Talk:Political positions of Fred Thompson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vandalism note[edit]

Article vandalized again by 147 IP address again right before article locked so current incarnation does not contain accurate information. --206.255.40.47 05:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is highly vandalized by IP 201.53.100.33 . Incorrectly cited quotes, citing blogs, or false information is continually added. Before believing any information here, verify with non-wikipedia sources if it is correct.

I have noticed that. He has also been blanking. He has been reported to AIV and will/has been blocked.--James, La gloria è a dio 04:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now IP address 147.197.215.15 is making the same changes as 201.53.100.33. Probably rotated their IP. We should add a neutrality dispute note at the top of this article. --206.255.40.47 04:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voting record on abortion[edit]

Continued vandalism by IP address 201.53.100.33 This IP continues to erase votes and add in blog references.



Note, continued vandalism on Thompson's abortion article. Blog references are cited as news and someone continues to post a poll that was debunked back in the 90s by some obscure group saying Thompson was pro-choice when there was no evidence of Thompson ever completing the poll and he disputed it from day 1. Added in Thompson's voting record with bill numbers as that should be the deciding factor on if he is pro-choice or pro-life. --206.255.40.47 04:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a cite for the debunking? It would be useful to have if this comes up again. Sbowers3 00:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I glanced over Thompson's voting record on abortion issues, but I'm too lazy to find out what his voted actually mean. 169.237.6.176 03:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added that link to the Ext links section. - Crockspot 05:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the following from the article because it lacks any citations: Fred Thompson has held various positions on abortion throughout his career. He has consistently opposed any type of government funding of abortion. On the issue of whether or not abortion on demand should be legal, Thompson has shifted in his views. During his first senate campaign in 1994, when asked by a reporter from a libertarian newspaper, Fred Thompson said that the decision of whether or not to have an abortion "must be made by the woman. Government should stay out of it." [citation needed] Furthermore, I could not find any source that would confirm what was stated.

The 1993 reference is double-hearsay. Does anyone have access to Nexis to verify the quotes and provide some context? The linked reference is decidedly non-neutral. A reference to original source material would be much better. Sbowers3 03:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sbowers3, what do you mean by "double-hearsay"? If you had the original 1993 newspaper article from the Memphis Commercial Appeal in front of you and it reported the interview as described would you consider that "single-hearsay"? I suppose it's possible that "R.S.K." of Media Matters and Eric Kleefeld of TPM are both lying/mistaken in their quotes of the newspaper article, but that seems quite a stretch (note Kleefeld says he independently checked the article via Nexis). I don't have access to Nexis. It's not a bad idea to ask others who might have access to check it out. But I'm not sure that adding an anonymous person saying "ya, I see that too" would add that much. Crust 16:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TPM quoted Media Matters which quoted Commercial Appeal. Words often get changed (nothing sinister - it just happens) along the way. And context is lost, which often changes the meaning. It is much better to have a reference to the original source than to someone two or more stages removed. Sbowers3 22:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sbowers3, you seem like a reasonable person, but this is getting silly. As I noted above, Kleefeld of TPM went back to the source himself by checking Nexis, not merely indirectly via Media Matters. And really I don't understand what you have in mind by "[w]ords get[ting] changed along the way." If we were talking about a paraphrase instead of a literal quote or a radio broadcast instead of a newspaper article, I could see it. But it's a word for word quote from a newspaper. What is your theory? A transcription error in copying the quote? That seems pretty far out there. Crust 02:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem using a blog or media matters because the quote is a one liner, and probably taken out of context. I am providing a valid cite below, the url goes to an abstract where the article can be purchased for three bucks. Perhaps someone can use the cite to find a reprint online somewhere. Thompson may very well be the next President, so we should enforce a strict standard here of only using reliable secondary sources, of which there should be no shortage. Save Media Matters for the pundit articles. - Crockspot 04:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Locker, Richard (1993-07-29). "Thompson Edges Closer To GOP Run For Senate". Commercial Appeal. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

I purchased that article. Here is the relevant paragraph:

Thompson said he supports the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. He opposes federal funding for abortion and favors allowing states to impose limited restrictions on abortion, such as parental notification requirements for minors.

Note that it is not a quotation. Elsewhere in the article, the author does use direct quotes. Clearly, the reporter was paraphrasing Thompson. On the basis of Thompson's overall record I am fully prepared to agree that he was pro-choice at that time (with restrictions) but I find it hard to believe that he said specifically that he agreed with the Court's Roe v. Wade decision. That would be inconsistent with his views of federalism, the Constitution, and a judiciary exceeding its proper role. He might agree that the federal government should stay out of the abortion question, that the decision must be made by the woman, but still think that the way the Court reached its decision is bad law. I am editing the paragraph to remove the quotes, and to mention the restrictions. Sbowers3 15:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I suspected such a situation. Now I hope those who defended Media Matters and the other blog on the accuracy of this "quote" will reconsider their opinion on the reliability of such sources. - Crockspot 16:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{main} vs. {sync}[edit]

Flex changed the {main} at the top to {sync}. This seems wrong to me so I changed it back. Similar pages, e.g. Political Positions of Hilary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards use {main} not {sync}. The Summary Style page, second paragraph specifically mentions using {main} for a subsection such as this.

If I am wrong, please enlighten me as to when to use {main} and when to use {sync}. Sbowers3 00:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After further study, I see that what should happen is that the main Fred Thompson article should have a summary of this article. So it is appropriate for the main article to have a {sync} but this subarticle should have a {main}. I will try to write a summary in the main article, then remove the {sync} there. Sbowers3 00:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article is/is not the place for a debate about political positions?[edit]

Is this article an appropriate place for a debate about the rightness/wrongness of the candidate's positions or should it simply document what those positions are? The lead paragraph of this article like articles for other candidates ends with "Here are some of Thompson's remarks and positions on various issues" so I am inclined to think that it should state his positions and not be a forum for other people to state their positions.

The recent edits to the Global warming and Gun control sections add editorial comments which I think are not appropriate here. What do others think? Sbowers3 03:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sbowers3, I had another shot at the Global Warming section. Let me know what you think. Re the rightness/wrongness bit, I think we need to distinguish between "right/wrong" in philosophical/moral/ethical/political terms and "right/wrong" in terms of accuracy. I would argue we need some comment in the GW section, since he is making claims of dubious factual accuracy. Crust 14:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a problem with the GOA stuff in the gun control section, though. It gives an aggressive critique of Thompson (e.g. referencing McCain-Feingold which Thompson supports as the "odious McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act."), without even giving Thompson's thinking except as relayed by that aggressive critic. Crust 15:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the "currently" in the global warming session, it's certainly less of an editorial comment than was there before ("if any"). But it's fine if it's gone, since the section reads the same either way. Jdb1972 17:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the "currently" more as redundant verbiage rather than an editorial comment; I just mentioned that in the edit summary in case others read it that way.Crust 18:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the "if any" bit, I was just trying to cover the case that there are literally no climate scientists who have endorsed this theory (except Abdusamatov himself, and even he is more of an astronomer). There probably is some climate scientist somewhere who supports it, but I couldn't find one on a quick Google search. So I included "if any" to be (sure to be) accurate. But this is a molehill.Crust 19:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologize for droning on about Global Warming, My point really isn't even about Global Warming; I didn't like the implication of the "few climate scientists" statement because it sounded like an unnecessary editorial comment. Readers who are informed about the issues should be able to make their own judgements about the merits of his belief without our help. Since the only part relevant to this article is a (mostly) settled point I have no objection to those comments being removed. I took the discussion to the talk page only because I didn't want to change the verbage without any discussion at all. I do NOT want to see this or any other candidates BIO pages turning into the place to argue those positions. That is WHY we have issue specific articles for those subjects; Kbastin 00:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of article[edit]

Most of the other articles about Political positions of so-and-so are organized as: Economic policy, Foreign policy, Social policy with subsections alphabetically in each section.

So I'd like to restore the headers for Foreign policy, Taxation, Trade, etc.

I've heard Thompson speak about the War on Terror, etc. but haven't seen written commentary. The transcript of Hannity's interview on 6/5 may provide more fodder for this article. Sbowers3 13:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: See http://web.archive.org/web/20020616034647/thompson.senate.gov/text/america.html for Thompson's Official Position on the WOT from 2002.

Edit war; abortion[edit]

Wow! I go away for a couple of days and find there has been a real edit war while I've been gone.

I'm about to tweak the abortion section again, so I thought I'd explain here what I'm doing and why. If anyone else wants more edits I hope we can have a discussion here instead of a war.

I'm reordering the first two sentences because I think the question of pro-life or pro-choice should be first. Then the idea of leaving it to the states is an example of Thompson's Federalism.

I'm editing the wording because the cited article rather than Thompson himself states that he "voted with pro-lifers almost all the time." Sbowers3 00:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion and Federalism[edit]

(copied from Talk:Fred Thompson as part of removing paragraph about abortion from the main article. His position should be documented in this Political positions subarticle, rather than in the main article.) Sbowers3 02:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson's Federalism (sometimes expressed by 99:1 votes in the Senate) is very rare and can make his politics hard to read. He voted against two Federal Tort reform bills and a Good Samaritan protection law that he certainly would have supported at the state level. We would need the entire context of his alleged pre-choice statements to really understand if this is the case. As he was running for Federal office he may have been parsing the reporter's questions in terms of Federal restricitons on abortion, which would have been entirely consistent with his Federalism, not in opposition as the main article states. The same goes for the 1994 National Political Awareness Test, he may have parsed the questions in term of the role of the Federal government since he held a Federal office. The referenced source for his alleged pro-choice position is very POV. He was endorsed by the National Right to Life Committee this same year and they rated his voting record highly. Someone needs to look into this in more detail. As a supporter, I am recusing myself from editing the article. 12.10.223.247 01:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, let me say that the paragraph about abortion should be moved to the Political Positions subarticle. Having said that, your comments are relevant and should stay with that paragraph. I agree with your first sentence that Federalism can make politics hard to read - for someone who doesn't understand the principle. Even though you won't edit the article yourself, can you give a bit more guidance to the rest of us? Do you think there should be a general comment to the effect that some of his positions might be hard to understand unless the principle of Federalsim is understood? Or perhaps say something in each section, e.g. abortion, to reemphasize that Federalism is the guiding principle?
(By the way, in his recent interview with Hannity, Thompson said that he didn't remember the 1994 NPAT test and that possibly a staffer filled it out. Thompson went on to explain that he thought it should be decided at the state level.)
Should we mention the ratings of outside groups wherever they apply or should we stick to documenting what the candidate himself states? Sbowers3 03:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12.10.223.247, re "He was endorsed by the National Right to Life Committee this same year [1994] and they rated his voting record highly." Back then most abortion votes were about federal funding which Thompson opposed; so the high rating is consistent with him supporting Roe v. Wade. For example, Al Gore was also highly rated by pro-life organizations back then even though Gore supported Roe v. Wade. The reason is -- like Thompson apparently -- at the time Gore opposed federal funding of abortions (he's since switched on that one).Crust 13:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following paragraph from the main article because it links to this subarticle and so the main article should have only a summary, not a detail that is part of his abortion position. Sbowers3 02:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, in the past he has on occasion taken non-federalist positions. For instance, in a 1993 interview he stated that he "supports the Supreme Court's authority to make a decision that established a constitutional right to abortion Roe vs. Wade ",[1] a matter that was previously up to the states. Since the year 2000, Thompson has stated that he disagrees with the Roe vs. Wade decision and apparently has changed his opinion of the courts authority, believing that the legality of abortion should be decided at the state level, a federalist stance.

References

  1. ^ "Fred Thompson's Dissembling About His Abortion Record"

Gun Control/Campaign Finance Reform[edit]

It is not enough to separate these sections. There will be some overlap because one directly affects the other. Campaign Finance reform in this instance was used to directly silence the Gun Lobby and was in fact a direct attack on the Gun Lobby; and was supported in the end by Fred Thompson. This was recognized by Gun Owners and that is why it is directly referenced as part of their review of Thompson's overall record; and thus it is part of Thompson's history and support for the anti-gun agenda of that day. Anappealtoheaven 04:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many groups are opposed to McCain-Feingold because it limits their political speech. A pro-life group has gone to the Supreme Court on the issue. Are we going to mention campaign finance reform in the Abortion section and in every other section where it might come into play? I have strengthened the Campaign finance reform section and shortened the GOA paragraph. I hope this works for you. Sbowers3 16:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I like your edit Sbowers3. Anappealtoheaven 02:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping to avoid another edit war, I am explaining the small edits I am making to Gun control:

  • The first sentence is not properly referenced (my mistake). The first part expresses a thought from one reference; the quotation is unreferenced but is from a second source. I'm going to break up that sentence and reference it properly.
  • The detail about the Smith amendment I am going to move down with the other detail.

As a rule, I think the order of a section should be the candidate's stated position, then summaries of his voting record by organizations that are neutral about the candidate (but might be on one side or the other of the topic), followed by individual events (e.g. votes) that might illustrate his position.

In this particular section, I think that the two votes give undue weight to one POV. It would be better to also include one or two votes on the other side of the coin, but I'll leave that for later or for someone else. Sbowers3 02:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To anonymous user 216.193.201.64: Please explain the reason for your edits.

  • What is the reason for changing "Senator" to "senator" (lower case)?
  • What is the reason for removing information from a neutral (with respect to Thompson) organization that summarizes Thompson overall voting record?
  • What is the reason for reordering Thompson's two votes? What difference could it possibly make? It seems to be change for the sake of change.

Sbowers3 04:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a FREE SPEECH issue involving the Second Amendment. It has nothing to do with advertizing and everything to do with shutting down the WEB SITES of people who would report on the GUN VOTING RECORDS of incumbent polititians. This is both a FIRST and SECOND AMENDMENT Infringment; and to merely use to word "advertizing" is not adequate. Anappealtoheaven 20:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I messed up the wording of that paragraph. I mistakenly thought that Crust's edit had accidentally been overwritten in the edit wars involving JGoldwater. I somehow overlooked your edit to that same section. I actually agree with you that the anti-speech part of McCain-Feingold should have been obvious to everyone as unconstitutional. All those who take an oath to uphold the Constitution should have avoided writing that restriction, should have voted against it, should have vetoed it, should have ruled it unconstitutional. I further agree with the characterization as Incumbent Protection. In the context of a Wikipedia article, however, I don't have strong thoughts about the particular wording. My primary interest is that the article accurately represent Thompson's position and record. The description of McCain-Feingold doesn't affect the overall thrust of the article so I'm happy to leave the description to you and others. Sbowers3 22:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sbowers. I don't care so much how it is stated so long as it included. I would prefer to make use of actual quotes. With that in mind I am deleting the sentence regarding the difference in the GOA vs NRA ratings. The assertions are not backed by any references and it is more an attack on GOA than facts regarding the candidate. References and quotes from actual source material is definately inportant as this line is merely someones opinion. Anappealtoheaven 21:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up the paragraph about the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban and removed info about the conviction of misdemeanor that is not mentioned in the source. BTW, I'm back ;) --JGoldwater 22:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

non-Neutral POV[edit]

New user RalphReed has added a large amount of information that is decidedly non-neutral. At least one of the sources (The Brody File) says that the information was provided by a rival campaign. At first glance, the information is accurate and verifiable - but it is not balanced. The immigration section, for instance, cherry-picked all of Thompson's "wrong" votes and ignored all of his "right" votes. Each individual piece is factual and so does not have a biased POV, but the lack of balance gives it a non-neutral POV.

What's the right thing to do in a case like this? No individual piece fails the NPOV test, but the overall contribution fails due to lack of balance. Would it be right to revert the whole addition? Or delete part of it and balance with details from the other POV? If so, then how much detail? Three votes on one side, then three on the other?

RalphReed - the user has been blocked due to a suspicious name - added information to Gun control, Imigration, and Abortion. I have made a small edit to Gun control to put Thompson's stated position before comments by others about his position. I retained RalphReed's addition about a single vote by Thompson. I'm not sure whether to leave even that one vote because it is one of many. The reference provides a long list of votes. I don't think that we should duplicate the whole list, nor should we cherry-pick a single pro- or anti- vote. So I will leave that one vote for others to decide.

On Immigration, I am going to replace the list of votes by a summary from the two referenced organizations. Readers can go to the references for the detailed list of votes.

Abortion is a little more difficult because Thompson's record provides evidence that is apparently contradictory. Some of the contradictions can be explained by Thompson's view of federalism. Other changes may evidence a movement toward a pro-life position. The article as it now stands emphasizes the pro-choice record. Previous users as well as RalphReed have added details on that side. I'm going to try to provide more summary information before the details. I'm not sure whether to retain all of the details. It seems too much like cherry-picking. In this case, though, the details may help to illustrate that there is an apparent contradiction and that the contradiction might be explained by Thompson's federalism. Sbowers3 14:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary Global Warming[edit]

I removed the statement "This relatively new theory is accepted by few climate scientists" as it lacks a credible source as defined by Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Previous Discussion of this topic has been archived at Archive 1 Kbastin 13:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing by JGoldwater?[edit]

New user (as of today) JGoldwater has made several edits to Fred Thompson or Political positions of Fred Thompson. Maybe he is just a newbie (as I was not too long ago) but his edits look to me like someone trying to push an anti-Thompson POV. He changed things that had been previously edited, and apparently did not read the discussion about the previous edits. His edit summaries are misleading. He is apparently trying to emphasize points that some people think are anti-Thompson.

e.g. in Gun control he moved some "anti-" information ahead of Thompson's own statements. As a rule, I think we should let the candidate speak for himself before any other comments about his position. He removed summary information from GOA calling it a "biased agent" - GOA is neutral regarding Thompson. JGoldwater summarized "Factual Senate Record Added" but that item from Thompson's record was already there - he moved not added - and it was just one item from a record of thousands. He picked one "negative" item instead of trying to provide balanced information.

e.g. in Immigration, JGoldwater summarized "removed bias" but he removed summary information from a neutral organization and added one "negative" detail with no attempt at providing balanced information.

I am going to undo his edits and explain here my changes. If he or any other user wants to edit my changes, then go ahead - as is every user's right - but please provide here a rationale instead of making wholesale changes without explanation. Through discussion we can reach consensus. Sbowers3 00:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: someone else already undid his edits. Sbowers3 00:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2: JGoldwater again edited the abortion and immigration sections, deleting relevant information and emphasizing one particular detail that some would regard as negative. I still think that he is attempting to push a POV but possibly he is just making newbie mistakes. I have left a note on his talk page. I am going to reedit the immigration section and explain here my reasons. His edit to the abortion section is largely reasonable so that I am going to keep most of it, edit part of it and explain here my reasons. If JGoldwater is an innocent user he will reply here with his reasons and we can try to reach a consensus. If he continues to make changes and does not explain them here, I will assume he is acting maliciously and I will revert them. Sbowers3 01:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration: I provided summary information from two organizations that rate politicians on their immigration votes. I removed one detail because any single detail does not provide as balanced a view as an overall rating. It is almost always possible to find one particular detail out of dozens or hundreds to demonstrate a particular position. We could perhaps provide several votes to provide a more balanced view but those votes are readily available in the references. Sbowers3 01:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion: JGoldwater rearranged the detail items in reverse chronological order. I accept this change as probably an improvement. He changed the wording of a 1996 item to wording that came from an intermediate source. I went to the original source and summarized it by using the first question instead of the last question. I rephrased another item to make it clear that it was a 2007 item rather than a 1994 item and put it in chronological order. Sbowers3 01:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sbowers3, it's interesting that you accuse me of POV pushing because I just found this quote of yours about Fred Thompson at your Talk page: "I don't work for him - not yet. I became interested in him a couple of months ago and probably will work for him" So I think I can make the better case that I am not the one POV pushing here but you are. Especially since you are the one removing the fully sourced information that I've been posting. If you wanna debate specific issues post them here and we'll debate them. Your sources are all biased opinion and my sources are based on his record. I post how he voted in the senate, you post opinion pieces from National Review and proceed to remove my posts or "summarize" them in a way that completely distorts the facts. If you wanna get this debate started I think I can make a good case for removing most of your contributions, aka propaganda that you've added here.--JGoldwater 15:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JGoldwater, Sbowers3 should be commended -- not attacked -- for being open about his pro-Thompson viewpoint and interest in possibly working for him. Having a personal viewpoint is not necessarily inconsistent with making good edits and reasonable compromises.Crust 18:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay rights[edit]

The article currently states that his views are unclear.

According to [1], he:

  • Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
  • Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
  • Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
  • Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

Someone may want to research and add some of these votes to the article.Kylebrotherton 07:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMNESTY[edit]

The fully sourced information about Fred Thompson's vote for amnesty keeps getting deleted without a well founded reason being provided. Also, some factual statements are getting "summarized" in an attempt to paint them in a better light. The factual information I post about his record in the Senate is getting systematically replaced by opinion pieces from biased sources with no reasons provided. --JGoldwater 17:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson cast dozens if not hundreds of votes on immigration. Why emphasize that one vote over all of the other votes? WP articles should be balanced. There should not be undue weight for a particular point of view. You cherry-picked one vote that you think is "good" or is "bad" according to one's POV. You did not show any other votes that might cast a different light on his political position. If I looked through his voting record I probably could find a vote that gave an opposite impression from the vote that you picked. If I replaced your single vote with a different vote, I could claim as you do that it is fully sourced. But it is not enough to be fully sourced. The article should display a NPOV and not have undue weight for a particular POV. You deleted a quote from a neutral organization (i.e. neither for nor against Thompson) which tried to evaluate his entire voting record without giving undue weight to a single vote. You deleted another organization's ratings on sections of his voting record. Those ratings showed that Thompson was sometimes "good" and sometimes "bad." You apparently want to emphasize only the "bad." Sbowers3 18:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then post some of the good things he voted for and I'll have no quarrels. What you can't do is remove the things I add because you don't like it. That vote is the most important one on this subject. It's important that people know about it. You should focus on adding your own information instead of deleting what I post. Your role here is not very constructive. --JGoldwater 19:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're removing the broader description of his record and replacing it with what you perceive to be the "most important" vote. You also keep removing the Grading section at the end of that paragraph. Further, you are approaching WP:3RR on this article. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 20:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether I "like it." A WP article should be balanced. Balance is achieved not by see-sawing between undue weight on one side and undue weight on the other side, but rather by striving always for a NPOV. My goal is for this article to be a balanced representation of Thompson's political position, not to make him look good or bad. Your goal apparently is to make him look bad. Sbowers3 20:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection?[edit]

I'm wondering if this article should get semi-protection. All (?) of the edit wars in the last week have involved either new users or unregistered users.

On June 16, new user RalphReed removed some information and added other information that might seem to push a POV. He did this in three sections: Abortion, Gun control, and Immigration. That user was blocked because his name was that of a well-known person and he apparently was not that person. The block probably prevented an edit war.

I questioned in Talk the neutrality of RalphReed's changes and asked advice on how to handle it. I restored some information he had deleted, added summary information, kept many of his details, and rearranged some in chronological order.

On June 18, another new user JGoldwater edited the same three sections as RalphReed with mostly the same content. In Abortion, he summarized that he "Readded Information that was subtracted" but I don't see any information that he added (or that had been subtracted). He slightly changed the wording back to RalphReed's wording. That earlier wording was copied from an intermediate source. I had rephrased that wording (in an equivalent manner) based on the text of the original source. JGoldwater restored the wording to what RalphReed had copied from the intermediate source. In Immigration, he deleted summary information and added a detail that gave undue weight to a particular vote by Thompson. In Gun control, he removed summary information, and claimed "Factual Senate Record Added." But in fact he did not add that record item - it was already there, he just moved it to the top of the section - and he actually deleted a factual Senate record item: the Senate vote on that item.

JGoldwater engaged in an edit war until blocked for his edit war in another article. After he repeatedly changed things without engaging in discussion, SigmaEpsilon and I reverted his changes.

Most recently, new and unregistered user 216.193.201.64 has appealed the blocking of JGoldwater and had repeated one of JGoldwater's edits: removing summary information from Gun control.

Some might dispute the accuracy of this summary and some may argue that these users' edits were entirely proper. My point remains that these were new and/or unregistered users who were involved in edit wars. Semi-protection would have prevented or at least delayed the edit wars.

On the flip side there was one unregistered user in the last week who made constructive edits to Gay rights and prior to this last week there were other unregistered users who made constructive edits. Sbowers3 13:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

intro[edit]

The lead section is not written in encyclopedic style - needs complete rewrite. Tvoz |talk 23:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this intro needs a rewrite then so do the political positions of Obama, Giuliani, Clinton, Edwards, and McCain. But because this and the others are sub-articles I'm not sure that they do. If someone wants to write one then fine, but it has been more than a week since the above suggestion and nobody seems interested in rewriting it, so I am taking down the "needs rewrite" box at top. Sbowers3 23:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

We may soon have the same kind of argument that is occurring over at the main Fred Thompson article: What external links should we include?

How 'bout we discuss them here with reasons for including/excluding? Sbowers3 11:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First link: "Fred Thompson Forum" - it is brand new and empty and apparently won't have anything about Thompson's political positions. Sbowers3 11:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes
No
  • The Fred Thompson Forum
  • There isn't anything to argue about, with this or any other - spam gets deleted. If you patrol recent changes, you'll see people add spam to articles several times every minute. The fact that this is a political article instead of one about computer software changes nothing. --BigDT 13:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the Conservatives Against Fred Thompson link. It is a Pro-Brownback site and doesn't need to be included on a political positions of Fred Thompson as it adds nothing.TommyPerico 19:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)TommyPerico[reply]

Maybe

Should we include any criticism?[edit]

I noticed over at Political positions of Barack Obama that all criticism of Obama's positions have been removed, the reason being that the article is about his positions, not about criticism of those positions. What do you all think of that, and should we apply that same standard on this article? - Crockspot 19:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for denouncing a (potential) candidate's views. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 22:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm discussing some guidelines with an editor from the Obama article, and the ratings issue is one question. Should ratings like NRA grades, Sierra Club, that type of thing, be treated as "opinion/criticism" and be excluded, or allowed? He is of the mind that it is opinion, I'm more of the mind that some of the more notable groups, who give a quantified letter or number grade without a lot of commentary, are reasonable to expect. (As an NRA guy, I've always found the GOA to be a little extreme and ranty.) Any thoughts on that issue? Another issue is, should there be forked articles like Commentary on the political positions of Joe Candidate, to allow a place for legitimate and notable criticism or commentary? Or maybe it isn't even legitimate to document criticism or commentary on a candidate's position. It is what it is, and any commentary is necessarily going to be POV... Haven't figured that all out yet. I'd like to develop some guidelines that can be consistently applied across the category of candidate "positions" articles. More thoughts would be appreciated. - Crockspot 04:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is this degenerating into a forumish debate about candidate's positions. It's Wikipedia's job to report what a cadidates platform is. It is not our job to debate, denounce, support, or "provide commntary" any particular position. If we have Criticism of the political positions of Joe Candidate, will we also have Rebuttals to criticism of the political positions of Joe Candidate? and Rebuttals to rebuttals to criticism of the political positions of Joe Candidate? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 14:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to removing criticisms for the reason stated and yes also to including ratings from NRA, Sierra, etc. Those groups are analyzing his political position as demonstrated by his actions, not just his words. And they are neutral with respect to the candidate, neither for nor against the person. They use the same set of votes for people they like and people they don't like. They don't cherry-pick some votes to make one candidate look bad and another set of votes to make another candidate look good. I would have no objection to including both a pro-gun and an anti-gun organization or a pro-life and a pro-choice organization because the ratings are a useful and informative guide to a candidate's political position on some issue. Sbowers3 19:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic violence offender gun ban[edit]

I removed some side commentary about the domestic violence offender gun ban and replaced it with the description used in the main Wikipedia article. This article isn't the place to argue about the merits of the bill. Also, I don't know much about the bill but some of the comments I removed appear to be false. The comments I deleted said that the bill infringes on the right to a jury trial, but that doesn't appear to be true, according to this article from 2005:

"18 U.S.C. Sect. 921(a)(33) establishes two statutory defenses to the application of the Lautenberg Amendment, extending procedural protections that are generally only available to individuals charged with felonies to those charged with misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. Specifically, Sect. 921(a)(33)(B) provides that the underlying misdemeanor offense may not be used as a predicate to a violation of Sect. 922(g)(9) unless the individual in question was represented by counsel or they knowingly and intelligently waived their right to counsel, and, that in the instant case, the individual was entitled to a trial by jury, the case was indeed tried by jury or they knowingly and intelligently waived this right."

-Fagles 16:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


These critical websites keep appearing, via Kansans for Life, which are clearly biased, as they have been tied to Sam Brownback's campaign. Why does this stuff keep appearing upon removal. TommyPerico 18:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative?[edit]

This article bends over backward to portray Thompson as a conservative. This is not a universal view and should be presented that way.[2][3][4][5][6] This needs to be fully addressed. C56C 20:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on Gun Control[edit]

AnAppealToHeaven has made this edit, with the following edit summary: "You can not just delete his voting record as though it is irrelevent."

Initially, the paragraph in question said this (footnotes omitted):

From 1993 to 1999, the Gun Owners of America, the NRA, and the Georgia Gun Owners PAC gave more to Senator Thompson than to anyone else except Bill Frist. However, Thompson's voting record while in the Senate was not completely pro-gun.

AnAppealToHeaven changed it so that it says this:

"A 2000 report from a campaign finance watchdog group, Common Cause, found that the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and the Georgia Gun Owners PAC donated $188,954 to Mr. Thompson between 1993 and 1999; the groups donated more only to Dr. Frist." However, Thompson's voting record while in the Senate was not completely consistent with recent statements leading up to his possible 2008 presidential campaign.

This second blockquote begins by quoting an article from the New York Sun. I'm the one who put that material in this article in the first place, so it seems odd to accuse me of deleting it as though it is irrelevent. All I did is paraphrase instead of quote. AnAppealToHeaven, what is wrong with paraphrasing instead of quoting?

AnAppealToHeaven, you also say that Thompson's voting record "was not completely consistent with recent statements leading up to his possible 2008 presidential campaign." Which statements are you referring to? Wikipedia has rules against using weasel words and making unsourced assertions. What particular statements by Thompson do you find inconsistent with his voting record, and why?Ferrylodge 21:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign finance reform[edit]

I bow to no one in my dislike of the campaign finance "reforms" and I think supporting them was one of Thompson's biggest mistakes. Nonetheless this article should be about Thompson's current political positions, not about what they were many years ago. I would like to think that he has learned from experience of the last several years that there were mistakes in the reforms.

It is fair to include criticisms of Thompson's past position but we should not give undue weight to those criticisms. Accordingly, I am shortening the George Will criticism. Sbowers3 14:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will isn't merely criticizing Thompson's past positions, the way some Democrats criticize John Edwards for voting for the Iraq War Resolution. Will is addressing Thompson's characterization of his past positions. Edwards doesn't try to claim he never supported the war; he now says he made a mistake. By contrast, Thompson is now saying that he never supported certain portions of McCain-Feingold, and Will is taking issue with his contention. (Actually, he's politely calling Thompson a liar on that score.) No candidate gets to rewrite his or her own history and have that revisionist version be reported in Wikipedia unchallenged.
It might be undue weight to quote a lot of people saying "Here's why I disagree with what Thompson said or did back then." It's certainly not undue weight to quote a prominent columnist who says, "Here are the facts about what he said back then, facts that somewhat undercut his current version of events." The George Will column gives some indications of why Will is opposed to McCain-Feingold. Those weren't the parts I quoted, though. I quoted the parts in which Will cites Thompson's own words (in the current Ingraham interview) and points out that Thompson's characterization of his position doesn't completely square with the record.
This section certainly shouldn't get into the pros and cons of McCain-Feingold, but I think Will's column represents a notable opinion on the precise subject of the article. JamesMLane t c 16:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to comment on the use of block quotes, etc., but Thompson's position on McCain-Feingold is partly notable in that his change is a relatively recent one (shortly before/after he was considering his run for Pres). So the fact that he was at least an initial supporter of the act is important to the overall context of his current position. It is also important to note that as an encyclopedic article, this article is supposed to document the history of Thompson's political positions, not just the current ones. If only the current views were documented, this would be a campaign page, not an encyclopdia page. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does document his past support. Sbowers3 17:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not very well, well, at least prior to my expansion of the section.[7] His support was more than an "in passing" support. He voted for cloture on the debate, in favor of the bill, and filed a brief supporting the Supreme Court arguing for the constitutionality of the law the bill enacted.--Bobblehead (rants) 19:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. He was a co-sponsor, which is more than "passing support". Sbowers3 20:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be charitable - possibly more charitable than is deserved on this issue - toward Thompson, he may not have appreciated the unintended consequences of the bill. What he hated was the appearance of bribery from people giving money and then asking for legislative help. If you read the amicus curiae brief that Will mentions, Thompson opposed the "sham" ads that the national parties did on behalf of candidates. The part of the law that most people oppose is the restriction on political speech by independent groups. Thompson's brief said nothing about ads by independent groups and I don't believe that he said anything about that part of the law back when he was in the Senate supporting the bill. So his current opposition to that part of the law is not totally inconsistent with his past support for the other portions of the law. Sbowers3 17:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia shouldn't be in the position of saying "Aha! We caught Fred Thompson being inconsistent! Gotcha, you phony!" Therefore, I don't think we should go out of our way to try to paint him as inconsistent. On the other hand, the reader is entitled to be given relevant facts. Even if independent groups aren't addressed in the brief, what Will writes suggests that Thompson did intend for them to be covered, at least to some extent:

In 1997, Thompson chaired a Senate committee investigating 1996 election spending. In its final report, issued in 1998, Thompson's committee recommended a statutory "restriction on issue advocacy" during "a set period prior to an election" when the speech includes "any use of a candidate's name or image."

It appears that, as to some particulars, Thompson is saying "I made a mistake back then, the experience under the law has persuaded me to change my mind," but, as to others, he's saying, "I didn't support this provision back then, I just put up with it as part of a compromise or because someone 'added on' that provision when I wasn't looking." Readers are entitled to know the particulars about which is which, and to know significant facts that are relevant to Thompson's characterization of his past positions if that characterization is called into question by a prominent spokesperson like Will. It's not enough for us to say merely that Will has criticized Thompson. JamesMLane t c 18:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, here's Mark Levin's reaction to the Will column:

Let's stipulate for argument's sake that Fred Thompson has no good explanation squaring his conservative principles with his support for McCain-Feingold. It's a legitimate issue. However, if you support a candidate who has taken the wrong positions on the First, Second, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments, and whose view of the Constitution led him to endorse government-funded abortion on demand, then you have to wonder about that candidate's conservative principles, do you not? That candidate is Rudy Giuliani, and among his first supporters was George Will. So, the question for George Will is, what standard are you using to evaluate these candidates? The standard in Rudy's case appears to be his management skills as a mayor. I imagine Will doesn't support Rudy for his position on the war given that Will is opposed to the war. In Thompson's case, Will complains Thompson's not conservative, pointing to McCain-Feingold. But in 2000 Giuliani told Wolf Blitzer that he was a very big supporter of McCain-Feingold and had been for a long time. And, in recent weeks, Rudy said if he wasn't running for president, he'd support McCain. I think Will needs to square his own thinking. If anything, his approach underscores Rudy's weaknesses, and apparently his own.

and Rich Lowry:

Great points, Mark. I'm no fan of campaign finance reform either and Thompson has tied himself into knots on the issue, but that column was absurdly disproportionate.

Sbowers3 00:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a Democrat who generally disagrees with Thompson, Giuliani, McCain, and Will, I thought the point of Will's column was partly to take issue with Thompson's position on CFR, but also partly to accuse Thompson of not being forthright about his change of position over the years.
If there's notable conservative criticism of Will over his support of Giuliani, it should be considered for inclusion in the George Will article. JamesMLane t c 03:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign website's On the Issues[edit]

The campaign website has a new On the Issues section. Sbowers3 17:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration - question and comment[edit]

Maybe I'm going blind. Can Jeremy221 or another editor point out the removed line from this diff [8]? I see that a lot was rearranged but I don't see the removed unsourced line. And I had thought that all lines were well sourced.

BTW, when this much is rearranged it can be helpful to other editors to break up the edit into a few smaller editors. It make is a little easier to follow what changed.

As a matter of style, I like to start a section with a sentence that summarizes the rest of the section. Just as the lead section summarizes the article, the lead sentence summarizes the section. Then the details follow.

The previous lead section I thought was a reasonable summary. Perhaps something else would be a better summary, particularly as Thompson has recently released an issue paper about immigration, but the current lead section is a detail, not a summary. If nobody else tackles it, I may try to work on this section.

Jeremy221, I do think your changes did improve the wording. It's mainly the lead sentence that I think needs work. Sbowers3 01:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this line at the end of the section "He has stated that he is at odds with President Bush on this issue, in recent public statements and on-line commentary."
I am sure its true but it keeps the reader guessing with what he actually said. It will be better if this line is changed to post facts or "When, Where and Why." I tend just to remove lines like this because it forces people to post sources and clarify. I thought the main page summarizes his views and the political positions page gives details? Anyways, I agree that its awkward to immediately post facts but I just tried to clean up the section by putting it in chronological order. Feel free to work on an intro.
Jeremy221 23:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I overlooked that sentence and I agree that it was right to delete it.
I think it is not accurate to say that "the main page summarizes his views and the political positions page gives details". Each article should stand on its own. This Political positions article should follow all the guidelines for an article. A reader should get the whole picture from this article without even looking at the other article. Sbowers3 01:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Political positions of Fred Thompson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Political positions of Fred Thompson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Political positions of Fred Thompson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Political positions of Fred Thompson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_positions_of_Fred_Thompson&oldid=1173706295"