Talk:Political positions of Fred Thompson

message: Article vandalized again by 147 IP address again right before article locked so current incarnation does not contain accurate information.
--206.255.40.47 05:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed that. He has also been blanking. He has been reported to AIV and will/has been blocked.--James, La gloria è a dio 04:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism note

message: Continued vandalism by IP address 201.53.100.33  This IP continues to erase votes and add in blog references.
Note, continued vandalism on Thompson's abortion article.  Blog references are cited as news and someone continues to post a poll that was debunked back in the 90s by some obscure group saying Thompson was pro-choice when there was no evidence of Thompson ever completing the poll and he disputed it from day 1.
Added in Thompson's voting record with bill numbers as that should be the deciding factor on if he is pro-choice or pro-life.
--206.255.40.47 04:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a cite for the debunking? It would be useful to have if this comes up again. Sbowers3 00:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I added that link to the Ext links section. - Crockspot 05:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sbowers3, what do you mean by "double-hearsay"?  If you had the original 1993 newspaper article from the Memphis Commercial Appeal in front of you and it reported the interview as described would you consider that "single-hearsay"?  I suppose it's possible that "R.S.K." of Media Matters and Eric Kleefeld of TPM are both lying/mistaken in their quotes of the newspaper article, but that seems quite a stretch (note Kleefeld says he independently checked the article via Nexis).  I don't have access to Nexis.  It's not a bad idea to ask others who might have access to check it out.  But I'm not sure that adding an anonymous person saying "ya, I see that too" would add that much. Crust 16:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  TPM quoted Media Matters which quoted Commercial Appeal. Words often get changed (nothing sinister - it just happens) along the way. And context is lost, which often changes the meaning. It is much better to have a reference to the original source than to someone two or more stages removed. Sbowers3 22:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sbowers3, you seem like a reasonable person, but this is getting silly.  As I noted above, Kleefeld of TPM went back to the source himself by checking Nexis, not merely indirectly via Media Matters. And really I don't understand what you have in mind by "[w]ords get[ting] changed along the way."  If we were talking about a paraphrase instead of a literal quote or a radio broadcast instead of a newspaper article, I could see it.  But it's a word for word quote from a newspaper.  What is your theory?  A transcription error in copying the quote? That seems pretty far out there.  Crust 02:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting record on abortion

message: Flex changed the {main} at the top to {sync}. This seems wrong to me so I changed it back. Similar pages, e.g. Political Positions of Hilary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards use {main} not {sync}. The Summary Style page, second paragraph specifically mentions using {main} for a subsection such as this.
If I am wrong, please enlighten me as to when to use {main} and when to use {sync}.
Sbowers3 00:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {main} vs. {sync} 

message: Is this article an appropriate place for a debate about the rightness/wrongness of the candidate's positions or should it simply document what those positions are? The lead paragraph of this article like articles for other candidates ends with "Here are some of Thompson's remarks and positions on various issues" so I am inclined to think that it should state his positions and not be a forum for other people to state their positions.
The recent edits to the Global warming and Gun control sections add editorial comments which I think are not appropriate here. What do others think? Sbowers3 03:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sbowers3, I had another shot at the Global Warming section.  Let me know what you think.  Re the rightness/wrongness bit, I think we need to distinguish between "right/wrong" in philosophical/moral/ethical/political terms and "right/wrong" in terms of accuracy.  I would argue we need some comment in the GW section, since he is making claims of dubious factual accuracy. Crust 14:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I do have a problem with the GOA stuff in the gun control section, though.  It gives an aggressive critique of Thompson (e.g. referencing McCain-Feingold which Thompson supports as the "odious McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act."), without even giving Thompson's thinking except as relayed by that aggressive critic.  Crust 15:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I read the "currently" more as redundant verbiage rather than an editorial comment; I just mentioned that in the edit summary in case others read it that way.Crust 18:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: On the "if any" bit, I was just trying to cover the case that there are literally no climate scientists who have endorsed this theory (except Abdusamatov himself, and even he is more of an astronomer).  There probably is some climate scientist somewhere who supports it, but I couldn't find one on a quick Google search.  So I included "if any" to be (sure to be) accurate.  But this is a molehill.Crust 19:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do apologize for droning on about Global Warming, My point really isn't even about Global Warming; I didn't like the implication of the "few climate scientists" statement because it sounded like an unnecessary editorial comment. Readers who are informed about the issues should be able to make their own judgements about the merits of his belief without our help. Since the only part relevant to this article is a (mostly) settled point I have no objection to those comments being removed. I took the discussion to the talk page only because I didn't want to change the verbage without any discussion at all. I do NOT want to see this or any other candidates BIO pages turning into the place to argue those positions. That is WHY we have issue specific articles for those subjects;  Kbastin 00:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is/is not the place for a debate about political positions? 

message: Most of the other articles about Political positions of so-and-so are organized as:
Economic policy,
Foreign policy,
Social policy
with subsections alphabetically in each section.
So I'd like to restore the headers for Foreign policy, Taxation, Trade, etc.
I've heard Thompson speak about the War on Terror, etc. but haven't seen written commentary. The transcript of Hannity's interview on 6/5 may provide more fodder for this article. Sbowers3 13:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of article 

message: Wow! I go away for a couple of days and find there has been a real edit war while I've been gone.
I'm about to tweak the abortion section again, so I thought I'd explain here what I'm doing and why. If anyone else wants more edits I hope we can have a discussion here instead of a war.
I'm reordering the first two sentences because I think the question of pro-life or pro-choice should be first. Then the idea of leaving it to the states is an example of Thompson's Federalism.
I'm editing the wording because the cited article rather than Thompson himself states that he "voted with pro-lifers almost all the time."
Sbowers3 00:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war; abortion 

message: It is not enough to separate these sections.  There will be some overlap because one directly affects the other.  Campaign Finance reform in this instance was used to directly silence the Gun Lobby and was in fact a direct attack on the Gun Lobby; and was supported in the end by Fred Thompson.  This was recognized by Gun Owners and that is why it is directly referenced as part of their review of Thompson's overall record; and thus it is part of Thompson's history and support for the anti-gun agenda of that day.  Anappealtoheaven 04:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many groups are opposed to McCain-Feingold because it limits their political speech. A pro-life group has gone to the Supreme Court on the issue. Are we going to mention campaign finance reform in the Abortion section and in every other section where it might come into play? I have strengthened the Campaign finance reform section and shortened the GOA paragraph. I hope this works for you. Sbowers3 16:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry if I messed up the wording of that paragraph. I mistakenly thought that Crust's edit had accidentally been overwritten in the edit wars involving JGoldwater. I somehow overlooked your edit to that same section. I actually agree with you that the anti-speech part of McCain-Feingold should have been obvious to everyone as unconstitutional. All those who take an oath to uphold the Constitution should have avoided writing that restriction, should have voted against it, should have vetoed it, should have ruled it unconstitutional. I further agree with the characterization as Incumbent Protection. In the context of a Wikipedia article, however, I don't have strong thoughts about the particular wording. My primary interest is that the article accurately represent Thompson's position and record. The description of McCain-Feingold doesn't affect the overall thrust of the article so I'm happy to leave the description to you and others. Sbowers3 22:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gun Control/Campaign Finance Reform 

message: New user RalphReed has added a large amount of information that is decidedly non-neutral. At least one of the sources (The Brody File) says that the information was provided by a rival campaign. At first glance, the information is accurate and verifiable - but it is not balanced. The immigration section, for instance, cherry-picked all of Thompson's "wrong" votes and ignored all of his "right" votes. Each individual piece is factual and so does not have a biased POV, but the lack of balance gives it a non-neutral POV.
What's the right thing to do in a case like this? No individual piece fails the NPOV test, but the overall contribution fails due to lack of balance. Would it be right to revert the whole addition? Or delete part of it and balance with details from the other POV? If so, then how much detail? Three votes on one side, then three on the other?
RalphReed - the user has been blocked due to a suspicious name - added information to Gun control, Imigration, and Abortion. I have made a small edit to Gun control to put Thompson's stated position before comments by others about his position. I retained  RalphReed's addition about a single vote by Thompson. I'm not sure whether to leave even that one vote because it is one of many. The reference provides a long list of votes. I don't think that we should duplicate the whole list, nor should we cherry-pick a single pro- or anti- vote. So I will leave that one vote for others to decide.
On Immigration, I am going to replace the list of votes by a summary from the two referenced organizations. Readers can go to the references for the detailed list of votes.
Abortion is a little more difficult because Thompson's record provides evidence that is apparently contradictory. Some of the contradictions can be explained by Thompson's view of federalism. Other changes may evidence a movement toward a pro-life position. The article as it now stands emphasizes the pro-choice record. Previous users as well as RalphReed have added details on that side. I'm going to try to provide more summary information before the details. I'm not sure whether to retain all of the details. It seems too much like cherry-picking. In this case, though, the details may help to illustrate that there is an apparent contradiction and that the contradiction might be explained by Thompson's federalism.
Sbowers3 14:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-Neutral POV 

message: I removed the statement "This relatively new theory is accepted by few climate scientists" as it lacks a credible source as defined by Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Previous Discussion of this topic has been archived at Archive 1 Kbastin 13:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Planetary Global Warming

message: New user (as of today) JGoldwater has made several edits to Fred Thompson or Political positions of Fred Thompson. Maybe he is just a newbie (as I was not too long ago) but his edits look to me like someone trying to push an anti-Thompson POV. He changed things that had been previously edited, and apparently did not read the discussion about the previous edits. His edit summaries are misleading. He is apparently trying to emphasize points that some people think are anti-Thompson.
e.g. in Gun control he moved some "anti-" information ahead of Thompson's own statements. As a rule, I think we should let the candidate speak for himself before any other comments about his position. He removed summary information from GOA calling it a "biased agent" - GOA is neutral regarding Thompson. JGoldwater summarized "Factual Senate Record Added" but that item from Thompson's record was already there - he moved not added - and it was just one item from a record of thousands. He picked one "negative" item instead of trying to provide balanced information.
e.g. in Immigration, JGoldwater summarized "removed bias" but he removed summary information from a neutral organization and added one "negative" detail with no attempt at providing balanced information.
I am going to undo his edits and explain here my changes. If he or any other user wants to edit my changes, then go ahead - as is every user's right - but please provide here a rationale instead of making wholesale changes without explanation. Through discussion we can reach consensus. Sbowers3 00:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sbowers3, it's interesting that you accuse me of POV pushing because I just found this quote of yours about Fred Thompson at your Talk page: "I don't work for him - not yet. I became interested in him a couple of months ago and probably will work for him" So I think I can make the better case that I am not the one POV pushing here but you are. Especially since you are the one removing the fully sourced  information that I've been posting. If you wanna debate specific issues post them here and we'll debate them. Your sources are all biased opinion and my sources are based on his record. I post how he voted in the senate, you post opinion pieces from National Review and proceed to remove my posts or "summarize" them in a way that completely distorts the facts. If you wanna get this debate started I think I can make a good case for removing most of your contributions, aka propaganda that you've added here.--JGoldwater 15:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JGoldwater, Sbowers3 should be commended -- not attacked -- for being open about his pro-Thompson viewpoint and interest in possibly working for him.  Having a personal viewpoint is not necessarily inconsistent with making good edits and reasonable compromises.Crust 18:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV pushing by JGoldwater? 

message: The article currently states that his views are unclear.  
According to , he:
* Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
* Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
* Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Someone may want to research and add some of these votes to the article.Kylebrotherton 07:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay rights 

message: The fully sourced information about Fred Thompson's vote for amnesty keeps getting deleted without a well founded reason being provided. Also, some factual statements are getting "summarized" in an attempt to paint them in a better light. The factual information I post about his record in the Senate is getting systematically replaced by opinion pieces from biased sources with no reasons provided. --JGoldwater 17:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thompson cast dozens if not hundreds of votes on immigration. Why emphasize that one vote over all of the other votes? WP articles should be balanced. There should not be undue weight for a particular point of view. You cherry-picked one vote that you think is "good" or is "bad" according to one's POV. You did not show any other votes that might cast a different light on his political position. If I looked through his voting record I probably could find a vote that gave an opposite impression from the vote that you picked. If I replaced your single vote with a different vote, I could claim as you do that it is fully sourced. But it is not enough to be fully sourced. The article should display a NPOV and not have undue weight for a particular POV. You deleted a quote from a neutral organization (i.e. neither for nor against Thompson) which tried to evaluate his entire voting record without giving undue weight to a single vote. You deleted another organization's ratings on sections of his voting record. Those ratings showed that Thompson was sometimes "good" and sometimes "bad." You apparently want to emphasize only the "bad." Sbowers3 18:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then post some of the good things he voted for and I'll have no quarrels. What you can't do is remove the things I add because you don't like it. That vote is the most important one on this subject. It's important that people know about it. You should focus on adding your own information instead of deleting what I post. Your role here is not very constructive. --JGoldwater 19:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're removing the broader description of his record and replacing it with what you perceive to be the "most important" vote. You also keep removing the Grading section at the end of that paragraph. Further, you are approaching WP:3RR on this article. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 20:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't matter whether I "like it." A WP article should be balanced. Balance is achieved not by see-sawing between undue weight on one side and undue weight on the other side, but rather by striving always for a NPOV. My goal is for this article to be a balanced representation of Thompson's political position, not to make him look good or bad. Your goal apparently is to make him look bad. Sbowers3 20:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMNESTY 

message: I'm wondering if this article should get semi-protection. All (?) of the edit wars in the last week have involved either new users or unregistered users. 
On June 16, new user RalphReed removed some information and added other information that might seem to push a POV. He did this in three sections: Abortion, Gun control, and Immigration. That user was blocked because his name was that of a well-known person and he apparently was not that person. The block probably prevented an edit war.
I questioned in Talk the neutrality of RalphReed's changes and asked advice on how to handle it. I restored some information he had deleted, added summary information, kept many of his details, and rearranged some in chronological order.
On June 18, another new user JGoldwater edited the same three sections as RalphReed with mostly the same content. In Abortion, he summarized that he "Readded Information that was subtracted" but I don't see any information that he added (or that had been subtracted). He slightly changed the wording back to RalphReed's wording. That earlier wording was copied from an intermediate source. I had rephrased that wording (in an equivalent manner) based on the text of the original source. JGoldwater restored the wording to what RalphReed had copied from the intermediate source.
In Immigration, he deleted summary information and added a detail that gave undue weight to a particular vote by Thompson. In Gun control, he removed summary information, and claimed "Factual Senate Record Added." But in fact he did not add that record item - it was already there, he just moved it to the top of the section - and he actually deleted a factual Senate record item: the Senate vote on that item.
JGoldwater engaged in an edit war until blocked for his edit war in another article. After he repeatedly changed things without engaging in discussion, SigmaEpsilon and I reverted his changes.
Most recently, new and unregistered user 216.193.201.64 has appealed the blocking of JGoldwater and had repeated one of JGoldwater's edits: removing summary information from Gun control.
Some might dispute the accuracy of this summary and some may argue that these users' edits were entirely proper. My point remains that these were new and/or unregistered users who were involved in edit wars. Semi-protection would have prevented or at least delayed the edit wars.
On the flip side there was one unregistered user in the last week who made constructive edits to Gay rights and prior to this last week there were other unregistered users who made constructive edits.
Sbowers3 13:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection? 

message: The lead section is not written in encyclopedic style - needs complete rewrite. Tvoz |talk 23:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro 

message: We may soon have the same kind of argument that is occurring over at the main Fred Thompson article: What external links should we include?
How 'bout we discuss them here with reasons for including/excluding? Sbowers3 11:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I noticed over at Political positions of Barack Obama that all criticism of Obama's positions have been removed, the reason being that the article is about his positions, not about criticism of those positions. What do you all think of that, and should we apply that same standard on this article? - Crockspot 19:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for denouncing a (potential) candidate's views. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 22:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm discussing some guidelines with an editor from the Obama article, and the ratings issue is one question. Should ratings like NRA grades, Sierra Club, that type of thing, be treated as "opinion/criticism" and be excluded, or allowed? He is of the mind that it is opinion, I'm more of the mind that some of the more notable groups, who give a quantified letter or number grade without a lot of commentary, are reasonable to expect. (As an NRA guy, I've always found the GOA to be a little extreme and ranty.) Any thoughts on that issue? Another issue is, should there be forked articles like  Commentary on the political positions of Joe Candidate, to allow a place for legitimate and notable criticism or commentary? Or maybe it isn't even legitimate to document criticism or commentary on a candidate's position. It is what it is, and any commentary is necessarily going to be POV... Haven't figured that all out yet. I'd like to develop some guidelines that can be consistently applied across the category of candidate "positions" articles. More thoughts would be appreciated. - Crockspot 04:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My main concern is this degenerating into a forumish debate about candidate's positions. It's Wikipedia's job to report what a cadidates platform is. It is not our job to debate, denounce,  support, or "provide commntary" any particular position. If we have Criticism of the political positions of Joe Candidate, will we also have Rebuttals to criticism of the political positions of Joe Candidate? and Rebuttals to rebuttals to criticism of the political positions of Joe Candidate? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 14:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes to removing criticisms for the reason stated and yes also to including ratings from NRA, Sierra, etc. Those groups are analyzing his political position as demonstrated by his actions, not just his words. And they are neutral with respect to the candidate, neither for nor against the person. They use the same set of votes for people they like and people they don't like. They don't cherry-pick some votes to make one candidate look bad and another set of votes to make another candidate look good. I would have no objection to including both a pro-gun and an anti-gun organization or a pro-life and a pro-choice organization because the ratings are a useful and informative guide to a candidate's political position on some issue. Sbowers3 19:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we include any criticism? 

message: I removed some side commentary about the domestic violence offender gun ban and replaced it with the description used in the main Wikipedia article.  This article isn't the place to argue about the merits of the bill.  Also, I don't know much about the bill but some of the comments I removed appear to be false.  The comments I deleted said that the bill infringes on the right to a jury trial, but that doesn't appear to be true, according to this article from 2005:
"18 U.S.C. Sect. 921(a)(33) establishes two statutory defenses to the application of the Lautenberg Amendment, extending procedural protections that are generally only available to individuals charged with felonies to those charged with misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. Specifically, Sect. 921(a)(33)(B) provides that the underlying misdemeanor offense may not be used as a predicate to a violation of Sect. 922(g)(9) unless the individual in question was represented by counsel or they knowingly and intelligently waived their right to counsel, and, that in the instant case, the individual was entitled to a trial by jury, the case was indeed tried by jury or they knowingly and intelligently waived this right."
-Fagles 16:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Domestic violence offender gun ban

message: This article bends over backward to portray Thompson as a conservative. This is not a universal view and should be presented that way. This needs to be fully addressed. C56C 20:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservative?

message: AnAppealToHeaven has made this edit, with the following edit summary: "You can not just delete his voting record as though it is irrelevent."
Initially, the paragraph in question said this (footnotes omitted):
From 1993 to 1999, the Gun Owners of America, the NRA, and the Georgia Gun Owners PAC gave more to Senator Thompson than to anyone else except Bill Frist.  However, Thompson's voting record while in the Senate was not completely pro-gun.
AnAppealToHeaven changed it so that it says this:
"A 2000 report from a campaign finance watchdog group, Common Cause, found that the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and the Georgia Gun Owners PAC donated $188,954 to Mr. Thompson between 1993 and 1999; the groups donated more only to Dr. Frist."  However, Thompson's voting record while in the Senate was not completely consistent with recent statements leading up to his possible 2008 presidential campaign.
This second blockquote begins by quoting an article from the New York Sun.  I'm the one who put that material in this article in the first place, so it seems odd to accuse me of deleting it as though it is irrelevent.  All I did is paraphrase instead of quote.  AnAppealToHeaven, what is wrong with paraphrasing instead of quoting?  
AnAppealToHeaven, you also say that Thompson's voting record "was not completely consistent with recent statements leading up to his possible 2008 presidential campaign."  Which statements are you referring to?  Wikipedia has rules against using weasel words and making unsourced assertions.  What particular statements by Thompson do you find inconsistent with his voting record, and why?Ferrylodge 21:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More on Gun Control

message: The campaign website has a new On the Issues section. Sbowers3 17:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign website's On the Issues 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Political positions of Fred Thompson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070531143821/http://gunowners.org:80/pres08/thompson2.htm to http://gunowners.org/pres08/thompson2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Political positions of Fred Thompson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070827000122/http://www.foxnews.com:80/story/0,2933,258222,00.html to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258222,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Political positions of Fred Thompson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108091444/http://www.aei.org:80/publications/pubID.26016,filter.all/pub_detail.asp to http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.26016,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621094419/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/19263100/site/newsweek/page/0/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19263100/site/newsweek/page/0/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070903183101/http://www.aei.org:80/publications/filter.all,pubID.25833/pub_detail.asp to http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25833/pub_detail.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Political positions of Fred Thompson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%2FPolitics%2Farchive%2F200706%2FPOL20070605a.html
*Added  tag to http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/5/25/214417.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070706232631/http://vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=22003 to http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=22003
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified