Talk:Gerald Ford/Archive 2

message: I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, but I was reading the article about the late President Ford, and noticed that the newly added section regarding his death had a section titled "Postmorten Arrangements".  I think this should be changed to something less... technical sounding.  Perhaps "Funeral Arrangements" or the like would be more appropriate.  Just a suggestion to make the atricle a little smoother.  Thanx & cheers!
68.111.13.92 23:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change title "Postmortem Arrangements"?

message: change the death date template in the sidebar so that he was not born at age 93 and died at age 0
::Should be fixed now.--BC 06:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: death date

message: Please note that the date given in the first line (Dec. 26) and and at the end of the introduction (Dec. 27) are not consistent.
:fixed. --BC 06:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Death date

message: Gerald Ford has died at age 93.  It is a sad day.  By the way, if Ford lives until 2013, he will be the first former President to turn 100 years old.  Why isn't this mentioned in his article? 125.128.47.99 05:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...And if Ford lived to 2018, he would have been the first to turn 105... and if he lived to 2023, he would have been the first to turn 110.  You could include "what if's" in every living presidental artical if you wanted to I suppose—but you gotta draw the line somewhere. I wouldnt object to the "if he lived to 100" bit, but I'm not sure how appropraite it would have been simply because of how unrealistic it was. 172.163.78.209 06:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, he's dead. Hard to live to 100 when you're dead. --Charlene 06:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, what sense did that original post even make?  How could he live until 2013 when you just said he died?   ReddShadoe 21:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death and Date of Upcoming 100th Birthday 

message: I have updated the date of his death. Originally it was posted as Dec 26, 2006, but indeed the correct date is Dec 27, 2006. The following article is listed as "2 minutes ago". Local time is 12:46 AM EST. The article states that the location of his death has not been disclosed. Is it safe to assume, however, that since Washington, DC is in the Eastern Time Zone and until further information is revealed as to the location of his death, then his death was indeed on Dec 27 and not 26. For more information as the proper date of his death check here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061227/ap_on_re_us/obit_ford Bstone 05:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, I am seeing the location of his death as "Rancho Mirage, California" however the AP news article clearly states that the location of his death, at present, is unknown. Is there any verification available? Bstone 05:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first announcements were at 11:49 PM EST on the 26th, so he definitely died on the 26th. The article you're looking at that says "2 minutes ago" refers to the time that specific story ran, not to his death. Per the AP his place of death has not yet been confirmed. --Charlene 05:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it very poor form to base a time of death on the last-updated time of a news article on a website. If the article is revised next Thursday, for example, his date of death should not be revised to next Thursday. Indeed, the statement from Betty Ford was issued at 11:49 PM EST and while not yet confirmed, he was known to the in the United States at the time of his death which places the time NO LATER THAN 11:49 PM. Of course, one can easily assume that since the Betty Ford statement was released from Rancho Mirage, California, that the time of death would be 8:49 PM PST or earlier. So while we need to await the official confirmation of place and exact time, the December 26th date needs to remain. CBessert 06:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I think the confusion came because Yahoo, Reuters, AP, etc. often say at the top of their articles something like "2 minutes earlier", which might lead people to believe that the event occurred two minutes ago, not the filing of the story. Betty said outright that her husband died on the 26th (as stated in the AP obituary), so that date should be kept - it's reliably sourced. --Charlene 06:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think you all got me there. I agree that until further information is revealed, the date of death should be Dec 26, not 27. However, it is surely not poor form to base someone's death date on published news articles by reputable news agencies. HOWEVER (I know, I already used this word), the article which I cited above clearly states, "The statement did not say where or when Ford died or list a cause of death." This may lead one to come to the conclusion that he died two weeks ago. Perhaps until more information is revealed, we put a ? at his death date? Bstone 06:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you've completely missed the point. We ARE basing the date of someone's death on reports from reputable news agencies. (Indeed, from the link you posted above, it clearly states, "Gerald R. Ford [...] has died, his wife, Betty, said Tuesday. He was 93." Note the word TUESDAY. Further it states, "...Mrs. Ford said in a brief statement issued from her husband's office in Rancho Mirage." So, Betty released a statement on TUESDAY from Rancho Mirage, California, according to this reputable news agency.) We were decrying the use of the last-updated time on the article as the basis of the date of death. That article will likely be updated a few times during the day today, so his time of death would need to keep moving if we based it on the time the article about the death was written. CBessert 06:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  CBessert, you are completely missing my point. While the article which was cited was published Tueday, December 26, 2006 the article itself says that there was no date of death given or where the late President died. As a result, it is completely impossible, with the given information, to have _complete certainty_ when President Ford actually died (and where). It is entirely tenable that, with the current lack of information, the late President died weeks ago and only now is this information being released to the public. Afterall, the very same article cites how the family was intensely private and often denied interviews to reporters. While unlikely, we must not rule this out. Thus, in the absence of more concrete evidence as to when the late President actually died (and where) it might be prudent for the editors of this wiki to add a "?" to the death date. Bstone 06:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I do understand your point, using you logic, we don't even know if he died in December based on that AP obituary. However, I am sitting in Grand Rapids, Michigan right now and all local news media are stating he died on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 and are NOT qualifying it in the manner that the AP is, stating that Betty Ford released the statement late Tuesday. Indeed, the website for the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library gives his dates of birth and death as, "July 14, 1913 - December 26, 2006." See http://www.ford.utexas.edu/ for confirmation. I hope this helps. 06:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  National television media (MSNBC, CNN, etc.) as well as local news media here in Grand Rapids, Michigan (e.g. WOOD-TV 8) have clearly stated that Ford died at 6:45 PM PST at his home in Rancho Mirage, California. I have yet to find an online citation for this, however, but it has been stated as "coming across on the wires" on local and national news media. I'll let someone else hunt down this tidbit online, though... CBessert 07:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's wait until we have an online version to link to until the time is stated in the article. I am still not convinced that Dec 26 is his death date, but I am willing to accept it for now. Bstone 07:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One may wonder if you're calling Betty Ford a liar, then? But it's moot as the AP is now stating what I said above: "He died at 6:45 p.m. Tuesday at his home in Rancho Mirage, about 130 miles east of Los Angeles, his office said in a statement." See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061227/ap_on_re_us/obit_ford (again) for confirmation. Good enough? CBessert 07:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That he died is not as issue. In Betty Ford's statement she did not say where or when he died, however, only that he did. In no way did I insinuate that she lied or is lying. Rather, I was being _entirely true_ to exactly what she say- that Pres Ford had died, but not staying where, when or how. Agreed, moot now.Bstone 07:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone knows he was eaten by wolves. After overdosing on crack cocaine. These are facts, people, they aren't up for debate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.41.137.144 (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Day of Death & where? 

message: I am seeing the article in the "Death" section stating a cause of death as "Gerald Ford died at the age of 93 on December 26, 2006 of a severely impacted bowel obstruction at his home in California." To the best of my knowledge there has been no revealed information as to the cause of death. As well, this claim is unsourced. As such I shall remove it until sourced information arrives. Bstone 06:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as I was going to make these changes, someone beat me to it. Wow. I have, however, removed the time and location which was relayed as his death as the cited article contained no time nor location as to his death. Indeed, the cited article stated no location was known. Bstone 06:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he died of natural causes.  I mean, what do you expect at 93?  He outlived James Brown.  Fighting for Justice 07:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  See my notes above regarding the 6:45 PM PST time of death at Rancho Mirage, California... CBessert 07:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The above citation from the AP states: "He died at 6:45 p.m. Tuesday at his home in Rancho Mirage, about 130 miles east of Los Angeles, his office said in a statement. No cause of death was released. Funeral arrangements were to be announced Wednesday." I agree with Bstone that no cause of death should be included in the article until one is released. CBessert 07:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK I am sold. Bstone 07:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of death? 

message: Any comments from Carter, Bush the Elder or Clinton yet? PMA 07:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added Bill & Hillary Clinton's joint statement Xcvzxcvzxcvxcvzxcv 15:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ex-Pres's 

message: Since the section consists mostly of commentary from others about his death, I believe the section is a stub, so I made it so. — Äþelwulf <Small>See my contributions.</Small> 07:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I made [[Gerald Ford#Death|Death]] a section stub. 

message: Do we really need to cite his death date - we don't do it elsewhere on the 'pedia. PMA 07:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death cite 

message: Should a new article be started for Gerald Ford's death and funeral date today?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_and_state_funeral_of_Ronald_Reagan Reagan had one, but Wikipedia was not around back then, so should one be done before the funeral or after?
ChaseS08 08:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose that the wikipedia community write a one act play about the Death and state funeral of Gerald Ford 24.60.163.16 09:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia wasn't around in 2004? GoodDay 22:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death and state funeral of Gerald Ford 

message: Before the page was locked I edited it to say:
In his later years new documents emerged that suggested that Ford had played a vital role in the cover-up of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The original first draft of the Warren Commission Report stated that a bullet had entered Kennedy's "back at a point slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine." Ford realized that this provided a serious problem for the single bullet theory. As Michael L. Kurtz has pointed out (The JFK Assassination Debates, 2006, page 85): "If a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window of the Depository building nearly sixty feet higher than the limousine entered the president's back, with the president sitting in an upright position, it could hardly have exited from his throat at a point just above the Adam's apple, then abruptly change course and drive downward into Governor Connally's back."
In 1997 the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) released a document that revealed that Ford had altered the first draft of the report to read: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine." Ford had elevated the location of the wound from its true location in the back to the neck to support the single bullet theory."
I also added a link to my page on Ford that explains how Gerald Ford provided J. Edgar Hoover with information about the activities of staff members of the commission. Hoover ordered that Norman Redlich's past should be investigated.
 
Ford was also being blackmailed by both Hoover and Johnson (see for example page 209 of Bobby Baker's Wheeling and Dealing: Confessions of a Capitol Hill Operator, 1978)
I also included details of how he established the Rockefeller Commission in an attempt to cover-up the illegal activities of the CIA.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAfordG.htm
I recorded this editing at two forums:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5692
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8861
These were almost immediately removed from the page. How can this be justified? Is Wikipedia only interested in promoting a positive image of past presidents. If so, it will cease to be a reliable source of information in other countries already concerned by Wikipedia's attempts to control the way the world sees past events. (John Simkin)
:Added to the page. At least the first part. Dr Debug (Talk) 15:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell it to the people who keep trying to (and did on one occasion) add Tubgirl to the page. --Charlene 09:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: One way around the lock issue it to register and become a wikipedia editor with some history behind you. Perhaps not ideal but it is a method in getting around the lock issue. Bstone 12:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: To say that there was a cover-up in the Warren Commission in this aspect is too harsh. Despite the criticism levelled against it in all aspects the contention that Oswald acted alone is still sound. Although Ford may have altered the text to support the single bullet theory, new studies have shown that even if the text was not altered the theory is not only plausible, but stands very well.  16:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlock the page! 

message: This sentence needs to be rewritten: "As Chase commented, 'He even mentioned in his own autobiography it had an effect over a period of time that affected the election to some degree.'"  We don't care what Chase said Ford said, if we can go directly to what Ford said in his autobiography and quote that instead—does anyone have it?  Postdlf 15:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chevy Chase]] caused his defeat in 1976--[[hearsay]]! 

message: Did Ford ever offer an explanation of why he said this in the '76 presidential debate, or what he meant to say?  It's difficult to fathom that he could have been that ignorant of Cold War foreign affairs.  Postdlf 15:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was that ignorant. Tonganoxie Jim 24.60.163.16 10:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe" 

message: At what time did the announcement of Ford's death make the news services such as the Associated Press?  Did the news make many of the newspapers in the eastern United States?  DasKapital 15:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't on the morning's print edition of the New York Times.  Postdlf 15:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When Was News Released? 

message: Lovely.  I can't find it to take it out of the article, hopefully someone else can.  As much as I hate to admit it, it IS pretty funny.  VelvetKevorkian 17:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been removed Brian25 17:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And it was not funny. Carpet9 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Highly agreed. --Don Sowell 17:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean "funny" in the "disrespectful to President Ford" sense.  I hope nobody misunderstood me as far as that goes.  If that were the case, I wouldn't have requested for it be removed.  I only thought it was funny that everyone who came here today was most unexpectedly treated to that lovely image.  VelvetKevorkian 18:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scat picture. 

message: I'm taking this out. I was able to find only ONE article out of 2,895 on Google News stating this as the cause of death, and it's not the one cited in the article for that fact, and it was added by a user who has about 10 edits. Fishy, fishy. ~~ N (t/c) 17:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think the news article got its information from that vandal's edit. Ooooops. This is why I think this article needs to be protected. (the offending diff) ~~ N (t/c) 17:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He died of heart failureBrian23 13:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Impacted bowel obstruction" 

message: I placed a temporary vandal protection on the article due to the recent rash of vandalism done to the article. Brian25 17:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your concern, but only administrators have the ability to protect pages. --Fsotrain09 17:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now semi-protected it. ~~ N (t/c) 17:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the move. What is "I'm joking kiddies, I'm alive!" but vandalism? The protection must be continued as long as long as the article is on main page.--Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 17:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, only trying to help! Thanks for improving the protection. Brian25 17:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal protected 

message: I have a question about hyphen usage in this article.  It's very inconsistent.  In the lead paragraph alone there are both "Vice President" and "vice-presidency."  The Vice President of the United States article seems to consistently use the space, no hyphen.  The general article on Vice president seems to use the space with a lot more frequently than with the hyphen.  So what should it be?  It seems the space seems to be the more common way to use it based on those other articles.  So should this article gain the same consistency?  Metros232 18:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A further look at  shows that both are valid. We should follow what is on the Vice President of the United States article IMHO Brian25 18:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyphen 

message: A look at link #74 in the article does not have President Ford's name on it for 2016. In fact, his coin has not been scheduled. Are we to safely assume that it will be in 2016? I believe this statement should be removed from the Funeral section and the link #74 removed until we know for sure. Brian25 18:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidential Coin? 

message: Removed unsourced and unencyclopedic trivia section...these items can be sourced and put into the article. Trivia sections are for underdeveloped articles not for ex-presidents Jasper23 19:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean, trivia sections are not for well-developed articles on ex-presidents. That said, I agree with the removal of the miscellania below. Cheers --Vranak 01:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon-users have been vandalizing this page (more so, since Ford's death). There's no way to divide the semi-block, preventing only guilty users from editing. Suggest you become a registered user, then in future a semi-block won't effect you. GoodDay 22:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what is wrong with a trivia section?  I did not know most of these things until I read them. Fuzzywolfenburger 00:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all it is all unsourced. Second, trivia sections are for underdeveloped articles and should eventually be removed.  These trivia items should be sourced and then placed in the article. Look up the wikipedia policy. Cheers. Jasper23 04:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section removal 

message: President Ford vetoed 66 bills during his short two and a half years in the presidency.  By contrast, President George W. Bush has yet to veto any legislation in nearly 6 years in office.  
Included amongst President Ford's 66 vetoes, was the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA").  President Ford vetoed the FOIA bill despite a great public desire for access to government information in the aftermath of Watergate.  On October 17, 1974, President Ford vetoed H.R. 12471, the bill that would significantly strengthen the Freedom Of Information Act, calling it “unconstitutional and unworkable.”  However, on November 20, the HOuse, and, on November 21, the Senate overrode President Ford’s veto.  The amended FOIA, enacted over Ford's veto, now provides for judicial review of agency decisions, narrows some exemptions, restricts fees agencies can charge, and provided for a new statutory time limit for agencies to comply with a request. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.123.89.26 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: President GWB has vetoed one bill... I'll leave it up to you to investigate further... Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 02:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ford is also tied for second place in the "most-vetoes-overturned" category.  I'm certainly open to a section on Ford's most noteworthy vetoes, as with any President.  Anything more notable than the FOIA veto, or of comparative notability? Italiavivi 16:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no discussion of Ford's Vetoes... 

message: Typically, one drops "Jr" when one's father "Sr" dies. Did Ford do this? Was he sworn in as Gerald Rudolph Ford Jr?Mowens35 22:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I just checked via the New York Times and elsewhere, including the Ford library/museum. He dropped the Jr well before becoming president, apparently because his stepfather, GRFord Sr, had died.Mowens35 22:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NAME Question 

message: I think it should be called "Gerald R. Ford." When sworn in, he used this name. This is a formal title. We should use this formal name. It would avoid confusion with the other Gerald Ford. If we wanted an informal title, we would call this piece "Gerry Ford." --johno95 01:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk to an admin and request a title change, if you like. If the change is made, when someone types in "Gerald Ford", it can be relocated to "Gerald R. Ford". Honestly though, the title is probably fine the way it is, since this Gerald Ford is without doubt the most well known. There isn't much confusion when someone says his name, and I can't imagine him being confused with someone else except on rare occasions. But, like I said, you can request a change and see what an admin says about this matter. Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 02:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: name of this piece

message: I've added some interesting links within a majority of the photograph captions. You'd be suprised what you can find when researching on Wiki (or maybe not). Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 04:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links in the photo captions 

message: I made the following edit: , adding in the fact that he disagreed With Bush about invading Iraq. I think my edit was neutral. In any case, we'll need to guard against recentism by people who may want to include unnecessary details about the interview, etc. as this story unfolds. Gzkn 10:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Woodward Interview 

message: 1. “Gerald Ford never visited Canada during the short time he was U.S. president” vs. “Ford visited Canada often.” Did he visit often after the short time he was U.S. president? Or do these two statements conflict?
2. “Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau had an ally in Ford, who supported Canada’s inclusion in the G8 in the mid-1970s. He [Who? Ford? D’Estaing?] invited the heads of a group called the G5 for talks, then added non-member Italy. But he [Who? Ford? Trudeau? D’Estaing? Who is the “he” in this sentence?] was adamant that Canada be excluded.
“Then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau fought back [Against whom? Ford? D’Estaing?], and had some support from the leaders in Britain and Germany. ‘But Canada’s key friend was President Gerald Ford of the United States,’ Axworthy’s article said. Ford was ‘irate’ about Canada’s exclusion, and even considered refusing to attend. However, the president had a better plan. Just as France had invited Italy in 1975, he invited Canada to the 1976 summit in Puerto Rico.” This suggests it was d’Estaing who is the “he” in “He invited the heads of a group called the G5 for talks, then added non-member Italy. But he was adamant that Canada be excluded.” Yes? Felicity4711 11:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification/Re-Wording Needed in &lsquo;Canada and the G7&rsquo; 

message: This seperate article on Gerald Ford's death should be merged back into the main Gerald Ford article after the funeral and ceremonies are completed, and the news cycle on his death has concluded. But not until then. Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 13:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge this article back when... 

message: I changed it from "Number One Observatory Circle" to:
United States Naval Observatory in Washington]], D.C. 
The address means nothing to me.  Those who live in the DC area say that his home is located at the above.  The address is not generally used. --johno95 13:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vice President's residence

message: I am deleting the following. It is carrying statistics to an absurdity, and detracts from important stats:
Gerald and Betty Ford hold the record as the longest-lived First Couple at ages 93 and 88, respectively. The previous record (calculated using the combined ages of the two spouses) was held by Ronald and Nancy Reagan at ages 93 and 82, respectively, at the time of President Reagan's death on June 5, 2004, at which time Gerald and Betty Ford had already tied their record at ages 90 and 86 respectively. Prior to 2003, Harry and Bess Truman had held the record for more than 30 years — at the time of President Truman's death in 1972, they were aged 88 and 87, respectively. -- johno95 14:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it absurd? Other than you simply stating that it is absurd, you don't support your claim that it is absurd. Frankly, it is important to note the ages of the couples for the sake of clarity and user knowledge. Come up with some reasons why it is not important before removing.198.151.12.8 17:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Longevity: longest-lived first couple

message: I am deleting this. it might go in the trivia section, but that was deleted. -- johno95 14:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Longevity: Warren Commission

message: perhaps someone could take the remaining two items, combine them, and stick them elsewhere. the are very similar, and are mentioned in part in the first paragraph! -- johno95 14:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So? You have never heard of an introduction and discussion paragraph have you? They need to stay where they are.. regardless of whether it is mentioned in the introduction and longevity section.198.151.12.8 17:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: remaining Longevity section

message: I have shortened the first paragraph and mentioned Nixon. I think how he became president, and not by what amendment, is important. -- johno95 14:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted your changes. Remember, this article was given featured status, and your extreme changes of the introduction are not warranted. Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 15:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You can't rewrite history! 198.151.12.8 16:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change of intro section

message: Some words are capitalized, and they should not be.  I will correct this. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style -- johno95 15:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: words Capitalized

message: President Ford was not a Roman Catholic, and I don't think his minister son is either. My understanding "last rites" is a Roman Catholic tradition, and I've never heard of a Protestant receiving them.Dr. Dale 17:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this sentence sounded fishy to me when I read it. Why don't you research the matter and see what you come up with, then change the section accordingly. Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 17:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Gerald Ford was Episcopalian? Brian23 17:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: see this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anointing_of_the_Sick
last rites is such a general term, not confined to Catholics.  but i don't know about Ford -- johno95 17:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an expert on religion, but it looks like Episcopalians also get last rites.. in some form or fashion. It is unknown whether he actually received them, however.Brian23 17:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We need confirmation he provided last rites, not speculation. Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 17:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree we need truth not speculation, but the paragraph itself is not well referenced. I'm adding a citation needed tag. None of the references in that paragraph talk about "last rites".Brian23 18:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That works. Good call. Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 18:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "last rites"? 

message: The article implies that a corrupt bargain DID exist, but the explanation makes no sense..Ford was presented with these options according to the article:
"(1) Nixon could pardon himself and resign, (2) Nixon could pardon his aides involved in Watergate and then resign, or (3) Nixon could agree to leave in return for an agreement that the new president would pardon him."
So, in all three options, Ford still becomes President, so why would he agree to anything? It implies something corrupt happened, but the explanation doesn't add up..
:I agree.. The reference is for an Editorial/Op-Ed piece so it could be non-factual (Non-internet link). I read it yesterday and thought it sounded a little odd. Someone needs to research this. Brian23 17:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nixon pardon 

message: Gerald Ford was the first modern President to do paid speeches and corporate boards after his time in office and cash in on the presidency in that way. Nixon didn't do it, LBJ didn't, JFK died, Truman didn't do it. 
Should this be noted in the article? Commercializing the office?
:I'm not sure this factoid is encyclopedic. Bill Clinton plays a lot of Golf. Do we include that too? Brian23 18:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, getting paid to talk isn't a needed addition, unless of course a "did you know" section is created. But I doubt it... not very encyclopedic indeed.Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 18:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paid Speeches 

message: Here's the line:
"The Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone in killing the President remains controversial."
I think it's important to say that Ford was on this commission.  But isn't this line editorializing, or being overexpansive?  I think it's ok to go into the controversy surrounding Nixon, because it affected Ford.  But what do you people think about deleting this line?  Or changing it.  But I don't see how you change it. -- johno95 19:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it should remain. Ford altered the first draft of the report to support his Single-Bullet theory. His affect on the report and the conclusion regarding Lee Harvey Oswald should be stated. Although, I believe it should be stated differently and not next to the same sentence. I'm not sure how to move the sentence around or re-word.Brian23 19:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: delete Warren Commission line

message: Attention all: please monitor this user's edits. He does not conform to Wikipedia guidelines, has been reverted numerous times, and I'm looking into having an admin intervine. Thanks. Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 20:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think this has pretty much resolved itself. ~~ Meeples (talk)(email) 04:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Johno95|Johno95]] 

message: the frontpage of godhatesmaerica.com says fred phelps wants to picket ford's funeral. should we add that he plans to p[icket it or wait until he actually does to add information?--68.92.112.162 20:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ford was probably subject to a lot of protests in his time, as any other president. I don't see the need to advertise anymore for the nut-case Fred Phelps. Brian23 20:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares about Fred Phelps. If it's something that makes news headlines, then it's worth a mention in the article. Nishkid64 20:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: fred phelps

message: The Washington Post has a story that talks about Nixon and Ford's very close and personal relationship. Does anyone feel this merits inclusion in the article? --MZMcBride 05:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article expresses some of the views that Ford held, delivered firsthand to the reporter of the above article, Bob Woodward. The fact that Ford and Nixon were such personal friends, to the extent that Ford described himself as Nixon only true friend, and the fact that the public wasn't made aware of this seems extremely relevant. For the past thirty years, Ford has repeatedly stated that the pardon was for the sole purpose of moving the country forward and past Watergate, however, it is now coming to light that their friendship was a factor (however little or big) in Ford's decision. I haven't the slightest clue how including information about Ford's views and his close relationship to Nixon would be pushing a point of view. --MZMcBride 21:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Washington Post'' story 

message: The last sentence in the intro text currently reads "Ford came under intense criticism for granting a preemptive pardon to President Richard Nixon for his role in the Watergate scandal, and was subsequently defeated by Democrat Jimmy Carter in the 1976 presidential election."
I think this is badly worded for two reasons: (1) By fitting two ideas together in the same sentence, it implies the pardon has a lot to do with Ford's defeat. While this is possibly true, Wikipedia should not speculate something like this. (2) "Came under intense criticism" only concentrate on the negatives. "Controversial" is a more appropriate description for Ford's decision.
Earlier I changed it to read "<beginning of paragraph> In a controversial decision, Ford granted a pardon to President Richard Nixon for his role in the Watergate scandal. ... <rest of text>> ...Ford was narrowly defeated by Jimmy Carter in the 1976 presidential election. <end>" But someone changed it back for some reason. If no one objects, I'd like it changed back. KeL 05:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'll start off by saying that I have not participated in the changes made thus far.  I would say that anyone who lived (or studied) the period would agree that there was a great deal of scrutiny placed on Ford's decision to pardon Nixon.  There were lots of theories (pardon-for-resignation deals and the like) that are irrelevant to this article, however the scrutiny is.  I also believe that we can probably find several acceptable secondary sources to cite that link Ford's defeat to his decision to pardon Nixon.  I believe that, when properly sourced, the change is appropriate.  /Blaxthos 07:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the TV news reports this past week mentioned Ford's pardon of Nixon as a factor in his 1976 defeat. Wahkeenah 08:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not my point. It may very well be true, but this sentence is stringing together two unrelated ideas, in the introduction. I agree it's probably true, and I agree it should be analysed later in the article. But no one can ever say for sure what exactly led to Ford's loss, therefore it is not a fact. Only the facts belong in the intro. That sentence needs to be broken up so that the facts remain, but not the implication. These are two separate ideas. KeL 09:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Kel. However, many historians agree that he lost his 1976 election due to the Nixon pardon. This is also in the article. It can be reworded to: "Ford came under intense criticism for granting a preemptive pardon to President Richard Nixon for his role in the Watergate scandal. Many historians agree that Ford's 1976 defeat was due, in part, to the pardoning of Former President Richard Nixon." I believe that fits the NPOV.Brian23 13:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I also believe that Brian23's suggestion fits NPOV.  I would also point out that the pardon is probably the most significant event of Ford's presidency, and absolutely worthy of mention in the intro.  Furthermore, as evidenced by our unanimous agreement, the effect the pardon had on his 1976 campaign is likewise significant enough to mention.  When a "subjective fact" is almost universally accepted as true I don't believe it is necessary to bury it deep within the article itself -- the only issue is proper sourcing (for which I believe we can find plenty).  If there were even a significant minority of sources that claim the pardon had nothing to do with his defeat, then maybe it would be more debatable, but in this case I doubt we'll find one that disputes the causal relationship between the defeat and the pardon.  /Blaxthos 14:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This article reached FA status. The previous editors and peer reviewers did not see a need for that and I do not either. It should stay the same. We should not fragment the life of Former President Ford.Brian23 15:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Overlong or not, it is a full accounting of Ford's life. (Has anybody seen the present Pope's weighty article? Ford's looks like a synopsis in comparison.) I agree that the article should stay its length. An encyclopaedia article should be not condemned for being long and detailed. That's the point: detail. (Mowens35, can't sign on, dammit, thanks to satellite)66.82.9.63 19:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro sentence

message: I have deleted this passage from the article:
:According to Jim Marrs, investigator and researcher of the Kennedy assassination, and author of Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy (1989), at pp. 466-67, Ford was the FBI’s “spy” on the Warren Commission. Marrs based this conclusion, in part, on a memo from Cartha DeLoach, a close aide to FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, in which DeLoach reported on "a long talk" with Ford on Dec. 12, 1963.
:Former New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, the only prosecutor to bring criminal charges related to the Kennedy assassination and the subject of director Oliver Stone’s movie, JFK, believed that Ford had the reputation as being "the CIA’s best friend in the House of Representatives.” According to Marrs: “Ford’s name as a member of the Warren Commission was recommended to President Johnson by Richard Nixon. . . . Ford became the Commission’s most industrious member, hearing seventy out of the ninety-four witnesses who actually met with commissioners. He also profited from his time on the Commission. Ford had his first campaign manager and former Nixon for President campaign field director John R. Stiles hired as his special assistant. Ford and Stiles went on to write 'Portait of the Assassin,' a book that presented selective evidence of Oswald’s guilt."
The previous passage on the debate on the Warren Commission's work and conclusions would be enough as far as this article is concerned. Personally speaking, I would not vouch for Marrs' or Garrison's credibility. While Marrs' Crossfire is a good book on the Kennedy Assassination, it is marred (no pun intended) by the fact that Marrs "seems never to have met a crackpot witness he didn't believe nor run across a conspiracy factoid he didn't accept" . As for Garrison, even most conspiracy-oriented researchers consider him a crackpot who set back the field of JFK research by years. In short, the two citations given here should be taken with great deal of scepticism. 
By the way, the film by Oliver Stone is based primarily from Crossfire and Garrison's On the Trail of the Assassins. While it is a great piece of film-making, it is reviled by most researchers by its inaccuracies — not helped by the fact that the person accused by Garrison and tried for conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy, Clay Shaw, was acquitted in less than hour due to lack of evidence.  19:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted passage 

message: In the second paragraph in the "Law" section, there is a bit about how he worked as a model, in parentheses. The parentheses were not closed, and I fixed that, but I can't shake the feeling that this doesn't belong in parentheses. It doesn't really have to do with "Law" either, although chronologically this is where it fits in his life. Any opinions on parentheses? The style guide doesn't have anything to say about that subject. Xzqx 21:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I removed it. Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 21:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Law" section/parentheses 

message: I had seen in the Marriage section of the article a mention that Ford had struggled with bisexual tendencies, but by the time I signed myself in, it had already been fixed.  Keep up the good work!--Shuttlebug 23:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bisexual??? 

message: I've moved all the posts over the last three days to the second archive. As far as I could tell, there were no open discussions. Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 05:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I want to revive my discussion about the parentheses/model/law section. I wasn't saying the bit about him being a model should be completely removed -- I think it's very interesting. I just wasn't sure where it belonged. If you can think of a good place for it, please put it back in! Xzqx 15:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you read policy on discussions, it's perfectly fine to revive converstations, which you have just by bringing it up. But, no one other than myself contributed to your post, which was made a few days before I archived the section. In my mind, the discussion was done. I agreed with you a changed should be made, I made it, and no one disagreed. The edit was minor anyway. Him being a model doesn't belong in the law section (or anywhere else probably). Pretty cut and dry. Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 04:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Woodward has published new info on the pardon which reveals a much deeper friendship between Nixon and Ford than was previously understood, and additional motive for the pardon.  In particular, things like the quote 
:"Anytime you want me to do anything, under any circumstances, you give me a call, Mr. President," he told Nixon during that May 1, 1973, conversation. "We'll stand by you morning, noon and night."
:"I looked upon him as my personal friend. And I always treasured our relationship. And I had no hesitancy about granting the pardon, because I felt that we had this relationship and that I didn't want to see my real friend have the stigma," Ford said in the interview.
This merits inclusion in the article.--FNV 01:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to hear more concensus on this, but I'm okay with it. Just make sure you properly site your info and add a reference. Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 04:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that it merits inclusion. Krinsky 05:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woodward on the Nixon Pardon 

message: I removed your photo because of its extremely poor quality. If you have a better shot, try adding it on Ford's death and funeral article for now. Thanks. Veracious Rey  talk ↔ contribs 06:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burial photo 

message: I am reviewing the capitalization of "president" and "vice president" at an editors suggestion, as I made many cap changes the other day. I may make some changes, per the wiki style manual, which I initially consulted. -- johno95 17:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Review of caps

message: Gerald Ford was a national park ranger in the summer of 1936 at Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Ford later recalled that time as, "One of the greatest summers of my life."
Source: http://home.nps.gov/applications/release/Detail.cfm?ID=717
Ford was the only US President to serve as a national park ranger. I think this should be included in the article.
ParkRangerX 23:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be included in the article, but I am not sure where.  Since he was 23 at the time, I don't think it belongs in "Early life/Childhood".  Based on the timeline in the article, it must have been after his bachelor's degree (1935) and before he started law school (graduated in 1941, normally a 3 year course).  --rogerd 23:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ford: National Park Ranger