Talk:Gerald Ford/Archive 3

message: Just an interesting piece here. They're certainly very enlightening views and may work as an addition to this article in some form. Thoughts? --AWF  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.54.155.58 (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ford's assessment of fellow presidents released 

message: "Ford also “became the only future U. S. president to tackle a future Heisman Trophy winner when he brought down halfback Jay Berwanger, who won the first Heisman the following year.”"
isn't this getting a bit into minutia? -- johno95 03:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Vote:''' football first

message: under "college" it reads in part:
"...and Green Bay Packers of the National Football League in order to take a coaching position at Yale and apply to its law school..."
under "law", it reads:
"...Starting in September 1935, Ford worked as an assistant football and boxing coach at the university..."
can't this be combined and placed under "college"? -- johno95 04:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the two sections, and agreed a change was needed. I reworded the sentence on his assistant coaching job in football and boxing, and moved it to the Football section. Seems to fit better now. Veracious Rey  talk↔contribs 18:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks, Rey. -- johno95 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: duplication: starting coaching job

message: This section seems overly cumbersome and potentialy unnessecary. But, is anyone interested in cleaning it up, maybe wording this section better. Someone who is knowledgable in freemasonry would be our best bet. I've already taken some poorly worded and quoted material out. It was such a mess I didn't know where a quote started or ended, or when a new paragraph started. I wouldn't mind deleting the entire section, but someone thought it important enough to spend a good amount of time adding it. Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 02:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The more I read, the more I believe this info has a place in the article if properly written. I don't know though... Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 04:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems this section doesn't have much that is original writing. Just google any phrase. And i don't think Gerald's brothers should be mentioned, unless their joining encouraged Gerald to join too, or something interesting like that. -- johno95 05:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the whole point, Johno - you don't want original research in Wiki articles. Ford's brothers are an iffy subject. I'd leave them in, because it's interesting all his brothers were initiated. Freemasonry was obviously important to Ford's family. Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 06:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was you, but maybe it was someone else, that was saying you don't want to cut and paste stuff without attribution. that is what is being done here.  i think.  -- johno95 06:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't me. Like I said, I'm open to remove it, but better to leave it for now until other qualified editors have had a chance to look it over. Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 06:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that I provided comprehensive attributions regarding brother Fords Masonic record. Being new to this, including my registration, I will learn from my mistakes and look forward to learning more, but being a Freemason, perhaps I can be of further assistance on this topic? Your comments on this new section were most helpful. Apologies if it was a source of frustration for any of you. Thanks DoubleEagle32  talk ↔ contribs 01:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freemasonry 

message: All editorys, after reviewing the Freemasonry section, please cast a vote to Keep or Remove with your rationale. Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 11:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is imporant to have Ford's brothers mentioned. As I stated before (hint) having all of his brothers involved is significant. One or two, maybe not. But the whole family of men. That's intersting, and says something about the family's interests. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review me 16:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agreeMowens35 16:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The compacted version that you cite above uncder "Clubs and Rotaries" captures the essence of Fords membership in the fraternity, and is very good, and if I may vote, agree it should stand.  Please consider, one last opportunity, to include a mention of an important honor that was bestowed on our late President, to wit: "..Three years later Ford was made a Sovereign Grand Inspector General, 33°, honorary." after the sentence ending in "...Temple in Grand Rapids.". The 33° is of the highest honors within the Scottish Rite body of Freemasonry.  In hindsight, though, the use of the word "coroneted" instead of "made" is more technically correct, it's not that important to the integrity of the sentence. By the way, the use of the word and punctuation ",honorary." after "33°" is the correct nomenclature within Freemasonry to describe this honor. Again, not critical it be included, but this high honor is relatively rare, and is indicative of his service and dedication to the order.DoubleEagle32 19:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote: Freemasonry section 

message: Ford was initiated into Masonry on September 30, 1949 along with his brothers Thomas Gardner Ford (1918–1995), Richard Addison Ford (1924– ) and James Francis Ford (1927– ). In 1959 he became a Shriner, joining Saladin Shrine Temple, A.A.O.N.M.A.S. in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Ford was also a member of several other organizations including: The American Legion, Veterans of foreign Wars and AMVETS. Jasper23 20:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clubs and Rotaries

message: I've reworded and compacted the section, removing various minor details, added links, and changed the title from Freemasonry to Organizations. Much better, I think. Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 21:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is imporant to have Ford's brothers mentioned. As I stated before (hint) having all of his brothers involved is significant. One or two, maybe not. But the whole family of men. That's intersting, and says something about the family's interests. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review me 16:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agreeMowens35 16:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The compacted version that you cite above uncder "Clubs and Rotaries" captures the essence of Fords membership in the fraternity, and is very good, and if I may vote, agree it should stand.  Please consider, one last opportunity, to include a mention of an important honor that was bestowed on our late President, to wit: "..Three years later Ford was made a Sovereign Grand Inspector General, 33°, honorary." after the sentence ending in "...Temple in Grand Rapids.". The 33° is of the highest honors within the Scottish Rite body of Freemasonry.  In hindsight, though, the use of the word "coroneted" instead of "made" is more technically correct, it's not that important to the integrity of the sentence. By the way, the use of the word and punctuation ",honorary." after "33°" is the correct nomenclature within Freemasonry to describe this honor. Again, not critical it be included, but this high honor is relatively rare, and is indicative of his service and dedication to the order.DoubleEagle32 19:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit

message: At one point, the article says, "The team suffered a steep decline in his 1934 senior year, however, winning only one game."   Then, "During the 1934 championship game, during which Michigan held heavily favored Minnesota (the eventual national champion) to a scoreless...."
If Michigan only won one game, they didn't play in the championship game.  Alecjp 05:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1934 Michigan football 

message: The first sentence shoud clearly state: Gerald Rudolph Ford (born Leslie Lynch King, Jr.). Editors sometimes argue that it is redundant to provide this information when there is also an article section that elaborates on name changes. It is standard practice, however, to provide both the actual name and the birth name in a bio, and most articles follow this precedent even where name info is provided later on. The reason for this is to conserve an article's encyclopedic quality. A user should not be burdened to search within the article body for first-order data that identifies and classifies the subject-matter. Birth name is regarded as one of the core elements of introductory info that is mandatory for a responsably written reference article. If the introduction to the section that elaborates on his name seems too redundant, then it can be reworded for aesthetic purposes, but the section should not detract from the encyclopedic responsabilities in the opening paragraph.--Supersexyspacemonkey 03:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good edit. Surprised no one thought of it earlier. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review me 03:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Quality Standards regarding naming conventions 

message: I did a test run by merging Ford's death article with the main Ford article. The resulting page is terrribly long. We would serve Wikipedia users better if both Ford articles were kept seperate (in my view). For example, the main Reagan article is still seperate from his death article. In fact, info about his death in the main Reagan article is very short, with no pics either. Perhaps we could shorten the death info in the Gerald Ford article as well. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review me 02:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This (main) article currently has 44KB of prose, which is high. Getting it under 40 is desirable (see WP:LENGTH for how to calculate prose size, and Dr pda's script).  Better use of summary style in areas like his death could help.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging both Ford articles? 

message: While it is important that there is a too-brief mention of Ford's role in supporting Indonesia's invasion of East Timor in the article as written, there is not currently an analysis of Ford's human rights record, especialy his support for other repressive regimes around the world, and I believe this is very important.
One of Ford's only achievements in the human rights area was the signing of the Helsinki accords, which put the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites on record as supporting political human rights which they so ruthlessly repressed. As Ford rightly claimed, human rights activists in these countries were able to point to the Helsinki Accords to bolster the cause, eventually helping lead to the nonviolent revolutions which overthrew these regimes in 1989.
Yet, in other countries around the world, Ford routinely allied with despots who supported the US in cold war struggles. Ford supported several dictators in Latin America, including [Augusto Pinochet in Chile] during some of the worst of the repression there. Ford also supported the [Shah of Iran], [Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines], and [Mobotu in Zaire], despite their atrocious human rights records and, at least in the case of the latter two, their kleptocratic style of rule.
Ford's opposition to sanctions against [South African apartheid], and his support for South Africa's invasions of Namibia and [Angola], had devastating consequences for the people of the region.
Ford's support for the war in Angola was so egregious that it is one of the few occasions when Congress reined in a President's military intervention For more on Ford's role in Angola and Zaire, see also the book by Jonathan Kwitney, a Wall St. Journal reporter, Endless Enemies. 
(The same Congress also curtailed Ford's power to continue fighting the war in Vietnam).
Some of this is enumerated (Zunes would probably supply footnotes upon request, as he is a respected scholar) in Professor Zunes' article at Reasons Not to Like Ford. 
Le Monde Diplomatique also describes how the Ford administration supported Morocco's invasion and occupation of the Western Sahara. Most infamously, Kissinger told Ford, "Hassan has pulled back in the Sahara. But if he doesn’t get it, he is finished. We should now work to ensure he gets it. We would work it through the UN [to] ensure a favourable vote." According to the article above, Moynihan's memoirs confirm that this is the policy Ford followed.
--Sam Diener 07:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ford and Human Rights 

message: Ford became president because of the watergate scandal. I think this should be mentioned in the first paragraph. What do you think? (I hope you try to set aside your personal feelings for me in voting. I'm trying.) -- johno95 00:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote on Ford and Watergate

message: It should be possible to close this article's FAR without a FARC; however, the prose size is currently at 45KB (see WP:LENGTH) and the article could benefit from moving about 5KB to daughter articles, via summary style.  Can anyone work on that, and give us some feedback on the FAR (see link at top of page)?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote for no daughter articles here. Sumoeagle179 23:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LENGTH is a guideline and I don't think 5k needs to be treated as a deal-breaker. This is a late 20th century US president; some extra K are to be expected. That said, I think "Canada and the G7" should be cut it in half. It gets too much play. Marskell 12:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did the abbrevating myself. I think it better summary style now. Marskell 15:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAR

message: Somebody slipped this link into the External Links section. In addition to the spurious subject matter and the source's lack of credibility, the biased and exaggerated title ("Ford forced to admit the Warren Report fictionalized") makes me suspicious of the contributor's intentions. The matter of Ford and the Warren Report is already discussed in this article, so I went ahead and removed the link. Mr. Accident 21:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for letting us know. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Illuminati "News"?

message: In the section on Gerald Ford's post-presidency it should be added that he is also the namesake for the University of Michigan's Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. I believe there is a link to the Ford School in the links section, but there is no mention in the body of the text. As a new user I cannot make changes to this page. Could someone please make this change for me?
Schroeda 17:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay: I will in just a moment. Extremely sexy 17:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As it turns out it was mentioned though. Extremely sexy 18:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy