoldwater, Tvoz, and italiavivi. As I've said twice already: The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. The people who want to add info, especially about a living person, must prove that such information meets wikipedia policy. Please read WP:BLP. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 23:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

After doing a little research on the whole LifeLock issue, it appears to be more of an attack on LifeLock. Whether it is valid or not, the Fred Thompson connection is clearly a side issue. I personally don't think it belongs, as it appears to be a clear case of trying to associate Fred Thompson with a Felon (person of questionable character) when any connection that exists is purely coincidental. As someone else has previously stated, almost everyone, if not everyone, will have some connection with someone that broke the law in some way. Arzel 00:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Arzel, who is this felon you're referring to? there are no felons. Maybe you should do a little more research. As the article points out, Fred Thompson promoted a firm of a man once accused of deceiving consumers. An impartial observer (Italiavivi) has already stated that the article is notable. And we have 2 sources proving that it's controversial. Case closed. I have a feeling that if I go to some of the fred thompson forums I'll uncover a major conspiracy involving many of you. But for now I have better things to do.--74.220.207.95 01:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My Bad, I thought Maynard was convicted, he was only accused of fraud. I would say that I am an impartial observer, and I say it is not controversal with regards to Fred Thompson. I don't ever know of any Fred Thompson forums. Arzel 04:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about any of the rest of you, but I haven't performed extensive background checks (or any background checks at all) on the people I've worked for. I've spoken with them and they seem like nice enough people, but they may be baby-cannibals for all I know. If I find out about that sort of thing, I would obviously remove myself from the situation. However, assuming that Fred Thompson knew about and supported the activities of the head of the company he advertised for is naive. As a public figure, it is safe to assume that Fred Thompson receives many requests for appearances on talk shows and advertisements and whatnot. To think that he would conduct investigations on all of those people is ridiculous. This is clearly not a key event in Mr. Thompson's life, doesn't provide any meaningful information about his character or his opinions, and is not something that would even be considered if one were to look back at "The Life of Fred Thompson" 50 years from now.64.1.239.98 16:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

JGoldwater is in violation of WP:3RR

• 20-Jun at 15:28 UTC
• 20-Jun at 15:37 UTC
• 20-Jun at 16:10 UTC
• 20-Jun at 17:50 UTC
• 20-Jun at 18:11 UTC

Res ipsa loquitur. Zsero 19:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I reported this to WP:ANI/3RR. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 19:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Psst ... you may want to look down a bit on that page. ;) --BigDT 20:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Oops. I type really slowly. Sorry. Should I remove my posting? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 20:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Or combine them ... it's not a big deal. Whoever handles them will probably just mark one of them as a duplicate. --BigDT 20:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, some IP address has reverted it to JGoldwater's version. Anyone else care to undo it? I don't want to risk 3RR, even though I could claim the BLP exception. And what are the odds, do you think, that the IP is not JGoldwater? Zsero 20:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no BLP exception here whatsoever. This is an obvious, run-of-the-mill content dispute. Italiavivi 21:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that 3RR should still be observed, but this is not a run-of-the-mill content dispute. BLP concerns more than just unsourced content - it covers biased content as well. Not all of BLP is covered by the 3RR exemption. --BigDT 21:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a run-of-the-mill content dispute, one in which you are an active participant and advocate, I would add. Italiavivi 22:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. But if someone else reverts it again, I suggest tagging the section NPOV and waiting awhile to cool off. Eseymour 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Until disputes between authors are resolved, this article has been tagged NPOV on account of conflicting non-factual views/edits. Signed by Tommy (Talk/Contribs) 19:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh good grief ... do we really need that tag? The bulk of the article is factual, neutral, and not in dispute. I strongly encourage the removal of this tag. --BigDT 20:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Iowa Electronic Markets

The Iowa electronic markets has added Fred Thompson to the list of republican candidates for options trading. He is currently in the lead.

S-protection

Based on this post [6] threatening meat puppetry, I have s-protected this article as an emergency measure. I have asked at WP:RFP that an uninvolved admin review that decision. --BigDT 21:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are at the center of this content dispute. Your protecting it was completely inappropriate. Italiavivi 21:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read the message I linked from someone stating that this is being discussed at a forum and they plan to engage in meat puppetry to have this nonsense added to the article? In any event, I do not consider this to be a final decision or even a decision period - it's an action taken on an emergency basis, which I have asked to have a neutral admin make their own decision and do whatever they feel is proper. --BigDT 21:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You should recuse yourself from use of your administrator tools when you are actively engaged in a content dispute, BigDT. You also falsely described the user as having threatened "organized vandalism" in your edit summary, which was not the case. There was no "emergency basis" for the protection, and your "pre-emptive" use of sysop tools was both inappropriate and unecessary. You should un-protect immediately. Your description of the disputed content as "This nonsense about the commercial" [7] demonstrates a clear conflict of interest. Italiavivi 21:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

BigDT, your actions are inexcusable. Is all this fuss over the lifelock article really worth it? There are no vandals here except for the people you are protecting. They erase well sourced information under false pretenses. What a shame. There is no way I'll let this go now. I didn't even care that much about fred thompson but your efforts to silence dissenters are too vile to be ignored. --74.220.207.95 22:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, semi-protection won't block established editors. It will block only users registered less than 4 days (e.g. JGoldwater) or unregistered users (e.g. 74.220.207.95). Older users (e.g. Italiavivi) remain free to engage in "controversies." Sbowers3 22:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not the point. The question raised is whether there was some kind of "emergency" here that warranted the action, and whether an admin who is involved in the dispute should recuse himself from admin actions.Tvoz |talk 23:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And why do you wanna block me and JGoldwater, mr Censor? what have we done to you? Does it have something to do with the fact that we didn't sign up to your propaganda machine? If you wanna create a pro fred thompson website this is not the place to do it. You should get your own website and then you can post whatever you want. Here things are decided based on reasoned discussion, not on outright deletions and the silencing of people. JGoldwater had his IP blocked and he doesn't know why. I think I know.--74.220.207.95 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

JGoldwater was blocked for blatant violation of 3RR, as is clearly noted on this page and at User Talk:JGoldwater. The fact that you immediately showed up is suspicious, but not proof of anything. But your threat to recruit meatpuppets clearly justifies the sprot. Zsero 00:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't threaten to recruit anyone. There is plenty of "meatpuppets" here already and that includes all the different people who have made the deletions of the lifelock article. Anyone can check the history section to find out who the real meatpuppets are. You are all acting in concert in clear violation of this site's rules. I know JGoldwater from another forum and he told me what was going on and that he was banned unjustly because of all you people. You should create your own site elsewhere to promote your candidate. This is not the place.--74.220.207.95 00:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree the semi-protection as an emergency measure was acceptable, though there may have been better ideas such as seeking help before getting to that point. The statement made above by the IP clearly justifies the action. I have fully protected the article and expect discussion to start about the issue. It should include the user who was 3RR blocked once that is lifted. Please seek help from the dispute resolution process if you are unable to agree with eachother. Please, always remain clam, AGF and civil. MECU≈talk 00:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)