Talk:Fred Thompson/Archive 2

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

message: This is a character from the show Wiseguy he played 20 years ago. As far as I know, it is not a well-remembered role, it is something of an outlier among his roles in general, yet here it seems this minor character now has his own page, which only the top 3 characters on Wiseguy have. It seems this character is adequately described on that page. Especially see the L.A. Times story today about this  . I will also place a note on the recently-created Knox Pooley page. It's much out of proportion to both actor and TV show -- sounds like a hit job. I am willing to entertain counter-arguments, but if I don't hear any, I'll reduce it to a mention of his Wiseguy appearance later this weekend. --BunnyColvin 00:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call.  However I think most people are mature enough to know the difference between an actor and the role he plays. Steve Dufour 11:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Knox Pooley the used-car salesman?  Not much of a strech for an actor whose own father was a used-car salesman...4.88.55.227 21:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't helpful. --Ali'i 21:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've redirected the Knox Pooley article to Wiseguy. --Elliskev 14:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created this article in the first place because when somebody told my wife that Fred was running for president, her first reaction was, "Knox Pooley for President?" and I concluded (correctly, I must say; thanks for the link to the L.A. Times article) that this could become a matter of public interest. I do see your point of view, though. --Orange Mike 14:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Knox Pooley

message: The "2008 presidential race" section has a paragraph about the Michael Moore challenge. I'm not sure that this event warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia. Are we going to chronicle every article, every speech, every meeting? I'm inclined to delete it. If it is to be included (and I think there is a valid counter-argument for keeping it), then it should provide some context, should accurately quote the references, and should strive for a NPOV.
As originally written:
"Recently, Fred Thompson refused to debate Michael Moore. He made a clip, cigar in mouth, telling Michael Moore he should check into an insane asylum."
Footnote: Fred Thompson Refuses to Debate Michael Moore
My comments:
#Thompson did NOT tell Moore that "he should check into an insane asylum."
#The referenced item is titled "Thompson Responds to Michael Moore Challenge" NOT "Thompson Refuses to Debate"
#There is no context of the previous events leading up to this event.
#"Recently" should be replaced with a precise date.
#"Refused" is a slightly loaded word; "declined" might be more neutral.
Sbowers3 21:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even with the new re-wording, that paragraph still comes across as POV pro Moore. Lets try and tweak it a bit more (no pun intended). Coradon 03:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Going back and reading the edit history, Sbowers3 had a decent rewording. Why don't we go back to that. It seemed fairly NPOV. Coradon 03:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove minor detail, or make accurate and NPOV 

message: What is the appropriate amount of detail for an encyclopedia? The paragraph on the Michael Moore episode keeps getting larger and larger. A detail, then another, then another. Anyone who wants the details can go to the references. Should we really be copying so much of the references?
Before the 2008 campaign is over there will be thousands of episodes. Are we going to include every episode and quotes from every episode?
I think we should retain this episode in summary, but without the details that can be found in the references. I won't make the change because I am not sure it's the right thing to do. Other users, please chime in. Sbowers3 22:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Providing transcripts is not the job of an encyclopedia. Cheers, CWC 11:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I also agree.  The episode should be retained since it is a significant recent event (and the section is clearly marked as containing current events), but I suspect that some fans and critics of Moore and Thompson are trying to insert POV here.  I will try to write an NPOV summary.  Eseymour 16:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Eseymour. Very nicely done. Cheers, CWC 19:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many small details? 

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

message: I'm sure there're many who know Thompson from his role in Law & Order who might not even know he was a real-life politician.  I propose we create a couple of sentences on his acting career to be placed in the lead, of similar length and detail as the lead sentence on his political life. Italiavivi 23:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feedback on the summary I've introduced?  I've tried to condense everything into a relevant lead snapshot. Italiavivi 00:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better mention of his acting career in the lead? 

message: For a long time there were links to various web sites that supported Fred Thompson for President. Then a user separated them into a subsection of the external links. I think that was a good change. Shortly afterwards, another user removed all of the links to supporter sites. I'm not sure this was a good change. On the one hand the linked sites certainly did not have a NPOV - but is that a proper criterion?
I briefly scanned the pages for several other candidates. Just about all of them have external links to an official campaign web site, and to one or more supporters' web sites. So precedent suggests that the Thompson page should also allow external links to supporters' sites. When there is an official Fred Thompson web site (rumor says in about a week), we should have a link to that site.
On the basis that these external links would be useful to a browser of the Thompson page, I vote for keeping some links. Two of the biggest seems to be fred2008.org, and www.fredthompsonnews.com.
If I don't hear a consensus on keeping these links out, I will add them tomorrow. Sbowers3 23:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything in WP:EL that would call for those two links to be removed, and I don't have a problem with them being listed. - Crockspot 03:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever. I'm not going to fight it. Just seems awfully spammy to have these unofficial sites. Were they being added by the site's creator? What about linking to an anti-Draft Thompson site? They do not add anything to the encyclopedia article, either as a source or as additional reading. The Draft Fred Thompson movement is mentioned in the body of the article, and these just seem like spammy little sites. How many should we list? Do we list any Draft Thompson site out there? Just some questions to think about. Like I said, I'm not going to fight it. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. At one time there were about half a dozen similar links, including some dinky ones. I think two is enough. Anyone who wants more info can find other sites from these two or by Google. When an official site is announced, I think we should add that and perhaps remove the unofficial ones Sbowers3 16:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No.  Wikipedia is not free advertising.  Unless or until it has official recognition or is considered notable, it is not appropriate to link to it. --BigDT 12:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links for supporter sites? 

message: On 2 June, anonymous user 67.127.98.18 made three questionable changes:
He changed "Fred and Sarah both worked" to "Sarah worked". The reference says the first. Unless he can provide a new reference that only Sarah worked, then the text should be the same as the reference. I am going to change it back.
He inserted "twenty five years his junior" to describe his second wife. I question whether this is relevant. A quibble is the number. Most sources say twenty four rather than twenty five. I found one source that says she was born in January '67, which would make her twenty four years and five months his junior. And thirdly, the location of the phrase is ungrammatical. If the phrase is to remain it should be immediately after Kehn, not after the date of their wedding.
He removed the word "amicable" regarding their divorce. The evidence (via Google) leans toward keeping "amicable". The original wording with "amicable" might not be totally verifiable, but the removal of "amicable" is not verifiable. I lean toward restoring the word.
Frankly, I am suspicious of changes by anonymous users, but whether anonymous or registered, changes should have some verifiability, or at least some plausible explanation. Sbowers3 10:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes should be verifiable 

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

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

message: The first paragraph of "Candidate and United States Senator" has information that seems to me to be irrelevant. Why is information about Bill Frist, the Republican twin victory, the GOP still holding both seats, Bill Frist's successor - why is all that part of Fred Thompson's biography? It's probably correct, and may be interesting, but why is it HERE?
"After the Senate" mentions that Kehn is 25 years his junior. Why is that relevant? There was a mini-edit war over the phrase. Nobody explained the motivation for inserting it. The only comment was that it was an accurate fact but that is not a motivation. There are millions of facts about anyone. Why does that fact rise to the level of being included in a biography?
Is Thompson's peripheral role in the defense of Scooter Libby extraneous or important?
I don't feel strongly that these items should be removed but I would like to hear from others as to reasons for including them. Sbowers3 03:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that mentioning that both Thompson and Frist being elected at the same time is appropriate because it shows the major Republican trend in the '94 election both in Tennessee and nationally, but I do agree that paragraph seems to place too much emphasis on Frist.  The change of the Tennessee Senate delegation from two Democrats to two Republicans in one election is notable, but everything afterwards is unnecessary.ModRocker86 22:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraneous information? 

message: Is that statement really necessary? 72.8.104.11 04:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is anyone actually disputing that he was on the episode? He didn't have much of a role, but he cashes the royalty cheque every time it's shown just the same. Zsero 23:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you verify that? Maybe he didn't get paid, and that is why he made the comment. Maybe there is some SAG rule where if you only appear on a tv screen within a show, you aren't really "in the show" enough to qualify for syndication royalties. The point is, we don't know. We need to verify - Crockspot 15:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "He also made a reference to Wikipedia."

message: This talk page is getting large. Is it time to archive the older sections? I've never done it before but the way to learn how is to do it. So if there is no objection in the next week and if nobody else does it, then I will archive it and pare it down to sections that have had discussion in the last month. Sbowers3 11:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Italiavivi 14:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? 

message: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.34.191 (talk • contribs) 
:Probably because Sen. Obama's article was experiencing heavy WP:LIVING-violating vandalism (mostly anons changing his religion from Church of Christ to Islam).  As I recall, there were 50 edits over the course of two days, only 1 of which was a good-faith contribution. Also, Obama's article is semi-protected, not fully protected; you can edit it if you log in. :) Italiavivi 13:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is Barack Obama's page fully protected (locked) and Fred Thompson's is not?

message: C'mon, someone must have some good sources on his past Senate campaigns. Italiavivi 14:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more red pickup truck. 

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 reinserted a "Controversies" section. There had been much previous discussion about that section and the consensus seemed to be to leave it out. His edit summary was totally misleading: "Political positions - added info". If this was just a newbie mistake, it was made without any attention to past discussions, and without a straightforward explanation.
Because all of his edits look like POV pushing to me I'd like to delete them all but I'll wait a while for comments by JGoldwater or other users. Sbowers3 23:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: also made several other POV edits to Political positions of Fred Thompson. I removed the last two items in "Controversies" as they have nothing to do with Thompson himself. One was the role mentioned in the previous section of the talk page. The other was doing some commercial acting for a company, one of whose execs was accused of doing some bad things... - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 23:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
thread_title:  POV pushing by JGoldwater? 

message: Because I am partially undoing another user's edits, I thought I'd give a longer explanation than can fit in an edit summary.
In Political positions, I am restoring the word "lodestar" with quotes. It should have quotes because Thompson used the word. I'm restoring it because I think it is interesting that Thompson used the word. I don't feel strongly about retaining it and won't object if someone else deletes it but I wanted to explain why I am reincluding it.
In External links, another user deleted most of the links. Unfortunately, one of the ones that he left is an inactive page under construction. I am changing it to one of the more active links. Perhaps some other user knows how to determine how many hits a web site gets and can choose the most active. For now, I'm doing it by guess and based partly on how up-to-date the page is. For the record, I think it is useful to have more than one "pro" site and perhaps more than one "anti" site because external sites often have day-to-day information and candidate's op-eds or speeches. That information may not be appropriate in a Wikipedia article but can be useful to a reader.
Sbowers3 00:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sbowers3, I'm the one who deleted "lodestar" and I like your new wording.Crust 15:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ahem! Thank you anyway :-)  Zsero 16:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  :-) Yes, thank you. Sbowers3 11:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "lodestar"; external links 

message: New Rasmussen poll  puts Thompson at the head of the Republican pack. - Crockspot 21:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fred at the top 

message: * 20-Jun at 15:28 UTC
* 20-Jun at 15:37 UTC
* 20-Jun at 16:10 UTC
* 20-Jun at 17:50 UTC
* 20-Jun at 18:11 UTC
Res ipsa loquitur.
Zsero 19:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reported this to WP:ANI/3RR. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 19:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Psst ... you may want to look down a bit on that page. ;) --BigDT 20:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. Oops. I type really slowly. Sorry. Should I remove my posting? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 20:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or combine them ... it's not a big deal.  Whoever handles them will probably just mark one of them as a duplicate. --BigDT 20:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no BLP exception here whatsoever.  This is an obvious, run-of-the-mill content dispute. Italiavivi 21:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that 3RR should still be observed, but this is not a run-of-the-mill content dispute.  BLP concerns more than just unsourced content - it covers biased content as well.  Not all of BLP is covered by the 3RR exemption. --BigDT 21:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a run-of-the-mill content dispute, one in which you are an active participant and advocate, I would add. Italiavivi 22:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Done.  But if someone else reverts it again, I suggest tagging the section NPOV and waiting awhile to cool off. Eseymour 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: JGoldwater is in violation of [[WP:3RR]]

message: Until disputes between authors are resolved, this article has been tagged NPOV on account of conflicting non-factual views/edits. Signed by Tommy  (Talk/Contribs) 19:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh good grief ... do we really need that tag?  The bulk of the article is factual, neutral, and not in dispute.  I strongly encourage the removal of this tag. --BigDT 20:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Based on this post  threatening meat puppetry, I have s-protected this article as an emergency measure.  I have asked at WP:RFP that an uninvolved admin review that decision. --BigDT 21:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are at the center of this content dispute.  Your protecting it was completely inappropriate. Italiavivi 21:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even read the message I linked from someone stating that this is being discussed at a forum and they plan to engage in meat puppetry to have this nonsense added to the article?  In any event, I do not consider this to be a final decision or even a decision period - it's an action taken on an emergency basis, which I have asked to have a neutral admin make their own decision and do whatever they feel is proper. --BigDT 21:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should recuse yourself from use of your administrator tools when you are actively engaged in a content dispute, BigDT.  You also falsely described the user as having threatened "organized vandalism" in your edit summary, which was not the case.  There was no "emergency basis" for the protection, and your "pre-emptive" use of sysop tools was both inappropriate and unecessary.  You should un-protect immediately.  Your description of the disputed content as "This nonsense about the commercial"  demonstrates a clear conflict of interest. Italiavivi 21:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BigDT, your actions are inexcusable. Is all this fuss over the lifelock article really worth it? There are no vandals here except for the people you are protecting. They erase well sourced information under false pretenses. What a shame. There is no way I'll let this go now. I didn't even care that much about fred thompson but your efforts to silence dissenters are too vile to be ignored. --74.220.207.95 22:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As I understand it, semi-protection won't block established editors. It will block only users registered less than 4 days (e.g. JGoldwater) or unregistered users (e.g. 74.220.207.95). Older users (e.g. Italiavivi) remain free to engage in "controversies." Sbowers3 22:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that's not the point. The question raised is whether there was some kind of "emergency" here that warranted the action, and whether an admin who is involved in the dispute should recuse himself from admin actions.Tvoz |talk 23:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And why do you wanna block me and JGoldwater, mr Censor? what have we done to you? Does it have something to do with the fact that we didn't sign up to your propaganda machine? If you wanna create a pro fred thompson website this is not the place to do it. You should get your own website and then you can post whatever you want. Here things are decided based on reasoned discussion, not on outright deletions and the silencing of people. JGoldwater had his IP blocked and he doesn't know why. I think I know.--74.220.207.95 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  JGoldwater was blocked for blatant violation of 3RR, as is clearly noted on this page and at User Talk:JGoldwater.  The fact that you immediately showed up is suspicious, but not proof of anything.  But your threat to recruit meatpuppets clearly justifies the sprot.  Zsero 00:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't threaten to recruit anyone. There is plenty of "meatpuppets" here already and that includes all the different people who have made the deletions of the lifelock article. Anyone can check the history section to find out who the real meatpuppets are.  You are all acting in concert in clear violation of this site's rules. I know JGoldwater from another forum and he told me what was going on and that he was banned unjustly because of all you people. You should create your own site elsewhere to promote your candidate. This is not the place.--74.220.207.95 00:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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