Talk:Fred Thompson/Archive 6

message: I propose an addition to the Post-Senate section. In 2003 to 2005, Freddie joined the Federal City Council where he served as the President. In this position Freddie coordinated the link of the federal and local government with the business community.  
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2004/05/17/daily7.html
http://www.federalcitycouncil.org/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.99.48 (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Senate: Federal City Council 

message: Something should be added about Thompson's supposed legal help to Libyan terrorists. Whether true or not, the controversy should be addressed. nut-meg 18:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libyan terrorists 

message: Frankvass 21:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Church of Christ cited as a Stone Campbell Movement 

message:  hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 02:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did some god sign that?  Not clear. 

message: Cnn  has just said that when Jeri met Fred, he had been purchasing "Beenie Weenies", not "Weenie_Beenies".  Which is true, please??  I have no knowledge of either.  If cnn is correct, then another page is needed; but, if their script is wrong, well,...
Thank You,
 hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 02:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm not sure either one meets weight for inclusion but if you really want to include it, there is a FOX video titled "Fred and Jeri's First Campaign Interview with Sean Hannity" that is available on Fred's site that makes the statement (I think Jeri makes it).  If I remember correctly, I thought she said Beenie Weenie, which is a little can of beans with slices of hot dogs in it.  Morphh  (talk) 12:32, 07 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One version of the product-name has an article; but, the version that is canned into an actual presidential-nominee-campaign is @  redlink-status??  Seems odd to me.  I do say that as a person who is not likely to vote f/ them, even if I were, well, you can guess.  I do not recall seeing either of these food-products, anywhere, ever.
 hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 16:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not notable enough to get an article.. I mean who cares about Beenie Weenies.  The are an actual product or at least use to be.. I use to love them when I was young - tasty.  They even had Baked Beenie Weenies (baked beans and dog slices). Morphh  (talk) 16:33, 07 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who|Whom?  I did search it when  cnn  had prompted it.  If anyone else does, maybe I could help by pasting your answer there.  I do not know any other way to improve this.
Thank You,
 hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 16:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[  Jeri Kehn ]] [[ Weenie_Beenie ]] [[ Beenie Weenie_ ]] 

message: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000669/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boxfresh151 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for Law and Order 

message: This article jumps all over the place.  The coverage of his acting career can be improved, just look at other actors articles.  Even his law career needs improvement.  He has a time gap of 1967 to 1969.  Where was he then? During his law career, it said he represented a German mining company.  Why so vague? MD12752 06:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reorder the article? 

message: relevant?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.45.13 (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AP article on anti-gay church comments regarding Thompson support 

message: Because some people can't come to an agreement I can't add anything? Other editors shouldn't be penalized. 
Jeremy221 00:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove protection 

message: having reviewed the articles for the 2008 presidential candidates, i realized that the majority of the articles did not have campaign logos inserted in them. a minority of articles do have them. a campaign logo/poster/image, by definition, is intended to promote the candidate. promotion implies POV. the inclusion of these images is inherently POV. i've removed these images from a handful of articles, and would like to have the image removed from this article - in that way, all candidate articles will be represented equally, in service to NPOV. thanks. Anastrophe 17:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to this and have done so on Hackabee's article.  There is also dispute at Hillary Clinton's article.  See there for discussion. Morphh  (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. A candidate's logo is relevant to the campaign and reflects on their views and personality. Every candidate should have their logo included in the article. 
Jeremy221 22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton for a discussion about this.  Several editors there (including me)  disagree with this proposal to remove the campaign logo images - and with the assumption that this is an NPOV matter.  I think if we have the logo and editors find it illustrative of a section of their articles, it's fine to include it. Tvoz |talk 03:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: fair enough. thank you. Anastrophe 17:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of logos 

message: There was some agreement earlier - Eseymour you may recall this - to say just that Fred was 59 and Jeri 35 when they married in 2002.   That has always been and still is ok with me.  (And amazingly both Italiavivi and Ferrylodge agreed to that at  one point or another.) What do folks think of that? Tvoz |talk 23:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what is the purpose of inclusion?  We also had a discussion of Grover Cleveland, and it is not included there.  It appears to me that the primary reason for inclusion is political.  You may say that the reason for not including is political as well, which would imply that reason for not including is to "hide" a potentially embarrasing fact.  Which then seems to invite an infinite loop where Thomson detractors wish to include to embarrass Thomson, and pro-Thompson people want to hide this fact.  In any case it appears to be a political issue.  As I said before, list the birth years, and you have a NPOV situation.  I wasn't aware that Ferrylodge was banned.  Arzel 04:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would listing their birth years be appropriate in a section related to their marriage? It should also be noted that Frances Cornelia Folsom's age at the time of her marriage to Grover Cleveland IS listed in Grover Cleveland's article.  --Bobblehead (rants) 05:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Her age is listed in the context of being the youngest first lady, not that GC was this old and she was that old.  Arzel 14:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As an admitted pro-Thompson person I don't think the age fact is at all embarrassing to him and I have no desire to hide it. As a Wikipedia editor I think it is at best borderline notable. There are thousands of facts that could go into an encyclopedia article. Is that one of the top 100 most important facts? I don't think so. Whether there are reliable sources that mention it is a necessary but not sufficient condition to include it. For example, there are multiple RS for every campaign event Thompson attends. Each of those events is notable in some measure but we don't mention every single event (not even in the Thompson campaign article) because not every fact warrants inclusion in the encyclopedia. If we do include it, I prefer the age 59 and age 35 form. It is simple and neutral. The birth year form looks like an attempt to hide info and and just doesn't fit well stylistically. Sbowers3 05:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean to include their birth years with the mention of their marriage, but with the first mention of their names (as is done in real encyclopedias).  This is already in the article for FT, and it would be easy to add for JT at her first mention.  Arzel 14:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems reasonable. Morphh  (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also prefer the previous consensus version, the "age 59 and age 35 form". It's simple and neutral. Turtlescrubber 14:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arzel, the problem is that the first and only mention of her in the FT article is at the line about their marriage. So I am sticking with my preference for the simple "59 and 35".  Tvoz |talk 03:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I ask again for what purpose should it be included?  Looking at all of the major candidates for presidents, none have ages when married listed.  The closest is Kucinich's wife, which is listed in the format I suggested (b. year).  As I have stated earlier the reason for inclusion appears to be trying to make a political point.  Simply include the birthyear after the first mention of JT an you have all of the information presented in a neutral form, and it reads like a real encyclopedia.  Arzel 05:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Return to an earlier compromise agreement on age diff?

message: Upon further thought, I have come up with a wording that I could support.  The key is including the appropriate context.  This would go after "They have two children."
Some commentators have remarked that Jeri Thompson's relative youth and attractiveness is unusual for a Presidential candidate's wife. (references)  At age 41, she is 24 years younger than her husband, however she was accomplished on her own before the couple married. (references)  Mrs. Thompson takes an active role in her husband's campaign. (examples & references)
Your opinions?  Eseymour 00:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just that her relative youth and attractiveness that is unusual for a Presidential candidate's wife (Michelle Obama is currently 43 and was 42 at the time her husband announced his candidacy), what is unusual is that her age and attractiveness in comparison to Fred Thompson's. Also, the maintenance of the current age would require someone to come into the article every year and update the age. If her age is to be included it should be located in such a way that it is static and in relation to what makes it unusual (Their marriage and 35 years old or 24 years difference). I'm not opposed to including more context, but it should be in a manner that is actually related to what is unusual about her and Thompson. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Tvoz |talk 07:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not perfect, but we have to have some context that is somehow relevant in order to have a special mention of the age difference.  Otherwise it's trivia at best and prejudice at worst.  The above was my best attempt at a compromise version, and it also provides a good segue to describing Mrs. Thompson's role in her husband's campaign.  (The static age thing can easily be fixed, btw.)  If anyone has a better suggestion that doesn't rely on weasel wording, by all means post it here. Eseymour 13:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The attractiveness part seems weird an out of place.  Why don't you just say something along the lines of "Thomspon and his wife were married in (Year), when he was (Age) and she was (Age). Rundar (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording with more context

message: I found this interesting discussion from April on Talk:Dennis Kucinich:
Is there some reason to include that he is older than his wife's father? Or that he's 31 yrs older than his wife? If we have her year of birth then give that, and let people do their own math. Thiis seems gossipy and non-encyclopedic. Tvoz 09:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing gossipy about it. It's an unusual fact and, therefore, worth mentioning. It's no less gossipy than discussing his eating habits. Don Williams 18:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll agree with you there - I also questioned (above) the inclusion of his being a vegan. I think neither is encyclopedic and I'd remove both. This fact can be dealt with by adding his wife's year of birth which is somewhat encyclopedic, and trusting readers to subtract. Her father's age however, is not notable for an encyclopedia. People magazine, maybe. WHat relevance does it have to Kucinich? I say keep it all out. Tvoz 00:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As near as I can tell, the difference between the two is that reliable sources have not indicated an issue of the age difference between Kucinich and his second wife, while they have made an issue of the age difference between Thompson and his second wife. That's one of the issues with the American national press in that second or third tier candidates like Kucinich tend to get a free ride while top tier like Thompson get the spotlight shined upon them. Although, I'm sure if you found some reliable sources that indicated that the age difference between Kucinich and his second wife was notable you could put them in front of the editors and propose some rewording to indicate that. You should also pay closer attention to what Tvoz was complaining about, it's not that the age difference is noted, it's that the article included commentary about Kucinich being older than her father and that she was 31 years younger than his first wife. That's the gossipy part. --Bobblehead (rants) 14:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "older than his wife's father" bit was clearly unencyclopedic, but Tvoz also quite clearly wanted to "let people do their own math" regarding the age difference itself.  I don't see why it's relevant whether reliable sources have commented on the age difference.  If a 25-year age difference is relevant to one person's biography (and that should be the standard here; if it's relevant only to the campaign, it should go on the campaign page), then a 31-year age difference is definitely relevant to another person's biography. Eseymour 17:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BLP requires that all such information be traceable to a reliable source. I haven't done any looking into Kucinich and his second wife, so I have no idea what is out there as far as sources that reliably document the age difference between Kucinich and his wife.  It was also not my intention to imply that the age difference was only relevant to the campaign (although there may be aspects of it that are). My intent was to note that top-tier candidates get more attention so more stuff is brought up.  Several of the references provided above indicate that the age difference between Thompson and his second wife was at least "of notice" prior to his candidacy. It's just that his candidacy brought more attention to that.  It's a similar situation to his birthname. It was always there, but it took the LA Times to dig it up and they probably wouldn't have dug it up if it weren't for him being a top tier candidate for President. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources which reliably document the age difference between Kucinich and his wife would the ones which reliably document their birth dates.  There seem to be three options at this point for Fred Thompson.  1) Present the age difference with no additional context, implying that it is notable in and of itself; 2) Present the age difference with some sort of notable context; 3) Make no special mention of the age difference, but cite Thompson's wife's birth year at her first mention in the article.  You and Tvoz seemed to be initially arguing for 1), but now it sounds like you (Bobblehead) are arguing for 2).  I suggested a way to do 2), but you and Tvoz rejected it.  If you'd like to propose an alternate version, please do so.  But a lot of the chatter I've seen in the media about Jeri Thompson is, in Tvoz' words, "gossipy and non-encyclopedic." Eseymour 19:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bobblehead has it right: there were 'no sources provided at all at that time, 6 months ago, for the sentences: Kucinich is 31 years older than his current wife, and he is older than her father. He is one of few vegan politicians in the US.  No source - reliable, gossip or otherwise - was provided saying that anyone found that of interest, or even that all of it was true.  So, what I said was If we have her year of birth then give that, and let people do their own math. because her year of birth was independently verifiable.  In fact we have multiple reliable sources regarding the Thompson age difference and the  attention paid to it, and that has been deemed notable for Jeri's article. My point, or one of them, is that they both share the age difference, and its potential for controversy, so both articles should include it with any of many reliable sources. And yes, if there are similarly reliable sources regarding the age difference between the Kuciniches, I would include them there too.  I also think that Bobblehead's observation about why attention is paid to these details for so-called top tier candidates but less so for lower tier is certainly correct.  Tvoz |talk 19:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a Wikipedia content guideline about only including facts that are of interest to somebody, according to a reliable source?  I would think that the qualification would be whether it's relevant to the subject of the article (in addition to the fact itself--but not the interest in the fact--being backed up by a reliable source).  Therefore, if a man being 31 years older than his wife is not relevant in one case, then another man being 25 years older than his wife cannot be relevant without additional context which explains why it's relevant. Eseymour 22:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Notability pretty much covers the minimum threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia, but WP:BLP adds some additional measures.  But I think we're heading down a bunny trail in trying to compare how Kucinich and his second wife are covered in Kucinich's article versus how Thompson and his second wife are treated on this article.  Articles within Wikipedia really are not comparable as far as content goes and each content inclusion should be judged on it's own merits and not whether or not another article properly covers a similar topic.  Eseymour, if you feel that the age difference between Dennis Kucinich and his second wife is notable enough for inclusion in Kucinich's article and is not being properly covered there, then I suggest you take it up there. Having a notability discussion about the Kucinichs here will only result in you having to rediscuss the topic on Kucinich's article. So you either need to focus on whether or not the age difference between the Thompsons is notable enough for inclusion in this article based solely on its own merits, or, well, you're going to be talking to yourself shortly. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Notability guideline only covers whether a topic should have its own article, it does not directly regulate the content of articles.  I brought up Kucinich both because Tvoz' argument against including age difference there was exactly what some of us have been arguing here, and because I think it's important that Wikipedia treats all its subjects equally--particularly in touchy areas like politics.  Frankly, when you have someone arguing for including a potentially prejudicial fact on an article about a person they disagree with politically, and arguing for excluding that same fact from an article about a person they sympathize with politically, whatever reasons they give for that sound an awful lot like cover for their personal political bias.  This is exactly the sort of thing that leads to people complaining that Wikipedia has a political slant. Eseymour 13:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec)Eseymour, your comment about reliable sources is not strictly true in relation to BLP. A source that documents Kucinich's birth date and a separate source that document's his second wife's birth date probably should not be used in conjunction to include a phrase in an article saying that they were born 31 years apart, that would be awful close to WP:SYN and in regards to BLP it is generally better to err on the side of caution there. However, if the source itself references their ages at the time of the marriage, or the age difference itself, that would be acceptable, IMHO. As for where I personally stand on the issue of how to handle Jeri's and Fred's age difference, either a brief mention of her age at the time of their marriage or a more contextual representation of that would be acceptable to me. There are enough reliable sources that document the age difference between the Thompsons that as long as it is done tastefully (avoiding references to trophy wife etc) it can be done without violating BLP. Of the shorter versions offered up, I prefer something similar to option 7 that I offered up above, as for a more contextual reference, I'll have to ponder that for awhile. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  Ponder away.  :-)  The only short options I find acceptable are #5 or #9--citing Jeri's birth date at her first mention.  All the others seem to imply something unsavory without explaining why.  Context is very important when treading these waters. Eseymour 22:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Those who are for inclusion have provided no compelling reason to point out the age difference, other than "some people find it interesting."  I'm open to the possibility of a few sentences with proper context which present the information neutrally, but I've yet to see any proposals other than my own. Eseymour 13:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compare to Dennis Kucinich

message: Five days has been long enough for a non-issue. Further protection needs justification. Turtlescrubber 12:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Come to a consensus.  I didn't bar the gates to edit-wars just to reopen them to same.  User:WJBscribe has also already shot the unprot request down for the same reason. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 18:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What issue(s) was it edit protected for? Fee Fi Foe Fum 06:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This is so ridiculous. I have been trying to add some edits for a week now. Is this just going to protected until the election is over? An edit war will resolve this problem much faster and not penalize people who can care less about it.  Btw Jeske, my source is not "Youtube"; youtube merely hosts the source of FoxNews. 
Jeremy221 22:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An edit-war does penalize people. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, that is a great idea. There is no reason to lock the whole article indefinitely. There are errors that I need to fix in other sections but I can't because you guys are so adamant about protecting the article. However, the age dispute is an issue between a few editors and you are penalizing everyone else by prohibiting us from editing. Everyone hates edit wars and people will come to a faster agreement to avoid it. Locking it is taking too much time and this nonsense needs to end. 
Btw can you please add my edit? 
Jeremy221 01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove edit protection 

message: No edits will be allowed on this article as there was an eight revert war with no admonitions, no 3rr violations and no blocking. Article will remain fully protected and no edits will be allowed until after the election. Thank you for your time and understanding. Turtlescrubber 18:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a consensus appears on this talk page, the article will be unprotected (as there isn't anything to war over). -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If no consensus appears, this article will remain permanently protected. Two weeks of full protection for a very short (48 hour) eight edit skirmish is nothing. This page shall remain protected until after the election and no editors will be allowed to edit this article until that time. This is completely keeping in line with wikipedia principles. Democracy is not supposed to be messy but clean, sterile and authoritative.;) Turtlescrubber 19:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Irony is in the eyes of the beholder, Turtle. Tvoz |talk 03:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting to protect the article from any editing until November 2008?!?! Please explain. Remember 15:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really think he will make it out of the primary? My remarks above were sardonic, btw. My way of protesting the permanent and unwarranted, full protection of this page.Turtlescrubber 21:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article permanently protected until after election (sarcasm) 

message: Why wont someone add my edit?
Jeremy221 04:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADD EDIT 

message: Or it will also have to be protected for many weeks until after the election has passed. Thank you for your cooperation.Turtlescrubber 13:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I struck through my sarcastic comment above. Turtlescrubber 21:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Please stop adding comments to this page
 

message: My edit is in bold to his political positions section:
"Thompson is skeptical that humanity is to blame for global warming. He says citizens are entitled to keep and bear arms if they do not have criminal records. Thompson's support of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation brought criticism from groups such as Gun Owners of America (GOA), who said that the legislation limited their ability to inform the public about the gun rights voting records of incumbent politicians.[71] Thompson now says that the limitation on political speech within thirty or sixty days of an election was wrong and should be repealed. Thompson says U.S. borders need to be secured before considering comprehensive immigration reform, but supports a path to citizenship “You’re going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship, but not make it so easy that it’s unfair to the people waiting in line and abiding by the law.”  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sagvVMfAUa4"
Please include my edits as soon as possible. Thanks,
Jeremy221 23:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find a source other than youtube? I don't have a problem with it, but it would be nice to have a secondary source. --Elliskev 00:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, YouTube can't be used as a source, since there is no way to verify whether something on there is true or not. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Find the actual source of that, please, and then we'll talk. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 00:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, Hannity and Colmbes doesn't keep transcripts. I don't have the original source but FoxNews quotes him saying it on Hannity and Colmes and Thompson acknowledged his statement. The information is very important to his immigration stance. He never mentioned that he changed his position and if he did people still need to know what his beliefs where before he announced. However, he stands by his statement and hasn't withdrawn it. I will add it to his political positions page right now but it really needs to be added on the summary page. Also this line from the section should be removed as its more detailed policy position for a summary:
and federal law must be enforced in sanctuary cities which currently ban cooperation between local officials and federal immigration officials.[74]
Jeremy221 07:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification to your proposed edits.  Thompson doesn't think McCain-Feingold should be completely repealed--only the limitation on political speech within 30 or 60 days of an election.  Also, I think this might work better as a bulleted list, rather than a paragraph where every sentence starts with "Fred Thompson says..." or something similar.  But that's a style question, and it can easily be addressed when the article is downgraded to semi-protection. Eseymour 12:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh... no bullet points. This is an encyclopedia, and should have good stout paragraphs. If we need to combine a few of the sentences, and reword so that every one doesn't start with "Thompson says", "He says", etc., then that is the thing to do. Else, we cease to be an encyclopedia, and end up being a random collection of facts. Mahalo. --Ali'i 12:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that its bad to have Thompson says in every line but that is the way the article stands currently. I actually removed about two "Thompson says" sentences and rearranged one so it doesn't say that. However, my intention is to make the article more concise and add and remove information. As for the McCain-Fiengold, I don't think the debate or his detailed position belongs in the summary. We can probably remove the Gun Owners of America line as that is more relevant to the debate about McCain Fiengold and not to Thompson's political position. If you want to work on my edit feel free but please add it. 
Jeremy221 20:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Can someone please add the edit? I have been waiting forever. It seems like there were some objections so I further modified it to remove the GOA criticism:
Thompson is skeptical that humanity is to blame for global warming.Thompson, Fred. "Plutonic Warming", AEI, March 22, 2007. Accessed May 13, 2007. Thompson says if citizens do not have criminal records they are entitled to keep and bear arms.Thompson, Fred. "Armed with the Truth", ABC Radio, May 10, 2007. Accessed May 13, 2007. Thompson initially supported McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation but now says certain parts should be repealed.Sean Hannity interview of Fred Thompson, Fox News, June 6, 2007. Accessed June 9, 2007. Thompson says U.S. borders need to be secured before considering comprehensive immigration reform,Thompson, Fred. "Prepared Remarks for Speech to Lincoln Club Annual Dinner", ABC Radio, May 4, 2007. Accessed May 13, 2007. but supports a path to citizenship, saying “You’re going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship, but not make it so easy that it’s unfair to the people waiting in line and abiding by the law.”  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sagvVMfAUa4 
I think this is better as it's just a summary. If people want to learn more about Thompson's positions on McCain-Fiengold they can go to his political positions page where his position is explained in depth. 
Jeremy221 22:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Protected 

message: Longtime Friend,' Thompson Adviser Has Rap Sheet
Records Show Philip J. Martin Sold Drugs, Took Bets and Stole Liquor Before Working on Pal Fred Thompson's Presidential Campaign
Turtlescrubber 20:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, yeah.  25 years before. Eseymour 14:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, apparently the national news including fox, cbs and abc. Really, I don't care so much. Just adding it to the talk page in case other people do. Turtlescrubber 14:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing to do with Thompson. If aaaaanything, this would go on the campaign article. Not his biography. --Ali'i 14:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing to do with Thompson? That's weird considering the articles are about Thompson. I agree that this is more appropriate for his campaign article. That is why I added it to the talk page there to. :)Turtlescrubber 14:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, folks, even if this information and the age difference don't make onto the Wikipedia page, it will still affect Thompson's presidential aspirations. Our debate itself shows that these things are important. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New info 

message: "On June 29, 2002, after nearly six years of dating, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn, then aged 35."
Turtlescrubber 13:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this one acceptable 

message: If several major news outlets have writen whole articles which are exclusively on this topic, then it is relevant to the campaign. We could be justified in having a whole section on the age difference and its coverage. Fee Fi Foe Fum 06:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's relevant to the campaign only, it belongs on the campaign article.  But I disagree that coverage automatically implies relevance.  Consider all the gossip and other junk that gets published about celebrities on a daily basis.  Clearly it's not all fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Eseymour 20:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, could you include it in the campaign article then? Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't gotten involved in editing the campaign article, and I'm not interested in doing so at this time.  But if you want to add a neutral statement there, be bold and do it.  Cheers, Eseymour 13:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Both ages when they started dating, right? By the way, "some people" include the major daily newspapers in the US. Fee Fi Foe Fum 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *I strongly disagree. There are far too many high-end sources:. Gossip is the talk of Thompson being "Lazy". Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *WP:NOT#NEWS still applies. The American news media are loaded with gossip. The fact that something is being chattered about does not make it suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Marvin Diode 01:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is not getting us any closer to getting the article unprotected. You are devaluing the sources based on your concept of what is encyclopedic. Wikipedia is supposed to default to the sourcing in an event of a controversy. Fee Fi Foe Fum 01:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: A section on the age difference and its coverage 

message: From what I can see the best and most neutral way to do this would be to mention both of their ages and leave out that "Some people find interesting that there was such an age difference". That's my opinion anyway--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 19:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both ages when they started dating, right? By the way, "some people" include the major daily newspapers in the US. Fee Fi Foe Fum 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *I strongly disagree. There are far too many high-end sources:. Gossip is the talk of Thompson being "Lazy". Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *WP:NOT#NEWS still applies. The American news media are loaded with gossip. The fact that something is being chattered about does not make it suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Marvin Diode 01:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is not getting us any closer to getting the article unprotected. You are devaluing the sources based on your concept of what is encyclopedic. Wikipedia is supposed to default to the sourcing in an event of a controversy. Fee Fi Foe Fum 01:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC reply

message: We've been over all the choices before. It's not productive to go through them again. We know that various editors, maybe even most editors, prefer one of the other wordings. But right now they aren't an option. Every other option is considered unacceptable by some editors. So far, nobody has said that this option is unacceptable. If we each hold out for our favorites, we may be in edit protection forever. So even if you strongly prefer another option, can you accept this option: (repeating from above)
* Thompson began dating Republican consultant Jeri Kehn (b. 1966) in July 1996, and they married on June 29, 2002.
If we can all accept this wording the protection can quickly end. If anyone really cannot accept it, then the discussion apparently will continue indefinitely with no progress. Sbowers3 00:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You aren't going to get consensus by forcing a vote on your preferred version, Sbowers3.  Either consensus is gained via discussion or it's not and dispute resolution is used. One would hope that dispute resolution is not needed on a relatively minor issue. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's not my preferred version. I really don't care - I'll accept any of them. Sbowers3 12:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also a pretty crappy way to set up the question: "If we can all accept this wording the protection can quickly end. If anyone really cannot accept it, then the discussion apparently will continue indefinitely with no progress." The language itself is pretty accusatory and not good for building consensus. Turtlescrubber 00:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I forget - I requested unprotection at RPP.  It was declined - with a caveat.  You guys have 30 days before this article is unprotected, and when it does get unprotected, I'll ask for more eyes on the situation. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 00:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I heavily doubt you're disagreeing simply because of opinion, and what you stated above shows that.  One editor who has been haranguing the protecting administrator and trying unsuccessfully to get the article protected until after the election generally gets pegged as a disruptive account and is rewarded with a block.  You have until December, and by then I'll alert WP:COI/N to possible conflicts-of-interest. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 00:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. You are threatening to block me for discussing the issue on this page. Do you really think I wanted the article protected until after the election? Do you not understand what sarcasm is? Seriously, what are you thinking? Conflict of interest? Protected until after the election? Wow. I don't have the words. 6 of the 8 versions above are okay by me. Do not try to intimidate me off the talk page. It's not a cool thing to do. Turtlescrubber 00:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am doing nothing of the sort.  I'm just informing you that bugging the protecting admin can be judged as disruptive, as is trying to push for a prot till after the election.  I'm assuming good faith here; I was the one who requested unprotection; the article will be unprotected on the 7th of December. I am not trying to scare you off the talk page, and I apologize for failing to notice your sarcasm. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It's a Yes or No question

message: There are many ways to phrase the information. I could try to put "While Fred Thompson was 24 years old and in his second year of law school, his future wife Jeri Kehn was born." into the article. That is factual. But since none of the sources use that phrasing, it shouldn't go into the article. We must report on what the sources say. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It's '''not''' a Yes or No question

message: Here are some ways of phrasing the facts. I've put them in order of most "prejudicial" to least, for purposes of illustration: 
*Jeri and Fred started dating on July 4th, 1996, when she was nearly half his age. 
*Jeri and Fred started dating on July 4th, 1996, when he was almost twice her age.
*Jeri and Fred started dating on July 4th, 1996, when he was 1.81 times her age.
*Jeri and Fred started dating on July 4th, 1996, when she was 55.24% of his age. 
*Jeri and Fred started dating on July 4th, 1996, when she was 29 and he was almost 54. 
*Jeri and Fred started dating on July 4th, 1996, when she was 29 and he was 53, making them 24 years apart in age.
*Jeri and Fred started dating on July 4th, 1996, when she was 29 and he was 53.
*Jeri and Fred got married on June 29, 2002, when he was 1.675 times her age.
*Jeri and Fred got married on June 29, 2002, when she was 59.71% of his age.
*Jeri and Fred got married on June 29, 2002, when she was 35 and he was almost 60.
*Jeri and Fred got married on June 29, 2002, when she was 35 and he was 59, making them 24 years apart in age.
*Jeri and Fred got married on June 29, 2002, when she was 35 and he was 59. 
Do you see why saying only "On June 29, 2002, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn." is asking for too much of a compromise? 
This is why we must follow the reputable sources, which are far more genteel, and simply say that:  
#Fred Thompson was born on August 19, 1942. 
#Jeri Kehn was born on September 30, 1966. 
#They started dating on July 4th, 1996. 
#They got married on June 29, 2002. 
#They were born 24 years apart. 
#The fact that they were born 24 years apart has been the main topic of a number of articles in major TV networks, major daily newspapers and major weekly newsmagazines, with those articles delving into the possible effect this age difference will have on the likelihood of Fred Thompson being elected President. 
#If the articles venture an opinion on the extent of the effect of the age difference on the likelihood of Fred Thompson being elected President, it is that it won't have an effect. 
Now, I'm sure that we can all agree to place facts 1, 2, 3 and 4 into the article. They don't have to be in the same sentence. What we are arguing about is including facts 5, 6 and 7. Again, my position is that all verifiable, encyclopedic facts from reputable sources belong on Wikipedia. Since the facts are verifiable and from reputable sources, what we are disagreeing about is whether or not they are encyclopedic. It is my contention that they are. I base this belief on six things. One, people in the news media have spoken and written a lot about the topic. Two, Fred Thompson himself has spoken out on the topic. Three, Wikipedia users will notice the age difference on their own, wonder if it has been the subject of media speculation, and turn to Wikipedia to research the topic. Four, in October, the Fred Thompson page was the 57th most accessed page on Wikipedia. Five, debate on this talk page itself has been reported on, with Tvoz actually quoted. Six, people are fighting on this talk page to exclude or include the information. Fee Fi Foe Fum 06:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "All verifiable, encyclopedic facts from reputable sources belong on Wikipedia"  - I agree, and these are. Their ages and the fact that their age difference has been widely commented on should be in the article, with the appropriate citations, as it is in Jeri Thompson, as has been said for months.  No one has explained to me why the age difference is relevant on her article and not on his. I've stopped commenting here because we're going around in circles and it is obvious to me why some people are fighting this.  So this is just in case anyone forgot what my position in - I think Fee Fi summed it up well. Tvoz |talk 07:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: I can't deal with charts at 2 in the morning, and I'm more concerned about including all of the facts than the wording. Tvoz |talk 07:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, from my perspective it's obvious why some people are fighting to include a special mention of the age difference.  We all have our biases.  Tvoz told the Washington Post that she's a Democrat, and a glance at Turtlescrubber's contributions indicates an interest in liberal politics.  I've been trying to find a compromise version, but I won't roll over and accept a prejudicial wording. Eseymour 17:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? You say on your user page "Because I am politically conservative, I am most interested in articles describing conservative political figures."    By the way, I'm also in favor of dismantling the controversies page for Rudy Giuliani. Does that mean I edit with a bias in his favor?  Your position above was "An explicit mention of age needs context", and I agree with that - for starters, as Bobblehead suggested, and Fee Fi Fo Fum, and R. Baley, and Turtlescrubber, and I haven't looked to see if there are others -  my position remains as it has been for months that the ages should be included with the well-sourced context for including them, as they are at Jeri Kehn Thompson.  This is notable, and would be done in a footnote - not blasted across the page in a prejudicial manner - but you're not willing to even have that, despite your offer of compromise wording which is appreciated, but was kind of off the mark.  Tvoz |talk 17:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to get upset.  As I said, we're all biased, and that includes me.  But I don't see anything here indicating that anyone is not editing in good faith, so it would be best if we all kept our cool and did our best not to make remarks that could be interpreted as accusatory.  What is it that you're saying I'm not willing to have?  I have repeatedly offered to compromise on a wording with proper context, but I haven't seen anything proposed by those of you wanting more attention to the age diff.  So go ahead and propose something.  But it shouldn't go in a footnote.  If the age difference is important enough to include in the main text, then the context which shows why it's important should be there, too.  Or else put them both in a footnote. Eseymour 18:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with FFFF and Tvoz above.  This material has been extensively covered in the media, and it deserves at least a brief mention in this article, with all verifiable facts included in a concise way.  R. Baley 07:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with FFFF, Tvoz, and R. Baley. Facts are facts and it is sad that we are still talking about this. I guess whittling a paragraph worth of information to three words isn't good enough for some people. I think the side pushing for inclusion of this information has done everything humanly possible to compromise. Turtlescrubber 14:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for compromise, my initial preference was to mention nothing at all other than having their birth dates in their respective articles, but I've gone as far as proposing a wording that actually included the calculation, with an appropriate amount of context.  Those who are pushing for more attention to the age difference rejected my version, but after more than two weeks, they haven't come up with their own version.  So I say to you: Come up with an unbiased wording with context that shows why the age difference is relevant, and we can discuss it. Eseymour 17:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh my god, who do I report this bias to? He's the one that married a woman 24 years younger than him, and do you really think that fighting to keep it off of his Wikipedia page will help him? It's making his supporters look like they think that they think the age difference will have a negative impact on his campaign. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am illustrating that wording is important, and that in order to resolve this conflict we need to follow the sources. I have bent over backward to accomodate a few users who don't want well sourced, important information to appear on the page. It's not like I'm demanding the following phrasing be used: "When Fred Thompson was 24 years old and in his second year of law school, his future wife Jeri Kehn was born." But if that was what the talk shows and major newspapers kept saying, then we should put it on Wikipedia, with perhaps a sourced rebuttal too. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what his supporters think, I certainly could care less from a political point of view.  However, his detractors seriously feel it should be included.  The real point is that it is purely political gamesmanship.  I am looking at this like I would a real encyclopedia, and a real encyclopedia simply does not list information this way, unless there is some implicit reason for mention.  If you mention it as you would like, you are stating that there is something special about it.  Without context of what that is, it reads like POV pushing within the article.  It is clearly not all that important by itself (there are several candidates on both sides in similar situations).  Now if you want to have a special section to discuss the age difference, then we should be prepared to do the same for every candidate, because that is where it will lead.  I seriously think people should read some real encyclopedias and other bibliographies.  I shouldn't have to remind people that this is a BLP, not a gossip page. Arzel 00:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I've said it before, and I'll say it again; we must follow the sources. This issue has been seriously reported on by serious journals, and is important. It's not going away. I'd be happy to report on whatever similar situation exists on whatever candidate, as long as reputable sources have reported on it. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go again.  http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07224/808904-176.stm  Arzel 00:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And for your edification:.  Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read those (mostly gossip and fashion writeups), have you read this  "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia" - Jimmy Wales.  I suggest a re-read of WP:BLP.  If it is truely a presidential issue (as you claim it is) perhaps you should edit his presidential election page where you can discus in context this issue.  Arzel 00:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll believe it when you edit the campaign page and dicuss the issue in context. Fee Fi Foe Fum 09:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe what?  If you feel it is a major campaign issue then you should work on it there.  Arzel 14:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Facts? Wording is everthing

message: Born in 1966, she is 24 years younger than her husband. Questions concerning this age disparity has become an issue in Thompson's presidential campaign and has attracted media attention. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/fashion/08JERI.html
:Is there a reason this ref is the only one suggested? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there are dozens to choose from. I just wanted to put something at the end. It's not a bad reference. Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a fashion reference.  Furthermore there is no context for this statement, and the only reason is to throw out the age. Arzel (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fashion Reference"! .What the hell have you done to add to this discussion? Have you thought about contributing towards a compromise edition instead of just throwing out snotty remarks? Turtlescrubber (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Proposal by [[User:Turtlescrubber|Turtlescrubber]]
 

message: (edited on 16:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Proposal by Eseymour 

message: Just to throw out a modifications to Eseymour's new proposal:
:In July 1996, Thompson began dating Jeri Kehn (b. 1966) and the two married almost six years later on June 29 2002.[reference] The couple has two children, Hayden (b. 2003) and Samuel (b. 2006).[reference] Although Kehn had established a career as a lawyer and political consultant prior to meeting Thompson, their 24-year age difference has generated commentary.[reference]
Mostly minor wording changes to make it flow better, the only "major" change was that I dropped reference to her being involved in his campaign. While it is notable and true, it's probably better placed in the campaign section or article. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal by Bobblehead 

message: In July 1996, Thompson began dating Jeri Kehn (b. 1966) and the two married almost six years later on June 29 2002.[reference] The couple has two children, Hayden (b. 2003) and Samuel (b. 2006).[reference] Although their 24-year age difference has generated commentary, Kehn had already established a career as a lawyer and political consultant prior to meeting Thompson.[reference]
:This is for editors new to the conversation. Copied and moved from discussion below. Turtlescrubber (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Recent Compromise Proposal by Bobblehead 

message: Please add these two categories to the page. They belong on the biography page, as the category refers to a person, not an organization headed by the candidate (which is what the campaign article is about, where they were removed). At this point, only the Fred Thompson articles are exceptional on this convention.  --  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Declined. There is no urgent pressing need to have them added, it can wait until the protection expires or is removed. Stifle (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was an uncontroversial request. Why not do it? This has nothing to do with the reason the page is protected. I am re-requesting. Mahalo. --Ali'i (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, should have posted here to. I added the 2008 category, but not the general one. The 2008 category is a sub-category of the general one, so it seemed redundant to me to have both on the article. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidential Categories 

message: A check of eight other candidates' pages showed them all mentioned as presidential primary candidates in the first paragraph, frequently in the first sentence.  Here, it's in the fourth paragraph, and is in the form of a narrative rather than a clear statement.  I recommend that the first paragraph be amended with the sentence "He currently is a candidate for the 2008 Republication nomination for President."  I'm reluctant to edit the opening section of such a high-visibility page without consensus, so please comment.CouldOughta  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.43.51 (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Seeking republican nomination" in the opening paragraph 

message: FYI, the Washington Post has noticed our debate, but calls it the 25 year age difference. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a pretty old article that we've all seen.  --David Shankbone 05:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess I didn't see it. The point is, I kept saying we needed to resolve the dispute before the media picked it up. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington Post has noticed 

message: This article has a subsection incorrectly titled "Resignation."  Thompson did not resign from the Senate any more than LBJ resigned from the presidency.
This article also incorrectly states that his wife is an attorney.69.183.255.90 (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This editor seems to be right about her not being a lawyer - see this.  I'm looking into this some more, but meanwhile removed it from the article.   And the editor is also right about the incorrect heading "Resignation", which I have removed. Also removed the McCain senate campaign chair heading for flow and to avoid one-paragraph subsections.  No subsection needed in Senate career.  Tvoz |talk 03:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on his personal life has no link to the article about his wife, Jeri Kehn Thompson.  That link was deleted without explanation here.  Perhaps it should be reinserted.69.183.242.239 (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - looks like it got lost in the hubbub of rewording that sentence.  Fixed now. Tvoz |talk 06:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing those errors, Tvoz.  I neglected to sign in.Ferrylodge 21:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know you can make those edits yourself now, Ferrylodge. Your arbcom case is completed and you were unblocked.--Bobblehead (rants) 21:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I heard.  BLNT.Ferrylodge 21:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors 

message: I see that there was a alot of talk about the wife's age ext. I edited the article to reflect how most bios read. Thanks, --Tom 18:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, if you see there was a lot of talk about this including full protection a few weeks ago, and you see there's hidden text asking that the wording be left alone, and you're reverted by an editor with an edit summary asking that it be discussed - why would you make this edit?  Come on - you're not a newbie. Read the archive if you missed some of the drama.  The wording in the article is what's called a "compromise" - probably none of us are completely happy with it, but  we reached consensus and moved on.  If you have new arguments to make about changing it, I'm sure someone will be interested in further discussion. Tvoz |talk 20:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Tvoz, I was involved with this guys naming convention and the "drama" about his wife's age and have read most and have edited this page in the past. Why not treat this bio like most other bios. Do we put birth dates next to wife's names and childrens birth dates in parentheses on other bios? Oh course not. I don't spend all my time here like some editors who even draw national media attention due to their editing but I still can edit. The birth date in parentheses draws attention to this "issue" and makes it into one. There is already "commentary" about it that is included. Anyways, so much for consensus :) Cheers, --Tom 20:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, the reason why the (b. XXXX) is used is because it is common to do it in bios outside of Wikipedia and because it ended the constant edit warring over whether or not Jeri's age at the time of their marriage should be included in the article. The children's birth year is included because they do not have an article and it makes sense to include something beyond their gender in the sentence. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know  who you are Tom - my memory's not that short! I was not saying you shouldn't edit, just that those few sentences were discussed ad nauseam, again, after having been discussed ad nauseam earlier, and we finally came up with something that most editors who cared at all about it could live with.  So going in and changing it without talking about it first is not the best approach, given the history of the page, don't you think?   As for the substance of your argument: yeah, I was one of those who thought the better approach was to state Fred & Jeri's ages when they married and/or specify the age difference, rather than list the birth years. But I can live with it the way it was finally agreed on. And Bobblehead is right about the children.  Tvoz |talk 20:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tvoz, I actually have THE worst memory in the world. I catch major crap about it at work. If I don't write it down, its gone. Its actually quite a convenient excuse I use :) --Tom 20:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Bobblehead, we are talking about this project and it is NOT common to put the birth date of other family member's name in that format. It draws unneccessary attention since it is not a "standard" wiki convention. WHY is is being included here when it is not done in any other bios I have seen. I know all about the "age difference" issue. You folks have tried to address that but to put the birth date in parentheses is not needed since the issue has already been addressed in the next sentence. Thanks, --Tom 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia doesn't have a standard convention regarding the use of birth years within parentheticals, so it is really up to each page whether or not they use them. There may be a frequently used practice to not include them, but that by no means they can not be used when their use has been agreed upon on the article's talkpage. This page decided to use them, so there you are. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Every article does not need to have the same style. We can "ignore all the rules" when it helps improve the encyclopedia. Not having a constant edit war helps the encyclopedia more than consistency in this case. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's time to move on, Tom. Regardless of the reason behind wanting to include Jeri's age (and I'm sure some of those included in the discussion would take umbrage to your interpretation of their reasons), the use of the birth year in parantheticals ended the edit war. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if the truth hurts but its obvious this "solution" is a result of editors with an agenda to push. Its too bad but it is one of the flaws with this project. I doubt they have these type of problems at an article like iron ore.Wikipedia might not be the best at what they do, but they are the only ones who do what they do :). Cheers--Tom 00:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bobblehead, just to clarify, I meant that folks with an agenda have created the need to go through all this rigamoreroll. You still might not like that, but that is pretty self evident. Also, no need to "close" this discussion. This article can still be improved and the family section can and should still be review and discussed going forward. Cheers, --Tom 01:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Arzel, Eseymour, who was essentially on the same "side" as you  on this matter, is the one who added that hidden text, and it was a good add.  This article was locked for a while as you know because there was so much disagreement on the matter.  We apparently reached enough consensus here that Eseymour's advisory and the agreed-on wording have remained as is in the article until Tom chose to ignore the request to discuss and made his edit and commented here at the same time. You may not love the wording about their ages - I know I don't, for quite different reasons - but this is what we agreed to a few weeks ago.  Removing the hidden text I think is inflammatory and goes against the consensus we reached.  It did not say, and no one is advocating, that discussion is closed.   But it asked editors to discuss here, not edit war there.  By removing the advisory, new and returning editors who haven't lived through the battles and haven't poured through the archives would have no way of kn owing it was something under contention and might edit in good faith without discussing here first, as anyone can for most of the rest of the article.  The only place that can lead, it seems to me, is  a return to the fighting.  I'm reinstating the advisory, and I'll make sure it is crystal clear that nothing is ever final on Wikipedia, and always open to more discussion on the Talk page.  By all means, discuss it - as I see you have started to below.  Tvoz |talk 01:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I was hasty, but the hidden text seemed to imply no changes should be made, but there is no complete concensus.  Futhermore I made an edit to reflect the true nature of the references being used, which was then reverted.  Please explain to me why people here feel obligated to violate synthesis of material on this issue?  It is clear from the current two references, and the previous reference that was used, that her appearance is the driving force for the commentary regarding her.  Arzel (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy edit about wife 

message: Ok, as I have said before, the issue regarding Jeri Thompson is about her apperance, not her age.  The current version has refs that discuss her apperance, the age is ancillary to the issue. 
ref1:
http://www.tnr.com/currentissue/story.html?id=43abb294-19e7-4451-b58c-d2e3f1a43311&p=2 
Last June, at a fund-raiser for the Virginia GOP, Jeri Thompson entered on her husband's arm looking more Dallas beauty queen than D.C. power player. The hair was a shade too bright, the skin a shade too tan, and the sleeveless V- neck dress a shade too snug. Although Jeri is chronologically only 24 years Fred's junior, she is a young-looking 41 to his old-looking 65, making the gap appear much larger.
ref2, which talks about all of them: 
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07224/808904-176.stm
Never mind that, by all accounts, Ms. Thompson is an experienced political professional who worked for the Republican National Committee and as a media consultant for a Washington law firm. She's also devoted to her husband, who was single for years, dating starlets and country singer Lorrie Morgan, before marrying Ms. Kehn.
But her relative youth -- she is 40, he's 64 -- and her predilection for tight, low-cut outfits, as well as a blond hairstyle more often seen on Hollywood's red carpet than in dowdy Washington, D.C., provided the perfect opening for MSNBC commentator Joe Scarborough, who jokingly wondered on camera if she "works the pole." Amid cries of "inappropriate!" and "sexist!" Mr. Scarborough insisted it was all in the context of a discussion about a new exercise trend using strippers' poles.
This is twice now that the ref's did not support the wording, I am reopening this issue because it is apparant that the issue is not the age difference, but her apperance.  Arzel 01:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arzel, the references make it clear that it is age AND appearance difference that is the issue, not just the appearance as you say. If you'd like, the sentence can be reworded to include both the age and appearance difference as being the issue. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would something along the lines of "Although the 24-year age and relative attractiveness differences between Kehn and Thompson has generated commentary, Kehn had already established a career as a political consultant prior to meeting Thompson." work? I bolded the addition just to make it clear what I changed. I would hope the bolding would not be repeated in the article itself. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bobblehead is right--it's age and attractiveness.  I don't like Bobblehead's wording above, though.  It reads as if it implies that Thompson is ugly.  If we're going to change the wording, I'd go with something like "Although the 24-year age difference between Kehn and Thompson--as well as Jeri Thompson's glamourous appearance--has generated commentary, Kehn had already established a career as a political consultant prior to meeting Thompson." Eseymour 16:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I like the "as well" within the mdash as it seems to imply the appearance portion is less important than the age difference, Perhaps "Although the 24-year age difference between Kehn and Thompson and Jeri's glamorous appearance has generated commentary, Kehn had already established a career as a political consultant prior to meeting Thompson."--130.76.32.181 16:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there should be any wording like "glamorous appearance". How is that neutral? While her looks might play somewhat of a note in the gossip magazines, I think we should stick to the facts (ages, etc.), and leave the editorializing out of it. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the sources mention her attractiveness and age as being a factor in the commentary, so something in relation to her appearance is warranted. Would you be open to changing glamorous to a different word or leaving the word out entirely? So "24-year age difference between Kehn and Thompson and Jeri's appearance..." --Bobblehead (rants) 17:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the first one again.  Age is ancillary to the issue, and in fact is saying that the age would be a complete non-issue if not for her appearance.  The second focuses on her appearance as well.  As have all of the references put forth regarding this issue thus far, the primary reason for the commentary is her appearance compared to Fred Thompson.  Let us stop trying to WP:SYNTH the issue into more than it really is.  Arzel (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So no futher response?  The wording is still synthesis of material, but yet I see it has been reverted without discussion.  Arzel (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm.. Excellent point, the TNR article seems to indicate at the time Kehn and Thompson met in Tennessee her employment is rather fuzzy. The article mentions several sales jobs, moonlighting for an internet entrepreneur, and with creditors going after her wages... It isn't until she moved to Washington that her career started to take off. It seems if the successful part is to be kept, it should be mentioned reworded to make it clear her career was established before they married. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age Issue 

message: According to the cited sources, Kehn had not already established a career as a political consultant prior to meeting Thompson.   They met on July 4, 1996, in a Kroger check-out line in Nashville, and she moved to Washington two years later to try her hand at political work.Ferrylodge 17:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.. Excellent point, the TNR article seems to indicate at the time Kehn and Thompson met in Tennessee her employment is rather fuzzy. The article mentions several sales jobs, moonlighting for an internet entrepreneur, and with creditors going after her wages... It isn't until she moved to Washington that her career started to take off. It seems if the successful part is to be kept, it should be mentioned reworded to make it clear her career was established before they married. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in career

message: The quote "thereby revealing the existence of tape recordings of conversations within the White House." is misleading because if you look at the sources that reference that information, (17) http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=6757748 is no longer working and (15) http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/archives/9612.cottle.html says
:"Far from a surprise attack by Thompson, this question had already been answered by Butterfield the previous Friday, during questioning by investigators of the minority and majority staffs." 
Who was the staffer that actually asked Butterfield the question? This NY Times article says that it was Donald G. Sanders.
:Mr. Sanders dug deeper and asked if it were possible that some sort of recording system had been used in the White House. Mr. Butterfield answered, I wish you hadn't asked that question, but, yes, there is. Mr. Sanders then hurried to tell Fred D. Thompson, the lead minority counsel who is now a Republican senator from Tennessee. 
Also, this University of Missouri Archives article says 
:"As minority counsel, it often fell to Sanders to directly question witnesses called to give testimony before the committee. And so it was that Sanders asked Butterfield the fateful question: "Is there any kind of recording system in the White House?""
Even (20) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16019179 says 
:On that program, Thompson recalled events this way: "Don Sanders on the staff really was the guy who asked the question at a staff meeting. He came to me and told me that. And that was kind of my reaction, somewhat of a surprise, to say the least." Sanders was Thompson's deputy counsel.
Opti280 (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a reference regarding Thompson's role in the question "What did he know and when did he know it?"  Also, the article already mentions that "Thompson asked about listening devices in the White House" (though the article does not quote Thompson).Ferrylodge (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I looked around some more, but still couldn't find anything definitive.  Most web hits are just parroting what someone has read elsewhere.  Would really need to look at Thompson's book, Baker's book if he wrote one, or some other thorough accounts of the Senate Watergate Committee hearings.  Until then, I think the AP stance of "sometimes credited" is the most cautious one to use here, and I've changed and cited the article accordingly.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watergate role 

message: This wording (born Freddie Dalton Thompson) is less than precise.  Children are usually named some time after they are born.  TableMannersC·U·T 21:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, give me a break.  Whether a birth name is given at the precise moment of birth or several weeks later is utterly irrelevant. It's still a birth name.  If you have a problem with the English language, go take it up with the Academy for the English Language - oh, wait, there isn't such a body.  Oh well.  -- Zsero (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: God bless Wikipedia.  Where else would such a matter ever need to be brought up.  Hilarious. Hooper (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When is the exact moment of birth, as shown on a birth certificate?  Crowning, or completely out?  I want to know so that I can name my children when they are born, and not before or after. Robert K S (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "born Freddie Dalton Thompson"