Talk:William Bennett

message: Removed this part for reasons of comparative irrelevancy:
:Bennett has delivered numerous speeches at various colleges and universities in the United States, including Harvard University and Hillsdale College.
:Most likely due to his background as an educational administrator and for conservative views, he served on the search committee that selected Dr. Larry P. Arnn as President of Hillsdale College.
Populus 14:10, 20 August 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: How about putting something in that say Bennett is  often asked to speak at colleges ? Smith03 14:14, 20 August 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me.  I just thought that making selecting a new president of Hillsdale Bennett's crowning achievement looked odd. Populus 14:28, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Speeches at universities

message: Can we make Bill Bennett the default article for a period of time?  I came here after reading a news story, but found the Canadian politician instead.  We could put it back after a while.  It might give more visibility to this article so it can be cleaned up.
151.198.54.170 13:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  default article for Bill Bennett 

message: I did a major clean up, but while I was working on it new edits were made by others.  I tried to incorporate the new stuff best I could.  Also, although I left it in, I'm not sure whether the controversy over the abortion discussion is about linking abortion to crime or about Bennett's apparent opinion that crime is caused by black people.  Perhaps we should leave the stuff at the end out? Dyfsunctional 19:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: I popped in expecting to see something far worse. I think, at least as it stands at the time of this post, it's fair and evenhanded. Let's all hope it stays that way!Big Daddy 10:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I've been watching this article and it's definitely gotten a lot better since yesterday. Thanks everyone. 141.155.152.158 12:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kudos

message: Perhaps we can get better balance by separating bio info, achievments, criticism and trivia, tailing the article with links. I moved things about a bit. Does this work? Dominick 18:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mary Beth Guinan Could there be an additional link to "crime and gender?" *Violent Crime and Gender When a social scientist uses a paradigmatic case as a premise, it should be both factual and non-controversial, as is the case with gender.  The correlation with race is extremely problematic statistically, and controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.226.119 (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: Not to defend Bennett's remarks, but is it really fair to devote more than half the article to the abortion quote?  How about just an accurate transcription of the quote, and a few lines about the reaction?  I'm at a particular loss as to why we need the blog entry from the Freakonomics author—shouldn't this be an article about Bennett's life and place in history, and not about what tangentally-involved people think about something he said on the radio?  I'm thinking we should at least delete that bit, but it's been there long enough that I have to wonder what the majority opinion is. Dyfsunctional 13:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, he has been around long before these comments, using a single blog source like this, and hanging his reputation on one quote makes for a unbalnced article. If we compare column inches of spathe Abortion item is was over dominant. It should be prominent, since it is a current affair, but in a few years will not be what he is best remembered for. (pardon me I added a header) Dominick 13:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, other than Dominick and I, there doesn't seem to be much of an opinion on this one way or the other.  (I suspect that now that the media coverage has faded people have stopped visiting the page.)  I think I'll give it another day or two, then streamline the section in question.  Also, I'll remove the "current event" tag if that's OK.  Dyfsunctional 18:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree that, by my measurement, 56% of this article being comprised of the "Controversy" section is complete overkill. It certainly makes for the appearance of a smear, regardless of factual content. While important to keep the context of the controvery available, a link to the entirety of the radio comments and the responses should suffice. --Detriment (T-M-C) 01:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that spacewise, the controversy section seems to be unbalanced, but upon closer reflection, it seems that the whole transcript might be needed to ensure the full context is available.  Johntex\talk 04:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just the pertinent quote, and a link for the context? 162.83.178.23 11:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some major surgery, incorporated all of the suggestions above.  Let's see if it sticks.  Also, somebody keeps changing the mediamatters link to a white supremacist blog entry.  The link is there to provide an accurate trancript, not to voice a pro- or anti-Bennett sentiment.  If you have an issue with it please say something in the talk page so we can know what your intentions are.  Dyfsunctional 13:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looked good, but it is still light on details about... guess who! I will look closer later, when I don't have a design I am paid for looking at me! Dominick 14:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance 

message: Did he resign from the Education Secretary post in 1988 or 1989?  The article has both. 162.83.178.23 12:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: When did he resign?

message: I added a sentence to the Trivia section of the article stating that the name of the radio show is based on the line from the 1984 Reagan campaign. That Reagan used this line is well-known, and that it figured in his re-election campaign is documented at pbs.org. Given Reagan's association with the quote and Bennett's association with Reagan, I believe the statement I added to the page to be correct, but I can't find anything on Bennett's site stating that this is the origin of the show name. --DavidConrad 02:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of radio show name 

message: Somebody should write a bit about his recent appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. 71.16.224.178 08:54, 13 June 2006
:Why? What was particularly important/newsworthy?  John Broughton 13:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Daily Show appearance

message: I edited Bennett's profile to change his description from "philosopher" to political pundit, as I found describing him as a philosopher somewhat presumptious. After all, we're talking about the author of "The Book of Virtues" not Hegel or Kant.AlexMondo 03:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Philosopher"

message: Hey everybody, I just added a brief subsection on a supposed relationship Bennett may or may not have had with a dominatrix in Las Vegas.  This is kind of dicey material, and I want it to be fair to Bennett and to comply with Wikipedia's policy of fairness towards biographies of living individuals.  These rumors are in large part unsubstantiated, but on the other hand they're very persistent (as my article makes plain) and thus I think a section addressing them is warranted.  I invite your comments, criticisms, and revisions if necessary to ensure that this section complies.  If you feel it doesn't belong there, please discuss your objections here before deleting it and let's keep it civil.  Dkostic 01:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon me for deleting it immediately upon seeing it and reviewing some of the sources.  I believe the matieral violates WP:BLP and while I am happy to discuss it at length, I think material that violates WP:BLP should not be left in the article while it is debated but rather left out while is being discussed. Lawyer2b 17:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BLP states, "Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below)." The sources you gave for the material were blogs or partisan websites, hence the material cannot be used.  Lawyer2b-blp 17:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you might be right on that. :/ Dkostic 20:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Las Vegas Domina? 

message: I'm sorry.... but I deleted the statement according to which Bennett takes "somewhat RACIST views" on affirmative action ecc. Being a conservative doesn't at all entail being racist. Even being "against" quotas and Affirmative Action doesn't necessarily coincide with racist positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry Cassini (talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Affirmative action

message: That somebody has a PhD does not mean that we refer to them as "Dr. X" for the whole article.  Certainly we don't ever put "Dr." into the first line.  If genuinely respected academics don't get this (and they don't), why should Bill Bennett?  This is a stylistic issue, and stylistically, we don't generally use honorifics ("Dr.", "Mr.", whatever) on either first reference or in running text. john k 06:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "Dr." 

message: Tonight was the first time I looked at this biographical article.  I have to echo the out of balance observation that was first made in 2005.  Undue weight is being given to the abortion misunderstanding and too little weight is being given to his success as a an author and rise in the radio ratings.  Of course, editors typically are not explicit in their intent for adding text to an article, but I don't think it's leap of logic to infer that there was a gotcha for his hypothetical to a caller on September 28, 2005.  Another clue: the Controversies section is about half the article text. Controversies is code, of course, for stuff editors don't like about the subject.  patsw 01:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The radio show statement was a mathematical reality, not a statement on morals or racism. It was illustrating the absurdity of trying to equate abortion with the crime rate, which is higher per capita among blacks vs whites in the United States. It's like saying "If we all ceased to drive cars, there would be no gas shortages." Doesn't mean we should cease to drive cars. --75.39.52.149 (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue Weight

message: I thought fair use of screenshots was limited to articles dealing with the television program or movie itself and could not be used on other pages to illustrate subjects (e.g. actors or guests). If I am correct, then the image with this article must be replaced. →Wordbuilder 20:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no objection, I will remove it. →Wordbuilder 17:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of screenshot for illustration

message: Having followed Bennett's philosophies through his talk show it occurs to me that this Wiki article would be more accurate to refer to him as a "neoconservative" as opposed to a "conservative". His liberal roots in the Democratic Party (some of those liberal views linger still today) and his subsequent conversion to a Republican seem to bode well for this change. I suggest changing the first sentence of this article from:
"William John Bennett (born July 31, 1943) is an American conservative pundit, politician, and political theorist. "
To:
William John Bennett (born July 31, 1943) is an American neoconservative pundit, politician, and political theorist. 
Rwl10267 (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Going once...twice...Rwl10267 (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree. Neoconservatism is a form of conservatism and oftentimes used as an insult--I mean rarely we've seen someone say "Hey, Im a neo-con."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.81.197 (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Con or Neocon??

message: ↜Just me, here, now … 03:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anybody know who, if anybody, Bill supported in the Republican primaries? 

message: I have tried to tweak this but think it needs more work/attention. The sentence about "The Book of Virtues, in which he argued for self-discipline -- an attribute often at odds with problem gambling." needs to be reworded. The attribute is not at odds with gambling, its at odds with problem grambling. Maybe just remove the last part so as not to mention "problem" gambling. I also removed the part that he has never been accused of problem gambling since that was not sourced. The idea that his bills are paid, therefore he doesn't have a "problem" could be a sign of trouble since compulsive gambling is not about money. I am trying to be careful of BLP issues. Anyways, Tom (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Gambling section

message: The excerpt represents over 70% of the source, so it appears to violate fair use provisions, and is probably a copyright violation. I've moved the copyrighted material here. "The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted."
:CALLER: I noticed the national media... talk a lot about the loss of revenue... to fund Social Security, and I was curious, ... [whether] the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade [and] the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years could fund Social Security as we know it today...
:BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?
:CALLER: ...Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.
:BENNETT: Maybe,...but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think [abortion] disproportionately occur[s] among single women? No?
:CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.
:BENNETT: ...I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this... [I]t cuts both [ways]—you know. One of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is... that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well-
:CALLER: -Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.
:BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either,... But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could ... abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
Lionelt (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio show abortion comment 

message: This is not supported by the two given references. Perhaps he said this elsewhere?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.178.47 (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinians are Jordanians? 

message: Is what Bennet said true from a purely mathematical scientific statistical viewpoint, ignoring all political or ethical considerations?? Did he cite any statistics to prove the point? --Nerd42 (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion comment contraversy - what are the facts? 

message: What does this mean: " it is one of the only syndicated conservative talk shows in the morning drive time slot." ? Does it mean it is the only such or one of the few such . . .? 
"In fact in 1988, he called the Chicago public school system 'the worst in the nation.'" "In fact" is an expression completely out of place in an encyclopedia. I removed it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orthotox (talk • contribs) 18:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean Up ll

message: The section on Bennett's position on drug use and efforts to combat it, with this:
"Despite his own son's use,[5] Bennett is a staunch supporter of the War on Drugs and has been criticized for his views on the issue."
Why, "Despite his own son's use"?  Do we mean to imply that because his son has used drugs, Bennett cannot be opposed to drug use?  Could it not be that having seen first-hand an example of the negative effects of using drugs, a man could be encouraged to oppose drug use even more?  I think this sentence is a fallacy.
TheBaron0530 (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  War on Drugs 

message: What is the source of him being a Catholic and should he be categorized as such? And should he be categorized as a Democrat if he's no longer one?--HerbSewell (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic? Democrat?  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on William Bennett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822121019/http://www.theindyvoice.com/pnac/ to http://www.theindyvoice.com/pnac
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified