Misplaced Pages

Talk:Fred Thompson: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:52, 10 September 2007 editAnythingyouwant (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors91,258 edits →His name: what do we agree on?: question for tvoz← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:02, 12 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,793,804 editsm →top: -activepol=no (Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters); cleanupTag: AWB 
(827 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
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)

Why is there no section about Fred Thompson's military service? Did he serve in the United States military?] 02:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

:No, I don't think he did. As a married father of three children, he was probably exempt from the draft.] 05:04, 7 September 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|&#32;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|&#32;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)
::::::I wish I could share your belief about what people understand, I have been doing statistical analysis for over ten years, and this has not been my observation. :) I agree that you will see polling data "cut off", it is one of my personal pet peaves when non-stat people, and even some stat people, present percentage data. While the inclusion of 100% can be overlooked, it is generally not advisable to remove 0% without the inclusion of the CL. Without some mention of the margin of error these polls are practically meaningless. When I look at these graphs, I get the impression that FT and MR are moving toward the front, and I know from experience that others will interpret it the same way. If these are to remain in some form I suggest the removal of the regression line (not really appropriate for this kind of data anyway) and include the margin of errors using the stock-ticker option from the excel graphs you created. Also, only include data from polls in which all parties are involved, I noticed that some of the graphs look to be missing points from some parties. ] 02:09, 23 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 | section=Age difference again !! reason=Discussion on noting that ] is twenty-five years ]'s junior. !! time=07:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)}}

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)
::::You are correct, I went through the history. ] 01:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
:The question is why Italiavivi keeps insisting on adding it, when it wasn't there before. It's obviously important to him for some reason. 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)
::::::'''Comment''' I stumbled across this in RC patrol and have read the entire thread. I'm still unclear as to why this is relevant. We have articles where the age difference is brought up, in an encyclopedic manner, such as ] (because he and his wife, ] were born on the same day,25 years apart. We also have ], whose wife has been discussed as being quite a bit younger than he, though it isn't presented in the context of his Wiki article. I understand Mrs. Thompson has an entry. I haven't glanced at whether or not her date/year of birth are included. If not, why not? It would save this discussion from being more unwieldy and would satisfy, encyclopedically. Any less, IMHO, is POV edit warring.--] 04:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick question is he really only 65?...he looks a lot older and Hollywood tends to keep "round" numbers like "29", "39" and maybe "65".

I came to this page specifically to find out how much older he is than his wife. I was saddned to see that it wasn't here... and that the omission is somehow seen as a political move? Please. It's a fact. We assume married people are of the same age, and it's of interest when they're not--especially whe the difference is great, as is the instance here. I am very disappointed that people are hiding this fact solely because they think it has political connections. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Click on her name.] 15:41, 8 September 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 (this was a strikethough of another editor's comment, which I take to be undoing the actions of another editor)
:Now you are just coming up with novel interpretations to justify your erroneous listing. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AFred_Thompson&diff=152969018&oldid=152968917
:There is no violation of 3RR here. Your first link is an original edit, and I ''will'' edit your comments to indicate this if you are unwilling to correct yourself. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::<strike>The fact that it is an original edit is already indicated.</strike>] 19:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Only added after I repeatedly corrected the false listing myself, through the removal you so abhor. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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: "The question is why Italiavivi keeps insisting on adding it, when it wasn't there before. It's obviously important to him for some reason." However, the deleted material was not uncivil or a personal attack.

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. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::No, '''''''''' are being uncivil.] 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:::How many times will you bold ''and'' italicize something? He accused me of first adding the Thompsons' age difference, which was a lie. I will call a lie what it is, whether or not you defend a lie is your choice. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::::Please stop .] 18:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::Please stop repeatedly falsely listing my original remarks as a "revert." Please cease reproducing removed incivility. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::You must . Cut it out. You are not the final aurthority on what other people can and cannot say.] 18:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Stop reproducing uncivil comments which were removed earlier. I am allowed to remove uncivil remarks and will. Please remove your misleading listing of my original remarks as a revert, or I will correct the clerical error for you. It seems obvious now that the entire point of your spectacle here is to reproduce Zsero's false accusations and make other provocative claims (falsely listing original contributions as "reverts") to goad me. You are disrupting the Talk just as much (if not ''more'') than I have, now. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Quiet! Both of you to your rooms! Take a deep breath and ''think'' about what you guys are doing. Stop fighting over something so insignifigant. Let's see if we can't come to some sort of agreement here. Mahalo. --] 19:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:I am more than welcome to drop this entire spectacle, whether or not Ferry corrects/removes his false claims is his problem. I will not stand idly by while he makes false claims then fills the Talk page with screaming over my correcting them, though. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:That's sweet of you Ali'i, but there is only one user here who is repeatedly editing the comments of other users. Your comments may be edited next.] 19:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::Don't care. Just stop it. --] 19:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:::I agree. End your complaint spectacle, Ferry. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::::You too, Italiavivi. Ferrylodge, if you'd like to lodge a complaint about 3RR, you may want to go to ]. But you both need to quit arguing and act like mature editors. --] 19:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::Ali'i, I think that editing other people's comments is more egregious. Where does one lodge a complaint for that? I may also pursue the 3RR route. Please do no criticize me for restoring comments of mine that have been edited.] 19:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::You were not restoring comments of ''yours'', you were restoring comments of ''Zsero''. You reproduced Zsero's removed remarks in their own section ''knowing'' this would be controversial and likely removed again, then screamed "victim" when I did the obvious. You were also restoring a link falsely listed as a "revert." You know this good and well. If you wish to game the system in hopes of eliminating my dissent on the Thompson's age difference, you are more than welcome to try. I find it unfortunate that you have resorted to these tactics instead of discussion the merits of the content dispute at hand, though. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The next time Italiavivi deletes my comments, I intend to give vandalism warnings. Today, Italiavivi deleted the comments of others and and . Italiavivi has also been uncivil (“You are a liar") and (“telling the same lies”) and (accusing others of “screaming”) and (more accusations of “screaming” and “goading"). I do not intend to pursue this conversation, because I do not find Italiavivi to be a reasonable person.] 20:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:Stating that I first added mention of the Thompsons' or Kucinichs' age difference is a lie, a falsehood, plainly untrue. I am sorry you are choosing to defend Zsero's lie. As for "screaming," you have repeatedly made comments that were bolded italicized and in all-caps. I interpret this type of written communication as "shouting" or "screaming," as do many on the internet. It is not unreasonable to object to this, and I am glad to hear you are dropping it. I will always however, unapologetically, object editors stating falsehoods. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

== False bad-faith statements by ] and ], and ] ==
It's time to address the elephant in the room: Both ] and ] have serious ] problems with regard to this article, via revert-warring and restoring their older preferred versions despite past ] and Talk discussions. The situation here at ] is a serious problem, and these two editors' current ownership-espousing attitudes are a large part of that problem.

I cannot continue this discussion in good faith when both ] and ] are knowingly misrepresenting this article's past revision and Talk history. I was ''not'' the first editor to include the Thompsons' age difference by a long shot (though ] has by far been the most active in removing the information), nor will I stand for a discussion running so rampant with dishonest and lies (distortions Ferrylodge is eager to reproduce if removed). Zsero and Ferrylodge are now colluding on their respective User_talk pages to seek disciplinary action against my objections to Zsero's untrue statements. Until they choose to correct their false remarks and cease their misrepresentation of this article's revision history, trying to sort out this article's content dispute will be neither open nor honest.

:The disciplinary action to which Italiavivi refers can be seen and . Of course, I deny Italiavivi's charges.] 21:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::That your only saving grace is a sysop claiming that "lies are not automatically uncivil" illustrates the weakness of your frivolous report. If Zsero keeps reverting despite Talk consensus, he will be blocked, and you will join him if you follow his lead. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

== Lets' be reasonable. ==

:''Copied from ]''

A better example. On Talk, you said: "in the South, it implies that the person is a trophy wife/grave robber/otherwise doing something not normal." Do you have a source for this, what this phrase means in the South? Something about Southerners using this phrase to mean "unnatural"? Or is it not the wording, but 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:I know what the term means in the South - I live in the South - when I said that, I was allowing for the possibility that it did not have the same connotation outside of the United States Southeast. I know what it means when the gossip mongers talk about someone and his younger wife using that term. They aren't talking in encyclopedic terms. If, as you say, it has no connotation, why do you care whether it is used in the article. Why not just give her actual age? I don't expect to find a scholarly source discussing the appropriateness of the term any more than I would expect to find one discussing "whiny UVA fan". It just isn't something that is normally disputed. --] 18:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::Now we get to the real point: Very well, if not " years 's junior/senior," what phrase could I use in the Southern United States to state an age difference without "connotation"? ''Is'' there a phrase I could use in the South, or is this about Southern culture's view toward age differences in marriage? ]<sup>]</sup> 18:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Just give the people's ages, if need be. That's an amoral statement of facts. She was 35 and he was whatever he was. --] 18:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::::So there is no way in the South to neutrally state "she is 25 years younger than him (no use of 'junior' or 'senior')," correct? You have to state the ages while hiding the actual ''age difference'', because there is a cultural stigma against the age difference itself in the South? ]<sup>]</sup> 19:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::"She is 25 years younger"/"He is 25 years older" sounds fine. --] 19:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::That would be an acceptable phrasing in the Southern United States free of connotations, you mean? ]<sup>]</sup> 19:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:I have been a southerner my entire life -- I was born, reared, have always, and currently reside in the deep south. My mother was an English professor, and I must admit I've never really felt like the phrase "''foo years his junior''" or "''bar years his senior''" had any particular connotation (especially a negative one). I contest the assertions made above. /] 22:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

== Please stop this now ==

I offered to come over to this talkpage to request that some comments were removed, per an editors request. This is it; please remove (or allow to be removed) ]'s comments, as requested.

To Italiavivi; I find your actions here, and especially your language, totally inappropriate. '''''Do not''''' use the terms ''"lies"'' with regard to other editors comments. They may be wrong, they may be incorrect, they may even be fiction, <u>but</u> they are not lies. Calling someone a liar, or their contributions as lies, is grounds for a block on the basis of ]. I suggest you take some time to read ] before ''discussing'' your concerns regarding content of the article again. ] 21:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:Accusing me of being having first added the Thompsons' age difference (because it is "obviously important to me for some reason") ''when I did not'' is a , and I will continue asserting such. Admonishing me for ] problems and not these other editors is a one-sided joke. and are not simple inaccuracies, they are deliberate rhetoric-loaded lies with heavy coatings of incivility. If I am to be blocked for pointing out a lie, block me now. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

== Civility ==

One of my pet peeves is the misuse of the word "lie". A lie is an intentional misstatement of fact. It is not enough that a statement be false; it must be an intentional falsehood. To err is human, telling a lie is evil. Nobody should call another a liar unless is there is demonstrable evidence that the false statement was knowing and deliberate. It is perfectly okay to say "That is incorrect." It is uncivil to say "That is a lie." I think it would be good for Italiavivi to apologize for calling another editor a liar. (And I assume in good faith that Italiavivi, like many people, did not understand that there is a difference between a lie and a misstatement.)

Along these same lines, it would be more productive to prove that a statement is false by providing evidence to the contrary rather than simply asserting that it is false. ] 22:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I echo the comments of others that one editor should not edit another editor's comments, that we should not insert replies into the middle of other comments, that we should avoid "screaming." I assume in good faith that some editors may not have known or may have forgotten these guidelines and hope that gentle reminders, rather than accusations of deliberate incivility, or threats of admin action, will prevent future bad actions.

I would remind all to please sign your username. We've all forgotten this at one time or another. If you forget, please go back and add it.

Something I try to do is to ask myself if what I wrote might actually accomplish my objective. Writing for the sake of blowing off steam or trying to have the last word, or any writing that is unconvincing is useless. If before you press the Save button, you ask yourself if your comment might succeed in persuading the reader, then you might find yourself rephrasing your language or canceling. ] 22:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

== A way to resolve the issue? ==

The question is about whether to insert or to remove the age difference. The discussion has been partly about that but partly an argument about civility. What I see is passion by Italiavivi both in his discussion and in his actions to add the info. I see passion by Zsero in his actions but less so in his discussion to remove the info. I see that Ferrylodge is passionate about the civility issue but I have not noticed if he is passionate about the age issue itself.

What I suggest is that the rest of us try to reach a consensus. We know the positions of Italiavivi and Zsero. How about if the rest of us simply state our positions in one or two sentences, without <s>arguing</s> debating.

I am very slightly opposed to including the ages but not would object to stating their ages as 59 and 35. I would object to "24 years his junior". ] 22:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:You oppose the phrasing "24 years his junior" because? ]<sup>]</sup> 22:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:: Please reserve any questions until after everyone has had a chance to state a position. Or start a new section with questions. I ask that this section be simply a statement of editors' positions without any debating. ] 22:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should simply state our positions in one or two sentences, without arguing. I too am slightly opposed to including the ages but would not strenuously object to stating their ages as 59 and 35. I would object to "24 years his junior".] 22:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

:I've thought some more about this and here is where I'm at:
::1) I am in full support of including language in this article that clearly and specifically states the age difference between the Thompsons. I believe it is notable and appropriate to do so. Newcomers please understand that much of the disagreement here had to do with this fundamental point, not the specific way it was done - Zsero, for example, removed any mention of the ages, despite the discussion that was going on here and previous consensus on the point. So Italiavivi's insistence on re-adding it was not out of line, whether or not you admire his way of doing it.
::2) a) I can live with saying he was 59 and she 35 at the time of their marriage. b) I prefer saying she is 24 years younger than him (rather than "his junior" - I didn't love that either and I'm not from the South). I don't think there's much difference between a and b, but a may flow better.
::3) I do not want to see the obscured mention of her birth year rather than their age difference as it was at one point in the article and
::4)I very much disagree with the idea that it's good enough to have it in her article.
:So I'm willing to agree to the current wording, which is stating their ages at the time of their marriage - I do think readers can see for themselves that 59 minus 35 is 24 - but I would prefer saying she is 24 years younger than him because it's straightforward and in line with what articles about other candidates say. But the important point is that the age difference should be included. Let us not lose sight of what this argument was about. Sorry, this took more than two sentences. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 00:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I support including the age difference openly without obscuring or obfuscating the fact. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I never did like the "her senior", "his junior" language, I thought its a big awkward, and somewhat out of context (i.e. 42 vs 18 is much different, with different societal implications than say 65 vs 41). I also think its a bit of a wedge thing though...one side wants the age difference in because it paints Thompson in a certain light, and the other wants it totally removed for the same reason. With that said, I think just stating their actual ages at marriage was a reasonable compromise, more accurate and informative than just the age delta, and seem to keep things peaceful for awhile. ] 00:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading up on several presidents and prominent people in my Encylopedia America International edition (copywrite 1967, first published in 1829) I suggest birth years be listed. Not once was any mention made of age at marriage or difference of age in a random review of 5 presidents, and a few other random bios, with then exception of a statement of Grover Cleveland's second wife stating her age in a picture during her wedding (they were married in the White House). Well it wasn't completely random, she was a lot younger than President Cleveland at the time so I specifically read up on him. If Misplaced Pages wants to be treated like an encylopedia, we should follow similar methodology, and it would avoid several of the problems we have with BLP's. ] 01:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The age difference is notable and quite evidently remarked upon in the mainstream press. Listing both of the ages at the time of marriage is sufficient although not ideal. I really find it funny that some people take the time to argue against this and scan other pages for precedents. This is obviously worthy of inclusion and a short mention. ] 02:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
:The age difference is notable in the context of his political aspirations. They are not notable in the context of his acting carreer, or within society as a whole. If it is presented, it must be done in that context. Something like, "The age difference between Thompson and his wife has been scrutinized in light of his recent presidential aspirations". Note, I did not mention the age difference (as that is just a simple fact), but gave it context. ] 02:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

] guidelines are important to keep in mind here. We should be extremely cautious and try to phrase everything appropriately to avoid painting Thompson (or any other actor, politician, or ''any'' living person) in a negative light. Phrasing along the lines of: "The age difference between Thompson and his wife has been scrutinized<sup>''''''</sup> in light of his recent presidential aspirations" would be acceptable, provided that it can be properly ] by ]. - ] → ]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 16:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
:] has nothing to do with noting that he is twenty-four years older than her. It is a simple, neutral, immutable fact. If anything, expounding on "scrutiny" or other prejudice against their age difference is a ] problem. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
::If a the age difference is ''not'' mentioned in secondary sources, then it is an "unsourced statement" and should be removed immediately per ]. . Either include it with a source explaining ''why it's relevant'', or don't include it at all. - ] → ]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 20:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Even if it were shown to be relevant, it would still have to be shown to be sufficiently notable and NPOV.] 20:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
::::I agree that it should only be mentioned if it can be sourced and that it is relevant. I have to disagree however with the editor who mentioned that we should not paint anybody in a bad light, since that is not NPOV. There are many bios of people that include negative material that is relevant and souceable. Anyways, --] 23:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::Uncontroversial data such as ages does not require sourcing. Please do not outright delete the information again, Tom. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::Who said anything about sourcing?? Its about relevance. Do we cite the ages when people are married in other bios? Oh course not. Like other folks have said, show WHY its relevant to state their age when they were married and then include it. Maybe we should point out what hand preference they have when married, left or right? --] 00:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::You said just above that it should "only be mentioned if it can be sourced." We are talking about their ages here, are we not? ]<sup>]</sup> 00:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::No we are not. I'll talk slow i t i s a b o u t r e l e v a n c e. Please show WHY its relevant to point out his age when he got married and then include it. Thank you. --] 00:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Does being ] make you feel as though you're making your (already-addressed) point more clearly? Read the Talk discussion, there is ''no'' consensus for your deletion. Cease your deletion and revert-warring, Tom. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
<outdent>Since you will not discuss this civilly I have nothing more to say to you. --] 00:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
: I thouht we almost had consensus with the phrase ""The age difference between Thompson and his wife has been scrutinize.<sup></sup>" Why are we backpeddling from this? To just state the ages isn't enough. You must provide context as to why these facts are important. Otherwise, they should not be in the article. The handedness is a good example. Saying "He is left handed" means nothing, but saying, "Because he is left handed, he ..." adds to the article. ] 00:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Italiavivi, why do you feel that their ages when married is relevent or notable? What does it add to the article? ] 01:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:I should point out the according to ], it is the responsibility of the person ''adding or re-adding'' information to justify their edits. It is '''not''' up to anyone to "prove" why a statement should be deleted. The burden of proof rests on the "includer", not the "deleter". - ] → ]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 03:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
::I agree. I am glad to see this AM that the ages have been removed. It goes to relevance and contect. The editor who wanted this material said that it is include in "1,000s" of bios but that is flat out wrong. I love to edit bios and I have NEVER EVER seen it mentioned because it is totally irrelevant. It would be like mentioning their hair color or hand preference ect. Now IF, BIG IF, every newspaper in the country was having feature article's about their age difference and it BECAME HUGE news, ect, then MAYBE it could be included/pointed out in some kind of CONTECT. Mentioning that Thompson was 17 when he first was married is not as bad since this is sort of unusall, but not that relevant or note worthy in my opinion. Again, what is the POINT to insert their ages from a marriage 5 years ago?? Thanks, --] 12:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

== Controversy sections revisisted ==

. Didn't most of us agree that separate "controversy" sections are bad news, that most "controversies" can be incorporated into main text? ]<sup>]</sup> 01:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

:I think that controversy section was added some time ago, I reverted a blanking of it because it was linked to a cotroveries sub-page. I know the prefered style is to have them incorporated, but that doesn't seem to happen very often. I'll be the first to say that controveries should be incorporated into the article so long as they are presented in a neutral tone, but shouldn't the link to the sub-page remain until they are?] 01:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the controversies section, with further wikilinks to each topic mentioned. Moreover, there are many reasons for '''not''' taking that material and putting it all into this article. For one thing, doing so would give the controversies undue weight in this article. That's why, for example, there's a separate , and same for and ]. It's also worth noting that Misplaced Pages's article on ] has attained featured article (FA) status, even though there's a separate article on the ]. There are many other FA examples like this.] 02:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, all of the examples you give have substantially more than a one sentence list in the main article. They are usually multi-paragraph sections. Given your examples, it seems that not including some substance gives the controversies an unusually low amount of weight. ] 00:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

:This main article on Fred Thompson doesn't just list the three main controversies in the controversies section; it also summarizes the primary controversy (pro-choice lobbying) in the section on his lobbying activities. This is similar to how controversies are treated in the Hillary Clinton article (although the analogy is difficult because she has been through many more controversies due in part to her much higher profile); if you look at the ] article, there's a very brief section on controversies, and summaries of some of those controversies are sprinkled through the rest of the article and in various other sub-articles. Do you agree that we've identified the three main controversies, in the controversies section of this article? And which of those threee controversies (if any) do you think requires a bigger summary elswhere in the article?] 01:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

:The analogy is difficult. There is a lot more about Whitewater on her main article, over a screenful. Further ]i has a controversies page but the basics of the controversies are fleshed out on his main page over many paragraphs, ] has his Keating Five involvement fleshed out even though there's a separate ] article linked, and most other candidates have more ink spilled on their controversies on their main page. See Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, and Bill Richardson. Do you agree that we should devote a short, two sentence paragraph to every controversy so the casual reader will have some idea what they are about instead of having a fairly unilluminating list? That's how it seems to be done everywhere else.] 16:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

::There are many controversies listed at the Hillary Clinton that are not even mentioned in the main ] article. Likewise, there are many Rudy Giuliani controversies described at the Giuliani that are not even mentioned in the main ] article. The main articles should only mention the main controversies, I think.] 17:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

::P.S. Also, please keep in mind that some candidates simply have more controversies than other candidates. As far as I can tell, for example, ] has very few controversies.] 17:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Perhaps his biggest controversy is his lack of controversies. i.e. experience. ] 18:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Jensiverson, if there are particular controversies that you think should be specifically mentioned in this article though not mentioned now, or particular controversies that you think should be summarized in this article though not summarized now, then please identify which controversies. As explained above, it would be unusual to specifically mention ''all'' the controversies in the main article, much less to summarize all of them in the main article. Thanks.] 23:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

==Much Ado About Little, or Fantasy v Reality ==
I've done some research, wasting a lot of time, just because I got so annoyed at being called a liar, and so that people weighing in on this debate can have some facts at their disposal. The result of my research got so long that I was reluctant to post it here, so I made a separate page for it in my user space. The true history of the controversy over the Thompson's ages can now be read at ]. Please do ''not'' edit that page; instead please make all comments here. The only reason it's over there is because of its length. Note that if anyone does edit that page I reserve the right to delete their comments on a whim, since it is in my user talk space, not an article talk page. ] 02:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:Looks more like you placed it in your User space because it is filled with gratuitous loaded rhetoric, incivility, and personal attacks. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:: "There you go again". Can I even ''count'' the ways this comment crosses the line? ] 03:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to compile that chronology. If there continues to be a controversy about this matter, then perhaps the place to put it would be in the controversies article, rather than in this article, although I think that the treatment given to this matter at the ] article is much more than sufficient.] 02:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
: No, the controversy page is for things that are controversial in the real world, not on WP. ] 03:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:No one has explained why the information is a-okay on a wife's article but not a husband's. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:: FTR I've never said it was OK in the wife's article. Her birth date clearly is OK there, because it's a basic biographical detail. But her age at marriage, and the difference between hers and her husband's? No, I don't think it belongs there either. ] 03:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I have already explained why there is a '''''more''''' compelling reason to include this info on the spouse's page. I'll explain again. There are many Misplaced Pages articles on various first spouses that contain information about things they have done with their respective presidents, whereas those same things are not mentioned on the presidents' pages. The reason for this discrepancy is that the lives of presidents inevitably have much more notable material than the lives of their spouses, and therefore material has to be weighted differently. If the first couple does X, it may be much more notable in the life of the spouse than in the life of the president.] 03:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
: The ages should not be on the page without context. I agree with their removal. If you want them added, add the context as well. ] 03:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

==Grover==
Let's use history to help us get over this tremendous triviality. Here's what the article on ] says about a similar issue:

{{cquote|In June 1886, Cleveland married Frances Clara Folsom, the daughter of his former law partner, in the Blue Room in the White House. He was the second President to be married while in office, and the only President to have a wedding in the White House itself. This marriage was controversial because Cleveland was the executor of the Folsom estate and supervised Frances' upbringing. Folsom, at 21 years old, was the youngest First Lady in the history of the United States.}}

They had a 27-year age difference, she was only 21, and yet neither the age difference nor his age is even mentioned. The only reason that hers was mentioned is because she was the youngest first lady (which Jeri Kehn Thompson would not be by a long shot). The only reason their marriage was deemed controversial was because he had supervised her upbringing while she was a little girl. None of this is even remotely comparable to the Thompsons' marriage. Why should we all become prudes all of a sudden? The more I think about this, the more I realize that Zsero is right, and that this does not belong in the Fred Thompson article, either in the form of "they married when he was X and she was Y" or in the form of "they married when she was X years his junior" (although the former would be far preferable). If people think there is a legitimate controversy about their age gap, then it would belong at the article on ] rather than here, but I agree with Zsero that it's hardly a controversy at all. The treatment given to this matter at ] is quite sufficient (and is perhaps far more than sufficient).

Is there one single President other than Grover Cleveland where the Misplaced Pages article mentions their respective ages when they got married, much less mentions the difference?

Here’s a summary of where we stand:

Agree with removal of the ages when they got married, plus removal of the difference when they got married: Ferrylodge, <strike>Bytebear</strike>, Zsero, Sbowers3 (slightly), Arzel

Agrees with removal of ages and age difference when married, until context is provided: Bytebear

Want to insert the age difference when married: Italiavivi, Tvoz, Turtlescrubber

Want to state their ages when married, without stating the difference: Dman727

Would require sourcing and/or proof of relevance before including any type of age info at marriage: Tom=ThreeAfterThree, SigmaEpsilon

SigmaEpsilon also points out that, according to ], it is the responsibility of the person ''adding or re-adding'' information to justify their edits. It is '''not''' up to anyone to "prove" why a statement should be deleted. The burden of proof rests on the "includer", not the "deleter". In this case, as Zsero , their ages at marriage have been in this article for only a small period of time. The ages should come out. {{unsigned|Ferrylodge}}
:You forgot Threeafterthree, so I've added him above. ] 15:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

:Just to clarify my position: until such time as ] evidence (''required by ], as mentioned above'') proving that this statement is ] to the article can be produced, I oppose any mention of marriage-age-related information in the article. Furthermore, ''if'' such sourcing can be found, it must (again per ]) be determined to be a ] detail, and must be included using neutral language (as opposed to "...years his junior", which carries a negative connotation). - ] → ]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 04:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

::I've had enough. Ferrylodge, how exactly does :"''I am very slightly opposed to including the ages but not would object to stating their ages as 59 and 35. I would object to "24 years his junior". ] 22:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)''" translate to "''Agree with removal of the ages when they got married, plus removal of the difference when they got married''"?

::::Please excuse this insertion into the middle of Tvoz's comment but the context will be lost if I insert way down at the end. My preference is to omit any mention of the ages. I would accept including their ages at marriage. I oppose "24 years his junior". So Ferrylodge's statement was not incorrect, but it is also true that I would agree (but not favor) including their ages. ] 18:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

::And Bytebear quite clearly said "''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). Bytebear 18:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)''" and "''The age difference is notable in the context of his political aspirations. They are not notable in the context of his acting carreer, or within society as a whole. If it is presented, it must be done in that context. Something like, "The age difference between Thompson and his wife has been scrutinized in light of his recent presidential aspirations". Note, I did not mention the age difference (as that is just a simple fact), but gave it context. Bytebear 02:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)''" and "''The ages should not be on the page without context. I agree with their removal. If you want them added, add the context as well. Bytebear 03:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)''". HOw is that "''Agree with removal of the ages when they got married, plus removal of the difference when they got married:''"? Can you keep the facts straight?

::After this discussion and the one we had a couple of months ago about Lifelock, I can hardly wait to see what happens here when Thompson enters the race. The Obama, Clinton, and Edwards page editors are frequently attacked for what some people perceive as editing with a bias in favor of removing negatives about the candidates; those critics ought to check out this article, Ron Paul and Rudy if they want to see sanitizing. I think I'll go back to editing the Beatles. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 04:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

:::So are you saying that it should be included because it is politically notable? In effect the removal is a removal 'sanitation' of a negative fact? This illustrates the reason I think some want it included, and that is as a political position. The historical precedent of Grover Cleveland should be followed. ] 04:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Thank you for your kind clarification, Tvoz. I have corrected my post above (the last paragraph of which you did not address).] 04:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
::::Context, Context, Context! Cleveland's marriage was controversial at the time of the marriage because he was president. Thompsons marriage was only controversial after he aspired to become president (5 years after the wedding). The age difference must be presented wiht that context. If he never had political aspirations, he would never have this age difference mentioned. It just isn't a controversy for a Hollywood actor. ] 04:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::It isn't even controversial for somebody running for President. WHO says its contraversial? An editor on wikipedia? An op-ed piece? Somebody who only thinks people should be married if they are within 5 years of age of each other? Its all about contect, relevance, and sourcability as has been pointed out by others. Anyways, maybe I should stick to editing articles about the Middle East since they never have arguments like this :) Cheers! --] 12:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with it being added with context - wording like Bytebear's suggestion could be fine. But we don't want to be doing OR, we just want to present the facts. That's why it is not being suggested as an entry in a "controversy" section (which I am against in any case) - their ages are merely being stated. The NYT article discusses this as a controversial matter that could have an impact on his campaign - that may be a place to start. Other sources may make similar or different points - I have not researched it. But I think stating the age difference is NPOV and allows readers to have facts that they can consider and draw whatever conclusions they want. By the way - I was looking at ] for an entirely different reason and I see the age difference between him and his latest wife is mentioned, so I guess actors are also subject to this kind of mention. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 15:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:They share the same birthday but have a 41 year age difference. Its more of a qwirky thing than anything else. Again, this example is extrordinarily exceptional and not common place as some/one have suggested. Anyways, --] 16:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

== some reliable sources that consider the age difference worthy of mention ==
Do with them what you will, but note these are reliable sources, not blogs or moonbat/wingnut screeds:
*
*
*
*
*
*
<strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 16:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

:* The NYT article was a hit piece, trying to create controversy, not reporting on one that already exists. It was part of a deliberate campaign to paint Kehn as some sort of bimbo in order to damage Thompson's campaign; planting innuendo in readers' minds while appearing to take the high road of defending him from it. (No, I have no obligation at all to AGF of the NYT.)
:* The Reuters piece starts out serious; it does mention their respective ages, but two paragraphs apart. On page 2, though, having run out of substance, the piece turns into a gossip column, certainly not something we should look to as a guide to what is notable, and that is where the age difference is discussed.
:* The WaPo piece is about her, not him. It goes into such things as her ex-boyfriend, something that surely doesn't belong here.
:* The Novak piece is about the negative gossip campaign being waged against Thompson - their ages are given not as something notable in itself but to explain what it is that the sleaze-mongers have been talking about.
:* The Newsweek piece only mentions the age difference to criticise the NYT for bringing it up.
:* As for the NY Post, well, it's the Post. It's a reliable source for actual facts, but certainly ''not'' for what's notable. Its political reporting is pretty good, especially for NY city and state affairs, but it's a yellow tabloid written to a sixth-grade level, heavy on the sleaze (so long as it can be verified so the paper doesn't get sued).
: ] 17:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
::Furthermore, an article from the "Fashion & Style" section does not qualify as a ] for a politician's life. - ] → ]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 18:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

:Tvoz mentions six sources, and it may also be useful to note the titles of the six articles to which she links:

:NYT:

:Reuters:

:WaPo:

:Novak:

:Newsweek:

:New York Post:

:All of these headlines indicate that the articles were substantially about ''her''. In contrast, the present Misplaced Pages article title does not mention her. Their ages --- and the silly controversy about them --- are currently given ''in context'' at the ] article, and that should be enough, IMHO. And note that Novak calls this a "slur", which is not exactly the kind of thing that needs to be plastered all over Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons.] 17:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:::If you are seriously going to stick with this tactic of treating ]'s article as an infodump for everything surrounding their marriage, I want a brief introductory section in Fred's article with a Template:Main pointing to her article. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

::::I have just inserted a pointer at the beginning of the "personal life" section pointing to her article. Moreover, characterizing her article as an "infodump" is incorrect and derogatory. There are a ton of sub-articles for Hillary Rodham Clinton, for example, and no one calls them "infodumps". It's just a sensible way of handling information.] 17:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

: I have read through all of the references, and I think the issue should be expande well beyond just stating their ages:

:
::Is America ready for a president with a trophy wife?

::The question may seem sexist, even crass, but serious people — as well as Mr. Thompson’s supporters — have been wrestling with the public reaction to Jeri Kehn Thompson

::THE term “trophy wife” was coined by Fortune magazine in 1989 and immediately entered the language. Although it often has a pejorative spin, the term originally meant the second (or third) wife of a corporate titan, who was younger, beautiful and — equally important — accomplished in her own right, which describes Mrs. Thompson.

::She is a former Senate aide and a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee. And she is not a home wrecker. Mr. Thompson had been divorced from his first wife for almost two decades before he remarried in 2002

::So far, they have not dealt with it, which is perhaps fueling the fire of speculation. Both Thompsons declined requests for interviews about their marriage..

::It is too early to know what kind of role Mrs. Thompson would play in a Thompson administration. Or, for that matter, what role any other first lady or first gentleman would play.

:

::Washington gossips have merrily wagged their tongues at the couple's difference in age.

::Thompson had been divorced for a long time and was active on the dating circuit, with such girlfriends as country singer Lorrie Morgan.

::Jeri, a former spokeswoman at the Republican National Committee, came on the scene and they were married in 2002. They have two young children.

::Late-night comics are getting into the act, such as Conan O'Brien of NBC's "Late Night With Conan O'Brien" show, who joked recently:

::"Fred Thompson is now busy defending his much younger wife. In a recent interview, he said all criticism of his wife should be directed at him. As a result, conservative groups told Thompson he's been showing too much cleavage."

::And for now, Thompson is keeping his wife from playing a public role.

::"She's not going to become a public commentator and personality as a candidate's wife until there's a candidate," he told National Review.

:

::May said it was no secret that Kehn was dating Thompson, who divorced his first wife in 1985 and developed a reputation as a ladies' man linked to, among others, country singer Lorrie Morgan and cosmetics executive and GOP fundraiser Georgette Mosbacher.

::"A smart, good-looking woman in Washington in her 30s dating a member of Congress doesn't come as a shocker," May said.

:

::'Trophy' slur unfair to Thompson's accomplished wife

::That ended the discussion. I asked Williams, a respected journalist, whether he had regrets about his ''trophy wife'' comment. He did not, but explained he got the idea from the New York Times of July 8 in a Style section report by Susan Saulny. ''Is America ready for a president with a trophy wife?'' she asked. ''Subsequent to that,'' Williams told me, ''I heard the same thing in conversation with people in other campaigns -- about her being so young, so attractive and so powerful.''

::The archetypal ''trophy wife'' (a phrase coined by Fortune magazine 18 years ago) conjures up the image of a rich corporate executive who tires of and abandons the woman he married when they both were young and has grown old with, and turns to a young, chic new wife, usually seen as a home wrecker. Mrs. Thompson does not fit that mold. Thompson had been divorced for 17 years and was on friendly terms with his first wife when he married Jeri Kehn in 2002. They also have two small children -- not the trophy wife caricature, either.

::Nor does Mrs. Thompson's background fit the caricature.

::Indeed, Fred Thompson's close associates maintain there was no chance he would be a candidate for president were he not married to Jeri.

:

::The real Jeri Thompson isn't the one depicted in gossip columns, where she is the occasional subject of catty items dwelling on her good looks and revealing clothing. At 40, she is thin, blond—and 24 years younger than her husband, prompting The New York Times to question if America is ready for a president with a "trophy wife," which is, to be fair, a condescending and inaccurate caricature.

::Jeri turns down all requests for interviews—and the Thompson campaign refuses to discuss her.

: <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 16:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

::BABE WIFE, 40, BOOSTS GOPER, 64 HOT RUNNING MATES THOM & JERI

::He had been linked to country singer Lorrie Morgan and GOP fund-raiser Georgette Mosbacher.

::Fans of Thompson say Kehn is a sassy political pro who could help his cause in the White House - and point out that unlike Rudy Giuliani, Thompson was divorced well before he began seeing his current wife.

::But critics contend Kehn is a political liability: a trophy wife whose mother is four years younger than Thompson.

:Here is what needs to be in the article:
:* Jeri has been refered to in the gossip media as a "trophy Wife"
:* She has serious credentials (mentioned in the articles - some articles are all about her credentials)
:* She is assumed to be playing a pivotal role in his campaign
:* She is being kept in the background, refusing interviews, supposedly until he officially runs.
:* He was big on the dating scene, a real ladies man (dating Lorrie Morgan was mentioned in several of the articles)
:* She was not a home wrecker.
: Hope this helps. ] 17:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Yes, it does, and I agree that it should be stated and expanded upon with context, as long as it's balanced. But this needs to be in Fred's article as well as Jeri's - not doing so would be like having an article about Hillary that didn't mention Lewinsky. This is not just about Jeri at all. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 17:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

:::: Monica was a genuine issue that affected Bill C's career, and therefore also Hillary's (who was at the time only notable for having married Bill). But gossip about Hillary's alleged affairs with Vince Foster doesn't appear even on her page, let alone Bill's! ] 17:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

:::But there may be other things in these sources about their age difference to be included, however, like, what impact it was anticipated to have on his campaign (NYT, for one. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 17:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

:::: No, no, no, no, no! We do ''not'' report on what the NYT speculates might have an impact on the campaign. We only report on it ''if'' it does turn out to have a significant impact. Otherwise we're just participating in the NYT's deliberate attempt to ''make'' it an issue. ] 17:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Did I miss something? Was Thompson impeached for trying to cover up the age difference with his wife?] 17:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

::Bytebear, have you looked at the ] article? Does the treatment of their ages in that article look okay to you? Do you think that everything in that article about their ages, and about her political experience, needs to be repeated in this article?] 17:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

:::I have no problem repeating whats in the Jeri Thompson article. I also have no problem with the information appearing in both articles. Maybe add a section in this article called "Jeri Thompson" and have a ''<nowiki>{{main|Jeri Thompson}}</nowiki>'' to start it off. This would be appropriate in my mind:

::::The couple first met on July 4, 1996. They were married on June 29, 2002 at First Congregational United Church of Christ in Naperville. In October 2003, Fred and Jeri Thompson had their first child. A second child was born to them in November 2006. Mr. Thompson also has children and grandchildren from a previous marriage (which ended in a 1985 divorce). Mrs. Thompson had not been married previously.

::::A July 8, 2007 New York Times article considered whether the "May-December marriage" could become a campaign issue, noting that "she is not a home wrecker" and is "accomplished in her own right." The Times also suggested that Mrs. Thompson is a "trophy wife," according to what that term "originally meant." Mr. Thompson has in the past been at odds with the Democrat-favoring New York Times.
::::: '''No'''. The NYT's malicious speculation about what ''might'' become a campaign issue is not notable and doesn't belong on WP. ''If'' it succeeds in making it an issue, then it will belong on WP. ] 18:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

::::If Mrs. Thompson becomes First Lady, the 25-year age difference would not be unprecedented. For example, Frances Folsom Cleveland was 27 years younger than President Grover Cleveland. And First Lady Julia Gardiner Tyler was 30 years younger than President John Tyler.

:::I think it could be cleaned up a bit and the references above could be added where appropriate. Perhaps even a bit added about his "Ladies Man" days should preceed it. I really like the way the Post describes the situation, "Fans of Thompson say Kehn is a sassy political pro who could help his cause in the White House - and point out that unlike Rudy Giuliani, Thompson was divorced well before he began seeing his current wife. But critics contend Kehn is a political liability: a trophy wife whose mother is four years younger than Thompson.": ] 17:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:::: The NY Post is a gossip sheet. This garbage does not belong in an encyclopaedia. ] 18:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow.. I type slowly... I had I nice response ready, and now all this shows up. Anyway, I support ByteBear's wording above. - ] → ]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 17:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:I would still like to hear your ideas. Also, her political experience has been tied to his political campaign and should be included. We should add as many references as we can, to give the reader the most broad coverage, but we should be consise in our text and not get carried away on tangents. Basically, we just need to add a few paragraphs summarizing the references above. The stuff from Jeri's article is a good starting point. The question is, how do we weave it into personal life and his presidential campaign section. ] 17:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
::Speculating about how their marriage ''may'' affect his (potential) presidential campaign seems a bit iffy. If anything actually does happen and is mentioned in ] media, then it can bee added to the page. I'd rather not use the term "trophy wife" in the article, since (even when qualified with "in its 'original meaning'") is quite derogatory. ] is very important here; ''extreme'' caution should be taken to ensure that this article is written in a ] manner. I'd even suggest forming a draft page somewhere (probably in a subpage on someone's userspace). - ] → ]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 18:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:::We (the Wikipedians) aren't speculating. Other reliable sources are, and this speculation should be mentioned. She has been called a "trophy wife". We have many sources that say the term is ill conceieved, and that will give balance to the article. We are not producing ] here. It is well documented and verifiable. I think we have enough good sources to give NPOV treatment to the issue. ] 18:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:::: No, there is no such thing as a ] for speculation. The NYT is no more qualified than you or me to speculate as to what ''might'' happen. We do not report such speculation, ever. The fact that the NYT speculated about it is not notable, unless that speculation itself becomes an issue, in which case it will belong on ], not here. ] 18:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::That's what I said... if it becomes an issue ''and then'' is mentioned by RS, it can be included. Right now the only source we have for the "trophy wife" terminology is a Fashion and Style writer and the NYT. As I said earlier, that is '''not''' a reliable source for political matters. Nor is it evidence of any controversy. It's the ''speculation and opinion'' of ''one writer''. Under no circumstances should speculation be an a {{WP:BLP]]. I apologize if I was not clear earlier. - ] → ]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 20:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::: You were clear. I was agreeing with you, and disagreeing with Bytebear. ] 20:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::NYT is a valid source. It just needs to be balanced with other sources. SunTimes is a good counterbalance. Clearly, aside from NYT, this is an issue. ] 20:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::: No, the NYT is '''not''' a valid source when it is merely speculating. Its speculations are are no more noteworthy than mine or yours. ] 20:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::::: It is if you strip out the speculation and focus on the facts presented in the article. For example you could say, "The New York Times asserts that serious people — as well as Mr. Thompson’s supporters — have been wrestling with the public reaction to Jeri Kehn Thompson." That is a fact. ] 05:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that you try to get the ] article into what you consider optimum shape, and then see about summarizing the most pertinent material from that article in this one. However, putting everything from that article into this one would violate ]. And keep in mind that the burden is on those seeking inclusion, according to ]] 18:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

:So what was the consensus here? Currently the ages, years of birth, age difference or any other mention of age is omitted from this article. I'm just asking because I'm wondering if we should use the outcome of this discussion as a sort of precedent for ], which currently has the phrase ''thirty-one years his junior'' in regards to his wife (a similar wording found objection here at this discussion).-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 21:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

::Hi Andrew c. Have you looked at the article on ]? The age issue is handled there fully, with context. I think the consensus is that either all of that age material should be copied here into this article (including the context), or none of it. I think it would be a very close vote. And ] says to err on the side of excluding stuff like this.] 22:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

:: I don't think the age difference belongs in the Kucinich article either. Another editor claimed here that Italiavivi added it to that article too, perhaps in order to bolster his position here; I haven't checked the history to be sure, but it wouldn't surprise me. For that matter, I don't think the age difference belongs on the Kehn article either, just as it isn't on the Dolley Madison article. But I have no interest in editing Kucinich or Kehn so if it's there let other people worry about it. -- ] 03:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

==Religion==
] deleted the sentence noting that if elected Thompson would be the third Campbellite president in USA history, commenting "rm per wp:not#ball". I ''think'' he means ], but if that's his objection I don't think it's appropriate. (Bear in mind that as written the policy is about what articles should exist on WP, not about what facts should be mentioned within articles. The principle must be adapted if it's to apply at all to this discussion.)

That his religious group has already provided two presidents, and he would make the third, is a verifiable fact, not speculation. The only speculation is whether he will be elected, and by its nature the article already has a lot of that; he's a leading candidate, after all.

As for notability, which hasn't been raised yet but I'm sure will be, I think it is notable that a small and rather obscure religious group might provide three presidents. I think it's also notable that Mitt Romney, if elected, would be the first Mormon president, and that if Giuliani, Richardson, Brownback, Dodd, Biden or Kucinich were elected they'd be only the second Roman Catholic president ever; I think it's remarkable that RC is (I think) the biggest religion in the USA, and dozens of RCs have been serious candidates over the past century, and yet only one has been elected so far. I think this belongs on all of their articles, though only as a short sentence, not as a whole section or article.

PS: It's even more remarkable that the Campbellites could have already provided ''three'' presidents, and now have stood a chance of a fourth, if they'd managed to hold on to Ronald Reagan. But that's a really obscure footnote-to-a-footnote, and doesn't really belong on WP. It's more of a Trivial Pursuit question. (Anyone up for proposing ]? :-) )

] 20:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

:I tend to agree with Zsero. This article has lots of info about what Thompson would do '''''if''''' he becomes president, and that is not speculation either. The Crystal Ball guideline says: "Misplaced Pages is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis." The material deleted is not crystal ball stuff.] 20:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
::I don't see why it's notable. I having difficulty phrasing my objection exactly, so bear with me. Most of the presidents have been from the mainstream Protestant Christianity. Catholics and Mormons are notable as candidates because they are outside of this mainstream. (Yes, I know you mentioned that Catholicism if the largest single group, but IIRC, the sum of all the Protestant groups is much larger.) Campellites would only be notable if their beliefs were also "out of the mainstream." - ] → ]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 20:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:::If no one objects, I'm going to reinsert the material into the footnotes, instead of into the text.] 20:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:::: I had thought of that, and my first instinct when I saw Threeafterthree's edit was to do so; but then the bit about LBJ looked funny - it really belongs either in parens, which you object to, or in a footnote to the footnote! ] 21:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::The church of Christ is not a Protestant religion. This is why many are pointing out its difference. The Protestant churches come out of the movements led primarily by Luther and Calvin, and then the domino affect thereafter. The churches of Christ hold that they are the only church (one continual church since the day of Pentecost--although there was a period of Restoration) and that salvation is only possible through one means. This is very different than most other religions. Yes, there are others, and that is where the distinction for religions such as the church of Christ, the Mormon church, Catholics, etc., comes in. Unlike most Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, and other faiths that believe for the most part that more than more religion can be saved. As for the term "Campbellite," it is not appropriate. Campbell was involved in the Restoration, but he was not alone. Members of the church of Christ, the Christian church, and the disciples of Christ, do not use the term. It would be similar to using the old terms Papist or Romanist to refer to a Catholic.] 05:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::Umm ... Baptists and Lutherans do not believe that anyone can be saved apart from saving faith in Christ. We don't believe you have to be in a particular denomination, if that's what you mean. Are you saying that the Church of Christ teaches that you have to be in their ''denomination'' to be saved or that you have to be a Christian to be saved? Nearly all Christian denominations believe the latter ... only a few believe the former. In any event, I don't think this has anything to do with Fred Thompson. --] 05:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::That is exactly what I am saying. However, the churches of Christ refuse to be labeled a denomination as well. A denomination is a division, and the Bible explicitly forbids division in the church. Therefore, any denomination would be a sin. As for your statement, "Nearly all Christian denominations believe the latter ... only a few believe the former," that is true. That is exactly why I listed several faiths such as the church of Christ, Catholic church, and Mormon church. There are others, but as you noted, most religion believe in faith only and that you do not have to be a member of a specific church to be saved. However, certain religions believe that faith alone does not save; rather, faith through works as written in James, and thus a person must obey the word of God to be saved. A key teaching of the church of Christ, as taken from the New Testament, is that faith is demonstrated through obedience to the word of God. As is used as an example in the Bible, even the devils believe in God, but are they saved? The church of Christ (as well as certain other religions) uses this as an example of how works (obedience to the word of God) are necessary for salvation, not just faith alone.

As for the application of this to Thompson, it is important because this is his religion. We were discussing the difference between several terms used for his religion and how one key belief of the church of Christ is that there is only one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. Therefore, the generalization that the church of Christ is a part, or denomination, of a larger religion (in this case, the terms were "Campbellite" and "Protestant") would be contrary to basic teaching within the church. ] 06:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
:Hi guys, I remove the stuff about "If he becomes President, he would be...." again. You want it in the footnotes? I guess I could I live with that. Again, you could fill a library with fluff about what would happen IF he became Prsident. The guy isn't even a candidate..YET. Why not just stick to facts of TODAY and not include stuff about IF?? Fair enough? Thanks, --] 15:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

==New article on presidential campaign==
I've started a new article: ].] 00:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

==Image==
One of the Thompson images was , but was subsequently restored. The comment at removal was, "removed a picture that served only to emphasize how tall he is and show him making a funny face." Even though it's been restored, here are a few brief comments about .

Many featured articles about people have head-to-toe standing photos, including the featured articles about ] and ]. There's nothing wrong with full-length standing photos. Here, the image is one of only three Thompson images in the article from 2007, and the only one of those three that includes formal attire. For details about Misplaced Pages image policy, see . Although this image is long, it is not wide, and therefore does not overwhelm the article text.] 15:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

==Image at Top of Article==
The image at the top of the article (the "old picture") is from the 1990s:

]

I suggest replacing it with this one instead from July of 2007:

]

However, B indicated that she (?) doesn't think the image immediately above (the "Dallas picture") is encyclopedic, and instead B suggests the following image (i.e. the "Indianapolis picture") instead:

]

I think we can all agree that the old picture is not very flattering, and looks a bit morose, and in any event ought to be replaced with a newer image from this millennium, if possible. The articles for other candidates have nice smiling pictures in formal attire, as in ], and ], and ], and ]. Therefore, I don't see anything at all unencyclopedic about the Dallas picture. As for the Indianapolis picture, there are several reasons why it should not be preferred to the Dallas picture: (1) it is already used lower in the article, (2) the head is very small in relation to the total size of the picture --- unlike the top pictures of all other candidates, and (3) there is no smile as in the top pictures of all the other candidates. It is true that Thompson is not looking directly into the camera, in the Dallas picture, but that should not be a requirement. See the photos of Obama, Dean and Warner .] 06:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:Photo #2 is hideously bad in terms of the blur, angle, background, facial expression. #1 and #3 aren't spectacular, but they are acceptable. What would be nice is a high quality version of his official senate photo ... but barring that, #1 or #3 would do. Another possibility ... and I don't know how to go about asking for it, but he was the head of the USCC from 2004-2006 ... they have a photo at . Maybe we could get a higher res version from them?--] 06:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

::B, I have already requested the exact photo that you point to, but without success. I would urge you to please reconsider picture #2. There is far more detail in #2 than in #3. #3 is plainly far blurrier. As for facial expressions, a smile cannot be inappropriate for Thompson, and yet be appropriate for every single one of the other candidates, right? #1 and #3 don't have smiles. And regarding the background, look at that have been deemed acceptable for Democratic candidates. I hope you will please take another look at #2.] 07:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Having a background isn't bad. On the other hand, having some random guy with the same color jacket as the subject is bad. As for other candidates, for everyone who is/was in congress or otherwise has an official government photo, we use that photo. Where no such photo is available, we use what we have. #2 is the type of thing that we would use only if it is all we have available. As for the facial expression, I don't know that I would call it a smile. A smile would be fine ... but this expression looks ... strange. --] 07:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

::::B, it's a beautiful smile. The man is glowing.] 07:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Gee, Ferry, sure hope your judgment about POV/NPOV editing overall isn't clouded by your opinion of his smile! <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 18:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::Not to worry, my judgment is completely unclouded. Just like Mr. Spock.] 18:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

:::: I agree, there's nothing wrong with the smile. Of the three, I think the smiling picture is the best; it would be better if Random Guy could be photoshopped out, but it's not as if he could possibly be mistaken for the subject of the picture. -- ] 15:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

:::: I would vote 1 or A. Smile aside, the second (B) isn't very flattering. The Third (C) looks like he is saying "Moooooo", not a good picture at all. I agree that the first picture is not the best possible picture, but it is the most encyclopedic of the bunch. IMHO. ] 15:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What about (a cropped version of) either one of these: , ? --] 15:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
:The top picture in the article is supposed to be formal (with necktie). So, I guess we'll stick with the status quo for now.] 15:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
::I'm fine with that, I just wanted to offer some other free (as in speech) alternatives. They might still be useful down the road, however (in a Thompson campaign article, for instance). Mahalo. --] 15:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

== "Iran should be taken seriously" ==

Maybe this should be changed to "Iran should be considered a serious threat", since "taking Iran seriously" could also mean "entering into some serious discussions with Iran" which, judging from the referenced article, isn't what Thompson has in mind. -- ] 16:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

== Too Many Images? ==

Anyone else think that this article contains too many images of Thompson? --] 12:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

:I just removed a picture of him portraying "Arthur Branch" on the show "Law & Order." There's no indication that the photo was released by NBC for promotional use, so its use in this article was questionable. Now there are 10 photos of Thompson in this article, which seems okay. For example, the article on ] has 11 photos of her.] 13:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

::I think the ] pic should be removed. There is no ''need'' for another fair use image on this article (there already is one: Newsweek cover). It doesn't significantly improve the article, nor is it needed to help explain or specify something that cannot be provided as text. (Perhaps next to ''Last Best Chance'' in the filmography section, just note that he played the President. No need for this decorative fair use image.) In fact, I think I've just talked myself into removing it. Mahalo. --] 14:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

:::Sure, that image from ''Last Best Chance'' is of poor quality compared to the other images. I have no objection to removing it.] 14:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

::::And don't get me wrong... I have no problem with an article being overrun with images... as long as they are free. ]<!--verb #6.--> that we had such a quandary. But I saw that you had uploaded it, and didn't want to unnecessarily step on your toes. :-) Mahalo. --] 15:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

==Global warming skeptic==
Does Thompson belong in this category. Does he promote skepticism? TIA. --] 17:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
: He is skeptical that global warming is caused by man. He has said nothing AFAIK about the existence or magnitude of global warming. ] 18:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
::Is that sourcable? Does he "promote" that therory? It seems that is the standard for inclusion in that category? Anyways, --] 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
::: See for a transcript of his radio commentary about "Pluto warming". It is more a commentary than a statement of position. He does not promote any particular theory. (In particular, he does not mention Abdusamatov by name so I have always been "skeptical" about including Abdusamatov's name in the article.) BTW, I did not see a Wiki category named "Global warming skeptic". Did I miss it or does it have a different name? ] 18:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

== Freddie Dalton Thompson ==

"Fred Dalton Thompson (born August 19, 1942 as Freddie Dalton Thompson)"

'As' suggests that he has changed his name. I don't think the evidence is in that he has changed his name. Maybe someone can find something to suggest otherwise.

--] 19:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
:What do you mean? That his legal name is still Freddie? -- ] 20:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
::His legal name might be Freddie, but i'm not sure. --] 21:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

::Read the source - we can't know what legal steps he did or didn't take, and it doesn't matter - what matters is that he was born Freddie and in 1967 started calling himself Fred. We say that in the early life sec (I think that's where it is) and we have the LA Times areticle and the blog post about the article as sources (the blog has some info the article didn't mention), so I think we're ok. If someone finds other source material, great. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 05:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Can you post the source that shows what his birth name was? TIA --] 04:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:::: The LA Times article clearly says that his name was Freddie at birth and marriage. The blog has an image of the marriage certificate; that seems a RS in this case, unless you think it likely that it's a forgery. -- ] 04:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

:::::The LA Times article that discusses his birthname is: {{cite news|url=http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-thompson6sep06,0,7136744.story
|last=Matthews |first=Joe|title=Thompson wed his ambition|publisher='']''|date=], ]}}. This piece makes the point about changing his name in 1967: {{cite news|url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/09/freddie.html|last=Malcolm |first=Andrew|title=Shocking truth about Fred Thompson revealed!|publisher='']''|date=], ]}}. And I just found another one from a tennessee paper that I'm formatting and will add: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/sep/07/fred-freddie-8212-hes-still-fd-thompson/. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 05:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

==Fred Thompson==
Hey amigo(to Ferrylodge), please knock of the POV editing and stick to the facts. The facts are what they are and there's no need to protect or sugar coat them. Unless you've got something positive to add, leave facts alone and keep you POV to yourself. ] <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:We can discuss your POV pushing at the article talk page.] 21:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and make your case, amigo. This fact will be in all the press in the next few days, as well as in depth articles about the persistent rumor that Thompson fathered a child by another man's wife in the 1980s. She allegedly was a Republican county official in eastern Tenn. You're hiding your head in the sand and avoiding clear, relevant facts. But make your case. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
]

==Pre-marital sex==

Rosspz wants to emphasize that Thomspon had pre-marital sex with his future first wife. I reverted . The paragraph in question initially said, "In September 1959, at the age of 17, Thompson married Sarah Elizabeth Lindsey. Their son Frederick Dalton 'Tony' Thompson Jr. was born in April 1960." Anyone can do the math and see that they got married after she was pregnant, which was a very upstanding thing to do in those circumstances.

Rosspz would like to change it to read like this: "In September 1959, at the age of 17, Thompson married Sarah Elizabeth Lindsey '''''after she became pregnant'''''. Sarah's father, the mayor of the couple's hometown of Lawrence, was against the marriage, but finally consented. A son, Frederick Dalton "Tony" Thompson Jr., was born to the couple in April 1960, '''''seven months after the wedding'''''" (emphasis added). This seems to me like clear overkill and POV-pushing.

At my talk page, Rosspz wrote: "Hey amigo, please knock of the POV editing and stick to the facts. The facts are what they are and there's no need to protect or sugar coat them. Unless you've got something positive to add, leave facts alone and keep you POV to yourself." There's quite a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, there.

Rosspz added: "Go ahead and make your case, amigo. This fact will be in all the press in the next few days, as well as in depth articles about the persistent rumor that Thompson fathered a child by another man's wife in the 1980s. She allegedly was a Republican county official in eastern Tenn. You're hiding your head in the sand and avoiding clear, relevant facts. But make your case." Actually, Rosspz, it's your reposnibility to make the case for inclusion of this material. Consensus is required. Thanks] 22:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

:OK, amigo, it seems elementary in an biography of a candidate for president of a party that espouses to a large extent socially conservative values that the marital history of a prominent candidate, as featured in leading newspapers like the LA Times, should be noted. You're trying to hide an obvious fact and cover it with some kind of judgmental value (having premarital sex, getting pregnant, keeping the baby and getting married and staying married for 25 years is bad). Not many would agree with you. You're hiding behind consensus as if it means "we can only say things that are good and reflect well on people." Most people would say Thompson did the right and honorable thing by doing what he did in 1960. Why try to avoid it and act as if it's a defamatory thing. You're really looking at this backwards and standing in the way of truth, comprehensiveness and objectivity. I'm not sure what your agenda is, but it's not full and fair disclosure of the relevant facts, which is what I thought Misplaced Pages was all about. Get you head out of the sand and start seeing what this is all about.

:Now it's your turn to put your case for not including these relevant facts. Have at it, amigo. ] <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::Rosspz, maybe there should be more detail about this and maybe there shouldn't be. I certainly think Thompson did a very honorable thing, assuming the LA Times story is correct. However, the way you presented this material was POV. It was already clear from the dates that they got married after she was pregnant. But then you pile on, reiterating that they got married "after she was pregnant" and having a child "seven months after the wedding." That's a double redundancy, without adding anything informative. And your POV comes across even more clearly (if that's possible) in the comment you left at my talk page, emphasizing "the persistent rumor that Thompson fathered a child by another man's wife in the 1980s. She allegedly was a Republican county official in eastern Tenn." This article is the wrong place for POV, whether it's pro- or anti-Thompson.] 22:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a pathetic, non-response to a fact acknowledged by everyone. It you think "seven months after the wedding" shouldn't be in, then take it out, but you don't even address the other information I added. You think you trying to help Thompson, but you're not and you shouldn't even be trying to do that on Misplaced Pages. You just don't seem to understand this process. What you call "consensus" really means "whatever I, Ferrylodge, think is right." Your marginalizaing this article, and that's sad. ] <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Before that most recent comment of yours, I to include more info about the circumstances of his first marriage, in a non-POV way.] 22:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Fair enough. Thanks. ] <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::Changed "expecting" to "pregnant" - I think we should avoid euphemisms that may or may not be understood by non-Americans. ] is the wikilink - that word is presumably understandable. Otherwise this subject is handled in a neutral way and is sourced - it's fine now. As for rumors, we're going to be careful that anything that goes in is well-sourced from really reliable sources, not partisan blogs and the like - we do have BLP policy, regardless of his status as a public figure. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 06:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:::I changed it back to the version that existed at the time you posted this. It'd been changed to read that she told him she was pregnant in September 1959, which isn't what the article even said. ] 17:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::By the way, does anyone else here think that it's ludicrous that an encyclopedia article written in 2007 should feel that it's so darned important that everyone realize, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that a man's wife was pregnant when he married her? ] 17:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::Marie, we do run the risk of being ludicrous here. On the other hand, we don't want people like rosspz to think we're covering anything up. <strike>I do not think it's helpful for you to repeatedly delete the . Maybe the text of this Misplaced Pages article should be changed, but why keep deleting the footnoted LA Times article?</strike> The LA Times article says: "In the summer of 1959….Lindsey told Thompson she was pregnant. He responded, friends say, by asking her to marry him…. Freddie and Sarah exchanged vows in a Methodist church during the second week of his senior year. Seven months later, in April 1960, 17-year-old Thompson had a son." Does this seem ludicrous? If so, we can rephrase it, <strike>but let's at least keep the LA Times article linked in the footnotes, okay?</strike>] 17:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the media doing with this? Is the media making a big deal out of it or is it just something that people are amusing themselves with on blogs? ]'s daughter ] was born 7 months after he and Nancy were married and his article doesn't see the need to point that out. I'm not inclined to think there is a need to here, either. I can't imagine that any mainstream media source really cares that Thompson and his wife slept together 50 years ago before being married. I'm sure I'm in a tiny minority of people here that is a Bible-believing Christian and believes such behavior is wrong, but on a personal level for me and on a corporate level for Misplaced Pages, it is not our place to judge Thompson. I can see no reason to include this other than for the sake of making a moral judgment - as the fact that two people had sex 50 years ago is hardly a notable detail. --] 17:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

:I agree, B. I've edited to move the detailed LA Times quote to a footnote. Anyone can read the text, and do the math, if they are so inclined.] 17:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

::I think you're missing the point, though - he was 17 years old when he married - that is unusual, and should be explained. I'm not making any moral judgments at all - not that it was "immoral" to do it or that it was "honorable" to get married. The fact is that it is notable that he married at 17, and the reason is well-sourced - the LA Times article is mainstream media, the blog post only confirmed one detail, and we don't necessarily need it. Readers can draw whichever conclusion, or neither, about the morality here. That's not our job. But as a footnote is ok with me for now - unless other reliably sourced information comes out about his past that might make this point more article-text worthy. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 18:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:::That may be unusual today. It was not unusual in the past. My grandmother was married at 16 and my grandfather was 24. Today, they would probably put him in jail, but it wasn't that big of a deal at the time. --] 18:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
::::For a girl, maybe so, but for a 17 year old boy I'm not so sure. In 1960 NY, it would have been very unusual - in Tennessee, I can't say. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 18:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

==Shifting image to the right==
An image was recently shifted from left to right, in . The edit summary was, "moved pic to right per MOS suggestion for keeping level 2 headers flush left." This doesn't seem correct.

The MOS : "When using multiple images in the same article, they can be staggered right-and-left." The MOS further says: "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings." This image that was shifted from left to right was not directly below a heading. And, moving it to the right disrupted the staggering. Am I missing something here?] 06:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:OK - I may have my levels wrong (it's 3AM, too late for me to recall what's level 2 and what's not) but the reason I shifted the pic right is that the header "2008 Presidential Election campaign" was not coming in flush left when the pic above it was on the left - it made the section appear to be a subsection (despite its larger font) even though it's not. So I think that having the section heads prominently viewable on the left trumps having the pics staggered. Lots of articles have unstaggered or semi-staggered pictures - I didn't think it worth the effort to realign the others - I think it's ok this way. But I don't have strong feelings about it - all of this stuff about staggering pics etc in MOS are guidelines that can be ignored if there are other more compelling reasons to do something else anyway. (As you say, "they ''can'' be staggered".) I do think, though, that main headers - whatever level they are - ought to be prominently flush left. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 07:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
::Aha - was the version I was working with when I moved the pic to the right - as you can see, that header was kind of obscured. But now that there's more text in the previous section the subsequent 2008 Pres campaign header is flush left even with the pic on the left, because there's enough text to carry it. So that's fine with me. (I hope that was more comprehensible than I fear it might be. Good night.) <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 07:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. And why are some dates and years in this article wikilinked, while some aren't?] 07:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:The simple answer, probably, is that different editors have different opinions about wikilinking dates, so there are variations based on who entered the material. My own opinion is that I think wikilinking dates is usually stupid (no offense to those who love it), unless there's some context. So for example, if I'm editing an article about a musician or a band, I'll wikilink the year a record of theirs is released with a pipe like, say, <nowiki>]</nowiki> - same for films - because it's relevant to ] to know what else went on in music in 1967 when it was released. I rarely deliberately wikilink month/day - I guess it's mildly interesting to see who else has the same birthday, but other than that I see no point to wikilinking the date someone announced for the presidency to that month/day - who cares what else happened on that day in history? I'm not fanatic about it, so I don't always remove wikilinks to dates when I'm editing a paragraph for some other reason, but I'd be inclined to if I noticed it. I really don't see the value at all. Your mileage may vary. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 07:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

::OK, thanks. At some point maybe I'll look up the style guidelines if I get a chance. I don't like wikilinking dates either.] 13:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

:: ''I rarely deliberately wikilink month/day - I guess it's mildly interesting to see who else has the same birthday, but other than that I see no point to wikilinking the date''
:: No, that's completely wrong. The reason why day and month should ''always'' be wikilinked has nothing to do with looking them up; it's so that the date can be ]. Whenever you have a full date, day month and year, or just a day and month, wikilink it no matter how insignificant the date is. When you have just a month and year, or just a year, only wikilink if it's significant. -- ] 16:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:::But the fact is the wikilink takes the person to that date, and most readers don't have preferences indicated, they are just here reading an article. Could you point me to some place that says this has become a requirement? The link you provided just says what it is, not that we have to follow it. Thank you. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 18:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
::::''I'' actually linked up Zsero's comment. More info is ]. --] 18:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::Where it says that the inclusion of this in MOS as policy is in dispute, I believe. My point still is that regardless of whether the date got formatted by the brackets, when you click on the wikilink that is showing on the page, you;re brought to a page that talks about the significance of the date in history - so if you go to 2008 campaign and click on March 11, when Thompson appeared on Fox News and which is wikilinked, you find out that King Thutmose III died that day in 1425 BC. I am saying that this piece of information is not needed, overkill, and pointless, and there are way too many dates to make wholesale wikilinking them valuable. So, I would not wikilink that date, despite the fact that some people's preference for date style might therefore not be followed. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 20:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

== 2008 ==

I don't mind the subheads that Ferry put back so much as I think we need to pare the prelude/testing the waters/exploratory sections down in this article significantly and/or move them to what we're saying is the "main article" about the campaign. Now that he's in, presumably there will be more to talk about than how he got to this point, and this main bio should focus on broader strokes, I think, than the level of detail we have on the run-up to the campaign. Following a lead from other major presidential candidates, this is too much here and not enough in the other article. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

:I agree that as we move away from the prelude, that stuff can be pared down more and more.] 20:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

== Top Picture, Again ==

Jc37 the picture at the top of the article. Why? Jc37's edit replaced a very recent, high-quality image with an old low-quality image. This 71 KB image was taken this month:

]

but was replaced with this 17 KB photo taken many years ago:

]

How come?] 18:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not sure exactly how old the low-quality image is, but it's at least five years old. See at archive.org from September 6, 2002.] 18:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

:I merely restored the image that was removed today (and which is apparently used in other articles which refer to the person) apparently without any reason except that it's "newer". And since this appears to have been the subject of some discussion, reverting a ] change to ] doesn't seem wholly inappropriate. In any case, I welcome further discussion on this from interested parties. - ] 18:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

::"]" implies that there was an edit war and article protection regarding this issue. That is incorrect. The recent image that you removed has not been objected to since it was inserted on 7 September. Quite the contrary, it was selected to address objections to a previously proposed image. Are you objecting to this most recent image, Jc37?

::As I said, the recent image is ''much'' more recent, by at least five years. Additionally, as I also said, the recent image is of a much higher quality (i.e. 71 vs. 17 KB). Please let me know if you are objecting to the more recent image, and if so why. Thanks.] 18:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

:::I have to say that the recent image (recently taken) is an improvement to the article. I can't think of any reason why the old and grainy image was restored. Is there any reason? ] 18:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Only problem I could see is whether it is preferable to use a Public image (the old one) over a cc-by-sa Creative Commons licensed image (the new one). I don't see any difference, and the new photo is definitely much better. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::CC-by-sa is fine for our licensing requirements. We don't really have any preference. If anything, CC-BY-SA is better for promoting free content because of the viral nature of it. If you create a derivative work of a PD work, you can impose your own restrictions on it, which hurts free content ... whereas if you make a derivative work of something CC or GFDL, you have to use that license, allowing others to expand on it. But as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, either is fine. --] 20:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

== Global Warming ==

Should his views on global warming, an obviously important issue of the day, be presented?

See this website: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/7/12747/26118

His comments thus far are quite noteworthy, and without doubt he will be questioned on then as the campaign progresses. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:His position on global warming is already summarized in the section on his political positions, and further detail is provided at ]. Thompson has left himself some wiggle room to acknowledge that it's a very serious human-caused problem, although that has not been his position so far.] 02:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

==What is this guys name??==
We can't even get his name straight?? What does his birth certificate say he was born as? Did he ever legally change his name or not? Might be a good starting point. Thanks, --] 04:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

:FYI, there's similar ambiguity with regard to Hillary Clinton, and I don't think we should make more of a fuss about Thompson's name than is made about her name in the ] article. She went by "Hillary Diane Rodham" long after she got married. Bill Clinton's advisors thought her separate name was one of the reasons for his 1980 gubernatorial re-election loss. The following winter, Vernon Jordan suggested to her that she start using Clinton as her name. She began doing so publicly with Bill's February 1982 campaign announcement. Who the heck knows what her "legal name" is.] 04:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::Please don't get me involved with Hillary's article, I am begging you :) Seriously, that should have zero impact on this discussion, especially since you are taking maden name, yadda, yadda, yadda. Again, why not just stick to the sourcable facts and leave it at that? --] 04:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


:::Completely and utterly different, Ferry. If there's anything to compare to, look at Johnny Reid "John" Edwards, which is a similar Southern-boy name, updated at manhood. No big deal. (Indeed, maybe our lead sentence should be '''Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson''', following that model.) But Hillary is less relevant: her birth name is Hillary Diane Rodham, which she has every right to continue to use for life, whether or not she's married. I can't say for Arkansas, but in New York a woman is not required to change her name at marriage, nor does she have to do anything to "keep" her name - all that they want is that you be consistent - in other words, don't use one name for one bank account and another name for another. But it is a social convention that you can take on your husband's name - she didn't have to do anything in order to do that, just had to start using it. And by the way, millions of women use their birth name professionally and their husband's last name socially, simultaneously. This is not controversial. Thompson';s name change isn't particularly controversial either - and we are barely noting it. We say he was born Freddie Dalton Thompson and we reference it (I personally think the LA Times article is sufficient, and we don't need the marriage certificate, but it doesn't matter one way or the other) and then in 1967 he dropped the "Freddie" and was called "Fred". We're not making any claim about what his "legal" name is, and why would it matter anyway? We're just stating his birth name and when he assumed the shorter version. And Three, glad you don't want to get involved in Hillary's article - we have enough to contend with there :) <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 05:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

::::Tvoz, I realize that it requires a bit of extra typing, but would you please refer to me as Ferrylodge? Or FL? Thank you.] 05:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, no offense intended, and "fairy" (as per your edit summary) never even entered my mind. I was just being informal. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 05:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

::::::I'm Ferrylodge, he's Fred Dalton Thompson, and she's Hillary Rodham Clinton. So simple!] 05:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::NOthing is simple, I'm afraid. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 05:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

OK- I removed the marriage certificate because I couldn't get to any post that talked about it - just found the pdf file itself - so I think its verifiability could be questioned, and it's not really needed anyway because I also found a second source to back up the LA Times article, which is mentioned above: the Knoxville News Sentinel talks to Thompson's son Tony (whose birth name is Freddie Dalton Thompson Jr, btw, not "Frederick" - that's been corrected too) and he confirms his father's birth name. I think this is all more than enough citation for this non-controversial tiny point. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 05:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:I tweeked the name per ] but if that is the case, we would need a new page name? The "born as" mention dose not seem appropriate unless he had a legal name change it seems --] 05:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

::No we don't need a new page name. ] says "In some cases, subjects have changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well:(from Bill Clinton): William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946)."] 05:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

::First, no - we would not need a new page name, because naming conventions are that you go by the most commonly used name, and '''Fred Thompson''' is correct for the title of the page. Second, to Ferrylodge: the appropriate comparison, again, is to John Edwards, not Hillary Clinton. Hillary went from her birthname to her married name, like millions and millions of women - and often not at the time of marriage, but sometime later, like when they have children. It is just not relevant to Fred. John Edwards, though, is also a good-old boy (no offense to any Southerners reading) whose parents named him Johnny, but he later adopted the more mature "John". His page first sentence is constructed as Tom did - and I tend to agree with him that this one should be too. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 06:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:::And Bill CLinton is yet another situation, a different last name - not relevant here. Look at ]. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 06:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Maybe ] needs to clarify about those people that change their names legally vs otherwise. As is pointed out, Clinton's named changed legally I believe. --] 06:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::I reread mosbio, and its pretty clear about this point. Unless Thompson legally changed his name, his legal name should be used. I did tweek mosbio to add legally. --] 06:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

::::::Tom, first of all, would you please refrain from changing Thompson's name as it has been stated for years in the first sentence of this article, until we reach some sort of consensus about what ] requires? There is no need for an edit war about this.] 06:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

::::::Second, please point out and quote the part of ] that you are referring to.] 06:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

<outdent> Ferrylodge, mosbio seems pretty clear on this, so please leave the name as is until consensus here is reached. Also please see "Care must be taken to avoid implying that a person who does not generally use all their forenames or who uses a familiar form has actually changed their name legally." I did add the word "legally" for full disclosure :) Cheers! --] 06:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

:Tom, you have ] so that it says what you want it to say. And then you come here and quote yourself.

:The issue here is whether Fred Thompson has changed his name, not whether he has changed his name "legally." If a person changes his or her name, that person should not be required to file court papers before Misplaced Pages will recognize the name change.] 06:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::No, the issue is what do reliable sources say. Do you have reliable sources that say Thompson has changed his name legally or otherwise? If you would like to revert, I will not revert it again, even though I feel this is a BLP issue. Anyways, --] 06:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:::I have revert to "your" version but would like others to weigh in. Thanks --] 06:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether he changed his name. "Legally" doesn't really mean much - a person's name is what he goes by, and if he decides to stop calling himself Freddie and start calling himself Fred, he doesn't need to file any paperwork to make it legal - he may want to do so so he's got proof for bankers and bureaucrats, but if he chooses not to it doesn't make the change any less valid. But did he really change his name, or did he just start using Fred as a nickname? The LAT article is vague on this - I suspect because the author wasn't sure either:
On the advice of the Lindseys, Thompson stopped using the name
Freddie in his professional dealings and became Fred. "I told him
one day," recalls Ed Lindsey, "that if you've got any ideas of
wanting to be in politics, I would highly recommend that you get
rid of this 'Freddie' business."
That's not a clear statement that he did change it, but it sort of implies it without quite getting there. That bit about how he stopped using it "in his professional dealings" implies that he kept using it socially, which would fit with Tom's version. But it's not a lot to go on. What I'd like to see is his ''second'' marriage certificate. I wonder whether that's available online anywhere. -- ] 07:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:Hi Zsero, thanks for the imput. IMHO even what his 2nd marriage certificate says means nothing, just like his first one. What matters is his legal birth name, which according to ] should be pointed out in the lead, which it currently is not. --] 07:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC) ps what is the difference between Thompson's article naming convention and John Edwards? TIA

Tom has raised a good point, and I don't have any objection to discussing it further, because it's still not 100% clear how this article should start off. Tvoz was correct that the closest thing to Thompson's name situation is John Edwards. According to the LA Times, "Thompson stopped using the name Freddie in his professional dealings and became Fred." Likewise, according to the Charlotte Observer, Edwards "'''''changed his name''''', although not legally. In law school, he started referring to himself as John. He believed that sounded better for his new career." So, it may well be that Misplaced Pages should treat Edwards and Thompson the same vis a vis their names. However, I'm not sure Misplaced Pages currently treats Edwards correctly. ] says: "Care must be taken to avoid implying that a person who does not generally use all their forenames or who uses a familiar form has actually '''''changed their name'''''." But according to the Charlotte Observer, Edwards did change his name.

Given the continuing uncertainty on this issue, I would support continuing to say at the start of this article that his name is "Fred Dalton Thompson" but if his second marriage certificate comes to light (as Zsero mentioned) or his passport or driver's license, and it says Freddie instead of Fred, then maybe we could change how this article starts out.] 08:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

:Absolutely not. Leaving "Freddie" off is completely unjustified - how we put it in perhaps is subject to discussion, but the fact that it was wrong since 2004 doesn't mean we should continue having it wrong now that new information in the form of two reliably sourced citations that you removed has come along. The man's birth name is Freddie, he shortened it in 1967 to Fred for sound professional reasons. We don't know or care if it was a legal change. There is no scandal here, it's not even mildly controversial. But this is an encyclopedia article and it needs to be accurate. The way we have John Edwards' name rendered is the way it should be done here - it is virtually the same situation - we (the editors of Edwards) went a few rounds and settled on the way it is now rendered and there it has remained. That would be, as it has been on and off tonight, '''Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson'''. I do not understand what the discussion is about actually - this is pretty straightforward. No one wants to change the name of the article and we should not change the name as it is rendered above the picture/infobox - Fred Thompson is how he is best known, hence the article title. Fred Dalton Thompson is as close to his "official" name as we know - regardless of whether he went through any formalities to shorten it - so that's what goes on the infobox. WHat is the issue? How about looking at other articles that have more in common with this one - say ], for instance. Or ] as I've said 100 times. Or even ]. Try ] too. I don't get it- what's the problem, Ferrylodge? Do you think it makes him sound silly to say his name is Freddie? It's his birth name and it may be his legal name and it's the name he gave his son and it's the name his son gave ''his'' son - accept it and let's move on. I don't see any consensus for removing Freddie and I'm putting it back, with the citations. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 09:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

::And here's something curious: on his name mysteriously became '''Frederick''' - by an anon who made only that one edit, with the edit summary "formal name". None of us questioned it, and it stayed as Frederick, with an occasional "Fred" inserted in quotes, until now when his real name of Freddie has emerged, but this time with citations. It's his name, and that's what we're going to go with in boldface in the first sentence - there are so many precedents throughout the encyclopedia that it's silly to even discuss this. Try ]. ]. ]. Admittedly it's less common for the birth name to be the one that sounds less formal - like Johnny Reid and Freddie - but that's the way it is, and we're not going to twist this article around so that this candidate sounds more mature. It's ridiculous. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 09:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

] and ] are other examples of birth name not matching the commonly-known name. There is convincing evidence that Freddie is his birth name. The citation for Freddie Jr. and Freddie III is especially convincing as to his birth name. The birth name should be in the first sentence of the lede. It would be acceptable to say "Fred Dalton Thompson (born Freddie Dalton Thompson)" ala Bill Clinton, but Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson ala John Edwards is shorter and simpler. I gather there is no disagreement that Fred rather than Freddie is what should be used throughout the rest of the article. ] 11:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

:Carter is a great example, Clinton is not because he was adopted or had a step dad or whatever the case, I don't know, nor do I care. By saying "born as" in the lead, it implies that his name has "changed" legally or otherwise and wp:mosbio is clear '''in spirit''' that this should not be done in order to avoid the implication that his name has "changed". If Thompson signs legal documents or really did "change" his name, then I guess I can live with that. Just because somebody decides to use a shorter version of their birth name does that mean that they have "changed" their name? I say no. There are probably alot of other bios that do the same thing we haven't used as examples yet. At the VERY minimum his legal birth name needs to be in the lead sentence, preferably as it is done in Edwards bio. --] 12:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

:: Thompson's birth name (like his birth date and birth place) is a minor bit of significant information; if we have a reliable source for it, it should be somewhere in the article. Once. Other "by name" references should be by last name only, or by common name, which is "Fred Thompson". The LA Times article makes it clear that Thompson does still use ''both'' names (although he shows a preferences for "Fred" in his public life that should be respected) and it's the type of information that isn't going to go away; now that it's out in the world, references to Thompson. And since a Google search for ''"freddie thompson"'' (with the quotes) just brought me a paid link the Fred08 website, it looks like his campaing isn't exactly disavowing his birth name either. ] 12:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever if the article says "Fred Dalton Thompson (born Freddie Dalton Thompson)" ala Bill Clinton. That seems to be how it's done when a person changes his name. That is also how Tvoz previously urged that it be done . So I could please do without the outrage and indignation, Tvoz, when I have merely advocated doing what you yourself previously advocated.

Part of the situation here is that Threeafterthree decided to amend the Manual of Style a few hours ago in order to enhance his argument about this trivial issue. That made this discussion more difficult than it should have been. But now the Manual of Style is back to how it was, so let's try to follow it please. The only issue is whether Thompson changed his name to Fred, as discussed by the Manual of Style:

{{cquote|In some cases, subjects have changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well:

(from Bill Clinton): William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946) …}}

or instead has he adopted Fred as a "pseudonym", as discussed by the Manual of Style:

{{cquote|For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym:

Louis Bert Lindley, Jr. (June 29, 1929 – December 8, 1983), better known by the stage name Slim Pickens…
Alternatively, the legal name can appear in apposition to the pseudonym:

Boris Karloff (November 23, 1887 – February 2, 1969), born William Henry Pratt, was an actor best known for his roles in horror films. He was initially billed as "Karloff" and sometimes as "Karloff the Uncanny".
It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. Care must be taken to avoid implying that a person who does not generally use all their forenames or who uses a familiar form has actually changed their name. Therefore: "Johnny Reid "John" Edwards (born June 10, 1953) …" is preferable to saying that John Edwards was born with the name Johnny Reid Edwards.}}

So, the issue is whether Fred is his name, or is it instead a pseudonym. This is not a huge issue, but I don't see why we can't try to get it right, and why people cannot refrain from jamming their preferred version into the article before consensus is reached. The LA Times says, "Thompson stopped using the name Freddie in his professional dealings and became Fred." That certainly does not seem to prove that "Fred" is a pseudonym. Does anyone have any other proof that "Fred" is merely a pseudonym? Until there is consensus about that, why is it appropriate to change the first three words of this article which have stood unchanged since 2004? Why can't we just write "Fred Dalton Thompson (born Freddie Dalton Thompson)"?] 16:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::Ferrylodge, please don't misrepresent what I said - my which you quoted did not at all "urge" anything - it provided a better reference for Freddie as his name, and did not address how the first few words should be phrased. And when I took a closer look at other similar articles - ] being the salient one, not ] who changed his '''last name''' which would presumably require some kind of legal involvement - I realized that the format was not quite right based on the information available to us. My previous edit was to remove the completely incorrect "Frederick" and I was not focusing on how "Freddie" should be incorporated. In looking at it further, I agreed with the people who had rendered it in the same way as John Edwards, or ], which is '''Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson''' . You keep referring to how this page was since 2004, but the problem is that it was wrong information since 2004 - presumably innocently done - and now we have correct information, so the change needs to be made in the first sentence. It's a matter of encyclopedia style, and you have no more reason to think he legally changed his name than not, or at least you haven't presented any such evidence - so the correct phrasing at present is not to imply that he did legally change his name until we know that is the case, with verifiable sources. Phrasing it the way I and others did - '''Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson''' - does not imply anything other than he was born Freddie and is known as Fred. Saying "born as Freddie.." suggests that he made a legal change. So if you have such evidence, please provide it. Otherwise, please stop changing this back to the way you like it. I don't see consensus for your change here, and I'm not even sure that consensus is what we're looking for - MOS is more relevant, as are other similar articles. Neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton are at all relevant to this discussion, so can we focus on the articles that actually ''are'' relevant instead? <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 17:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::: What is this obsession with a "legal" change? A person can change his name without filing any sort of papers; he might find it difficult to convince bankers and bureaucrats, who like to have a piece of paper to look at, but we are neither. ''If'' he did change his name, the article should reflect that change, by saying "Fred...(born Freddie)"; OTOH if he didn't change it, but merely adopted "Fred" as a nickname, then 'Freddie "Fred"' is correct. I don't know which is true, and the LAT article seems deliberately ambiguous on the point, but let's not get distracted by red herrings like the term "legal". -- ] 17:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::Zsero, please cease characterizing those who disagree with you (and most seem to disagree with you here) as "obsessed." It is not ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::: There you go again. I haven't called anyone obsessed. I have called this harping on and on over the distinction between the different ways of changing a name an obsession, because that's exactly what it appears to be. If you can't tell the difference between calling something an obsession and calling a person obsessed, then that's your problem, not mine. -- ] 18:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Tvoz, I am not ruling out that this article should end up being changed in exactly the way that you are now urging. However, I am not persuaded as of now, because I do not agree that you are correctly reading ].

::::You say that putting the words “Freddie Dalton ‘Fred’ Thompson” at the beginning does not imply anything other than he was born Freddie and is known as Fred. That is incorrect. It implies that he did not change his name from Freddie to Fred, and implies that Fred is merely a pseudonym. (Incidentally, I might add that it is also a weird and confusing way to begin the article, but I can accept that if it turns out that Fred is merely a pseudonym.)

::::You also say that "born as Freddie" suggests that he made a legal change. Not so. ] says that “In some cases, subjects have changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well…” There is nothing in the sentence I have just quoted that refers to changing the name “legally”. Even if the name is changed without filing formal court papers, still the birth name should be given as well.] 17:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:Placing "born as" implies a legal name change, and we have no evidence that he legally changed his name. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:: It implies no such thing. A change of name is just as valid whether it was effected through a legal process (i.e. a deed poll) or not. -- ] 18:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

::No, even if a person changes his name without filing legal papers, ] explicitly requires that "the birth name should be given as well".] 17:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:::I think Italiavivi's reading is correct here. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 18:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I restored the marriage certificate. It provides powerful visual evidence that whatever his name may be now, when he was 17 it was Freddie. Blogs aren't generally considered RS for bare statements of facts, because who knows who wrote it or how that person knows it to be true. But this is an image of the original certificate; unless someone seriously suspects it to be forged, it's reliable, and it should be linked.

PS: We're spending far too much time and energy on this ultimate trivium. -- ] 17:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:His name isn't "ultimate trivium" -- and Misplaced Pages has a . This discussion is not preventing you from editing other parts of the article. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:: His name isn't trivial, but the fact that he used to have another name is. In any case, everybody here agrees that both names should be listed; we're arguing about what style to use, and that ''is'' about as trivial as anything can possibly get. -- ] 18:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:::So let's follow ] then. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 18:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

:::: We ''are'' following MOS, the question is what is the correct style to apply here, which depends on whether Fred is now his real name, or just a nickname that he uses. And that question ''remains unresolved''. If we find good evidence that he never changed his name, then we will all agree to the 'Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson' style. And I hope that if we find good evidence that he ''did'' change his name (''regardless of how he made that change''), then we'll all agree on the 'Fred...(born Freddie)' style. The only dispute is over what language should be in the article until the question is resolved, and it seems clear to me that until it's resolved the status quo ante should prevail. Until a few days ago none of us had any idea that he'd ever been called anything but Fred; we still don't know that Fred ''isn't'' his real name now; so we shouldn't change the status quo ante without consensus. -- ] 18:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:::The reason I removed the marriage certificate, by the way, even though it supports the position I'm taking that "Freddie" has to be here, is that it's posted as a pdf on that blog without any context - there's no authentication possible, and it is in effect a first-party source which is not considered acceptable here. I dthink we'd be better off not using that particular rendition unless we can find some wya to authenticate it - I couldn't find the accompanying text which might do that, however - if you see it, please add it. This way I think it's a problematic source. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 18:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:::: Do you have ''any'' reason to suspect that the image is forged? It's not a first-party source - that would be if one of us made it up. It purports to be a picture of the actual certificate, and we have no reason to suspect otherwise. Sure, it ''might'' be a forgery, but why should we suspect that? And without any evidence against it, it is a valuable addition to the encyclopaedia, which is what we're supposed to be building here. Remember that? We're not here to comply with an arbitrary set of instructions, we're here to build an encyclopaedia, and documentary evidence such as this contributes to that goal ''even if'' we can't be 100% sure that it's genuine. In the extremely unlikely event that it proves not to be, we can always take it out then. -- ] 18:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::No need to remind me that we're building an encyclopedia, thanks, and you'll notice I did not remove it a second time. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 19:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::: Actually, you . -- ] 19:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::: I am merely expressing the concern that I expect others may voice, that this is an unauthenticated piece of evidence that shouldn't be here unless we can authenticate it. Again, having the certificate '''in''' the article supports my position about his name - but nonetheless I think that people looking for problems in this article may flag it as a questionable primary source, so I raised the point. And all I asked you to do was to see if you can find any text that accompanied its posting on the blog - since you are the one who provided it - which might spell out how it was obtained and give authentication. I didn't make this stuff up, Zsero - see ]. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 19:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::: I'm not accusing you of making it up, but I think you misunderstand what is a primary source. The blog is only a primary source if it forged the certificate; otherwise it's a secondary source. It purports not to have forged it, and it seems very unlikely to have done so, so unless we find out otherwise we should keep it. Oh, and I wasn't the one who originally provided it; the first edit to introduce "Freddie" was from this blog post, which was then replaced by the LAT article; the only thing the blog had that the LAT didn't was the image of the certificate. The LAT article refers to the certificate but doesn't provide an image of it, so I re-added the image from original blog. -- ] 19:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Zsero, "legality" was brought in because ] says ""It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and
lead paragraph give a different name. Care must be taken to avoid implying that a person who does not generally use all their
forenames or who uses a familiar form ''has actually changed their name.'' Therefore: "Johnny Reid "John" Edwards (born June 10, 1953) …" is preferable to saying that John Edwards was born with the name Johnny Reid Edwards." (Italics added). My argument is not really based on whether he legally changed his name or not - we do not have that information. So I am saying we should follow MOS and not imply it - and use the Edwards construction. I've provided numerous examples of articles which use the Edwards construction - they are everywhere in the encyclopedia - and I've not seen too many with the "born as" construction except for when we're talking about a clear pseudonym or a surname change like ] or ]. (I also don't like the word "pseudonym" in the context of either Edwards or Thompson - I think their uses of John and Fred are just a matter of maturation, years ago, and are totally not controversial. It's a cultural thing - Tommy Thompson was also named thusly, but he chose to keep it that way. No big deal all around.)

And Ferrylodge, at least one of your edits last night () completely removed Freddie - that's what I was reply to in my comment above that begins "Absolutely not.". I think I am reading ] quite correctly, as I just said to Zsero, which says the care that must be taken is in implying an actual name change. It does not speak to whether care should be taken in implying that a pseudonym is being used. You find that construction "weird and confusing", but it is literally everywhere in the encyclopedia and specifically in the articles on presidential candidates and related people, as I've listed over and over, so it's just not viewed as weird or confusing by others, and I'm changing it back, to follow MOS. You are well over 3RR, by the way, on this, so how about leaving the change stand as it follows policy - and let's see if others come in. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 18:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

:I'm sorry that you prefer edit-warring to consensus-seeking. I don't intend to revert your most recent edit, but I would point out that it is inappropriate to insist on jamming your own POV into this article.] 18:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::You are the one who has made '''''seven''''' reverts to your preferred version today, Ferry. You have no place chiding anyone on consensus-building. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

<s>OK, Ferrylodge, you did revert Italiavivi's last edit - the current one is mine, and I did it so that we be consistent with MOS and the information now in hand.</s> Ferrylodge - Two edits (by me) is not edit warring. Discussing it here on talk is not edit warring. Reverting it 7 times is edit warring. Also, I haven't noticed or made any POV edits on this subject - this has been a discussion about MOS biography style and naming conventions. I've asked, but gotten no response to why having the encyclopedia standard bothers you - as Sbowers pointed out above, it is "shorter and simpler" and it is clear. "Born as", I think, introduces an implication that we should not be making. Can we please keep this conversation to that, and not discuss the various personalities who have weighed in here? And please show me where I'm "jamming my own POV" into this article, or don't make such accusations. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 18:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:I edited the article ''twice''. Edit warring? ]<sup>]</sup> 18:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

::Crockspot, have you ever in your life seen the man's name written "Freddie Dalton 'Fred' Thompson"? Moreover, ] says, "In some cases, subjects have changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well: (from Bill Clinton): William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946)." Why would this case not be like Clinton's? Because Clinton's name change was somehow "legal"? ] does not make any distinction (in the portion I have quoted) between legal and other name changes. I think the first three words of this protected article are currently wrong, confusing, and they sound weird. Obviously, they should not have been inserted without consensus.] 19:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Crockspot, have you ever in your life seen the man's name written "Freddie Dalton 'Fred' Thompson"? Moreover, ] says, "In some cases, subjects have changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well: (from Bill Clinton): William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946)." Why would this case not be like Clinton's? Because Clinton's name change was somehow "legal"? ] does not make any distinction (in the portion I have quoted) between legal and other name changes. I think the first three words of this protected article are currently wrong, confusing, and they sound weird. Obviously, they should not have been inserted without consensus.] 19:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::::: Yes, I have seen it written that way. In the two reliable secondary sources that are cited. If you can find a reliable secondary source that says he legally changed his name, then cite it. This is like Ricky Schroeder becoming Rick Schroeder. What is the big deal? - ] 19:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

::::::The article on ] says: "Richard Bartlett "Ricky" Schroder," which is nothing like how you say this article should read. And, no, neither of the two reliable sources you mention wrote "Freddie Dalton Fred", which sounds and looks silly and confusing. This was not a big deal in my mind, but it became one based on the lousy procedure being followed (e.g. editing the Manual of Style to support arguments at this talk page, plus altering stable stuff in this article without consensus).] 20:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I was driving more at the "who really cares?" factor than any specific wording example, but have you ever heard Ricky Schroeder called Richard Bartlett Schroeder anywhere? I think you just proved my point. The wording and title of ] is ''exactly'' the same as this article. It is titled by the name that we all know and love them by, and the lead is an all-inclusive combination of their proper legal name, and commonly known names. - ] 20:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

==Children by second marriage==
The couple has two children. We know which children these are because the article says so. We don't need to distinguish between the different children by describing some of them as "small". --] 06:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:Sure, but what's your objection? What do you think "small" implies that's inaccurate or POV? -- ] 07:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::Its sort of like my penis size or my kids. Some people might say they are "small" but I would beg to differ that that is their point of view. --] 07:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

== Daily Mail ==

Everyone brace yourself. with lots of details about Thompson's personal life, including details of the divorce settlement etc. If that is picked up in other RSes, we had better decide what to do about the Personal Life section. ] 17:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

:Hornplease, is there anything notable and interesting in that article that is not already covered in this Misplaced Pages article? I did notice anything, but I only glanced over it briefly.] 18:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

:: I've read it, and there is absolutely nothing that is both new and notable. In fact the only thing that jumped out at me was his Oscar Lindsey's barely credible claim that he never knew his sister was pregnant when she married Thompson until he read it recently; I wonder what he thought when their baby was born two months premature but at full weight, so to speak. I suppose he might have been innocent or just a bit slow, and only now realised what was staring him in the face for years. In any case, there's nothing else in the piece that's of any interest. No bracing of any sort required. -- ] 18:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

== Gross edit warring: Six reverts today by ]. ==

Enough is enough.
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
*6th revert:
*7th revert:
Ferrylodge, "this is how it has been since 2004" does not entitle you to making <strike>six</strike> seven reverts to your preferred version in a single day. Please cease your edit war over this, and return to Talk discussion (as you so often recommend in your edit summaries). ]<sup>]</sup> 18:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

:As I said at my talk page, I have no intention of reverting you again at ], and I intend to heed your warning. You previously received at least three separate warnings from administrators on August 22, for your conduct regarding the ] article. Now you and Tvoz are edit-warring here. Despite objection from me an Zsero, you two are insisting on changing the first three words of this article that have been unchanged since 2004. You refuse to seek consensus first.

:Both LessHeard vanU and Tango warned you , and ElinorD warned you . Thank you for your warning about 3RR, but I urge you to correct your own behavior, and stop edit-warring. Seek consensus at the talk page before changing the first three words of this article, which have remained the same since 2004. As I said, I have no intention of reverting you again at ], and intend to heed your warning. I hope you will heed my warning too. And I will respond to your long list of diffs soon.] 18:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi folks, please discuss changes here instead of constantly reverted. Note that it does not have to be exactly three reverts, or complete reverts for ]. Let ] know when a consensus is reached. No blocks this time, but if the disruption starts again, it will have to be prevented. Regards, ] <sup> ] </sup> 18:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC) I forgot to mention that I've protected the page. ] <sup> ] </sup> 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

: If there is no consensus for a change, then it should remain at the status quo ante. And that is exactly what Ferrylodge is doing; restoring that status quo ante, while we discuss whether to change it. It's strange to accuse him of edit warring, rather than those who insist on imposing a change. Ultimately this will get resolved - we will find out the fact, one way or the other, and the article will reflect it. In the meantime let's keep our tempers. -- ] 18:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

: One of these is my fault. I added a free promo photo from Flickr with a note that it was ok to revert. I don't recall the time but it was in the past day and didn't see what happened in the other cases. -] 18:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::Not a problem, Susan. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 18:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Zsero, he's accused of edit warring because he (alone) reverted to his preferred text seven times in the last day rather than leaving the initial change and coming here to talk about it. This is not a question of removing vandalism which could justify multiple reverts - the wording that now stands, which I and several other editors have put in the lead sentence, is completely supported by ] and numerous very similar articles, such as ], etc., and no cogent argument has been raised about why it should instead be Ferrylodge's wording, other than the murky question about a legal change, which we have no answer for. The appropriate action, in a case like this, then, is to go with the Manual of Style and the precedents set in many other articles, rather than going with the incorrect previous wording (since 2004 not having his correct name, probably innocently so) or with the unsupported preference of one editor. We all agree that "Freddie" has to be in there (ignoring the time Ferrylodge removed it last night in favor of the 2004 wording), and we're talking about the Manual of Style. I'd like to hear any arguments about why this article should use the "born as" construction, rather than the far more common construction we're now using. One other point again - I hope we will leave the personalities of the various editors who have opinions on this out of this discussion - whatever disputes that have happened elsewhere on different topics I hope will not color this discussion, all around. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 19:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


==Request for immediate edit==

{{tl|editprotected}}

This article has been appropriately edit-protected. However, the wrong version has been protected. So, this is a request for an administrator to undo that preceded page protection. In other words, the first three words of this article should be restored to "Fred Dalton Thompson" as they have been since 2004, pending a consensus that they should be changed. There is currently no consensus to change them. I and Zsero are against the change (see discussion above), whereas Tvoz and Italiavivi are for it.

There is a legitimate discussion about what ] requires in a situation like this, and that discussion needs to continue before the 3-year-old status quo is changed. The first paragraph of the article should be restored for the time being, and should begin with "Fred Dalton Thompson." Thanks.] 18:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::You are attempting to solicit sysops to continue your edit war on your behalf. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

:We don't revert the final edit before protection unless it contains false information. This is because that revert just lengthens the edit war and drags previously uninvolved admins into it. See ] for a humorous essay that attempts to justify this further. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 19:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for the reply. However, the protected version does contain false information. It starts as follows: '''Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson'''. There is no document on the face of the Earth that writes the man's name like this. It has never been written this way anywhere by anyone. The editor who wrote it has not cited any instance in human history where it has been written this way. It is false.] 19:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Oh for heaven's sake, please read other articles in the encyclopedia, Ferrylodge. No one is making the claim that anyone writes his name like this. This is merely Misplaced Pages style, as Crockspot outlines below. Most likely no one renders Judith Giuliani as '''Judi Ann "Judith" Stish Giuliani''' or Bill Richardson as '''William Blaine "Bill" Richardson III''' except for us either, or the countless other examples thoughout the project. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 19:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

:::::Tvoz, Richardson is often referred to in this way. And, the Misplaced Pages article about Judith Giuliani is wrong; .] 19:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Using a Google search as evidence will get you into hot water, Ferrylodge. Many of the hits just pick up the Misplaced Pages wording - that's circular and proves nothing. Once again, we are not claiming that anyone writes the name like this - we're talking about how Misplaced Pages style presents names in bios. (Oh, and last time I was editing Ms Stish Nathan Giuliani, good sources were provided saying her birth name is Judi Ann, not Judith. I haven't looked in there lately so can't say what it says now.)<strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 00:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
::: "Protecting the wrong version" is indeed a WP in-joke, but the fact is that the practise of protecting the "current" version invariably leads to gamesmanship, where someone reverts to their preferred version and immediately calls an admin to protect it. This practise also encourages edit-warring, since everybody wants to increase the chance that their preferred version will be the "current" one when it gets frozen. Any exercise of restraint in edit-warring is thus "punished", and editors get the message that next time they should be quicker to revert.
::: Be that as it may, in this particular case there is a strong argument for why you should freeze Ferrylodge's last version rather than Tvoz's. There is no substantive dispute here; eventually we will find out the true fact, and then we'll all agree which language to use. The dispute is over what language to use in the meantime, while we don't know the facts. And the general rule on WP is that until there is consensus for a change, the status quo ante should be preserved. -- ] 19:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Agree. The argument here should focus on what language will be used when the protection comes off, not whether the protected version should be changed. That is one of the points of protection. Let's get productive here. - ] 19:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
*I've read the two reliable sources cited, and it appears that Freddie is or was his legal name. MOS calls for article titles to use the most common name, and to start the article with his legal name. That appears to be the case. I don't see why there is even an argument here. If his legal name were Freddie The Cat Killer Dalton Thompson, then maybe we could argue about it, but this seems pretty straight up to me, and I am hoping to see this man in the White House. I don't see any downside to his reputation. It's a non-issue to me. - ] 19:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:: "Is or was" is precisely the question. As I've explained several times above, we ''all agree'' that if Freddie ''is'' his current name, then the currently-frozen version is correct. (And I'd still like to restore the link to the marriage certificate, unless in the meantime we come up with something even better.) But we don't know that Freddie is still his name. The LAT article is - I think deliberately - vague about whether Fred is now his real name, or just a nickname. I ''think'' we all agree that ''if'' he has changed his name to Fred, ''no matter how he made that change'', then the previous version ("Fred...born as Freddie") is correct. And ''we don't know'' what the fact is; all Ferrylodge and I are saying is that until we find out the status quo ante should be preserved. -- ] 19:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Even if he "changed" his name, legally or otherwise, you need to mention his birth name in the lead. Ferrylodge would have no mention of his birth name which makes ZERO sense it seems. Also, I love the part about the wrong version being protected. Thats priceless :) --] 20:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Thank you Crockspot - I believe your reading of MOSBIO coincides with the way I've edited the lede. And I would point out to Zsero that the other source that I added to the LA Times piece early on, when I removed the marriage certificate because it is unauthenticated (but I think it's back in - haven't checked the latest version) is a Knoxville Tennessee News Sentinel article that quotes Thompson's son, who confirms that not only is his father's name Freddie (without saying if it ever was changed legally) but that his name is Freddie Jr and his own son is Freddie III. So you don't have to worry about whether the LA Times is "deliberately" being vague (this sounds like editing with a POV, by the way) - presumably his son knows his father's name, his name and his own son's name. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 19:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:::: I thought that the LA Times was very specific. I also assume that if they are going to be that specific, they fact checked it. I should also refactor that the lead name is not necessarily verbatim a legal name, but is usually an all-inclusive combination of legal and common names. We can discuss it further, but when the protection comes off, I think further edit warring ''would'' call for a block. - ] 19:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I think it would (further warring). ] <sup> ] </sup> 19:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just came in to concur with Crockspot's assessment as an another administrator opinion. The current lead seems to be well sourced and falls under the guidelines of the manual of style. And I also agree with Crockspot's statement that "further edit warring" will result in blocks. ] 19:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
* I am open to some fine tuning of the lead name. But it should be discussed and agreed upon while it is protected. Personally, it seems fine as it is. - ] 20:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::I concur. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Me too. --] 20:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Yes, it seems fine, and consistent with policy, as it is now. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 00:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
::::The lead should have an all-inclusive combination of proper name and commonly known names. The question is what is his proper name now? The article currently says "Freddie" is his proper name, but he virtually stopped using that name 40 years ago. That name may sound funny at the beginning of this article, but it is not accurate. If you want proof that his second marriage certificate says "Fred" and that his driver's license says "Fred" and that his passport says "Fred", in order to correct this error, then we'll just have to wait until that info is available. At that time, we can restore the first three words of the article to what they have been since 2004, and begin the article like this: "'''Fred Dalton Thompson''' (born ] ] as '''Freddie Dalton Thompson''')". Until then, it will be wrong, which is not a huge deal, but is nevertheless unfortunate.] 20:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::::P.S. Or we may have to wait and see what Chief Justice Roberts says if and when he swears Thompson in.] 21:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

:::::Let's try to keep our biases in check, ok? It's not wrong - it's Misplaced Pages style. And I object to your characterization just above: ''That name may sound funny at the beginning of this article, but it is not accurate. ''. What are you talking about, Ferrylodge? Has anyone said or even implied that he or she wants to include "Freddie" because it sounds funny? I am beginning to wonder how to take your editing - are you insisting on its being put in an incorrect placement because you want the candidate to sound serious? I hope you're not letting your politics interfere with your reading of Misplaced Pages policy. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 00:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

::::::Tvoz, the LA Times reported that 40 years ago "Thompson stopped using the name Freddie in his professional dealings and became Fred." Yet for some reason you have insisted that "Freddie" should be the very first word in this article, thus implying (per ]) that "Freddie" is his proper name. I do not know what your motives are. But I think any objective person would have to agree that a name "Freddie Dalton Fred Thompson" is a very funny-sounding name. My only goal here is to comply with ]. Instead, you refused to develop consensus before changing this article. You simply joined Italiavivi in steamrolling Zsero and myself, instead of engaging in talk.] 00:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Steamrolling? Not engaging in Talk? Gee, I could swear that most of my commentary on this has been here, on Talk - with only 2 reverts to the article first sentence throughout this - and of them was done when you removed all reference to "Freddie" in the first sentence in clear violation of the spirit of the discussions and MOS, reinstating just '''Fred Dalton Thompson''', no mention of Freddie even as birthname. As compared to your 7 reverts. So come off it, please - read contribution histories and Italiavivi's user talk page if you want to get an idea of how well he and I get along, but it just so happens that sometimes we agree on substance and unlike some, I'm not going to fight with him when he's right just because I've fought with him when he was wrong. We're not in junior high school here - at least I'm not. I've asked a few times here that we keep personalities out of this and deal with the facts. As for my interactions with Zsero, I don't see them as steamrolling either - I responded to Zsero's points, just as I responded to anyone else's. If you find the strength of my argument too hard to resist, well, that was the idea. But the fact is you asked for outside help by putting the request for a change in protection above - and I didn't object to your doing that - and the result was that it was explained to you why the current version is protected and Crockspot and Metros both said that the current version "seems fine", is "well-sourced" and "falls under the guidelines of the manual of style". That is all I have been saying all along, and I appreciate that concurrence from these two uninvolved individuals. I also think this has started to get kind of ], Ferrylodge - this is an extremely unimportant matter and the text is correct, and consistent with wiki style, as it stands. Exactly like ], et al. Can we agree to move on so that protection can be lifted and we can get back to improving the article? <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 00:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


== His name: what do we agree on? ==

Do we agree that his birth name is Freddie? If we do not agree then the discussion should first resolve that point. If we are agreed then it is just a question of style.

I am satisfied that his birth name was Freddie. The citation that provides his son's name as Freddie Jr. and his grandson's name as Freddie III is particularly convincing. Does anyone disagree that his birth name was Freddie?

Assuming that his birth name is Freddie the article has been wrong for three years because it did not have his birth name. So the argument that it has been that way since 2004 is irrelevant, because it has been wrong since 2004.

Now suppose that three years ago we knew that Freddie, not Fred, was his birth name. How would the lede have been written?
Would it have been displayed for the last three years as Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson or as Fred Dalton Thompson (born Freddie Dalton Thompson)? On the basis of ] and ] I would go with the former but there are many bios that do it the other way.

Does it matter whether he legally changed his name? From the discussion I don't think so. He de facto if not de jure changed his name to Fred and that is the name he uses and people know him by. Most of the article should use Fred. Does anyone think it makes a difference whether he legally changed his name?

As a "Friend of Fred" I don't care whether it is Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson or Fred Dalton Thompson (born Freddie Dalton Thompson). I don't think it will make the slightest difference to his campaign. As a Misplaced Pages editor I care that we use appropriate style. It is very clear that his birth name should be in the first sentence of the lede. It is not clear to me which style is more appropriate or that there is a clear preference from all the other bios. ] 00:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, as Misplaced Pages editors, we should use appropriate style. There is no argument about his birth name: it was Freddie. The only issue is whether the article should start with Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson or instead Fred Dalton Thompson (born Freddie Dalton Thompson). The latter, by the way, would leave the first three words of the article unchanged from what they have been since 2004.

:Sbowers3, I urge you to consult ]. That is the pertinent Manual of Style here. According to ], the resolution of this question depends upon whether Thompson changed his name. The evidence is not 100% clear at this point, and that is why the wise course seemed to be to leave the first three words of the article as they have been, while adding a parenthetical. Incidentally, that's how ] handles Bill Clinton's name (Clinton changed his last name rather than his first name but ] does not make a distinction based on last name or first name).] 00:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
::Let's use common sense. If he self-identifies as Fred, let's use Fred in the first instance. MOSBIO be damned. -- <b>]&nbsp;]</b> 00:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
:::No, Y, I think consistency combined with MOS should be the determinant - see ], ] and lots of other similar articles. That's wiki style for better or worse and I don't see why Fred Thompson gets different treatment from Ji9hn Edwards. And Ferrylodge, there is a world of difference betwen changing one's first name an changing one's surname. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 00:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Johnny Reid? Oh my Lord! -- <b>]&nbsp;]</b> 00:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

:::::Tvoz, where does ] say that there's a style difference in changing one's first name versus surname? And I think Y has this right, though I wouldn't mind a parenthetical (a la ]) saying "(born Freddie Dalton Thompson)".] 01:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Parenthetical is right and proper. Agree on a form and I will implement. -- <b>]&nbsp;]</b> 01:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
:: I read ] - I also read a version from June in case there had been any recent changes. The John Edwards and Bill Clinton examples both appear to be relevant and would support either form. ] 01:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Suppose that his birth name had been Frederick, and he went be Freddie as a youngster, then by Fred as an adult. In that hypothetical case what would the lede say? My guess is that it would say Frederick Dalton "Fred" Thompson. If that is true for Frederick it should also be true for Freddie. ] 01:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

:Okay, suppose his birth name had been Frederick, and he went by Freddie as a youngster, then he completely changed his name to Fred so that there was no official trace left of Frederick or Freddie. Then we would do just what we did for ]: Frederick would only be mentioned afterward in parentheses.


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-->
:If you look at Thompson's , there is no Freddie. Likewise, if you look at his official , there is no Freddie. So, this is just like the ] situation. To the extent that there is any doubt, we ought to leave the first three words of our article as they have been since 2004, until the doubt is resolved, IMHO.] 01:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


==Died==
::Take my case. I have a long first name, which I use on all legal documents. But I have had a nickname since before I was born. Everybody who knows me uses my nickname; most don't have any idea what my legal first name is. I introduce myself by my nickname. I have credit cards and utility bills with my nickname. Do a Google of my nickname and you'll find a few entries. Do a Google of my longname I think there is nothing. By mosbio would I be Longname "Nickname" Smith or would I be Nickname Smith (born as Longname Smith)? ] 01:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
<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">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:::Nice to meet you, Sigismund Bowers. -- <b>]&nbsp;]</b> 02:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


== Massive amounts of reverts ==
Y, I'm surprised at your edit to the pagein the midst of this discussion - that's not consensus here, it's incomplete, and it is premature to change it to that. Navou protected the page so that we could avoid further edit warring until we reached some kind of agreement, and no one who has been editing the page, nor the two uninvolved people who came over to comment, took the position that "Freddie" should be expunged from the first line - the discussion was about how to include his birth name. In fact the references right there (1 and 2) talk specifically about his birth name as Freddie. Further, it says later on in the article that he shortened his name from Freddie to Fred, but now it doesn't say that his name had been Freddie - the context is gone. I object to this wording - and since when is the subject's preference taken into account in naming and lede? <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 02:38, 10 September 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)
:The name in the lede right now is as it has been for years, and it makes some sense to preserve that, pending consensus. Tvoz, would you please answer something. Suppose that 40 years ago Thompson had gone into court and had a judge officially change his name from Freddie to Fred, while leaving the rest of his name as is. Would that affect how you think his name should appear in the lede?] 02:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:02, 12 November 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fred Thompson article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Actors and Filmmakers / Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconU.S. Congress Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is about one (or many) person(s).
WikiProject iconAlabama
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama
WikiProject iconTennessee High‑importance
WikiProject iconFred Thompson is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member.
• • • • TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconConservatism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Presidential elections Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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 Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Senator Fred Thompson

Was Senator Fred Thompson ever married to Elizabeth Taylor?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.225.27 (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.117 (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Died

<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> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdmarkus66 (talk • contribs)

Massive amounts of reverts

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)

Categories: