Talk:Thomas Eagleton

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thomas Eagleton article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Stephen Poludniak was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 January 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Thomas Eagleton. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

U.S. Congress Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) person(s).

Missouri Low‑importance

	Missouri portal This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

St. Louis Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject St. Louis (Politics), a project to build and improve articles related to St. Louis and the surrounding metropolitan area. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.St. LouisWikipedia:WikiProject St. LouisTemplate:WikiProject St. LouisSt. Louis articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.

St. Louis University[edit]

I removed St. Louis University from the article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Eagleton&oldid=57522060

I do not see the SLU reference anywhere although Washington University is used frequently. If that is indeed correct put it back. Americasroof 13:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senate campaigns[edit]

Should there be additions to who Eagleton ran against for the Senate races?

Pro-Life Politician[edit]

Some websites say that he was pro-life and was picked by George McGovern to balance his own pro-choice stance. I think it's true since it appears in several sites, even neutral. This is one of these sites [1] 85.240.18.225 (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It must be remembered that, in 1972, abortion was still a crime in many jurisdictions, aa the supreme court had not yet engaged in the exercise of "raw judicial power" (see Justice White's dissent) known as Roe v. Wade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Paul Parks (talk • contribs) 16:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my point. It was that there were so many pro-life democrats back then, that Thomas Eagleton was picked probably also because of his stance on the issue. I don't know if he changed his view latter. Sargent Shriver, who replaced him, was also pro-life. This question was so non existant in the recent past that it's very difficult to find sources about the stances on the issue of politicians like Robert F. Kennedy and Humbert Humphrey, who are believed to also have been pro-life. Of course, due to the official pro-choice line of the party all the Democratic Presidential candidates have been pro-choice since 1976. There were also those who switched sides for obvious political reasons.85.240.23.185 (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty, abortion and acid[edit]

Do we have anything other than Bob Novak's word to confirm that Eagleton really was the source of this line? Given that Eagleton was dead when Novak revealed him as the source, and Novak's word is worth less than nothing, I'd prefer if there were something more reliable to go by. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Also, the wacko, far-left McGovernites need to stop whining. The fact is, they did favor abortion, amnesty, and acid, or gave a good impression of it at the 1972 Democratic convention, and many decent people, especially back then, were offended by such positions. Many people, if they had the 1972 election to do over, and knowing everything they know now, would still vote for Richard Nixon instead of George McGovern.

John Paul Parks (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. From your first and only relevant sentence, I take it that I have consensus on my side that Novak's claim shouldn't be presented as the truth.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this. Novak is not a reliable source. Penskeer (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reports correctly that Novak said Eagleton was the source. Novak was a nationally famous journalist for decades. The main issue is the acid/abortion tag that is about McGovern's positions, not about Novak's saying who first used the term, Rjensen (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Hatch-Eagleton Amendment[edit]

I think this should be added to his career on the Senate.

Introduced by Sen. Orrin Hatch and Sen. Thomas Eagleton on January 26, 1983, under S.J.Res. 3.

A right to abortion is not secured by this Constitution. 81.193.214.72 (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How he left[edit]

Can someone include in this article exactly how eagleton decided to leave the ballet? In this day in agfe I think that would be political suicide if for example obama dropped biden as vp and picked Hillary Clinton for uttering a stupid statement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.31.254 (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selection as VP Candidate[edit]

"Early in the process, McGovern wanted to ask Sargent Shriver, but could not reach him because he was on a flight to Moscow." This has no reference cited, not to mention the fact that it makes no sense. McGovern couldn't ask Shriver because of a flight to Moscow? That is ridiculous. No one would choose their running mate based on whether they happened to be flying to Moscow at a certain moment. I'm taking this out for now...revert if you like. 174.102.212.191 (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.212.191 (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing section[edit]

This article seems to be badly missing a section between 'Selection as vice-presidential candidate' and 'Replacement on the ticket'. The latter section begins with 'McGovern said he would back Eagleton "1000 percent"', with no actual mention having been made of the specific revelations that came out, the damage done to the ticket, et cetera. We've just jumped from his selection to the aftermath of disclosures about his psychiatric record. The whole article frequently alludes to the Eagleton 'train wreck', but then manages to completely skip over the actual press revelations and events which constituted said wreck. 72.38.213.69 (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thomas Eagleton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607015253/http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2007/aug/20070819Feat004.asp to http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2007/aug/20070819Feat004.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 1[edit]

Reference 1 now appears to say that the author's last name is Noble and first name is Barnes. I strongly suspect this is wrong, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Dgndenver (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]