Talk:Fred Thompson/Archive 4

message: In keeping with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA this kind of thing would not be allowed on a talk page, so why put it into the article?  I think it ought to be removed.Ferrylodge 03:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA 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. Italiavivi 04:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia to uncivilly attack Thompson.Ferrylodge 05:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Civility has nothing to do with it; WP:CIVILITY applies to Wikipedia editors, not Wikipedia's subjects.  Wikipedia 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. Italiavivi 13:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.Ferrylodge 17:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Italiavivi 17:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nasty, vituperative language was one of Nixon's more entertaining qualities.  When J. Edgar Hoover died, Nixon said: "Jesus Christ!  That old cocksucker!"  But do we have to put that in our Wikipedia article about J. Edgar Hoover?  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"?Ferrylodge 17:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ferrylodge.  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. Eseymour 17:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I don't think he did.  As a married father of three children, he was probably exempt from the draft.Ferrylodge 05:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: You are Dumb As Hell

message: 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.--71.205.20.56 04:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This footnoted sources says so.Ferrylodge 05:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another list 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 Trilateral Commission or Skull and Bones.Ferrylodge 18:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh, I don't know how old you are, but you would have loved Mae Brussell'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. - Crockspot 18:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 45 :)Ferrylodge 18:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Council of Foreign Relations membership? 

message: 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. Italiavivi 22:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.)Ferrylodge 23:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two campaigns for U.S. Senate 

message: There are lots of Thompson endorsements listed here.  Should any of them go in the new endorsements section of our article?Ferrylodge 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.) Eseymour 19:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is an encyclopedia not a campaign page. Plantocal 16:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Endorsements

message: An AppealToHeaven recently made this edit.  The edit changed this:
He currently supports the right of citizens to keep and bear arms if they do not have criminal records.
to this:
He supports the right of most citizens to keep and bear arms.
I will revert this edit for several reasons.  First, no reason was given.  Second, the phrase "most citizens" is weaselly.  See WP:Weasel.  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.Ferrylodge 21:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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....   Anappealtoheaven 12:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.Ferrylodge 16:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. Never mind, I've just added that material to the article myself.Ferrylodge 19:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Anapealtoheaven, thanks for helping to improve the article.Ferrylodge 02:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gun Control

message: I've taken every topic through 10 July, and placed it in Archive 3. Best, ZZ 23:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: A handful of recent edits have been made changing Thompson's religious affiliation between Church of Christ and United Church of Christ.  However, all the reliable sources I've seen identify Thompson as a member of the Church of Christ.  For example:   .  He was married to Jeri Kehn in a church affiliated with the United Church of Christ, but since that church was in Kehn's hometown, it seems likely that was her church. Eseymour 13:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Eseymour 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church of Christ or United Church of Christ? 

message: 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. Turtlescrubber 04:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any POV problem with the section.  I've replaced that tag with one that requests additional sources. Eseymour 19:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Turtlescrubber 22:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pov section tag on corruption section

message: 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 Wikipedia article on Garfield.  The Wikipedia 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:   .  Eseymour 17:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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?  Zsero 19:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Eseymour 20:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be more accurate to say that he would be the third Campbellite president - that covers all branches.  Zsero 21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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.  Zsero 21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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.  Zsero 21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  President Garfield was not a Church of Christ member 

message: Italiavivi has been editing this talk page in a way that violates multiple Wikipedia guidelines.  Let's start with 3RR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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. Italiavivi 20:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Italiavivi 18:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that it is an original edit is already indicated.Ferrylodge 19:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only added after I repeatedly corrected the false listing myself, through the removal you so abhor. Italiavivi 19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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. Italiavivi 18:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are being uncivil.Ferrylodge 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Italiavivi 18:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop editing my comments.Ferrylodge 18:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop repeatedly falsely listing my original remarks as a "revert." Please cease reproducing removed incivility. Italiavivi 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must stop repeatedly editing my comments.  Cut it out.  You are not the final aurthority on what other people can and cannot say.Ferrylodge 18:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Italiavivi 18:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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. Italiavivi 19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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.Ferrylodge 19:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't care. Just stop it. --Ali'i 19:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  End your complaint spectacle, Ferry. Italiavivi 19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You too, Italiavivi. Ferrylodge, if you'd like to lodge a complaint about 3RR, you may want to go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. But you both need to quit arguing and act like mature editors. --Ali'i 19:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.Ferrylodge 19:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Italiavivi 19:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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. Italiavivi 20:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple Serious Violations

message: It's time to address the elephant in the room: Both User:Zsero and User:Ferrylodge have serious WP:OWNERSHIP problems with regard to this article, acting as gate-keepers via revert-warring and restoring their older preferred versions despite past consensus-building and Talk discussions.  The situation here at Fred Thompson 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 User:Zsero and User:Ferrylodge 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 User:Zsero 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 here and here.  Of course, I deny Italiavivi's charges.Ferrylodge 21:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Italiavivi 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  False bad-faith statements by [[User:Zsero]] and [[User:Ferrylodge]], and [[WP:OWNERSHIP]] 

message: :Copied from User_talk:B
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. Italiavivi 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  --B 18:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now we get to the real point:  Very well, if not "[x] years [y]'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? Italiavivi 18:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. --B 18:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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? Italiavivi 19:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "She is 25 years younger"/"He is 25 years older" sounds fine. --B 19:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be an acceptable phrasing in the Southern United States free of connotations, you mean? Italiavivi 19:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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.  /Blaxthos 22:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets' be reasonable. 

message: 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) User:Italiavivi'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, but they are not lies. Calling someone a liar, or their contributions as lies, is grounds for a block on the basis of WP:NPA. I suggest you take some time to read WP:CIVIL before discussing your concerns regarding content of the article again. LessHeard vanU 21:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 lie, and I will continue asserting such. Admonishing me for WP:CIVIL problems and not these other editors is a one-sided joke.  This and this 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. Italiavivi 21:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop this now 

message: 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. Sbowers3 22:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility 

message: Another controversy section added.  Didn't most of us agree that separate "controversy" sections are bad news, that most "controversies" can be incorporated into main text? Italiavivi 01:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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?Arzel 01:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 Hillary Clinton 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?Ferrylodge 01:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The analogy is difficult.  There is a lot more about Whitewater on her main article, over a screenful.  Further Rudy Guiliani has a controversies page but the basics of the controversies are fleshed out on his main page over many paragraphs, John McCain has his Keating Five involvement fleshed out even though there's a separate Keating five 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.Jensiverson 16:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many controversies listed at the Hillary Clinton controversies article that are not even mentioned in the main Hillary Clinton article.  Likewise, there are many Rudy Giuliani controversies described at the Giuliani controversies article that are not even mentioned in the main Rudy Giuliani article.  The main articles should only mention the main controversies, I think.Ferrylodge 17:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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, Barak Obama has very few controversies.Ferrylodge 17:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps his biggest controversy is his lack of controversies. i.e. experience. Bytebear 18:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy sections revisisted 

message: 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 User talk:Zsero/Fred Thompson.  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.  Zsero 02:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks more like you placed it in your User space because it is filled with gratuitous loaded rhetoric, incivility, and personal attacks. Italiavivi 02:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "There you go again".  Can I even count the ways this comment crosses the line?  Zsero 03:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No, the controversy page is for things that are controversial in the real world, not on WP.  Zsero 03:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No one has explained why the information is a-okay on a wife's article but not a husband's. Italiavivi 02:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. Zsero 03:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Much Ado About Little, or Fantasy v Reality 

message: Let's use history to help us get over this tremendous triviality.  Here's what the article on Grover Cleveland says about a similar issue:
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 Fred Thompson controversies rather than here, but I agree with Zsero that it's hardly a controversy at all.  The treatment given to this matter at Jeri Kehn Thompson is quite sufficient (and is perhaps far more than sufficient).
Is there one single President other than Grover Cleveland where the Wikipedia 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, Bytebear, 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 WP:BLP, 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 has documented, their ages at marriage have been in this article for only a small period of time.  The ages should come out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrylodge (talk • contribs) 
:You forgot Threeafterthree, so I've added him above.  Zsero 15:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify my position: until such time as well-sourced evidence (required by WP:BLP, as mentioned above) proving that this statement is revelvant 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 WP:BLP) be  determined to be  a neutral detail, and must be included using neutral language (as opposed to "...years his junior", which carries a negative connotation). - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 04:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had enough.  Ferrylodge,  how exactly does this:"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". Sbowers3 22:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Sbowers3 18:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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.  Tvoz |talk 04:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  Arzel 04:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your kind clarification, Tvoz.  I have corrected my post above (the last paragraph of which you did not address).Ferrylodge 04:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  Bytebear 04:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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! --Tom 12:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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, --Tom 16:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grover