Talk:Fred Thompson/Archive 3

message: I'd like to encourage editors to actually read the tag that was added to the top of this talk page, particularly the phrase "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous". The addition regarding Life Lock is well sourced - in fact it has two reliable sources - and nothing in the wording is libelous or even derogatory. The sources and our article lay out the facts, the reader is left to make his or her own determination about them. That is what a good encyclopedia article should do.  I personally would like to see all of this material incorporated into the appropriate sections rather than stand as a separate "Controversies" section, but I am comfortable with the wording we now have in the section, and hope we can reach consensus on it so that the protection can be lifted far in advance of 6 weeks which is rather long for a political article (and I think not warranted). Tvoz |talk 01:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am on the fence on the inclusion of this particular piece of information and previously tried to remove it from the article (thinking that consensus was reached). However, as per above this is not a wp:blp issue. This is a simple content dispute and I hope the editors on this page understand that and work toward consensus and compromise. Turtlescrubber 01:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The BLP policy covers more than just the tag.  For example, it covers bias.  WP:COATRACK (yes, it's an essay not a policy) says it all far better than I ever could.  The current text is more suitable, though I still don't think the incident is worth mentioning.  Thompson made an advertisment under contract.  The ad was for the company, not for the man.  As soon as the story broke, the man was given the boot "resigned".  Including it here is nothing but insuating that Thompson has done something wrong.  On the sliding scale of bad, the original post was very bad - it didn't bother to mention that the ad was an ABC obligation, it made it sound like the alleged criminal issues were current, and included a direct quote from the source article characterizing Thompson's voice.  The text was blatant bias and highly inappropriate.  News media outlets don't have the BLP restrictions that we do.  A news media article is here one day and gone the next.  (And, by the way, the source article has been roundly criticized on blogs for its blatant bias.)  The text currently in the article  is more neutral.  I still think it is irrelevant because it has NOTHING TO DO with a biographical article, but it is not a bias issue.  Please note the important differences - (1) it tells that the spot was a contractual obligation and does not make it sound like something Thompson did of his own accord, (2) it tells that the alleged criminal acts of this third party are not current, and (3) does not include the offensive characterization of Thompson's voice (which, by the way, was copy/pasted from the source article).  This is the difference between something that violates BLP and should be removed on sight vs something that is neutral, albeit irrelevant. --BigDT 02:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job on the rewording of the LifeLock information.  The proper context is now included, which removes the bias and makes it obvious that there's nothing controversial about it. Eseymour 13:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP tag on talk 

message: I'd like to review the bidding and find out just where we are on the edit wars. I wasn't directly involved (on the Fred Thompson page) but I tried to follow the changes. I think there were basically two wars:
*The age difference between Fred and Jeri. Is this one now settled? After going back and forth between "24 years his junior" and "born January, 1967" there was a third phrasing, "then age 59 ... then 35". Is there a consensus to keep this phrasing and stop arguing about it?
*Controversies (or not), including:
**payments from Thompson's PAC
**Thompson's radio spot for Lifelock
**Thompson the actor playing an anti-semitic role
That third one (the anti-semitic role) is gone (for now). Is there a consensus that it is gone for good or is it still a controversy?
On Lifelock, whether or not there is still an argument to include it or not, is there agreement as to the current wording or is there an argument about the wording?
Ditto, the Pac payments.
Without going into the merits of the wars, can people verify that these are the elements of the war? Have I overlooked anything?
Sbowers3 03:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For anyone reading, all three points of contention can be seen in this edit .  Of all of those, I think the Lifelock issue is the only one that is contested.  The issue about playing an anti-semitic role in a movie is a non-issue and is/was nothing but trolling - I don't think (I could be wrong) that anyone has seriously suggested that it should be included.  The thing with the PAC transferring money to his son most certainly should be included if it can be properly sourced and context provided, but the source right now is a blog.  (It's an ABC news blog, but that's still a blog.) The age thing is settled.  So I think the only real issue is over Lifelock. --BigDT 03:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Eseymour's summary is accurate. Italiavivi 13:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems accurate to me.  Coemgenus 14:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Notability is permanent.  It doesn't have to "turn into a major point of contention during the campaign" to be notable, which is a completely arbitrary measure.  I would also argue that the Edwards article has been heavily sanitized, as I can find no mention of Sen. Edwards (extremely notable) $400 campaign contribution haircut in the text or his involvement in hedge funds.  Sen. Obama's article is guarded in a similar manner; it took me almost two months to get a consistent note about his attempt to quit smoking into his article, despite how often he talks about it and the "Quit Smoking with Obama" group on his campaign site.  I may be willing to back down on the LifeLock situation, now that I've compared Sen. Thompson's article to the other candidates' articles, but I will not back down on the PAC issue. Italiavivi 21:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately it doesnt require you to "back down".  Wiki just requires a consensus. Dman727 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A consensus you will most certainly not have so long as Tvoz, myself, JGoldberg, and others support LifeLock's inclusion.  You have confused consensus with democracy, I think. Italiavivi 22:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Others?  Who?  Every neutral person (everyone who came here after the dispute) has opposed the inclusion of the lifelock thing.  At any rate, this is an encyclopedia, not a catalog of news articles. If we were to include every news item ever to be published about Thompson or any other well-known politician, this would be a very long article. The question, in both cases, is whether they are just recentism or something that will matter. I have no problem with the PAC issue being included at some point (not necessarilly right now) if and when there are reliable sources that tell the whole story. How involved was Thompson in the decision process or was it just using his name? Was it self-funded (in which case, who gives a flip where the money goes) or were there donors expecting their money to go to GOP causes who would be upset to know that it was just going to Thompson's son? All of those questions need to be answered at some point. Unlike a newspaper, our job is NOT to print anything that sells. Our job is to write a biography. Again, I see no problem in principle with this being included, but it's important to get the facts straight. --BigDT 22:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RECENTISM is an opinion essay, nothing more.  It also directly contradicts the assertion that notability is permanent.  Sorry BigDT, but a link to an opinion essay is not grounds for removal, and you cannot override objections as if Wikipedia were a first-past-the-post democracy.  Who are the "neutral people" who came here, by the way?  I see a guy with Userbox:GOP on his page, and several other editors with a history of sanitizing the articles of Republican politicians.  "Neutral" indeed. Italiavivi 23:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we printed everything that had ever been reported about Thompson (or anyone else), we would have a very long article. Notability of an individual may be eternal (though I don't even agree with that), but on some news items, there is the "will anyone care in five years" rule. --BigDT 00:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to agree with it, it's still Wikipedia policy.  I'm afraid I've never heard of the "Will Anyone Care in Five Years Rule."  Is it another opinion essay?  I didn't find anything at WP:WILLANYONECAREINFIVEYEARS. Italiavivi 00:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Italiavivi said: "I would also argue that the Edwards article has been heavily sanitized..."  Well, you certainly must argue that if you're going to be consistent with the content you're supporting for the Thompson article.  However, I'd argue that the Edwards and Obama articles are both well-written biographies.  Wikipedia articles about politicians should not be a dumping ground for every criticism ever brought against the candidate.  Only incidents that had a major effect on the person's career or personal life, etc., should be included.  You can't write a comprehensive article about the Bush presidency w/o mentioning the Valerie Plame affair, or an article about the Clinton presidency w/o the Lewinsky affair, but the Lifelock and PAC incidents don't rise anywhere near that level of importance. Eseymour 12:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a weasel words guideline that shuns "some people think this" and the like.  I will also go on-record here and note that Crockspot has, in the past, tried to exclude content from other conservative-interest articles by simply claiming that "so-and-so isn't controversial because a reliable source doesn't use the word controversial".  Once again, controversy isn't in the eye of the beholder -- if it has caused controversy, then it is (by definition) controversial (and claims of original research are spurious).  No opinion on the content here, just thought I'd point out that this is an old tactic that's been tried before.  /Blaxthos 22:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree partially. What seems to happen quite often is that some website with a particular axe to grind will put something out there that they regard as controversial. Said item then gets put into WP as a controversy. Said item is then argued over as being controversial or not being controversial. Said item is now deemed controversial because of the controversy regarding the discussion of whether it is actually controversial. If the said controversy is being reported by a few or more independent and neutral sites then it should be worthy of being included, but what seems to happen (more often than not) is that the controversy is made by the opinions of a few with a political or social axe to grind and then put on WP as fact.   Arzel 23:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as someone who has added "Controversy" sections to articles, I (now) think it's always a mistake to have such a section. This article currently uses a chronological structure (with Political Positions and Personal Life separated out) which works very well, so I advocate putting the inevitable controversies in the appropriate existing section. Cheers, CWC 11:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: In order to justify a "Controversy" section, there would have to be controversy on these topics out in the real world, not here in the WikiTalk section of someone's biography. To me (and to others, I'm sure), 'Controversy' involves something more than "being mentioned in someone's blog." Even being reported by a recognized news source doesn't make it controversial. Unless some more digging by reputable news sources starts to uncover something that truly implicates Fred Thompson in illegal or unethical activities, this Controversy section should remain empty, or preferably, non-existent.64.1.239.98 17:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit wars - where are we? 

message: Just took a look at the articles for three of the leading Democratic contenders, and of Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton, only Hillary's article has a "Controversies" section--and it is simply a link to a separate article.  I guarantee you that's not because Edwards and Obama are pure as new-fallen snow.  There are certainly "controversies" around each of them that are just as significant as those which have been added for Fred Thompson.  Yet Edwards' article doesn't mention, for example, the huge mansion he built for himself, and Obama's article incorporates his past drug use into the story of his somewhat troubled youth.
This is as it should be for biographies.  Biographical articles should focus on an overall picture of a person and mention major events and accomplishments--not list minor incidents which political operatives seize upon.  Let's face it--no one would be interested in adding the PAC info or the LifeLock ad to this biography if Thompson weren't a potential candidate for President.  The "Controversy" section is shaping up as simply a vehicle for mudslinging.  I say get rid of the section and if anything turns into a major point of contention during the campaign, it can be added in the appropriate context. Eseymour 21:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability is permanent.  It doesn't have to "turn into a major point of contention during the campaign" to be notable, which is a completely arbitrary measure.  I would also argue that the Edwards article has been heavily sanitized, as I can find no mention of Sen. Edwards (extremely notable) $400 campaign contribution haircut in the text or his involvement in hedge funds.  Sen. Obama's article is guarded in a similar manner; it took me almost two months to get a consistent note about his attempt to quit smoking into his article, despite how often he talks about it and the "Quit Smoking with Obama" group on his campaign site.  I may be willing to back down on the LifeLock situation, now that I've compared Sen. Thompson's article to the other candidates' articles, but I will not back down on the PAC issue. Italiavivi 21:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately it doesnt require you to "back down".  Wiki just requires a consensus. Dman727 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A consensus you will most certainly not have so long as Tvoz, myself, JGoldberg, and others support LifeLock's inclusion.  You have confused consensus with democracy, I think. Italiavivi 22:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Others?  Who?  Every neutral person (everyone who came here after the dispute) has opposed the inclusion of the lifelock thing.  At any rate, this is an encyclopedia, not a catalog of news articles. If we were to include every news item ever to be published about Thompson or any other well-known politician, this would be a very long article. The question, in both cases, is whether they are just recentism or something that will matter. I have no problem with the PAC issue being included at some point (not necessarilly right now) if and when there are reliable sources that tell the whole story. How involved was Thompson in the decision process or was it just using his name? Was it self-funded (in which case, who gives a flip where the money goes) or were there donors expecting their money to go to GOP causes who would be upset to know that it was just going to Thompson's son? All of those questions need to be answered at some point. Unlike a newspaper, our job is NOT to print anything that sells. Our job is to write a biography. Again, I see no problem in principle with this being included, but it's important to get the facts straight. --BigDT 22:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RECENTISM is an opinion essay, nothing more.  It also directly contradicts the assertion that notability is permanent.  Sorry BigDT, but a link to an opinion essay is not grounds for removal, and you cannot override objections as if Wikipedia were a first-past-the-post democracy.  Who are the "neutral people" who came here, by the way?  I see a guy with Userbox:GOP on his page, and several other editors with a history of sanitizing the articles of Republican politicians.  "Neutral" indeed. Italiavivi 23:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we printed everything that had ever been reported about Thompson (or anyone else), we would have a very long article. Notability of an individual may be eternal (though I don't even agree with that), but on some news items, there is the "will anyone care in five years" rule. --BigDT 00:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to agree with it, it's still Wikipedia policy.  I'm afraid I've never heard of the "Will Anyone Care in Five Years Rule."  Is it another opinion essay?  I didn't find anything at WP:WILLANYONECAREINFIVEYEARS. Italiavivi 00:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Italiavivi said: "I would also argue that the Edwards article has been heavily sanitized..."  Well, you certainly must argue that if you're going to be consistent with the content you're supporting for the Thompson article.  However, I'd argue that the Edwards and Obama articles are both well-written biographies.  Wikipedia articles about politicians should not be a dumping ground for every criticism ever brought against the candidate.  Only incidents that had a major effect on the person's career or personal life, etc., should be included.  You can't write a comprehensive article about the Bush presidency w/o mentioning the Valerie Plame affair, or an article about the Clinton presidency w/o the Lewinsky affair, but the Lifelock and PAC incidents don't rise anywhere near that level of importance. Eseymour 12:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a weasel words guideline that shuns "some people think this" and the like.  I will also go on-record here and note that Crockspot has, in the past, tried to exclude content from other conservative-interest articles by simply claiming that "so-and-so isn't controversial because a reliable source doesn't use the word controversial".  Once again, controversy isn't in the eye of the beholder -- if it has caused controversy, then it is (by definition) controversial (and claims of original research are spurious).  No opinion on the content here, just thought I'd point out that this is an old tactic that's been tried before.  /Blaxthos 22:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree partially. What seems to happen quite often is that some website with a particular axe to grind will put something out there that they regard as controversial. Said item then gets put into WP as a controversy. Said item is then argued over as being controversial or not being controversial. Said item is now deemed controversial because of the controversy regarding the discussion of whether it is actually controversial. If the said controversy is being reported by a few or more independent and neutral sites then it should be worthy of being included, but what seems to happen (more often than not) is that the controversy is made by the opinions of a few with a political or social axe to grind and then put on WP as fact.   Arzel 23:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as someone who has added "Controversy" sections to articles, I (now) think it's always a mistake to have such a section. This article currently uses a chronological structure (with Political Positions and Personal Life separated out) which works very well, so I advocate putting the inevitable controversies in the appropriate existing section. Cheers, CWC 11:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: In order to justify a "Controversy" section, there would have to be controversy on these topics out in the real world, not here in the WikiTalk section of someone's biography. To me (and to others, I'm sure), 'Controversy' involves something more than "being mentioned in someone's blog." Even being reported by a recognized news source doesn't make it controversial. Unless some more digging by reputable news sources starts to uncover something that truly implicates Fred Thompson in illegal or unethical activities, this Controversy section should remain empty, or preferably, non-existent.64.1.239.98 17:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should we really have a "Controversy" section?

message: Wikipedia strictly forbids Original Research (in our oddball Wikipediac meaning of the term), including Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position.
#Here's a classic example: (1) John Doe, who does contract work for lots of companies, once did some work for a company named Lifelock. (2) One of the principals of Lifelock once made a plea bargain with the FTC. Neither of those facts is at all notable in an article about John ... until you put them together to insinuate that John works for crooks. That sort of insinuation is completely unacceptable in any Wikipedia article, let alone a biographical one. So the Lifelock stuff has to go.*
#Avni Patel's blog post and our current text invite people to jump to conclusions about the PAC payments, but give too little context. That's not encyclopedic. Patel doles out a few hints, such as "retired lawmakers, like Thompson, often keep leadership PACs as a 'slush fund' to help them set the stage for a run for higher office"; we don't give any hints. Unless this issue gets much more detailed coverage by a WP:RS, we can't cover it without violating WP:SYNTH or WP:UNDUE or (much more likely) both. The PAC stuff has to go.*
While I'm here:
*Whether Thompson played any kind of villain is not in itself notable.* It has to stay gone.
*Our current wording re the age thing ("Thompson, then aged 59 married Jeri Kehn, then 35") is perfect. It's short and tells you all the relevant info. Let's keep it.
: * Unless there are Dramatic Further Developments.
There are bound to be a lot more controversies, especially if Fred wins the GOP race. Only the ones receiving coverage from at least two WP:RSes can be mentioned in this article, and even then only if several other criteria are satisfied. That's not a bug in Wikipedia policies, that's a feature: 99% of the time, the stuff disallowed eventually turns out to be stuff that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Cheers, 04:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As of right now, the PAC claim has only one source - a blog.  The blog is run by an ABC news personality, but it is still a blog.  There is no confirmation independant of that blog as of yet (at least that I have seen using Google news).  If it is true and if it is a big deal that Thompson's opponents focus on, then certainly it should be included, but I don't believe it has passed that threshhold yet. I really think that some context is needed, though. (In other words, is this abnormal behavior or was the PAC basically a holding company funded primarilly by Thompson himself?) In short, I would really like to have more information about it.  Also, keep in mind that this is a biographical article, not a laundry list - in a month, we should revisit this issue to see if anyone is talking about it or if it is just recentism. --BigDT 17:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found another source-- The Wall Street Journal.  WSJ does not appear on Google News as far as I have ever seen.  The information should remain.  We all would like more context, but we have to depend on these news sources for that.  Anything else is original research.--Gloriamarie 17:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you subscribe?  Is there anything earth shattering after the free preview or a response or explanation from Thompson's people?  (Obviously, this answers the sourcing problem ... the blog source should be removed and replaced with this reference.) --BigDT 19:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't subscribe anymore.  I looked the article up with a journal subscription I have, and it only shows part of the article talking about other candidates who have done similar things, so I'm not sure what it says about Thompson beyond the free preview.  I'd change the cite myself but the article seems to be locked against all edits.  How long will that last?--Gloriamarie 01:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 6 weeks or until disputes are settled. --BigDT 01:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Original Research 

message: *In the passage on the LifeLock bit, there is a link to LifeLock, but that article is currently a protected title, so having a link there is a bad thing.  (I goofed and didn't check when I wikified it.)
*I have created a page at Commons for photos.  There are only the two photos now, but hopefully we can get some more.  Adding  to the external links section would probably be a good idea.
Are there any objections to either of the above two edits? --BigDT 23:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit suggestions 

message: ::A CNN Opinion Pole released 6/25/2007: http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/06/25/rel7a.pdf
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/25/poll.bloomberg.schneider/index.html States Thompson is second in the poles with 19% in the poles.--FiftyOneWicked 04:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated Polls

message: Under the Speculation Section it is noted that a reference is needed for this statement.
"On June 12, 2007, Thompson appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. He would not announce his candidacy, but referred to his "testing the waters" committee, which he stated yielded positive prospects. Leno, feeling that he was being coy and modest, pointed out that Thompson had risen to an impressive #2 in the polls (see below), and asked Thompson if he would at least state if he would like the job of President. Thompson responded that while he did not crave the job itself, that there are things he would like to do that he could only do by holding that office.[citation needed]"
A reference from Fox News - You Decide 2008 can be used if that is good enough.  
Please see. 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281596,00.html
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Thompson Tells Leno He Would Like to Be President
"Asked by Jay Leno on "The Tonight Show" if he'd like the nation's top job, the former Tennessee senator said, "I've never craved the job of president, but I want to do some things that only a president can do.""
Eck3970 19:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Needed in Speculation Section 

message: Are we ready to have the article unprotected?  This is where I think we stand:
* The LifeLock story gets reduced to a single sentence in the "Post-Senate activities" section.  ("In June 2007, Thompson, as part of his radio contract with ABC, created radio commercials for LifeLock, an identity fraud protection company that was the subject of national attention when its co-founder resigned.")
* The four links (under "Disputed links" above) stay out. (I would suggest that we put a message in HTML comments suggesting that any new links be discussed on the talk page prior to being added in the article.)
* The current text about the Thompsons' relative ages ("On June 29, 2002, Thompson, then aged 59 married Jeri Kehn, then 35") is fine.
* The statement about Thompson's PAC stays in for now subject to readdressing the issue down the road to see if there's more to the story.
Does all of the above sound good to everyone?  If so, I (or anyone else) can make a request at WP:RFP for unprotection. --BigDT 00:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After further thought, I don't think the relative ages aspect should remain as such.  The implication is that their difference in age is somehow wrong in some personal moral judgement.  If it is commonplace to state ages when married then I don't have a problem, but I don't think it is.  The PAC issue is notable, however, it is my understanding that this is not unique to Fred Thompson and is quite common.  Is this something that is noted in other BLP's with political motivation?  It should probably be consistant with other politicians.  Other than that I agree.  Arzel 02:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, but the current wording was a compromise with other editors who wanted the phrase "24 years his junior" to apply to Thompson's wife.  The current text doesn't have nearly as much implication of moral judgement.  The age difference is, after all, a fact, and people are eventually going to notice anyway and form their own opinions. Eseymour 13:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support unprotection if User:BigDT's summary is held as consensus.  I do not support unprotection if it is the intention of Arzel to make the age difference a matter of contention again via edits. Italiavivi 23:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not start the original edit issue, and I am not sure what you are implying.  I'll agree with consensus, but I still hold that stating the ages in this way serves no purpose other than to show that he is quite a bit older than she.  Of the other recognized candidates (granted Thompson has not yet decleared) none have ages when married stated, although John Edwards does have the Junior wording, which doesn't seem to make any sense either in its context.  Arzel 13:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current wording should stay unless/until someone comes up with something better.  Not telling her age at all is not a good idea and using loaded language isn't a good idea either.  The current language represents a nice compromise - it gives the facts without implying anything.  I agree that rekindling this issue would be a bad thing and a  dealbreaker. --BigDT 00:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Italiavivi 00:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok ... I'm going to go ahead and make the request.  Arzel hasn't edited since posting the above message ... if he/she changes it, I think we can settle with the option of politely point him/her in the direction of this discussion - there's no reason to hold up waiting for a reply. --BigΔT 00:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I moved the link to the "compilation" of Thompson's radio commentaries to the "Disputed Links" section, since that page is simply a re-hash of Thompson's ABC radio blog archives.  I think we have enough consensus now to unprotect the article. Eseymour 13:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article needs to be unprotected. There is absolutely zero justification for continued protection of the article. A simple content dispute. That is all that is happening here. Turtlescrubber 00:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Unprotected - all done - Alison ☺ 00:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection? 

message: I made the change to the LifeLock text here .  I also moved a few other things around - I moved the "Scooter Libby defense" paragraph above the ABC news one so that we don't go 2006-2007-2006.  I moved the PAC $$$ issue up to that section because it doesn't make sense to have a one-issue "controversy" section. I'm not at all picky on either of these ... they are formatting issues, if there's a better way to format it, please do so with my blessing. --BigΔT 00:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The change

message: Is is technically correct to have the Candidate Banner on this article when Thompson hasn't yet declared he is a candidate? WiccaWeb 02:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in fact not correct to call him a candidate. He has an exploratory committee, however THIS IS NOT THE SAME as being a candidate. Wikipedia is about FACTS. Calling him a candidate is not factual. WiccaWeb 01:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidate? 

message: The Globe wrote an article about Thompson's memoir in which he states he lacked the "authority" to give information to the White House and did it anyway. User:Eseymour without justification removed it and with an edit summary "rmv speculative criticism". Considering its reference is Thompson, I fail to see how it is "speculative."
Anyway wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is WP:V, not "truth." C56C 16:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thompson leaking committee information to the White House 

message: Why is it useful to include this material about John Dean in the Watergate section?
:John Dean, the Nixon adminstration's former White House counsel who is now a registered independent supporting impeachment of President Bush,(ref)Rothschild, Matthew. "An Interview with John Dean," Progressive Magazine (2006-05-20)(/ref) has said he believed that Howard Baker and Fred Thompson were not impartial players: "I knew that Thompson would be Baker's man, trying to protect Nixon."(ref name="GlobeJuly4"/)
Isn't it obvious that Baker and Thompson weren't impartial?  They were in the same political party as the president.  Moreover, this quote from Dean doesn't cite any particular partiality by Thompson or Baker that Dean thinks was especially egregious.Ferrylodge 19:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not obvious. A reader doesn't assume party loyalty played a factor in the criminal investigation of a President any more than any other investigation of wrong-doing. The quote by John Dean paints a fuller picture of the situation. A quote doesn't have to contain "egregious" information to be part of a paragraph. The WH counsel's opinion is just as important as Thompson's co-investigators' opinions that are cited. Its important to have perspectives from other angles, including the WH. C56C 19:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dean quote hardly provides the White House perspective, and Dean's quote is also extremely uninformative.  It is a bit of hindsight, 35 years later, from a person who despises both Nixon and Bush.  Even if this Dean quote were from someone who shared Nixon's views, it is an empty quotation that includes no basis in fact.  If stuff like this is included in the article, then the article will become extremely long, and extremely uninformative.Ferrylodge 19:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That the WH counsel considered Baker and Thompson sympathetic is informative. The article does not mention this perspective. Also no one said anything about "Dean sharing Nixon's view." Right now, after your move, it does seem out of place since you moved it to its own paragraph and out of the context of perspectives. It should be put perhaps with Nixon's opinion. C56C 19:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nixon's contemporaneous view is more than adequate.  John Dean's hindsight from 35 years later is just cluttering up the article.  It also will confuse readers, because Dean today is highly critical of the Nixon White House and Republicans, whereas the White House in 1973 viewed Dean as one of them.  The Dean quote is also completely unsupported by any reasoning or evidence.Ferrylodge 19:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dean is critical of "neo-Conseratives" now, not Republicans. Whatever that has to do with discrediting his claims is beyond me. C56C 20:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The Dean quote was inserted into this article two days ago, on July 7.  There is no consensus for inserting this quote, so I'm going to remove it until consensus is reached here at this talk page.Ferrylodge 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There also isn't consensus to remove it. But we'll leave it off as more views come in. C56C 20:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't you use one of the quotes from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19675541/ instead?  Assuming that Nixon's quote isn't sufficient to cover off what needs to be said in this section, which is itself a large assumption.  I agree with the idea that a "contemporaneous view" is more useful.Bdell555 21:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: John Dean

message: Recently I added an image to this page in the Watergate section without first seeing if it'd be needed in the article/section. If it's felt that this image doesn't add anything to the section, I'll gladly remove it quickly. Stills64 04:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watergate Hearing Image 

message: I have noticed a lot of changes in this article relating to his relationship with Libby. At this point, it looks like someone is making it a point to say that Thompson never knew Libby before the trial. Seems to be pretty deeply involved with the guy. If he's not a close personal friend, then he's a political operative. So which one is it? ~ Infrangible 11:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Libby Distancing

message: Shouldn't something be said of the fact that for months the rumors were that Thompson would declare his campaign for president around July 4th and yet nothing more has happened? There seems to be something (the abortion lobbying?) that is causing his campaign to delay or postpone the announcement. Should this be put into the article? EdRooney 16:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why rumors of announcements shouldn't be in these articles in the first place. No, we should not document that rumors were false. This is an encyclopedia, not a rumor tracker. - Crockspot 16:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of rumored announcement