Talk:Tom Tancredo

message: Excerpt from CNN blog:
Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo’s campaign stood by his assertion that bombing holy Muslim sites would serve as a good “deterrent” to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from attacking the United States, his spokeswoman said Friday.
“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack.”
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/05/tancredo-defends-threat-to-bomb-muslim-holy-sites/
--------
Personally it is hard to believe that US can even entertain a presidential candidate who has this stand (foreign policy) on how to make US more secure. Being a foreigner in this country I cannot vote, and it makes me very angry that I cannot contribute to the election process.-Anon.
The election process is a means by which Americans select various members of their government to represent them and their interests. It has nothing in particular to do with visitors.
As for your anger... well, if you don't like it here, etc. 69.15.24.34 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As an American, I'll fill in the "etc.": ...[if you don't like it here] you can still stay, whatever, because a good half of us at any given time don't like it and feel we don't have a real say, either.  Also, different political opinions enrich our politics, even when articulated by non-citizens.69.94.192.147 (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

text: "Excerpt from CNN blog" - would you provide a citation so we can read the whole thing?  I know thought he proposed something similar to this as a response to a nuclear attack on/in a US city, but I can't find your text at cnn.com.  Thanks.  --CliffC 23:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every politician says something stupid from time to time. When it's a routine slip of the tongue, or an obvious error, then we shouldn't make a point quoting it here. (Wikiquote exists for that kind of thing). We need to rely on the general media and history books as our guides for deciding what's important. For example, when President Gerald Ford said the Soviets didn't dominate Poland it  became historic, even though it's obviously not what he meant. But when a politician slips and says "Obama" when he means "Osama", and it's only mentioned for a day in the papers, then it's less likely to be noteworthy. In the case of Tancredo, when he made the remark on a radio talk show about bombing Mecca it seems like a glib remark that he didn't necessarily intend. Seeing it in writing as well makes it appear that he really believes it. We should still take our cue from the general media coverage, and avoid combing through his writings to find evidence to support a thesis.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the point is that Tancredo made the above statements on July 31, 2007, reiterating his position that he believes that the best course of action to deter a nuclear attack in the U.S. by Muslim terrorists is to make it clear that two cities in Saudi Arabia will be similarly nuked afterwards. He's had two years to think about his position so his statements can't be dismissed as an off-the-cuff gaffe. Anyway, the source of his July 31st statement was a Town Hall Meeting & Breakfast in front of thirty people at a restaurant; an mp3 (full of static but still audible) can be downloaded here. He was further questioned about this subject during the Iowa Republican debate and responded that the condemnation he received from the State Department was a sign to him that his ideas had merit; I was appalled at the applause that he received. You can watch his response here (about midway through). After this information is reported more widely by solid news sources, I think the reiteration of his views should go into the article. Pericles899 22:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd comment from an experienced politician 

message: I will be interviewing Tom Tancredo tomorrow for WIkinews.  Please leave any questions you have for him on my Talk page.  Thanks.  --David Shankbone 19:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikinews interview with Tom Tancredo 

message: The Early life and political career section contains the following sentence: "After Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1981..."  Reagan was elected in 1980, and inaugurated in 1981.  Can somebody make this minor edit, please?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.165.204 (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Feel free to create an account, so you can do edits like this in the future.  Jauerback 18:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit request, please 

message: "It should be noted that the majority of Tancredo's funds are not disclosed."  Going to the reference link provided shows that the opposite is true, certainly in dollar terms.  Please make this change.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.120.129 (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funding item needs editing 

message: ...was the title of a section under "Controversies" that I removed because the article did not make it clear why this was a controversy. The section was as follows:
:Tancredo spoke out on January 25, 2007, against the continued existence of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Republican Congressional Hispanic Conference. "It is utterly hypocritical for Congress to extol the virtues of a color-blind society while officially sanctioning caucuses that are based solely on race. If we are serious about achieving the goal of a colorblind society, Congress should lead by example and end these divisive, race-based caucuses." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16812597/
It seems like this could be worked in somewhere else unless there was some sort of outcry. As it stands, my reaction is, "So what?" Thompsontough (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race-based congressional caucuses 

message: This was recently removed from the article:
Bush told reporters, "What a nut. I'm just disappointed. He's from my own my party. He's a Republican. He doesn't represent my views." Bush said he moved to Miami with his Mexican-born wife in 1980 because of its diverse cultures, and adds "it's just as American as suburban Denver."
It was inserted between a statement and its source in a manner that supported a non-neutral point of view.
Further, there is the question as to whether it is noteworthy to the point of being a significant piece of a "Controversies" section that already states J. Bush's disagreement with Tancredo.  That is, is Bush's personal thought on Tancredo's statement equally as important as his official correspondence regarding the same?
Quissett (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That quotation is verifiable. I found it in "Tancredo 'pleased' by Gov. Bush's criticism", 
Anne C. Mulkern, Staff Writer. Denver Post. Denver, Colo.: Nov 30, 2006. pg. A.12. I don't think it's a personal thought if it's been quoted by reporters.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced material 

message: An editor has just made major changes with little explanation. Could he or she please give an explantion for the edits?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After three requests for explanations on the user's talk page he refused, saying it was "a bit hard to go back and explain". That's exactly the problem - if it's too hard for the editing making the changes to explain them then other editors can't be expected to understand them either. So I've reverted the changes. I've asked the editor to use edit summaries and seek consensus here for major changes.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Were the changes actually reverted? The revision history doesn't show a revert. Traumerei (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here it is. Since then the editor has made some modest edits that don't appear as problematic.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent major changes 

message: Removed this section from "Positions:"  "John Podhoretz, writing on the National Review's website, said: "Tom Tancredo is an idiot."
It does not matter what John Podhoretz thinks of Tancredo.  Referencing the article to show Tancredo's position on terrorism is acceptable, but Podhoretz's opinion is just that, an opinion.  Including it seems to be an attempt at bias.  Just stick to the facts on Tancredo's positions or we'll have to start listing all the people who disagree with him - a very long list!
208.88.132.251 (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Review 

message: Currently he is listed as a Republican in the infobox. However, because he will soon be speaking at the Constitution Party's national committee meeting, it's now unclear exactly which party he is currently a part of; is he still a Republican (albeit one who sympathizes with the CP), or is he now a Constitutionalist? I couldn't find any sources which indicated whether or not he is planning to switch parties, so I'm just going to remove the "political party" line from his infobox altogether, until a source can be found that proves for sure which party he now belongs to. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Tancredo has been a Republican for more than 30 years, serving in the Colorado House and the US House as a Republican.  Just because he speaks to a forum of the Constitutional Party is insufficient reason to delete his long-term party affiliation.  Plazak (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As of 2010, he has made his party-switching plans official, so I changed the infobox to reflect that. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see where his spokeperson says he's planning to switch. Maybe we should wait until he actually switches before saying it has happened.   Will Beback  talk   20:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Party 

message: "He has even described mainstream U.S. Muslim organizations such as CAIR as being "Muslim mafias"."
Whether or not the organization is to be called mainstream is questionable. It being a matter of opinion, the adjective would be better to leave out :
"He has even described U.S. Muslim organizations such as CAIR as being "Muslim mafias"."
There has been much criticism aimed at CAIR, much suggesting a more or less hidden agenda due to suspected ties to Hamas. I believe it would be in direct conflict with the wiki page on CAIR to call it mainstream.
This is just a suggestion. No change should be made in case of a stronger argument than my own.
Peace.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.80.88.10 (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding CAIR. 

message: Removed lines saying that he supports legal immigration. The source is AMCON mag-by definition biased in favor of conservatives. He opposes the H1B visa as shown in the article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.91.142 (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal immigration

message: ===Text===
Tancredo Family History, based on published information the National Archives and the Ellis Island Foundation:
TomTancredo's paternal grandfather (Guiseppe Tancredi a.k.a Joseph Tancredo) emigrated from Potenza, Italy, departing from the Port of Naples to America. Joseph was 11 years old, born May 13th 1892. He was traveling with 3 family members (Lucia Trancredi, 24 years old, Giovanna Tancredi, 16 years old, Antonia Corrado 3 years old.), he was listed as the brother in law of their Denver sponsor.  They arrived at Ellis Island, NY on November 9th 1903, aboard the 363 foot steamer ship, The Sicilian Prince.
On April 10th 1910 Joseph Tancredo married Antonia Lena in Denver Colorado. They had 3 children by 1917, Gerald (Tom’s Father), ; Angelina, and Marie.  Tom’s grandfather was employed as a Butcher..
Between 1917 and 1918, approximately 24 million men living in the United States completed a Draft registration Card, including Tom Tancredo’s grandfather. On Tom’s grandfathers draft registration card, dated June 5th, 1917, District 9, Denver, he declared that he was an Alien, born in Potenza Italy and a citizen or subject of Italy, therefore exempt from induction into the American military.  
In February of 1919, Tom’s grandfather declared his intention to renounce his allegiance and fidelity to Victor Emmanuel III, King of Italy.
By 1940, Tom’s Grandfather had two more children, Elizabeth and Lucille.  Up to this point, Tom’s grandfather had never made a petition to become a naturalized citizen.  On Oct. 1st 1940, he filed a petition for Naturalization under the Nationality Act. of 1940, and became a naturalized, legal U.S. citizen.
Sources: (all documents cross reference: date of birth, date of arrival and place of residence)
Archive:  American Family History Immigration Center at Ellis Island Year: 1903;  Archive Roll  T715_412 Microfilm serial: 15 Line: 3; Page Number: 34. 
  Archive:    National Archives, Washington, D.C. United States, Selective Service System. World War I Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration.  Registration Location:    Denver County, Colorado;  Archive Series:    M1509, 4,582 rolls. Archive Roll: Roll     1561811; Draft Board:     
Archive:  National Archives, Washington, D.C. State:   Colorado District Court Naturalization Record Type:   Declarations of Intention Volume:	   12 Roll Description:	(Roll 06) Vols. 12-13; January 29-August 15, 1919; 4974-5885 Collection Title:	Naturalization Records  U.S. District Court in Colorado, 1877-1952 Archive Series:	M1192 Archive Roll:	06   
Archive:	  National Archives, Washington, D.C. Naturalization Record Type:   Petitions for Naturalization State:   Colorado Court Type:   District Court Court Location:   Denver, Colorado Volume:	   38 Roll Description:	 (Roll 54) Vol. 38; March 21-November 26, 1941; 9451-9750 Collection Title:   Naturalization Records Created by the U.S. District Court in Colorado, 1877-1952 Archive Series:	M1192 Archive Roll:	54 
===Discussion===
I've moved this new material here for discussion. There are several issues. One is the length and quantity of detail, which is very unusual. Another concern is the extensive use of primary sources. Maybe we could pick out one or two of them main details. Maybe something like, "Tancredo's paternal grandfather emigrated from Italy to Denver in 1903 and was naturalized in 1940". Thoughts?     Will Beback  talk   04:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any of this as improving the article. It is already noted and referenced in Early life that his grandparents immigrated from Italy. Unless his ancestors are also notable, that's as deep as an encyclopedia needs to go. The motivation of these edits my be undermine credibility on immigration issues. Can't go there; WP:UNDUE on his ancestors' immigration status would put us in WP:ORIGINAL territory. --Kvng (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I modified the article and resubmitted, taking suggestions into account.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mem5280 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Which suggestions were you reading? I said it should be a sentence long and had a problem with sources, and Kvng said it should not be included at all. I don't see how your edit addressed those suggestions.   Will Beback  talk   22:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

text: This article is not about Tom Tancredo's paternal grandfather. While a sentence or two on his family background would be interesting, 272 words is overkill. As for the sources, they are all primary records. While primary sources may be used sparingly and with care, this entire contribution is based on them. One of the reasons why secondary sources are preferred is that they can provide a filter to separate irrelevant trivia from worthwhile content. How many secondary sources have written more than a sentence on Tancredo's grandfather? If there are any let's use those. If there aren't then we should follow their lead and be silent. The existing text reads "Both sets of his grandparents emigrated from Italy". How much more do we really need to say?   Will Beback  talk   09:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Family history

message: I've moved this new material here for discussion. There are several issues. One is the length and quantity of detail, which is very unusual. Another concern is the extensive use of primary sources. Maybe we could pick out one or two of them main details. Maybe something like, "Tancredo's paternal grandfather emigrated from Italy to Denver in 1903 and was naturalized in 1940". Thoughts?     Will Beback  talk   04:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any of this as improving the article. It is already noted and referenced in Early life that his grandparents immigrated from Italy. Unless his ancestors are also notable, that's as deep as an encyclopedia needs to go. The motivation of these edits my be undermine credibility on immigration issues. Can't go there; WP:UNDUE on his ancestors' immigration status would put us in WP:ORIGINAL territory. --Kvng (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I modified the article and resubmitted, taking suggestions into account.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mem5280 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Which suggestions were you reading? I said it should be a sentence long and had a problem with sources, and Kvng said it should not be included at all. I don't see how your edit addressed those suggestions.   Will Beback  talk   22:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

text: This article is not about Tom Tancredo's paternal grandfather. While a sentence or two on his family background would be interesting, 272 words is overkill. As for the sources, they are all primary records. While primary sources may be used sparingly and with care, this entire contribution is based on them. One of the reasons why secondary sources are preferred is that they can provide a filter to separate irrelevant trivia from worthwhile content. How many secondary sources have written more than a sentence on Tancredo's grandfather? If there are any let's use those. If there aren't then we should follow their lead and be silent. The existing text reads "Both sets of his grandparents emigrated from Italy". How much more do we really need to say?   Will Beback  talk   09:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I think this interview with him makes it pretty clear that he is one. He even claimed that George W. Bush "doesn't think America should be an actual place" and regurgitated North American Union conspiracy theories as well. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it appropriate to place a living person currently involved in a high profile election, in a conspiracy theory category based on a comment they made four years ago that is a stretch to claim as a conspiracy theory in the first place? Is this something Tancredo discusses often? Is he a strong advocate for these particular views? The answer is no. Your motives on these subjects are unacceptable . Wikipedia editors should not be activists. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That edit was from two years ago. Dredging it up now is a blatant violation of NPA. Also, what does Chuck Baldwin have to do with this discussion anyway? Stonemason89 (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's okay to dredge up (and misinterpret) something from four years ago and place it on the BLP of a candidate in a close election? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that he is a candidate in an election is irrelevant. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's be serious here; it is obvious why the edit was made. Don't act like the election had nothing to do with your edit, just as it did with Chuck Baldwin.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy Theorist

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Tom Tancredo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.conservativesbetrayed.com/gw3/articles-latestnews/articles.php?CMSArticleID=959&CMSCategoryID=19
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/08/tom-tancredo-will-address-constitution-party-meeting/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Tom Tancredo. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFx-VNuLyUA
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/2007/speech_tancredo.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5668719,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tom Tancredo. 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/20070508224251/http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00006103&cycle=2008 to http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00006103&cycle=2008
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) 03:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified