Talk:Fred Thompson controversies

message: Anything that appears in this article must be characterized as controversial by secondary reliable sources, or it will be removed, per WP:BLP. Just sourcing events and putting them in this article as controversies is not allowed. Notable reliable sources must be cited showing that there is an actual controversy over an issue, not just ranting on blogs. - Crockspot 16:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy" must be sourced 

message: Speaking of unsourced "controversy," how is it that dating four women in 17 years is controversial?  For a single man, I'd call that underachievement!  There's only one source, and far from documenting a controversy, it merely refers to his dating life as "colorful."  This is just silly. Eseymour 17:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Chasing women"?

message: I understand why nothing should be deemed a "controversy" unless it clearly has that status among notable reliable sources. However, that does not explain why blogs cannot be used for their discussion of facts. For example, if there is a controversy over Thompson's PAC's payments to his son, and it has been noted as a controversy in the NYTimes, etc., why can't Wikipedia link to a fuller analysis by a blog that actually cites and links campaign finance laws, FEC regulations, online records of the PAC's finances, etc.? While blogs often are merely ranting, sometimes they genuinely provide fuller coverage of a matter, and particularly its factual background, than can be done by news articles that have to get under 800 words and don't give links. Blog posts are a useful shorthand; otherwise, you would have to just reproduce all of the links given at the blog itself. Unless the blog lacks sources -- i.e., if reproduced as a Wiki article would not be up to standards in that respect -- I don't see why it is not useful and linkable. Many other articles on Wikipedia link to blogs -- e.g. the McDonald's Hot Coffee article, which links extensively to the overlawyered blog because it is very knowledgeable about tort law and politics.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.169.227 (talk • contribs) 8:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Please remember to sign your posts.)  What you are saying makes a certain amount of sense, but I think in most cases it is preferable to not use blogs as shorthand.  For starters, a blog may be shorter-lived than the original sources it links to.  Also, if a particular bit of information is truly notable and verifiable, it's likely that a more reliable source will pick up on it.  You may want to read the verifiability policy--particularly the section about self-published sources. Eseymour 21:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are blogs banned as factual or analytic sources? 

message: From a conservative standpoint, Thompson's wholehearted support for the McCain-Feingold Act certainly puts him in hot water, as a direct assault on the 1st Amendment. - MSTCrow 17:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thompson & the 1st Amendment 

message: It appears there's some question about how conservative Thompson is, particularly in relation to McCain-Feingold (see above) and abortion. In both cases, he now claims to hew to more standard conservative/GOP positions. These questions are getting shoved into unrelated sections of the article right now (often in very POV forms) and deserve their own section. Anyone want to take a stab at starting this section? I won't have time until probably this weekend at the earliest. Jdb1972 20:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to me like a good idea.  I'll get started on it.Ferrylodge 00:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservatism 

message: It seems to me that this page violates the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines as regards content forking. I don't see "controversies" sections for other presidential candidates. A "controversies" section should either be a standard for all current candidates or should be unacceptable. --Dtoler 20:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At some point, this article should be merged with the Fred Thompson article.  It seems very natural to me that every politician would have a criticisms/controversy section. - MSTCrow 00:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't my idea to create this article, but I have no problem with it as of now.  There's a similar article for Hillary Clinton and for Rudy Giuliani.  It seems a useful way to keep the more bland and undisputed stuff separate from the more contentious and disputed material.  All the stuff in this article can be briefly summarized in the main Thompson article.Ferrylodge 00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dtoler, how can you say: "I don't see controversy pages about other Presidential candidates?" There is Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, Controversies of Rudy Giuliani, a section at John McCain. Put it up for deletion then. PS, Welcome to wikipedia. Plantocal 01:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, and sorry for my ignorance. That said, this page does seem like more of a personal attack and doesn't really attempt to maintain NPOV. Perhaps an edit would be more appropriate?Dtoler 14:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Great work on Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_controversies.  I think the same thing could be done here.  I'll get to work on a proposal.  Meanwhile, you deserve a barnstar for the HRC work. Eseymour 18:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't see controversy pages about other Presidential candidates 

message: I don't think we need a section about Jeri Kehn Thompson allegedly being a "trophy wife."  That whole episode is more focussed on her than him, and it is already adequately covered in the article about her.  Additionally, if we start including things like that in this Fred Thompson Controversies article, then perhaps we would need to also cover similar episodes such as the Joe Scarborough remarks about her "working the pole".  None of that stuff belongs here in this article, and it is all already adequately covered in the article on Jeri Kehn Thompson.
Furthermore, this new section in this article is written with a POV.  The author writes that the New York Times is "explaining" rather than asserting, and the author of this article strongly implies that Mrs. Thompson is "indeed" a trophy wife.  Moreover, the new section micharacterizes what the NY Times wrote.  The times was not saying that Mrs. Thompson is a trophy wife according to the current meaning of that term, but only according to what the Times believes was the "original" meaning.  All in all, I think this section is unnecessary and ought to be removed.  Any objections?Ferrylodge 00:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object, being (mostly) the writer of the section. The age difference in Thompson's marriage is, for better or worse, controversial. Best to cover it and present both sides (charge and rebuttal). As far as what the Times reporter said "trophy wife" meant, I copied the language from the Kehn article. (Incidentally, if you're reading an anti-Fred POV on my part into it, you're reading a POV into it that doesn't exist.) Jdb1972 15:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply.  But even if there was no intentional POV, I still think the stuff at the Jeri Kehn Thompson article is adequate here, and at most this controversy article should briefly mention and link to that stuff in her article.  There was also criticism of this section of this article by jersyko here: "dump the crap about his wife being younger and anything of the same ilk. Lobbyist for abortion group but now pro-life . . . controversial. His wife is 40 years old . . . huh?"  This is a very minor controversy about whether the NY Times unfairly used the word "trophy wife".  It's really not about anything that Mrs. (much less Mr.) Thompson did.Ferrylodge 15:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trophy Wife

message: I put a POV tag on this section of the article.  It seems to be insinuating wrongdoing, without balancing the information presented.  If no one objects, I will edit this section to clarify that there has been no suggestion of illegality.  Moreover, this section should mention that Daniel Thompson runs an office of a charitable fund-raising firm in Nashville.  See  As Senator Rose, Lobbying Became Family Affair in NY Times.Ferrylodge 01:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PAC Money Transfer

message: No reliable source has described his relationships as controversial.  Therefore it is just biographical information and it is covered on his bio page.  deleting here per BLP as it could be construed as "false light libel" to describe them as controversial.  --Tbeatty 04:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the context of that great "caught me" quote was when he was asked if there were any skeletons in his romatic life closet. Jdb1972 15:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationships 

message: Viewing illegal immigration as a threat is not a controversy.  Not being conservative enough for some people is not a controversy.  A controversy is having sex with an intern or blowing the cover of a CIA operative because you don't like her husband.  Having a viewpoint that some people disagree with is not a controversy. If these three episodes are somehow controversial, then the article needs to explain how they are. --B 13:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some controversy about how "conservative" he really is.  So, the article discusses that controversy at some length.  This seems like an appropriate type of thing to include here.  If there's something clear and undisputed about Thompson, then it can go in the main Fred Thompson article.  Otherwise, this seems like a good place for it.  If Thompson makes some remarks that are widely criticized or misinterpreted, causing him to issue a clarification or retraction, then that's a controversy too.Ferrylodge 13:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are some of these things here? 

message: Business as usual, using op-ed pieces to push an agenda. Apparently, all I need to do is get a position at the New York Times, then I can rail on anyone I want and it will be included in Wikipedia no matter how fallacious my points are - forget journalism. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 18:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Fraudulent Article