Talk:Fred Thompson/Archive 5

message: User:Threeafterthree deleted the sentence noting that if elected Thompson would be the third Campbellite president in USA history, commenting "rm per wp:not#ball".  I think he means this, but if that's his objection I don't think it's appropriate.  (Bear in mind that as written the policy is about what articles should exist on WP, not about what facts should be mentioned within articles.  The principle must be adapted if it's to apply at all to this discussion.)
That his religious group has already provided two presidents, and he would make the third, is a verifiable fact, not speculation.  The only speculation is whether he will be elected, and by its nature the article already has a lot of that; he's a leading candidate, after all.
As for notability, which hasn't been raised yet but I'm sure will be, I think it is notable that a small and rather obscure religious group might provide three presidents.  I think it's also notable that Mitt Romney, if elected, would be the first Mormon president, and that if Giuliani, Richardson, Brownback, Dodd, Biden or Kucinich were elected they'd be only the second Roman Catholic president ever; I think it's remarkable that RC is (I think) the biggest religion in the USA, and dozens of RCs have been serious candidates over the past century, and yet only one has been elected so far.  I think this belongs on all of their articles, though only as a short sentence, not as a whole section or article.
PS: It's even more remarkable that the Campbellites could have already provided three presidents, and now have stood a chance of a fourth, if they'd managed to hold on to Ronald Reagan.  But that's a really obscure footnote-to-a-footnote, and doesn't really belong on WP.  It's more of a Trivial Pursuit question.  (Anyone up for proposing WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not Trivial Pursuit? :-) )
Zsero 20:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with Zsero.  This article has lots of info about what Thompson would do if he becomes president, and that is not speculation either.  The Crystal Ball guideline says: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis."  The material deleted here is not crystal ball stuff.Ferrylodge 20:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why it's notable. I having difficulty phrasing my objection exactly, so bear with me. Most of the presidents have been from the mainstream Protestant Christianity. Catholics and Mormons are notable as candidates because they are outside of this mainstream. (Yes, I know you mentioned that Catholicism if the largest single group, but IIRC, the sum of all the Protestant groups is much larger.) Campellites would only be notable if their beliefs were also "out of the mainstream." - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 20:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one objects, I'm going to reinsert the material into the footnotes, instead of into the text.Ferrylodge 20:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had thought of that, and my first instinct when I saw Threeafterthree's edit was to do so; but then the bit about LBJ looked funny - it really belongs either in parens, which you object to, or in a footnote to the footnote! Zsero 21:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The church of Christ is not a Protestant religion. This is why many are pointing out its difference. The Protestant churches come out of the movements led primarily by Luther and Calvin, and then the domino affect thereafter. The churches of Christ hold that they are the only church (one continual church since the day of Pentecost--although there was a period of Restoration) and that salvation is only possible through one means. This is very different than most other religions. Yes, there are others, and that is where the distinction for religions such as the church of Christ, the Mormon church, Catholics, etc., comes in. Unlike most Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, and other faiths that believe for the most part that more than more religion can be saved. As for the term "Campbellite," it is not appropriate. Campbell was involved in the Restoration, but he was not alone. Members of the church of Christ, the Christian church, and the disciples of Christ, do not use the term. It would be similar to using the old terms Papist or Romanist to refer to a Catholic.Todd Gallagher 05:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm ... Baptists and Lutherans do not believe that anyone can be saved apart from saving faith in Christ.  We don't believe you have to be in a particular denomination, if that's what you mean.  Are you saying that the Church of Christ teaches that you have to be in their denomination to be saved or that you have to be a Christian to be saved?  Nearly all Christian denominations believe the latter ... only a few believe the former.  In any event, I don't think this has anything to do with Fred Thompson. --B 05:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly what I am saying. However, the churches of Christ refuse to be labeled a denomination as well. A denomination is a division, and the Bible explicitly forbids division in the church. Therefore, any denomination would be a sin. As for your statement, "Nearly all Christian denominations believe the latter ... only a few believe the former," that is true. That is exactly why I listed several faiths such as the church of Christ, Catholic church, and Mormon church. There are others, but as you noted, most religion believe in faith only and that you do not have to be a member of a specific church to be saved. However, certain religions believe that faith alone does not save; rather, faith through works as written in James, and thus a person must obey the word of God to be saved. A key teaching of the church of Christ, as taken from the New Testament, is that faith is demonstrated through obedience to the word of God. As is used as an example in the Bible, even the devils believe in God, but are they saved? The church of Christ (as well as certain other religions) uses this as an example of how works (obedience to the word of God) are necessary for salvation, not just faith alone.
As for the application of this to Thompson, it is important because this is his religion. We were discussing the difference between several terms used for his religion and how one key belief of the church of Christ is that there is only one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. Therefore, the generalization that the church of Christ is a part, or denomination, of a larger religion (in this case, the terms were "Campbellite" and "Protestant") would be contrary to basic teaching within the church. Todd Gallagher 06:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi guys, I remove the stuff about "If he becomes President, he would be...." again. You want it in the footnotes? I guess I could I live with that. Again, you could fill a library with fluff about what would happen IF he became Prsident. The guy isn't even a candidate..YET. Why not just stick to facts of TODAY and not include stuff about IF?? Fair enough? Thanks, --Tom 15:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: I've started a new article: Fred Thompson presidential campaign, 2008.Ferrylodge 00:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article on presidential campaign 

message: One of the Thompson images was recently removed, but was subsequently restored.  The comment at removal was, "removed a picture that served only to emphasize how tall he is and show him making a funny face."  Even though it's been restored, here are a few brief comments about this photo.
Many featured articles about people have head-to-toe standing photos, including the featured articles about Barack Obama and Harry Truman.  There's nothing wrong with full-length standing photos.  Here, the image is one of only three Thompson images in the article from 2007, and the only one of those three that includes formal attire. For details about Wikipedia image policy, see here. Although this image is long, it is not wide, and therefore does not overwhelm the article text.Ferrylodge 15:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: The image at the top of the article (the "old picture") is from the 1990s:
I suggest replacing it with this one instead from July of 2007:
However, B indicated that she (?) doesn't think the image immediately above (the "Dallas picture") is encyclopedic, and instead B suggests the following image (i.e. the "Indianapolis picture") instead:
I think we can all agree that the old picture is not very flattering, and looks a bit morose, and in any event ought to be replaced with a newer image from this millennium, if possible.  The articles for other candidates have nice smiling pictures in formal attire, as in Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.  Therefore, I don't see anything at all unencyclopedic about the Dallas picture.  As for the Indianapolis picture, there are several reasons why it should not be preferred to the Dallas picture: (1) it is already used lower in the article, (2) the head is very small in relation to the total size of the picture --- unlike the top pictures of all other candidates, and (3) there is no smile as in the top pictures of all the other candidates.  It is true that Thompson is not looking directly into the camera, in the Dallas picture, but that should not be a requirement.  See the photos of Obama, Dean and Warner here.Ferrylodge 06:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Photo #2 is hideously bad in terms of the blur, angle, background, facial expression.  #1 and #3 aren't spectacular, but they are acceptable. What would be nice is a high quality version of his official senate photo ... but barring that, #1 or #3 would do. Another possibility ... and I don't know how to go about asking for it, but he was the head of the USCC from 2004-2006 ... they have a photo at .  Maybe we could get a higher res version from them?--B 06:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: B, I have already requested the exact photo that you point to, but without success.  I would urge you to please reconsider picture #2.  There is far more detail in #2 than in #3.  #3 is plainly far blurrier.  As for facial expressions, a smile cannot be inappropriate for Thompson, and yet be appropriate for every single one of the other candidates, right?  #1 and #3 don't have smiles.  And regarding the background, look at all of the various backgrounds that have been deemed acceptable for Democratic candidates. I hope you will please take another look at #2.Ferrylodge 07:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a background isn't bad.  On the other hand, having some random guy with the same color jacket as the subject is bad.  As for other candidates, for everyone who is/was in congress or otherwise has an official government photo, we use that photo.  Where no such photo is available, we use what we have.  #2 is the type of thing that we would use only if it is all we have available.  As for the facial expression, I don't know that I would call it a smile.  A smile would be fine ... but this expression looks ... strange. --B 07:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: B, it's a beautiful smile.  The man is glowing.Ferrylodge 07:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, Ferry, sure hope your judgment about POV/NPOV editing overall isn't clouded by your opinion of his smile!  Tvoz |talk 18:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to worry, my judgment is completely unclouded.  Just like Mr. Spock.Ferrylodge 18:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree, there's nothing wrong with the smile.  Of the three, I think the smiling picture is the best; it would be better if Random Guy could be photoshopped out, but it's not as if he could possibly be mistaken for the subject of the picture. -- Zsero 15:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I would vote 1 or A.  Smile aside, the second (B) isn't very flattering.  The Third (C) looks like he is saying "Moooooo", not a good picture at all.  I agree that the first picture is not the best possible picture, but it is the most encyclopedic of the bunch.  IMHO.  Arzel 15:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The top picture in the article is supposed to be formal (with necktie).  So, I guess we'll stick with the status quo for now.Ferrylodge 15:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that, I just wanted to offer some other free (as in speech) alternatives. They might still be useful down the road, however (in a Thompson campaign article, for instance). Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image at Top of Article 

message: Maybe this should be changed to "Iran should be considered a serious threat", since  "taking Iran seriously" could also mean "entering into some serious discussions with Iran" which, judging from the referenced article, isn't what Thompson has in mind. -- 212.63.43.180 16:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Iran should be taken seriously" 

message: Anyone else think that this article contains too many images of Thompson? --ukexpat 12:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed a picture of him portraying "Arthur Branch" on the show "Law & Order."  There's no indication that the photo was released by NBC for promotional use, so its use in this article was questionable.  Now there are 10 photos of Thompson in this article, which seems okay.  For example, the article on Hillary Rodham Clinton has 11 photos of her.Ferrylodge 13:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the :Image:Trailer1.JPG pic should be removed.  There is no need for another fair use image on this article (there already is one: Newsweek cover). It doesn't significantly improve the article, nor is it needed to help explain or specify something that cannot be provided as text. (Perhaps next to Last Best Chance in the filmography section, just note that he played the President. No need for this decorative fair use image.) In fact, I think I've just talked myself into removing it. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that image from Last Best Chance is of poor quality compared to the other images.  I have no objection to removing it.Ferrylodge 14:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And don't get me wrong... I have no problem with an article being overrun with images... as long as they are free. Would that we had such a quandary. But I saw that you had uploaded it, and didn't want to unnecessarily step on your toes. :-) Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Many Images? 

message: Does Thompson belong in this category. Does he promote skepticism? TIA. --Tom 17:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is skeptical that global warming is caused by man. He has said nothing AFAIK about the existence or magnitude of global warming. Sbowers3 18:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that sourcable? Does he "promote" that therory? It seems that is the standard for inclusion in that category? Anyways, --Tom 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See  for a transcript of his radio commentary about "Pluto warming". It is more a commentary than a statement of position. He does not promote any particular theory. (In particular, he does not mention Abdusamatov by name so I have always been "skeptical" about including Abdusamatov's name in the article.) BTW, I did not see a Wiki category named "Global warming skeptic". Did I miss it or does it have a different name? Sbowers3 18:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global warming skeptic 

message: Hey amigo(to Ferrylodge), please knock of the POV editing and stick to the facts.  The facts are what they are and there's no need to protect or sugar coat them.  Unless you've got something positive to add, leave facts alone and keep you POV to yourself. rosspz  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosspz (talk • contribs) 21:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can discuss your POV pushing at the article talk page.Ferrylodge 21:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fred Thompson 

message: I don't mind the subheads that Ferry put back so much as I think we need to pare the prelude/testing the waters/exploratory sections down in this article significantly  and/or move them to what we're saying is the "main article" about the campaign. Now that he's in, presumably there will be more to talk about than how he got to this point, and this main bio should focus on broader strokes, I think, than the level of detail we have on the run-up to the campaign.  Following a lead from other major presidential candidates, this is too much here and not enough in the other article.  Tvoz |talk 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that as we move away from the prelude, that stuff can be pared down more and more.Ferrylodge 20:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 

message: "Fred Dalton Thompson (born August 19, 1942 as Freddie Dalton Thompson[1])"
'As' suggests that he has changed his name. I don't think the evidence is in that he has changed his name. Maybe someone can find something to suggest otherwise.
--RobbieFal 19:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean?  That his legal name is still Freddie? -- Zsero 20:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His legal name might be Freddie, but i'm not sure. --RobbieFal 21:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Read the source - we can't know what legal steps he did or didn't take, and it doesn't matter - what matters is that he was born Freddie and in 1967 started calling himself Fred.  We say that in the early life sec (I think that's where it is) and we have the LA Times areticle and the blog post about the article as sources (the blog has some info the article didn't mention), so I think we're ok. If someone finds other source material, great. Tvoz |talk 05:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you post the source that shows what his birth name was? TIA --Tom 04:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The LA Times article clearly says that his name was Freddie at birth and marriage.  The blog has an image of the marriage certificate; that seems a RS in this case, unless you think it likely that it's a forgery.  -- Zsero 04:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The LA Times article that discusses his birthname is: .  This piece makes the point about changing his name in 1967: . And I just found another one from a tennessee paper that I'm formatting and will add: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/sep/07/fred-freddie-8212-hes-still-fd-thompson/. Tvoz |talk 05:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freddie Dalton Thompson 

message: Should his views on global warming, an obviously important issue of the day, be presented?
See this website: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/7/12747/26118
His comments thus far are quite noteworthy, and without doubt he will be questioned on then as the campaign progresses.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.254.144 (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His position on global warming is already summarized in the section on his political positions, and further detail is provided at Political positions of Fred Thompson.  Thompson has left himself some wiggle room to acknowledge that it's a very serious human-caused problem, although that has not been his position so far.Ferrylodge 02:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Warming 

message: The couple has two children. We know which children these are because the article says so. We don't need to distinguish between the different children by describing some of them as "small". --Tom 06:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but what's your objection?  What do you think "small" implies that's inaccurate or POV?  -- Zsero 07:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its sort of like my penis size or my kids. Some people might say they are "small" but I would beg to differ that that is their point of view. --Tom 07:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children by second marriage 

message: Freddie Dalton "Fred" Thompson
# Acceptable. Sbowers3 04:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Option A

message: The Footnotes section should be called "References." These are not notes that provide additional reading if you care to spend additional time on the subject, they are the location of the documents corroborating the facts requiring the reference. As such, they are not footnotes, but references to the location where that quote is contained or where that fact is published. I would have edited it myself but this article is protected. I can understand the protection given the fact that he is a presidential candidate, but this section should be renamed by someone who is an admin or has some way to do it. -Mike Payne  (T • C) 05:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The protection is temporary, Mike - pending resolution of a disagreement the editors have had.  It will be open for editing soon, but meanwhile thanks for your input and I agree with your point. Tvoz |talk 07:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes vs. References 

message: Bloomberg reported Thompson saying he isn't a regular churchgoer and doesn't plan to speak about his religion during the campaign. Since Thompson's religion has been an open question on this page for some months and his church attendance was also discussed in the media by persons such as James Dobson, this statement should be added to the end of the sentence on religion in the personal life section when the article is unlocked. Bregence 13:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement on church 

message: As an actor, Thompson has played 2 former presidents, which is interesting and undoubtedly unique (I don't think Reagan had ever played a president of the US).  He played Ulysses S. Grant in Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (2007) and voiced Andrew Jackson in Rachel and Andrew Jackson: A Love Story (both produced for TV).  I think this should be included in the "Character actor" section after "A 1994 New York Times profile wrote that 'When Hollywood directors need someone who can personify governmental power, they often turn to [Thompson]'."  Awbeal 14:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thompson has played 2 historical presidents 

message: Could someone please add in that Thompson played himself in this movie, and that it was his first acting job?Alan 19:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got a source? -- Y not? 19:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, it's already in the article, in the first paragraph of Fred Thompson#Character actor. -- Zsero 20:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew that sounded familiar - missed it when I looked just now. Tvoz |talk 20:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that to the earlier section, since it makes sense to me to have the info in the earliest mention of the film.Alan 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit section on the Marie Raghianti story 

message: Just figured I'd make a note of it since I'm supposed to be working right now.. In reading the article it seems that a vast majority of sentences begins with either "Thompson" or "He", this is particularly true when the reader hits the section on his Senate career. This is generally considered poor writing technique, so we should probably work on altering changing the wording in the first of the sentence.  Also, I know this article was built sentence by sentence, but the article really shouldn't read like it was. The flow is rather choppy, so that could do with some cleanup as well.  I'll work on it as I get time, but figured I'd get the suggestions out there so the others out there can help out as well. --Bobblehead (rants) 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing/flow issues 

message: Some material has been added to the article, about George Will's comparison of Fred Thompson to "New Coke."  I agree with Rosspz that this should be removed, and will do so pending a consensus to insert it.  There are many reasons why this kind of material does not belong in this Wikipedia article.  First of all, it is in a section summarizing Wikipedia's article about Thompson's presidential campaign, whereas the Wikipedia article being summarized says nothing about George Will or Coca Cola.  Additionally, this material gives undue weight to the opinions of George Will, and adds nothing factual to the present Wikipedia article.  More reasons for deleting this material are available upon request.Ferrylodge 01:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The George Will quote is right on point with the description of the launch of the campaign. It adds some flavor (no pun intended) to a somewhat dry article, and really has nothing to do with undue weight - that applies more to giving both sides of a debate, and this is not that (nor can one say that this article has a shortage of positive statements about Thompson).  This is a respected columnist, referenced, giving a comment on the launch of the campaign which is discussed in the same paragraph.  Nowhere does it say that the section in the article has to be a literal summary of the longer article - there can be things in here that aren't in there: it's not supposed to necessarily be a duplicate -- but if you feel that way, add the Will bit to the other article too.  This is a good addition, and you can always look for commentators who say that the launch presented a comprehensive look at his views if you really think this needs counter-weighing.  I don't - I think it's a short comment that adds a different perspective to the article, which is needed.  If other appropriate comments are found, a section can always be created about his political and cultural image, like in Obama where there are  well-referenced opinions by commentators included.   Opinions are commonly included in articles - just not the opinions of the people editing them here. I see no reason to remove this one while discussion goes on here - we'll never get anywhere if we have to do that with every edit that has anything less than 100% praise. Try to explain  why you don't like it in - the summary argument doesn't really wash.  Tvoz |talk 10:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sean Hannity, who is no Torquemada conducting inquisitions of conservatives, asked Thompson: "When you look at the other current crop of candidates -- Republicans -- where is the distinction between your positions and what you view as theirs?" Thompson replied: "Well, to tell you the truth, I haven't spent a whole lot of time going into the details of their positions."
For years, people have been complaining about how negative the campaigns are, that politicians take too much time talking about the other guy. In real life when you are interviewing for a job opening, the conversation is never about what is wrong with the other guy. Only in politics, do candidates complain about the other candidates.
In this campaign at least so far, Thompson has always turned aside questions about the other guys. E.g. in another Sean Hannity interview, Thompson said, "Well, I don't want to talk about other candidates. I'm really thinking about running for the presidency and not against them. I'm sure that they're good guys."
I think the line "Thompson wasn't able to tell Sean Hannity how his positions differed from those of the other Republicans running for President" is not an accurate summary of the interview. It is more the case that Thompson prefers not to talk about the other Republicans.
So, I object to inclusion of the New Coke line because it does not accurately paraphrase the Will column, and because in the context of a Fred Thompson biography it is little more than trivia. It is not one of the 500 most notable events in his life.
Having said that, many articles do have a trivia section and they are usually marked, "These trivia items would be better spread among the rest of the article" (or some such). The "New Coke" formulation is a clever turn of phrase and somewhat appropriate as a piece of trivia. But it should be edited to more accurately reflect what Will wrote. Perhaps something like: George Will compared the launch of Thompson's campaign to the launch of New Coke, noting that Thompson has not answered the question, Is this product necessary?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbowers3 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, it should not be included.  Random criticism of individuals without any context (ie he was criticized for this specific thing) is not encyclopedic.  Arzel 15:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ferrylodge, please correct your comment above, and try not to misrepresent what happened - this seems to be a recurring theme with you.  Yes, I added the material - ONCE, not "again" - but I did so BEFORE Sbowers3's comment here, not after it as you imply. Sbowers3 has a disagreement with the item, but did not remove it, understanding that discussion can take place here on Talk about a minor item without removing it and turning it into an edit war.  You came along and removed it again - your second revert of this item.   Do you see the difference?  In fact my reinstatement, as explained in detail here on talk when I did it, was  based in part on a disagreement with the arguments you gave here to remove it - that the section is supposed to be a summary of the other article which doesn't mention Will or his commentary.  Not so - and I explained here that I felt that adding some other material which is done all the time in sections that refer to forks made some sense here, and this quote added another dimension to this piece which is somewhat one-sided. I also disputed your argument that the quote is not adding anything factual- it is opinion of a commentator which is not inappropriate, but could be enhanced by adding some others.  It had not been "removed and rejected" by "multiple editors" at the time I reinserted it - in fact two other editors saw fit to include and refine it - Life Liberty and Bobblehead plus me - that would be  three - and at that time only you and Rosspz objected to it, and I did not think your arguments were sound.  No consensus had been reached, and a conversation had begun here. There was no more reason to remove it than  include it at that time - things that people disagree about are left in frequently, unless it becomes a major dispute.  SBowers3 raised an interesting point after I commented, but left the sentence in the article and I'm going to look closer at what s/he said, and determine if I agree with  that interpretation.   But please try a little harder to accurately reflect what transpires when you  comment - stick with the truth, disagree with an editor if you want to , but don't distort and  suggest that someone has "insist[ed] on inserting material into the article when it has been removed and rejected by multiple other editors" when in fact you're the one who reverted what "multiple editors" wanted.  This is now the third time you've misrepresented me directly or by innuendo, and it's getting tedious.Tvoz |talk 20:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've inserted two additional parentheticals into my comment above.Ferrylodge 02:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Coke 

message: I've just read through the Fred Thompson listing and while I believe it does a solid job of covering most aspect of his life, there is very little information on his marriages and family. Since I've heard multiple references in the MSM to this aspect of Fred Thompson's life and didn't understand the basis for it's significance, the reason I was checking his Wikipedia entry was to bring myself up to speed.
Surprisingly, I found virtually nothing of substance on this aspect of Mr. Thompson's life. Since I'm not a Wikipedia expert I decided for comparison sake to look up the the entries for Ronald Reagan, George Washington, and Johnny Carson, all of whom had multiple marriages, only to find substantially more information and depth of coverage. Is there any specific reason for minimizing this coverage in the Fred Thompson's entry?
It is purely my opinion, but I believe few decisions in our lives have as profound an impact on us and  the subsequent direction of our lives, as who we choose to marry. The circumstances around a couples meeting, the closeness and type of relationship they share, and the roles they assume in each other's lives is all relevant information and should be covered, to the extent is is knowable.
The brevity of the Marriage & Family/Personal Life section in Fred Thompson's Wikipedia listing raises into question whether there is true impartiality being exhibited in determining which information should be presented. Now that Fred Thompson has decided to run for President all public aspects of Fred Thompson's life, whether controversial or not, should be open to scrutiny - just it should be for all other candidates. Leave the obvious gossip out, but regarding other information, when in doubt, include and let us readers determine relevancy.
I am not about to make recommendations regarding which content should and should not be included, only that this aspect of Fred Thompson's biography needs substantially more information.
DCgent 15:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your hesitance to not wanting to add content, but is there anything in particular that you'd like added? The Personal life section covers his first marriage, divorce, romantic ties before second marriage, second marriage, his cancer, and his religion, while the Early life and education section covers those aspects of his life. The two sections aren't right next to each other, true, but there is some content there. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Information in Fred Thompson's Personal Information Section 

message: I saw this quote on  - ""I'm pretty sure the people debating 'Fred' versus 'Freddie' are the same people who debate whether or not Britney Spears looked too fat at the MTV music awards," said Karen Hanretty, who is working for the Thompson campaign. "Seriously, how many hours do these editors spend on the site?"" 198.6.46.11 21:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She's the Deputy Communication Director for Thompson's campaign and apparently a previous winner of the Republican Babe of the Week. Hey, don't look at me, it's the #1 hit on google with her name--Bobblehead (rants) 21:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [e/c but what the hell] She is a conservative Republican political strategist from California  working as Deputy Communications Director on the Thompson campaign - a sometime Fox news commentator, has been on O'Reilly - far from an impartial observer. To my mind it's a rather lame and dismissive analogy. Too bad they can't do better than that. Tvoz |talk 21:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But is she notable enough for a WP entry?--Pleasantville 21:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, considering the lack of reliable sources that I've been able to find, I'm going to have to say no. Most of the links on reliable sources are either quotes from her that identify her position at the time, or they are articles written by her. Here's the closest I've found, but it seems to be a bio from a blog she wrote for the Sacramento ABC affiliate up until the November 2006 election. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd say no too. Tvoz |talk 22:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree; no entry for now.  Hanretty is apparently a minor functionary in the Thompson campaign, and, if this is how she responds to a site which gets six billion hits a month (per the same article in which she made her mistake), she's not likely to develop into much more. A WP entry of her own would be inappropriate, unless she becomes a campaign issue herself at some point. -- LisaSmall T/C 05:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Karen Hanretty? 

message: It's crap like this IP's edits that convinces me that the Freddie business is at least in part partisan in nature. -- Y not? 02:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Y, maybe you're overreacting a little here?   I think you're jumping to conclusions - couldn't this be just a member of the public who saw the inherent correctness of the argument that quite a few people here (despite the dubious "close")  thought was right?  :)Tvoz |talk 06:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe :) You don't like the close? Awww :) -- Y not? 10:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a Washington Post story about the dispute linking to the page ... I doubt it's anything organized.  Personally, I hate the "I was reading a message board today" articles that some news media types think qualifies as news ... but ... whatever.  We can s-protect the article if it continues. --B 02:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: URL? -- Y not? 02:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... take a look at the topic right above this one. --B 02:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: So do you think Britney Spears looked too fat? :) Sbowers3 03:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not exactly a CIA mission, Ferrylodge - I had no problem giving my name. I think all the concern about anonymity - and I'm not directing this just at you - only adds to the misconceptions about Wikipedia, and I personally have no problem  standing behind my 7500 edits.  The article was about as fair as these things ever are, I guess, although I know I said a great deal more than was quoted, and I didn't "insist" on anything here, contrary to what the article said.  My position in the Great Name Wars was just that consistency and accuracy trumped worrying about making the candidate look "silly", and I still think that is correct, as do some other legitimate editors who've come by here during and after the discussion - we can take a breath, but I'm sure no one thought we had closed off discussion permanently on this, right?  Y - if it's partisanship you're worried about, I trust you're considering the effect of it on both sides of the dispute?  And SBowers3: funny, but you're not going to get me to say anything beyond  the NSFW and highly inappropriate video (be warned) found  as the third link down here. Tvoz |talk 06:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freddie (redux) 

message: Please change Thompson asked to be released from his television duties, to Thompson asked to be released from his television duties,
I have never edited this article before, am not a party to the disputes on it; this edit has nothing to do with those disputes, but is a simple cleanup-tagging edit. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 22:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only semi-protected now, but I've gone ahead and edited in your suggestion.--Kubigula (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: In case anyone wishes to add that he would be the first bald president, Eisenhower as well as others were just as folically challenged as Thompson.  Considering the average age of presidents, it is not suprising that many would be either balding or going bald at the time of their election.
As for the aspect of being the first actor.  It is well known that Ronald Regan was an actor prior to political service.  Thompson, may be the first (assuming winning) to have been an actor so close to election, but I would consider that to be playing with verbage since he is no longer currently acting.  Arzel 04:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Acting is more of a moonlighting career for Thompson, anyway.  And both of those claims--even if accurate--are simply trivia.  Not to mention that they assume Thompson will win, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Eseymour 12:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did someone suggest adding that he is bald? But his acting career is not trivial, and should remain in the article. Tvoz |talk 16:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone added that if he was elected that he would be the first bald person to be president and he would be the first actor to be president. Arzel reverted it and then added this section to the talk page. So it's not a matter of removing his acting credits from the article, just that it should not be added to the article that he may be the first president that was an actor as well (which isn't true any way you look at it). --Bobblehead (rants) 18:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah - sorry. It sounded like Arzel was anticipating the possibility of someone adding that, not that someone had tried to. I of course agree that's absurd.  (But can we say that Joe Biden would be the first formerly bald President?  Never mind....) Tvoz |talk 01:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is correct. I didn't mean to confuse anyone.  Not sure if Biden would qualify under that category anyway...weren't wigs popular back then?  :)  Arzel 03:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point. Who knows what Reagan's amazing hairline for a man his age truly was. Tvoz |talk 05:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You know, he probably would be the first president who portrayed two sitting presidents as an actor. ZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  18:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He hasn't either. Grant and Jackson were both out of office and dead by the time Thompson portrayed them, so they could not be a sitting president. Drop the sitting and you'd have a case. Not an overly notable one, but a case none the less. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant to distinguish portrayals of actual presidents versus fictional presidents, and didn't mean to imply that Thompson's film career was booming during the Grant administration. It's trivia at best, cruft at worst - but interesting nonetheless. Best, ZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  20:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bald and Actor