Talk:Fred Thompson/Archive 4

You are Dumb As Hell
In keeping with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA this kind of thing would not be allowed on a talk page, so why put it into the article? I think it ought to be removed.Ferrylodge 03:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are editors' conduct guidelines. They have no bearing on content (especially not direct quotes) whatsoever.  If Nixon said it (assuming there is a source), it's in.  WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA would have nothing to do with it. Italiavivi 04:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but I still think paraphrasing would be better than quoting, in this instance. It gets the same point across without letting Nixon use Wikipedia to uncivilly attack Thompson.Ferrylodge 05:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Civility has nothing to do with it; WP:CIVILITY applies to Wikipedia editors, not Wikipedia's subjects. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a neutral observer, and direct quotes are wholly appropriate.  If Dick Cheney tells Patrick Leahy to "go fuck yourself", we cover the exchange exactly as it took place. Italiavivi 13:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind sticking it in the footnote, but I don't see that it would add anything to the article, which already describes Nixon's objections. Nixon said a lot of foul-mouthed and stupid things about a lot of people, but that doesn't mean they have to go into the texts of our articles.  He also said, "Oh shit, that kid" in reference to Thompson, while acknowledging that Thompson was "friendly."  Howard Baker assured Nixon that Thompson was a "big mean fella."  Does all this stuff have to go into the text of our article?  One thing that I especially don't like about the "dumb as hell" remark is that we don't have a link to the full transcript, in order to put it in context --- but even if we did have the full transcript, I don't think it would be wise to cherry-pick the most foul-mouthed thing that Nixon said about Thompson, in order to put it front and center in our article.Ferrylodge 17:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree; such vituperative language from a President about a Presidential candidate is definitely notable, assuming there is

a reliable source to back it up. If the quote can be sourced, it belongs in the main text of the Watergate section. Italiavivi 17:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nasty, vituperative language was one of Nixon's more entertaining qualities. When J. Edgar Hoover died, Nixon said: "Jesus Christ!  That old cocksucker!"  But do we have to put that in our Wikipedia article about J. Edgar Hoover?  And how about all the nasty vituperative stuff Nixon said about others?  Which nasty stuff about Thompson do we put front and center, and which do we put aside?  And do we know what Nixon said immediately before or after saying "Dumb as hell"?Ferrylodge 17:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ferrylodge. The gist of Nixon's remark can be paraphrased without including a partial quote that serves only to sensationalize the remark.  Directly quoting just those three words doesn't add anything useful to the article. Eseymour 17:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no section about Fred Thompson's military service? Did he serve in the United States military?Sea Wolf 02:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think he did. As a married father of three children, he was probably exempt from the draft.Ferrylodge 05:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Council of Foreign Relations membership?
For some people, this association is considered pretty damning for him, considering their supposed globalisation agenda. Does anyone know where this information comes from? I can find no citations on his membership, and the cfr.org website makes no mention of him as membership, despite the introductory section stating that he is a current member. Any proof or clarification would be well advised. Thanks.--71.205.20.56 04:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This footnoted sources says so.Ferrylodge 05:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The idea that membership in the CFR is "damning" is patently POV, and requires a tinfoil hat. Among the thousands of members in the past appear names such as: Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, Dianne Feinstein, Gerald Ford, Dick Gephardt, Newt Gingrich, Bernard Kalb, Henry Kissinger, Ed Koch, Walter Mondale, Condoleezza Rice, Jay Rockefeller, Carl Sagan, and George Soros, just to name a few prominent examples. I don't know how reliable this list is, but I do not see Fred Thompson appearing anywhere on it. - Crockspot 17:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's another list with Thompson included. I don't know how accurate it is.  In any event, membership in the CFR is no big deal.  It's not like the Trilateral Commission or Skull and Bones.Ferrylodge 18:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, I don't know how old you are, but you would have loved Mae Brussell's radio show back in the late 70's and early 80's. She linked everyone who ever served on Trilateral or CFR to the JFK assasination. - Crockspot 18:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 45 :)Ferrylodge 18:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Two campaigns for U.S. Senate
I'm deleting off-topic discussion about a red truck from the article. It may be appropriate to insert a well researched and substantial discussion of Thompson's 1992 senitoral campaign. However, a debate about whether or not the truck was rented is irrelevant and is particularly inappropriate to have in the body and the footnotes of this article.

Additionally, the article offers a NPOV analysis on Thompson's victory: "In a good year for republican candidates" which cites an editorial. Let's stick to the facts.
 * It's not "off-topic," it's a very noteworthy and relevant part of the senate campaigns. I've restored the material. Italiavivi 22:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've supplied a better reference for 1994 having been a good year for the GOP. I've also condensed the material in the text about the red truck, so that almost all of it is in the footnotes.  (I don't think the footnotes should be broken up into separate footnotes because it calls undue attention to this minor matter about the truck.)Ferrylodge 23:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The truck should be included; I believe I was the first person to place that in the article and there were many sources for it. Almost any article discussing that campaign will comment on the truck.--Gloriamarie 20:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorsements
There are lots of Thompson endorsements listed here. Should any of them go in the new endorsements section of our article?Ferrylodge 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say include "key" endorsements, like Senators, House leaders, major interest groups, etc. We should probably change this to say, "Individuals and groups endorsing Fred Thompson include..." and pick a handful of the most prominent endorsements.  (The reason I added this new section was to keep the fact of D'Amato's endorsement, but leave out the laudatory comments.  As I've said before, we can't include everyone's commentary about Thompson in this article.) Eseymour 19:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, this is an encyclopedia not a campaign page. Plantocal 16:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Gun Control
An AppealToHeaven recently made this edit. The edit changed this:

"He currently supports the right of citizens to keep and bear arms if they do not have criminal records."

to this:

"He supports the right of most citizens to keep and bear arms."

I will revert this edit for several reasons. First, no reason was given. Second, the phrase "most citizens" is weaselly. See WP:Weasel. Third, AnAppealToHeaven has not given us any idea of who --- other than people with criminal records --- Thompson believes lacks a right to keep and bear arms. And, Fourth, this section of the present article is supposed to merely summarize what's in the article about Thompson's political positions, and there does not seem to be anything in that article to support the changes that AnAppealToHeaven has made here.Ferrylodge 21:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This single sentence suggests that Fred is the salvation that all gun owners seek. This is not right.  Fred Thompson has a mixed record on gun control; even voting to silence grass roots gun rights groups by making it Federal Crime for them to publish incumbent's gun voting records leading up to an election.  Fred is not entirely pro-gun and all that I am trying to do is highlight this simple fact for our readers so that they know to read further into his political positions page before they draw any conclusion.  This page is not the Fox News spin machine and does not belong to the Fred Thompson Campaign.  Therefore it is my intention to right this wrong.  If you are pro Fred I suggest you help us correct this before we force a complete rewrite of this spin machine.  Again, this has nothing at all to do with criminal records.  This statement is merely your spin attempt to deflect the issue and leave readers confused thinking that Fred is always pro-gun except when it involves a criminal.  This is not the full factual history of Fred and we will correct this if you do not take it upon yourself to do so.  The clock is ticking; tick, tock....   Anappealtoheaven 12:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to write in the article that Thompson voted to make it a Federal Crime to publish incumbent's gun voting records leading up to an election, then do so, with a footnote. But please do not replace other perfectly accurate statements with vague unsourced statements.  Thanks.  And my understanding is that Thompson's views about campaign finance were not focussed on gun-related issue ads, much less focussed only on gun-related issue ads from the pro-gun-rights side of the issue.Ferrylodge 16:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. Never mind, I've just added that material to the article myself.Ferrylodge 19:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Nothing is ever perfect but you have done a fine job to compromise and be fair at the same time. Thank you Ferrylodge. Anappealtoheaven 02:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Anapealtoheaven, thanks for helping to improve the article.Ferrylodge 02:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews
Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.


 * n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
 * n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
 * n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or [mailto:nicholasmoreau@gmail.com e-mail me].

Thanks, Nick

Archiving
I've taken every topic through 10 July, and placed it in Archive 3. Best, ZZ 23:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Church of Christ or United Church of Christ?
A handful of recent edits have been made changing Thompson's religious affiliation between Church of Christ and United Church of Christ. However, all the reliable sources I've seen identify Thompson as a member of the Church of Christ. For example:. He was married to Jeri Kehn in a church affiliated with the United Church of Christ, but since that church was in Kehn's hometown, it seems likely that was her church. Eseymour 13:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also possible to be affiliated with two different churches within one's lifetime. It seems that he could be affiliated with both, but whether it's his wife's church or not is original research until a reliable source covers it.--Gloriamarie 23:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * True. I was just saying that the only possible link between Thompson and the UCC was that he was married in a UCC church.  Several reliable sources identify his denomination as Church of Christ.  It should stay that way in this article until reliable sources are found proving otherwise. Eseymour 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Pov section tag on corruption section
I added this tag because of the non-encyclopedic nature of the writing, but mainly because the section is far more detailed than the section's source. I will go through this soon and make sure that the details match, unless somebody else feels like doing it. As it stands, it feels like this section is written in such a way as to try and get a particular pov across. Turtlescrubber 04:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is what the source says:Returning to his law practice, Thompson again entered the spotlight in 1977 with his representation of Marie Ragghianti, a former chair of the Tennessee parole board pursuing a wrongful termination suit against then-Gov. Ray Blanton's office. The case was perfect for Thompson, who'd threatened legal action against the Democratic governor twice before on behalf of state employees allegedly dismissed for political reasons. It wasn't until Ragghinati's case, however, that Thompson went all the way. His work helped uncover a clemency-for-cash scheme that led to Blanton's removal from office.Turtlescrubber 04:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any POV problem with the section. I've replaced that tag with one that requests additional sources. Eseymour 19:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have worked to match the text to the sources and have now added an expand tag. I think this is a pivotal moment in Thompson's career and needs to be expanded. Turtlescrubber 22:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of context quoting
There is some out of context quoting.

For example the article read: "His stump speech consists of broad conservative themes, talk of bipartisanship and commentary on issues of the day."

But the full quote includes: "His stump speech consists of broad conservative themes, talk of bipartisanship and commentary on issues of the day, but it largely lacks any vision for the future of the country."

Looking at the page history, that quote cropping was done after the full quote was added. Maybe a messed up edit?

Related, Thompson has slipped in the polls and he is not the Rasmussen Reports Poll leader anymore. The Opinion polling for the Republican Party (United States) 2008 presidential candidates has Rudy Giuliani 25%, Fred Thompson 25%, which is the best Thompson is doing right now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MMMght (talk • contribs).


 * I cropped the Liz Sidoti quotes in order to get rid of the editorializing. Maybe we ought to get rid of her quotes altogether, if you think she's being taken out of context. Saying that Thompson's stump speech "largely lacks any vision for the future of the country" is pure editorializing.  I'm sure his stump speech lacks a lot of other things too (e.g. metaphor, alliteration, quotations, et cetera).  And maybe he's laid out his vision for the country more in his online essays than in his stump speech.Ferrylodge 07:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, we shouldn't get rid of it. I see no problem with "editorializing." Such as, "In a June 6 appearance on Hannity and Colmes, Republican pollster Frank Luntz described Fred Thompson as the "Six-million-pound gorilla" of the Republican primary race." (I'm sure Giuliani's supporters who disagree with that comment.) An editorial is an opinion, and opinions are okay.


 * If you have links to his stump speeches then add them. But cropping those quotes in that manner is grossly misleading. I'm glad I looked at the source. The author's point was in contradiction to the point quoted. This doesn't seem to be an isolated issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MMMght (talk • contribs).


 * The Luntz comment should go. It should not be used to justify other editorializing. Eseymour 19:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, I'm unclear what the significance of that last link is. In any event, Sidoti had two "points."  The first point was what was in Thompson's speech, and the second point was what she felt was missing from Thompson's speech.  There was no "contradiction".  The first statement is factual reporting (what Thompson said), and the second was editorial (what she felt the speech was lacking or didn't say).  Wikipedia articles can include POVs of the main scholars and specialists in an area, so that major points of view are represented.  See WP:OPINION.  Sidoti is an Associated Press reporter, and while it's fine to rely on her for facts, her opinion does not represent any major point of view.  Why not quote Michael Moore at length too?Ferrylodge 09:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't consider "broad themes" be be an opinion, but "lacks vision" is? Give me a break.
 * WP:OPINION clearly states, "Wikipedia should describe all major points of view, when treating controversial subjects." It says to include "main scholars and specialists." Sidoti's speciality is politics and more politics. Her job is to write about politics, and has a long history of it.


 * The WP:OPINION means the good, the bad, and the ugly. Moore's criticism is on the other page. As of now, the article lacks criticism on his lack of "substance."


 * Also why was wikinews removed? There are many wikinews links in other articles. If people want to read the press related to articles they should be able to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MMMght (talk • contribs) 22:15, 31 July 2007

Edits by MMMght
These edits do not appear to have consensus. Please discuss here before sprinkling wikinews templates throughout the article, and before including editorial statements by Liz Sidoti about what she finds lacking in Thompson's stump speech. The wikinews templates refer to subjects that are covered in the Controversies section of this article, and therefore those templates would be more appropriate in the "Controversies" article than in this one.Ferrylodge 22:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You have only positive material in that section and took that material out of context giving it the false impression that "broad conservative" themes was praise. It seems there are two highly committeed people (Ferrylodge and Essymour) to this article. Why are you so interested in this article and in downplaying criticism? I notice the praise and endorsements don't get as much of a hard time, as including the second half of a sentence.


 * And yes, it lacks consensus. Ferrylodge and Essymour want parts of the quote removed, I think the quote should be included in whole. Wow... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MMMght (talk • contribs) 22:28, 31 July 2007


 * Please sign your comments. And the entire quote has been removed, not parts of it.Ferrylodge 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * giving it the false impression that "broad conservative" themes was praise: This seems to be the root of your misconception. What Sidoti thinks of the candidacy, whether she praises or pans it, is irrelevant.  She is quoted only for the facts that she reports.  When she characterises his speech as covering "broad conservative themes", that's a statement of fact, which she's eminently qualified to make. She's not praising him, she may well think (and probably does) that conservative themes are a bad thing to have, but her opinion doesn't matter.  When she says the speech "lacks vision", that's pure editorialising, and we're not interested in that.  If you're looking at the quote for praise or criticism, then of course you'll object to a partial quote, but that's not what it's quoted for.  Zsero 22:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The point was the quote was taken out of context (the second clause was completely removed). Thus, you had something in the article, which was not presented in the manner that the author intended. As a result, the "fact" was misrepresented though it had quotes on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MMMght (talk • contribs) 22:30, 31 July 2007

Added charts showing hypothetical Thompson v. Clinton and Thompson v. Obama poll data
I've added charts showing hypothetical Thompson v. Clinton and Thompson v. Obama poll data. Full data located here:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election%2C_2008 --Robapalooza 10:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As a reader I'd be more interested in Thompson vs. Giuliani (and Romney?) at this stage of the game (i.e. before any primaries). Sbowers3 23:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that FT v. other GOP candidates would also be interesting to readers, though I think the FT v. HC/BO polling and charts are highly pertinent to answering the question of whether FT's more viable than RG, MR, JM, etc. In the near future, I plan to add FT v. RG/MR charts and maybe also FT v. JM.--Robapalooza 23:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As User:Ferrylodge stated in his edit summary, the Obama chart is a violation of WP:UNDUE, since Obama is far behind Clinton in the polls and thus highly unlike to face Thompson in the General Election. - SigmaEpsilon → Σ Ε 00:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't characterize Obama as far behind Clinton in the polls, for example, see:
 * Opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008

President Garfield was not a Church of Christ member
There was a sentence in this article saying that Thompson would be the second President, after Garfield, to be a member of the Church of Christ. However, the source for that statement was a blog which referred to the Wikipedia article on Garfield. The Wikipedia article on Garfield used to identify him as Church of Christ, but it has been corrected to Disciples of Christ. Several online sources confirm this:. Eseymour 17:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The split in the Campbellite movement didn't get serious till after Garfield's day. In his day they were the same church, and who's to say which branch has more right to claim him?  Does anyone know how he felt about missionaries and music (the two questions that served as proxies for the underlying issues in the split)?  Did he express himself anywhere on them?  Zsero 19:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. I didn't realize those two denominations were so closely related, historically.  Should we say that Thompson would be the second President to be a member of the Churches of Christ or the closely-related Disciples of Christ?  Or maybe we should just leave that statement out altogether and avoid the confusion.  It seems to be trivia at best, anyway. Eseymour 20:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be more accurate to say that he would be the third Campbellite president - that covers all branches. Zsero 21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Garfield was a strong supporter of missionary work. Thompson's branch rejected instrumental music and missionary societies. Ferrylodge 20:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell the branch that became the CoC didn't object to missionary work per se, but to the establishment of a missionary organisation. I don't know what Garfield thought of that. Zsero 21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Lyndon Johnson regularly attended National City Christian Church on Thomas Circle in Washington, D.C. during his time as President. And Ronald Reagan was baptised into the Disciples of Christ as a youth.Ferrylodge 20:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Reagan wasn't a member at the time of his presidency. LBJ is a better case.  And he was of the opposite branch.  So the Disciples can count him as their second president, the CoC could count Thompson (if he's elected) as their second, and the Campbellites collectively can count Thompson as their third.  Zsero 21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Polling data
What do people think about all the polling charts? Obviously, a lot of work went into creating them, but I think that a link to the polling article should be sufficient, instead of showing lots of poll charts here for various states.Ferrylodge 22:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I created these charts, and while I'm not completely averse to the charts being removed, I have posted these charts in the campaign articles for the other major candidates (Giuliani, Romney and McCain), I plan to keep them updated through time, and, in the case of Thompson, I think it's extremely interesting that he is already (a) being included in the statewide polls, and (b) polling so well against the declared candidates. By some accounts, he is already in hypothetical second place without even declaring.  My two cents.  Also, is 700px too large?  Would "thumb" be better, i.e.




 * --Robapalooza 22:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see maybe having a nationwide poll chart, here in this article. But there are just so many states.  Aren't South Carolina and Florida going to have their primaries in January too?Ferrylodge 22:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We should try to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to any one state. Make a national polling chart. - SigmaEpsilon → Σ Ε 05:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The poll graphs should be removed completely for a couple of reasons. One, they fall under WP:OR Original Research and WP:SYNTH Synthesis of material.  Two, they are contextually meaningless without some representation of confidence limits (+/- points).  Three, they give an impression of future performance.  Four, the relationship of scale (while good for showing all data points) are misleading in their context of how different public perception is regarding each candidate.  I realize that a lot of work went into these, and they are pretty interesting, but they just don't belong.  Arzel 00:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * SigmaEspilon and Ferrylodge: The problem with a national chart is that the primaries, as you know, are not national.  Nominees are selected in state-by-state primaries and caucuses and the, whether we like it or not, the first few states have a disproportionate effect on the final outcome.  In this case, if Thompson can do well in IA, NV, NH, etc., he has a chance at going forward in the process.


 * Arzel, thank you for your observations. Allow me to comment to each in turn.  I respectfully disagree that these charts are WP:OR, because they simply are not "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories."  They are merely a summary of polling data contained in a related wiki article .       The polling sources creating the data for the wiki article are generally accepted and from a wide variety of sources, i.e. Rasmussen, American Research, ABC, various Universities, Strategic Vision, Mason-Dixon, Zogby, various newspapers, etc.  As for WP:SYNTH, whose position is being advanced?  I believe the charts to be an objective presentation of information from public opinion polls; nothing more, nothing less.  Confidence limits, a.k.a. margins of error, can be found in the original polling sources.  I simply cannot agree that the charts give the impression of future performance.  I think, in general, people understand, to borrow an expression from brokerages, past performance does not guarantee future results.  As for scale, the addition of all data from zero to 100 would create a chart that is nearly impossible to read without making the chart very large.  But, for the sake of argument, I took a quick look at a random sampling of charts on similar subjects, and nearly all that I saw cut off the Y-axis at some point on the range of 0 to 100.  If, on the other hand, one were to manipulate or hide the Y-axis, you might have a point, but, in this case, the Y-axis scale is clearly shown.  In any event, no hard feelings here; I do appreciate the feedback.  How do we proceed from this point.  Is there a group of senior wiki editors that can review these threads?--Robapalooza 02:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish I could share your belief about what people understand, I have been doing statistical analysis for over ten years, and this has not been my observation. :)  I agree that you will see polling data "cut off", it is one of my personal pet peaves when non-stat people, and even some stat people, present percentage data.  While the inclusion of 100% can be overlooked, it is generally not advisable to remove 0% without the inclusion of the CL.  Without some mention of the margin of error these polls are practically meaningless.  When I look at these graphs, I get the impression that FT and MR are moving toward the front, and I know from experience that others will interpret it the same way.  If these are to remain in some form I suggest the removal of the regression line (not really appropriate for this kind of data anyway) and include the margin of errors using the stock-ticker option from the excel graphs you created.  Also, only include data from polls in which all parties are involved, I noticed that some of the graphs look to be missing points from some parties. Arzel 02:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The way to proceed is for you to try to create a consensus for including these graphs. Until then, there is no consensus for including them. Wikipedia operates by consensus. See WP:Consensus. Everyone who has commented agrees, except for Robapalooza. The graphs may be a valuable resource, but we can link to them without including them in this article.Ferrylodge 07:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Age difference again
The exact same editor trying to remove the exact same information as he was two months ago. For the benefit of those deleting: Google search of Wikipedia for "years his junior" and Google search of Wikipedia for "years her senior." Tack on "years her junior" and "years his senior" for good measure. That's over twenty pages of Wikipedia articles per term (10 articles per page), for those counting. Italiavivi 06:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Italiavivi 04:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And the exact same editor trying to add irrelevancies. Back then there wasn't an article about her, because she wasn't notable enough to need one.  She had a paragraph in Fred's article, and date of birth is a standard biographical detail, so there was some basis for including it.  There was still no need to do the arithmetic, but whatever.  Now, though, someone decided she's notable enough for her own article, and her date of birth is listed there.  So what is the point of giving her age at marriage, or his, here?  How is it relevant to anything at all?  Zsero 05:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Do the articles about the other candidates give their ages when married? If not, then we'd be implying that it's a very significant issue with the Thompsons.  But is this really of Anna Nicole Smith proportions?  I don't think so, and anyway the age difference is adequately discussed already at the article about Jeri Kehn Thompson.Ferrylodge 05:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's listed at John Edwards ("four years his senior"), the Kucinichs, and plenty of other articles. One can only question if the removal of the Thompsons' age difference is culturally or politically motivated, but we hashed through this last time. It reeks of trying to bury the obvious. Italiavivi 05:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's utterly irrelevant, and it is not common in WP biographies (or anywhere else). If people are curious they have to look up both parties' birth dates and do the arithmetic themselves.  Taking it out is not  "culturally or politically motivated", putting it in is.  The proof is that it was out and you found it necessary to insert it.  The burden is on you to show why this trivium should be mentioned, and why giving it any space at all would not be giving it undue WP:WEIGHT.  Should we mention the names and ages of his pets too?  Or what he had for breakfast on his 50th birthday?  Zsero 06:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not an "irrelevancy." It is common in Wikipedia biographies and elsewhere, and to assert otherwise is blatant dishonesty. The links are right in front of editors' faces, Zsero. Italiavivi 06:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(undent) This is making a mountain out of a molehill, and I suggest we err on the side of inclusion. It's no big deal to mention how old they were when they got married. Let people do the math themselves. Wikipedia doesn't usually do the math for them. See here and here. I will edit accordingly.Ferrylodge 07:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a big deal only because Italiavivi insists on inserting the ages for a reason. Look at any 10 randomly selected biographies on WP, and see how many mention the age difference between the subject and his/her spouse.   See George W. Bush, Laura Bush, Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton,  George H. W. Bush, Barbara Bush (her article mentions how old she was when she met George, but not when she married him), Ronald Reagan, Jane Wyman, Nancy Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Rosalynn Carter, how far do you want me to go back?
 * Even when there's a big gap, it's not often mentioned - see James Madison and Dolley Madison for instance; neither article mentions the difference in their ages, and the arithmetic is left to any reader curious enough to bother. Grover Cleveland's article says that Frances Folsom Cleveland Preston was only 21 when they married, but it doesn't say how old he was; her article does mention the gap.   Humphrey Bogart's article doesn't mention the gap between him and Lauren Bacall, though her article does.  Nelson_Mandela's article says he married Graça Machel on his 80th birthday, but it doesn't say how old she was; her article doesn't mention either one's age or the size of the gap.
 * The only reason to mention the gap between the Thompsons is that Italiavivi is strangely obsessed with it, and that is not good enough. That he projects his own hangups on to anyone who objects to his insertion, and wants to restore the article to how it was, is peculiar but not terribly relevant to anything.  Zsero 07:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. You feel it is notable enough for Jeri Kehn Thompson's article, but not for her husband's?  If notable enough for one spouse, enough for both.  I have linked you to thousands of articles who use this phrasing, your objection is clearly based on wanting to hide their age difference. By the way, the age difference should absolutely be mentioned in the Madisons' article; it was a part of their relationship's dynamic.  I have added it over there, thank you for pointing it out. Italiavivi 14:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that you two go here.Ferrylodge 15:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any good reason to list the ages, but the fact that it has kept the peace is something worth considering. -- B 16:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It has not "kept the peace". Everything was peaceful without it until Italiavivi insisted on adding it.  This must be stressed - I'm not the one insisting on an edit because ILIKEIT, Italiavivi is.  I'm just restoring it to how it was - without this trivium.  Zsero 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes Zsero, we are all well aware of your WP:IDONTLIKEIT problems. It appears that this discussion is reaching the exact same conclusion as last time, including the information, and you will not be able to continually four-revert the information from the article after a second Talk discussion on it. Italiavivi 16:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with B. The age difference is adequately addressed at Jeri Kehn Thompson.  Additionally, it may be incorrect to say that they have a 25-year age difference, given that he is slightly less than 25 years older than she is.  The best way to deal with this would be to give both of their ages in this article, or preferably only his age.  I am firmly against doing the subtraction and advertising that difference in this article; readers could do the math themselves.Ferrylodge 16:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, why is the information only relevant to the spouse's article? If it is notable enough for a wife, it is just as notable for a husband. This is a clear editorial double-standard, arguing that it should only be included on the wife's article. Italiavivi 16:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The age difference isn't relevant in her article either, but her date of birth is. In his article even that isn't relevant and shouldn't be mentioned.  Zsero 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Including it in this article is less of a big deal now that she has an article and her birth date is readily available there. As for why to include it there ... her main notability is being Fred Thompson's wife, so good or bad, the article is about that aspect of her life, even though she was single for 35 years and his wife for only five.  Still, though, I think including her age here in a non-judgmental way (like "Jeri Kehn, then aged 35,") isn't a bad idea. -- B  16:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, she's notable for marrying him, but not for the age she was at the time. Look at all the biographies I linked to above - I just went through the last 5 presidents and their wives, and none of them mention the ages of either spouse at the time of marriage.  All gave the dates of birth and marriage, so a reader who really needs to know could do the arithmetic themselves, but it isn't stated because it's no more relevant than the name of their childhood goldfish or hamster.  Zsero 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Italiavivi, there is no double-standard. Analogously, do you think it's a double-standard for the article about Valdas Adamkus to mention Bill Clinton's letter to him, whereas the Clinton article doesn't mention that letter?Ferrylodge 16:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ferry, I think you know good and well that your comparison is apples to oranges. Valdas Adamkus is not Bill Clinton's spouse. Italiavivi 16:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as we know. :-)  And let's please keep the lodge in Ferrylodge.  Thanks.Ferrylodge 16:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I could cite dozens of Wikipedia articles about first ladies that discuss things they did with their husbands that are not mentioned in the articles about the husbands. It's not a double-standard, but is rather a matter of the husbands' articles containing more notable stuff that takes precedence.Ferrylodge 17:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why there is fighting over this. As long as it isn't presented in a judgmental nose-in-the-air way, I don't have a huge problem with it being in. I also don't have a problem with it not being in. I see in Dennis Kusinich, it is handled as: He married his third wife, Elizabeth Harper, a British citizen thirty-one years his junior, on August 21, 2005. That seems fine. Any implication that there is anything wrong with these age differences, then we have a problem. - Crockspot
 * This was very recently added by Italiavivi, so it is probably not a good example of conformity. Arzel 17:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was added long before my appearance on that article. I simply restored its deletion by editors from here, who removed it to make a point. Italiavivi 18:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I went through the history. Arzel 01:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The question is why Italiavivi keeps insisting on adding it, when it wasn't there before. It's obviously important to him for some reason. And when he keeps accusing others who take it out of having cultural hangups, we can see what's going on.  As for Kucinich, if Italiavivi is upset about the  lack of uniformity let him feel free to take it out there.  I have no interest in doing so. Zsero 16:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are a liar. The age difference was there long before I ever took up the issue (first attempted removal of the info was June 6th, I didn't start editing about the issue on Talk 'til June 12th).  I was, however, one of the first to restore the info and to oppose your removal on Talk discussion. My only editing prior to you and BigDT removing the age difference was the innocuous expanding of his acting career. Your attempts to remove the age difference are what kept me here long-term. Italiavivi 16:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * STOP editing other peoples' comments. Also see WP:Assume Good Faith.  It is possible that Zsero meant the info wasn't there subsequent to creation of the Jeri Kehn Thompson article and prior to Itiliavivi's edits.Ferrylodge 17:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * NO. His meaning was clear.  I am not required to assume good faith when there is ample evidence to the contrary in User:Zsero's case.  I did not first add the information when it wasn't there before. Italiavivi 17:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Do not strikeout the comments of other editors without their permission."Ferrylodge 18:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Removing personal attacks and incivility." Italiavivi 18:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Italiavivi, you did not remove anything. You used strikethrough, which is prohibited.Ferrylodge 18:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well, I'll remove it with the backspace key. Italiavivi 18:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Xxx years his/her junior/senior" is loaded language. It may not have the same cultural connotation everywhere, but in the South, it implies that the person is a trophy wife/grave robber/otherwise doing something not normal. That language needs to be removed. -- B 16:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that really about the phrase itself, or that Southerners in general consider marriages with age differences to be unnatural? If the latter, it is about the culture down there, not the phrase itself. We cannot change or omit that Sen. and Mrs. Thompson are twenty-five years apart on grounds that Southerners find it "unnatural." Italiavivi 18:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not loaded language. It is a very commonplace English expression used in a variety of articles. There is no POV implication whatsoever in this phrasing, as evidenced by its thousands of uses on the English Wikipedia. Italiavivi 16:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Those thousands of uses should be removed. -- B 17:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they should not. Italiavivi 17:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is loaded language. It is commonly used when someone wants to make a point that X is Y years older than Z. You see it all the time in gossip columns and the variety pages like Parade magazine. However, it is not common when used in professional articles. The intent is that some people want others to know that FT is much older than his wife. My opinion is that it should not be presented in this way. It adds nothing to the article but a flash point for arguement over NPOV. Arzel 17:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but why can people not know that Sen. T is older than Mrs. T? Italiavivi 18:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your claim seems to lack backing in "professional" sources. I would, in fact, challenge you, B, and Zsero to provide any reliable source indicating any controversy over the phrase "years [his/her] [junior/senior]." Any evidence outside those who oppose its use in Fred Thompson's article at all? Italiavivi 17:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Google search of Wikipedia for "years his junior" and Google search of Wikipedia for "years her senior." Tack on "years her junior" and "years his senior".
 * New York Times' use of "years his junior" in professional articles. Also "years her senior".
 * Washington Post's use of "years his junior" in professional articles. Also "years her senior".
 * Los Angeles Times' use of "years his junior" in professional articles Also "years her senior".
 * That is hardly thousands of instances on WP (336) out of how many Bio's? Also, many of the instances on the newpaper articles are not even relevent to marriage relationships, they deal with a whole host of professional relationships, with many of them appearing to be an integral part of the story.  Even then there is hardly an overflowing occurance.  Arzel 17:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "About" 336 from that one listing. There are four different variations of the phrase.  The NYTimes, WashPost, and LATimes all use it for marriage relationships, other uses do not change this. I repeat: Proove that this is not just about Fred Thompson's editors not liking the age difference being plainly noted in years, substantiate your claim that the language is "loaded." It is becoming clear to me that this has nothing to do with the phrasing "years his junior" or "years her senior," and everything with you all not wanting the quantity of years listed whatsoever. Italiavivi 17:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If the information is irrelivant, then there is no reason to put up a stink either way. Given that fact, because there is a stink by both parties, the informaion is clearly relivant, but what point does it serve? Is it an issue in the upcoming campaign. I say it will be, and as such it should be mentioned, but for some to say there is no implication to the statement is false. You should be arguing the relevance of the information, and not that it is standard practice, because otherwise every biography template would have a parameter for "age difference of spouse". Argue what you really mean, and don't pussy foot around the issue. Clearly you feel it is vital that this information is included, or you would not fight so hard to keep it. Why is it so vital to this article? to this person? Hiding behind "standards and practics" is cowardly. Bytebear 17:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Coward," says the guy who first started trying to hide their ages? Please. The information is relevant because this is an encyclopedia. That Sen. Thompson is twenty-five years older than Mrs. Thompson is part of their marriage, thus part of the encyclopedia section on their marriage. The reliable sources are there, it has been widely discussed by many independent third-parties, the end. We do not hide, cover up, or omit their age difference (on grounds of age differences being "unnatural" in the South) anymore than we hide individuals' sexual orientations. Italiavivi 17:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I have never done one single edit to this article, ever.  I also agreed (if you had actually read what I wrote) that the age difference should be mentioned, but because it is relivant to the article, and not because it's "part of an encyclopedia".  You really need to avoid personal attacks, particularly when they are aimed at someone who agrees with your position (just not your reaoning). Bytebear 18:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I mistook your name for User:B's former username; he (when he went by his former username that also started with "B") was the first to remove the information, not yourself. My apologies for that.  I will not be lectured on personal attacks by someone who implies cowardice of his fellow editors, though. Italiavivi 18:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A "personal attack" would be an attack on a person. And I stand by my statement regarding cowardice. Since it was directed at a behavior and not a person, or a group of people, I wouldn't even classify it an attack, but an observation. Bytebear 18:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It seemed to me the last time we discussed this, and still does now, that the age difference is not irrelevant, and is notable enough for a short inclusion. It is the subject of a recent New York Times article.  Similar information is included on Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards, who are perhaps a touch more relevant to this discussion than James and Dolley Madison or Bogart and Bacall.  Although what happens on other articles may or may not be relevant to this article, it is not irrelvant that the age differences of those two candidates is mentioned.  There is appropriately quite a bit about it on Jeri Kehn, and therefore seems odd to not have a mention of it here - if this is a "May and December" marriage, as the New York Times characterizes it, that is true for both parties in the marriage; if it is notable for her, and it is, it is notable for him as well.  We don't need a paragraph, just a phrase.  I have seen no arguments here against it that are persuasive. Tvoz | talk 18:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * [somehow lost in edit conflict]: "24 years his junior" is perfectly clear, short, and makes the most sense because this is an article about him; "24 years her senior" works too, but  makes slightly less sense because this article should be from his perspective - but that's not a big deal.  Saying how old she was at their marriage would require then saying how old he was, or expect the readers to figure it out - but "24 years his junior" is perfectly fine, succinct, has precedent, and does the job. Tvoz | talk 18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And, can I suggest that everyone calm down please? Tvoz | talk 18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I stumbled across this in RC patrol and have read the entire thread. I'm still unclear as to why this is relevant. We have articles where the age difference is brought up, in an encyclopedic manner, such as Michael Douglas (because he and his wife, Catherine Zeta-Jones were born on the same day,25 years apart. We also have Art Bell, whose wife has been discussed as being quite a bit younger than he, though it isn't presented in the context of his Wiki article. I understand Mrs. Thompson has an entry. I haven't glanced at whether or not her date/year of birth are included. If not, why not? It would save this discussion from being more unwieldy and would satisfy, encyclopedically. Any less, IMHO, is POV edit warring.--Sethacus 04:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick question is he really only 65?...he looks a lot older and Hollywood tends to keep "round" numbers like "29", "39" and maybe "65".

I came to this page specifically to find out how much older he is than his wife. I was saddned to see that it wasn't here... and that the omission is somehow seen as a political move? Please. It's a fact. We assume married people are of the same age, and it's of interest when they're not--especially whe the difference is great, as is the instance here. I am very disappointed that people are hiding this fact solely because they think it has political connections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.52.38 (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Click on her name.Ferrylodge 15:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A 25 year age difference in any marriage is unusual and for that reason alone, it is worth mentioning and should be included that there is a 25 year age difference" (Rayraymitts 18:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

Multiple Serious Violations
Italiavivi has been editing this talk page in a way that violates multiple Wikipedia guidelines. Let's start with 3RR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFred_Thompson&diff=152953640&oldid=152952021 (this was a strikethough of another editor's comment, which I take to be undoing the actions of another editor)
 * Now you are just coming up with novel interpretations to justify your erroneous listing. Italiavivi 20:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFred_Thompson&diff=152954850&oldid=152954707

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFred_Thompson&diff=152968110&oldid=152967903

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFred_Thompson&diff=152969018&oldid=152968917
 * There is no violation of 3RR here. Your first link is an original edit, and I will edit your comments to indicate this if you are unwilling to correct yourself. Italiavivi 18:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is an original edit is already indicated. Ferrylodge 19:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Only added after I repeatedly corrected the false listing myself, through the removal you so abhor. Italiavivi 19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Additionally each of these edits separately violated the guideline that says: "Do not strikeout the comments of other editors without their permission." After these edits, Itiliavivi completely deleted the following part of another person's comment: "The question is why Italiavivi keeps insisting on adding it, when it wasn't there before. It's obviously important to him for some reason." However, the deleted material was not uncivil or a personal attack.

Itilaiavivi may be right on the merits of the discussion, or wrong, but that is no excuse for trampling the guidelines.Ferrylodge 18:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * His comments were completely uncivil, and now you are giving him a second soapbox. I corrected my use of strikethrough already, this section serves no point other than to distract from the discussion at hand; you are simply repeating your objections above with a new dedicated section. Italiavivi 18:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you are being uncivil.Ferrylodge 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How many times will you bold and italicize something? He accused me of first adding the Thompsons' age difference, which was a lie. I will call a lie what it is, whether or not you defend a lie is your choice. Italiavivi 18:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop editing my comments.Ferrylodge 18:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop repeatedly falsely listing my original remarks as a "revert." Please cease reproducing removed incivility. Italiavivi 18:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You must stop repeatedly editing my comments. Cut it out.  You are not the final aurthority on what other people can and cannot say.Ferrylodge 18:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop reproducing uncivil comments which were removed earlier. I am allowed to remove uncivil remarks and will. Please remove your misleading listing of my original remarks as a revert, or I will correct the clerical error for you. It seems obvious now that the entire point of your spectacle here is to reproduce Zsero's false accusations and make other provocative claims (falsely listing original contributions as "reverts") to goad me. You are disrupting the Talk just as much (if not more) than I have, now. Italiavivi 18:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Quiet! Both of you to your rooms! Take a deep breath and think about what you guys are doing. Stop fighting over something so insignifigant. Let's see if we can't come to some sort of agreement here. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 19:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am more than welcome to drop this entire spectacle, whether or not Ferry corrects/removes his false claims is his problem. I will not stand idly by while he makes false claims then fills the Talk page with screaming over my correcting them, though. Italiavivi 19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's sweet of you Ali'i, but there is only one user here who is repeatedly editing the comments of other users. Your comments may be edited next.Ferrylodge 19:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't care. Just stop it. --Ali&#39;i 19:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. End your complaint spectacle, Ferry. Italiavivi 19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You too, Italiavivi. Ferrylodge, if you'd like to lodge a complaint about 3RR, you may want to go to Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. But you both need to quit arguing and act like mature editors. --Ali&#39;i 19:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ali'i, I think that editing other people's comments is more egregious. Where does one lodge a complaint for that?  I may also pursue the 3RR route.  Please do no criticize me for restoring comments of mine that have been edited.Ferrylodge 19:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You were not restoring comments of yours, you were restoring comments of Zsero. You reproduced Zsero's removed remarks in their own section knowing this would be controversial and likely removed again, then screamed "victim" when I did the obvious. You were also restoring a link falsely listed as a "revert." You know this good and well.  If you wish to game the system in hopes of eliminating my dissent on the Thompson's age difference, you are more than welcome to try. I find it unfortunate that you have resorted to these tactics instead of discussion the merits of the content dispute at hand, though. Italiavivi 19:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The next time Italiavivi deletes my comments, I intend to give vandalism warnings. Today, Italiavivi deleted the comments of others here and here and here. Italiavivi has also been uncivil here (“You are a liar") and here (“telling the same lies”) and here (accusing others of “screaming”) and here (more accusations of “screaming” and “goading"). I do not intend to pursue this conversation, because I do not find Italiavivi to be a reasonable person.Ferrylodge 20:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Stating that I first added mention of the Thompsons' or Kucinichs' age difference is a lie, a falsehood, plainly untrue. I am sorry you are choosing to defend Zsero's lie. As for "screaming," you have repeatedly made comments that were bolded italicized and in all-caps.  I interpret this type of written communication as "shouting" or "screaming," as do many on the internet.  It is not unreasonable to object to this, and I am glad to hear you are dropping it. I will always however, unapologetically, object editors stating falsehoods. Italiavivi 20:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

False bad-faith statements by User:Zsero and User:Ferrylodge, and WP:OWNERSHIP
It's time to address the elephant in the room: Both User:Zsero and User:Ferrylodge have serious WP:OWNERSHIP problems with regard to this article, acting as gate-keepers via revert-warring and restoring their older preferred versions despite past consensus-building and Talk discussions. The situation here at Fred Thompson is a serious problem, and these two editors' current ownership-espousing attitudes are a large part of that problem.

I cannot continue this discussion in good faith when both User:Zsero and User:Ferrylodge are knowingly misrepresenting this article's past revision and Talk history. I was not the first editor to include the Thompsons' age difference by a long shot (though User:Zsero has by far been the most active in removing the information), nor will I stand for a discussion running so rampant with dishonest and lies (distortions Ferrylodge is eager to reproduce if removed). Zsero and Ferrylodge are now colluding on their respective User_talk pages to seek disciplinary action against my objections to Zsero's untrue statements. Until they choose to correct their false remarks and cease their misrepresentation of this article's revision history, trying to sort out this article's content dispute will be neither open nor honest.


 * The disciplinary action to which Italiavivi refers can be seen here and here. Of course, I deny Italiavivi's charges.Ferrylodge 21:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That your only saving grace is a sysop claiming that "lies are not automatically uncivil" illustrates the weakness of your frivolous report. If Zsero keeps reverting despite Talk consensus, he will be blocked, and you will join him if you follow his lead. Italiavivi 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Lets' be reasonable.

 * Copied from User_talk:B

A better example. On Talk, you said: "in the South, it implies that the person is a trophy wife/grave robber/otherwise doing something not normal." Do you have a source for this, what this phrase means in the South? Something about Southerners using this phrase to mean "unnatural"? Or is it not the wording, but that Southerners in general consider marriages with age differences to be unnatural? If the latter, it is about the culture down there, not the phrase itself. Italiavivi 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know what the term means in the South - I live in the South - when I said that, I was allowing for the possibility that it did not have the same connotation outside of the United States Southeast. I know what it means when the gossip mongers talk about someone and his younger wife using that term.  They aren't talking in encyclopedic terms.  If, as you say, it has no connotation, why do you care whether it is used in the article.  Why not just give her actual age?  I don't expect to find a scholarly source discussing the appropriateness of the term any more than I would expect to find one discussing "whiny UVA fan".  It just isn't something that is normally disputed.  -- B  18:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Now we get to the real point: Very well, if not "[x] years [y]'s junior/senior," what phrase could I use in the Southern United States to state an age difference without "connotation"?  Is there a phrase I could use in the South, or is this about Southern culture's view toward age differences in marriage? Italiavivi 18:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just give the people's ages, if need be. That's an amoral statement of facts.  She was 35 and he was whatever he was. -- B  18:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So there is no way in the South to neutrally state "she is 25 years younger than him (no use of 'junior' or 'senior')," correct? You have to state the ages while hiding the actual age difference, because there is a cultural stigma against the age difference itself in the South? Italiavivi 19:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "She is 25 years younger"/"He is 25 years older" sounds fine. -- B 19:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be an acceptable phrasing in the Southern United States free of connotations, you mean? Italiavivi 19:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been a southerner my entire life -- I was born, reared, have always, and currently reside in the deep south. My mother was an English professor, and I must admit I've never really felt like the phrase "foo years his junior" or "bar years his senior" had any particular connotation (especially a negative one).  I contest the assertions made above.  /Blaxthos 22:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this now
I offered to come over to this talkpage to request that some comments were removed, per an editors request. This is it; please remove (or allow to be removed) User:Italiavivi's comments, as requested.

To Italiavivi; I find your actions here, and especially your language, totally inappropriate. Do not use the terms "lies" with regard to other editors comments. They may be wrong, they may be incorrect, they may even be fiction, but they are not lies. Calling someone a liar, or their contributions as lies, is grounds for a block on the basis of WP:NPA. I suggest you take some time to read WP:CIVIL before discussing your concerns regarding content of the article again. LessHeard vanU 21:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Accusing me of being having first added the Thompsons' age difference (because it is "obviously important to me for some reason") when I did not is a lie, and I will continue asserting such. Admonishing me for WP:CIVIL problems and not these other editors is a one-sided joke. This and this are not simple inaccuracies, they are deliberate rhetoric-loaded lies with heavy coatings of incivility.  If I am to be blocked for pointing out a lie, block me now. Italiavivi 21:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility
One of my pet peeves is the misuse of the word "lie". A lie is an intentional misstatement of fact. It is not enough that a statement be false; it must be an intentional falsehood. To err is human, telling a lie is evil. Nobody should call another a liar unless is there is demonstrable evidence that the false statement was knowing and deliberate. It is perfectly okay to say "That is incorrect." It is uncivil to say "That is a lie." I think it would be good for Italiavivi to apologize for calling another editor a liar. (And I assume in good faith that Italiavivi, like many people, did not understand that there is a difference between a lie and a misstatement.)

Along these same lines, it would be more productive to prove that a statement is false by providing evidence to the contrary rather than simply asserting that it is false. Sbowers3 22:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I echo the comments of others that one editor should not edit another editor's comments, that we should not insert replies into the middle of other comments, that we should avoid "screaming." I assume in good faith that some editors may not have known or may have forgotten these guidelines and hope that gentle reminders, rather than accusations of deliberate incivility, or threats of admin action, will prevent future bad actions.

I would remind all to please sign your username. We've all forgotten this at one time or another. If you forget, please go back and add it.

Something I try to do is to ask myself if what I wrote might actually accomplish my objective. Writing for the sake of blowing off steam or trying to have the last word, or any writing that is unconvincing is useless. If before you press the Save button, you ask yourself if your comment might succeed in persuading the reader, then you might find yourself rephrasing your language or canceling. Sbowers3 22:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A way to resolve the issue?
The question is about whether to insert or to remove the age difference. The discussion has been partly about that but partly an argument about civility. What I see is passion by Italiavivi both in his discussion and in his actions to add the info. I see passion by Zsero in his actions but less so in his discussion to remove the info. I see that Ferrylodge is passionate about the civility issue but I have not noticed if he is passionate about the age issue itself.

What I suggest is that the rest of us try to reach a consensus. We know the positions of Italiavivi and Zsero. How about if the rest of us simply state our positions in one or two sentences, without arguing debating.

I am very slightly opposed to including the ages but not would object to stating their ages as 59 and 35. I would object to "24 years his junior". Sbowers3 22:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You oppose the phrasing "24 years his junior" because? Italiavivi 22:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please reserve any questions until after everyone has had a chance to state a position. Or start a new section with questions. I ask that this section be simply a statement of editors' positions without any debating. Sbowers3 22:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should simply state our positions in one or two sentences, without arguing. I too am slightly opposed to including the ages but would not strenuously object to stating their ages as 59 and 35. I would object to "24 years his junior".Ferrylodge 22:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've thought some more about this and here is where I'm at:
 * 1) I am in full support of including language in this article that clearly and specifically states the age difference between the Thompsons. I believe it is notable and appropriate to do so. Newcomers please understand that  much of the disagreement here had to do with this fundamental point, not the specific way it was done - Zsero, for example, removed any mention of the ages, despite the discussion that was going on here and previous consensus on the point.  So Italiavivi's insistence on re-adding it was not out of line, whether or not you admire his way of doing it.
 * 2) a) I can live with saying he was 59 and she 35 at the time of their marriage. b) I prefer saying  she is 24 years younger than him (rather than "his junior" - I didn't love that either and I'm not from the South).  I don't think there's much difference between a and b, but a may flow better.
 * 3) I do not want to see the obscured mention of her birth year rather than their age difference as it was at one point in the article  and
 * 4)I very much disagree with the idea that it's good enough to have it in her article.
 * So I'm willing to agree to the current wording, which is stating their ages at the time of their marriage - I do think readers can see for themselves that 59 minus 35 is 24 - but I would prefer saying she is 24 years younger than him because it's straightforward and in line with what articles about other candidates say. But the important point is that the age difference should be included. Let us not lose sight of what this argument was about.  Sorry, this took more than two sentences. Tvoz | talk 00:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I support including the age difference openly without obscuring or obfuscating the fact. Italiavivi 00:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I never did like the "her senior", "his junior" language, I thought its a big awkward, and somewhat out of context (i.e. 42 vs 18 is much different, with different societal implications than say 65 vs 41). I also think its a bit of a wedge thing though...one side wants the age difference in because it paints Thompson in a certain light, and the other wants it totally removed for the same reason. With that said, I think just stating their actual ages at marriage was a reasonable compromise, more accurate and informative than just the age delta, and seem to keep things peaceful for awhile. Dman727 00:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading up on several presidents and prominent people in my Encylopedia America International edition (copywrite 1967, first published in 1829) I suggest birth years be listed. Not once was any mention made of age at marriage or difference of age in a random review of 5 presidents, and a few other random bios, with then exception of a statement of Grover Cleveland's second wife stating her age in a picture during her wedding (they were married in the White House). Well it wasn't completely random, she was a lot younger than President Cleveland at the time so I specifically read up on him. If Wikipedia wants to be treated like an encylopedia, we should follow similar methodology, and it would avoid several of the problems we have with BLP's. Arzel 01:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The age difference is notable and quite evidently remarked upon in the mainstream press. Listing both of the ages at the time of marriage is sufficient although not ideal. I really find it funny that some people take the time to argue against this and scan other pages for precedents. This is obviously worthy of inclusion and a short mention. Turtlescrubber 02:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The age difference is notable in the context of his political aspirations. They are not notable in the context of his acting carreer, or within society as a whole.  If it is presented, it must be done in that context.  Something like, "The age difference between Thompson and his wife has been scrutinized in light of his recent presidential aspirations".  Note, I did not mention the age difference (as that is just a simple fact), but gave it context.  Bytebear 02:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP guidelines are important to keep in mind here. We should be extremely cautious and try to phrase everything appropriately to avoid painting Thompson (or any other actor, politician, or any living person) in a negative light. Phrasing along the lines of: "The age difference between Thompson and his wife has been scrutinized[1][2][3] in light of his recent presidential aspirations" would be acceptable, provided that it can be properly referenced by reliable sources. - SigmaEpsilon → Σ Ε 16:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP has nothing to do with noting that he is twenty-four years older than her. It is a simple, neutral, immutable fact. If anything, expounding on "scrutiny" or other prejudice against their age difference is a WP:NPOV problem. Italiavivi 16:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If a the age difference is not mentioned in secondary sources, then it is an "unsourced statement" and should be removed immediately per WP:BLP. . Either include it with a source explaining why it's relevant, or don't include it at all. - SigmaEpsilon → Σ Ε 20:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if it were shown to be relevant, it would still have to be shown to be sufficiently notable and NPOV.Ferrylodge 20:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should only be mentioned if it can be sourced and that it is relevant. I have to disagree however with the editor who mentioned that we should not paint anybody in a bad light, since that is not NPOV. There are many bios of people that include negative material that is relevant and souceable. Anyways, --Tom 23:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Uncontroversial data such as ages does not require sourcing. Please do not outright delete the information again, Tom. Italiavivi 23:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about sourcing?? Its about relevance. Do we cite the ages when people are married in other bios? Oh course not. Like other folks have said, show WHY its relevant to state their age when they were married and then include it. Maybe we should point out what hand preference they have when married, left or right? --Tom 00:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You said just above that it should "only be mentioned if it can be sourced." We are talking about their ages here, are we not? Italiavivi 00:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No we are not. I'll talk slow i t i s  a b o u t  r e l e v a n c e. Please show WHY its relevant to point out his age when he got married and then include it. Thank you. --Tom 00:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Does being uncivil make you feel as though you're making your (already-addressed) point more clearly? Read the Talk discussion, there is no consensus for your deletion. Cease your deletion and revert-warring, Tom. Italiavivi 00:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you will not discuss this civilly I have nothing more to say to you. --Tom 00:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I thouht we almost had consensus with the phrase ""The age difference between Thompson and his wife has been scrutinize.[1][2][3]" Why are we backpeddling from this?  To just state the ages isn't enough. You must provide context as to why these facts are important.  Otherwise, they should not be in the article.  The handedness is a good example.  Saying "He is left handed" means nothing, but saying, "Because he is left handed, he ..." adds to the article. Bytebear 00:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Italiavivi, why do you feel that their ages when married is relevent or notable? What does it add to the article? Arzel 01:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I should point out the according to WP:BLP, it is the responsibility of the person adding or re-adding information to justify their edits. It is not up to anyone to "prove" why a statement should be deleted. The burden of proof rests on the "includer", not the "deleter". - SigmaEpsilon → Σ Ε 03:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I am glad to see this AM that the ages have been removed. It goes to relevance and contect. The editor who wanted this material said that it is include in "1,000s" of bios but that is flat out wrong. I love to edit bios and I have NEVER EVER seen it mentioned because it is totally irrelevant. It would be like mentioning their hair color or hand preference ect. Now IF, BIG IF, every newspaper in the country was having feature article's about their age difference and it BECAME HUGE news, ect, then MAYBE it could be included/pointed out in some kind of CONTECT. Mentioning that Thompson was 17 when he first was married is not as bad since this is sort of unusall, but not that relevant or note worthy in my opinion. Again, what is the POINT to insert their ages from a marriage 5 years ago?? Thanks, --Tom 12:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy sections revisisted
Another controversy section added. Didn't most of us agree that separate "controversy" sections are bad news, that most "controversies" can be incorporated into main text? Italiavivi 01:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that controversy section was added some time ago, I reverted a blanking of it because it was linked to a cotroveries sub-page. I know the prefered style is to have them incorporated, but that doesn't seem to happen very often.  I'll be the first to say that controveries should be incorporated into the article so long as they are presented in a neutral tone, but shouldn't the link to the sub-page remain until they are?Arzel 01:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the controversies section, with further wikilinks to each topic mentioned. Moreover, there are many reasons for not taking that material and putting it all into this article. For one thing, doing so would give the controversies undue weight in this article. That's why, for example, there's a separate article on Reagan scandals, and same for Rudy Giuliani controversy and GW Bush criticism. It's also worth noting that Wikipedia's article on global warming has attained featured article (FA) status, even though there's a separate article on the global warming controversy. There are many other FA examples like this.Ferrylodge 02:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, all of the examples you give have substantially more than a one sentence list in the main article. They are usually multi-paragraph sections. Given your examples, it seems that not including some substance gives the controversies an unusually low amount of weight. Jensiverson 00:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This main article on Fred Thompson doesn't just list the three main controversies in the controversies section; it also summarizes the primary controversy (pro-choice lobbying) in the section on his lobbying activities. This is similar to how controversies are treated in the Hillary Clinton article (although the analogy is difficult because she has been through many more controversies due in part to her much higher profile); if you look at the Hillary Clinton article, there's a very brief section on controversies, and summaries of some of those controversies are sprinkled through the rest of the article and in various other sub-articles.  Do you agree that we've identified the three main controversies, in the controversies section of this article?  And which of those threee controversies (if any) do you think requires a bigger summary elswhere in the article?Ferrylodge 01:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The analogy is difficult. There is a lot more about Whitewater on her main article, over a screenful.  Further Rudy Guiliani has a controversies page but the basics of the controversies are fleshed out on his main page over many paragraphs, John McCain has his Keating Five involvement fleshed out even though there's a separate Keating five article linked, and most other candidates have more ink spilled on their controversies on their main page.  See Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, and Bill Richardson. Do you agree that we should devote a short, two sentence paragraph to every controversy so the casual reader will have some idea what they are about instead of having a fairly unilluminating list?  That's how it seems to be done everywhere else.Jensiverson 16:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are many controversies listed at the Hillary Clinton controversies article that are not even mentioned in the main Hillary Clinton article. Likewise, there are many Rudy Giuliani controversies described at the Giuliani controversies article that are not even mentioned in the main Rudy Giuliani article.  The main articles should only mention the main controversies, I think.Ferrylodge 17:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. Also, please keep in mind that some candidates simply have more controversies than other candidates.  As far as I can tell, for example, Barak Obama has very few controversies.Ferrylodge 17:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps his biggest controversy is his lack of controversies. i.e. experience. Bytebear 18:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Jensiverson, if there are particular controversies that you think should be specifically mentioned in this article though not mentioned now, or particular controversies that you think should be summarized in this article though not summarized now, then please identify which controversies. As explained above, it would be unusual to specifically mention all the controversies in the main article, much less to summarize all of them in the main article. Thanks.Ferrylodge 23:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Much Ado About Little, or Fantasy v Reality
I've done some research, wasting a lot of time, just because I got so annoyed at being called a liar, and so that people weighing in on this debate can have some facts at their disposal. The result of my research got so long that I was reluctant to post it here, so I made a separate page for it in my user space. The true history of the controversy over the Thompson's ages can now be read at User talk:Zsero/Fred Thompson. Please do not edit that page; instead please make all comments here. The only reason it's over there is because of its length. Note that if anyone does edit that page I reserve the right to delete their comments on a whim, since it is in my user talk space, not an article talk page. Zsero 02:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks more like you placed it in your User space because it is filled with gratuitous loaded rhetoric, incivility, and personal attacks. Italiavivi 02:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "There you go again". Can I even count the ways this comment crosses the line?  Zsero 03:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to compile that chronology. If there continues to be a controversy about this matter, then perhaps the place to put it would be in the controversies article, rather than in this article, although I think that the treatment given to this matter at the Jeri Kehn Thompson article is much more than sufficient.Ferrylodge 02:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the controversy page is for things that are controversial in the real world, not on WP. Zsero 03:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No one has explained why the information is a-okay on a wife's article but not a husband's. Italiavivi 02:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * FTR I've never said it was OK in the wife's article. Her birth date clearly is OK there, because it's a basic biographical detail. But her age at marriage, and the difference between hers and her husband's?  No, I don't think it belongs there either. Zsero 03:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained above why there is a more compelling reason to include this info on the spouse's page. I'll explain again. There are many Wikipedia articles on various first spouses that contain information about things they have done with their respective presidents, whereas those same things are not mentioned on the presidents' pages. The reason for this discrepancy is that the lives of presidents inevitably have much more notable material than the lives of their spouses, and therefore material has to be weighted differently. If the first couple does X, it may be much more notable in the life of the spouse than in the life of the president.Ferrylodge 03:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The ages should not be on the page without context. I agree with their removal.  If you want them added, add the context as well. Bytebear 03:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Grover
Let's use history to help us get over this tremendous triviality. Here's what the article on Grover Cleveland says about a similar issue:

In June 1886, Cleveland married Frances Clara Folsom, the daughter of his former law partner, in the Blue Room in the White House. He was the second President to be married while in office, and the only President to have a wedding in the White House itself. This marriage was controversial because Cleveland was the executor of the Folsom estate and supervised Frances' upbringing. Folsom, at 21 years old, was the youngest First Lady in the history of the United States.

They had a 27-year age difference, she was only 21, and yet neither the age difference nor his age is even mentioned. The only reason that hers was mentioned is because she was the youngest first lady (which Jeri Kehn Thompson would not be by a long shot). The only reason their marriage was deemed controversial was because he had supervised her upbringing while she was a little girl. None of this is even remotely comparable to the Thompsons' marriage. Why should we all become prudes all of a sudden? The more I think about this, the more I realize that Zsero is right, and that this does not belong in the Fred Thompson article, either in the form of "they married when he was X and she was Y" or in the form of "they married when she was X years his junior" (although the former would be far preferable). If people think there is a legitimate controversy about their age gap, then it would belong at the article on Fred Thompson controversies rather than here, but I agree with Zsero that it's hardly a controversy at all. The treatment given to this matter at Jeri Kehn Thompson is quite sufficient (and is perhaps far more than sufficient).

Is there one single President other than Grover Cleveland where the Wikipedia article mentions their respective ages when they got married, much less mentions the difference?

Here’s a summary of where we stand:

Agree with removal of the ages when they got married, plus removal of the difference when they got married: Ferrylodge, Bytebear, Zsero, Sbowers3 (slightly), Arzel

Agrees with removal of ages and age difference when married, until context is provided: Bytebear

Want to insert the age difference when married: Italiavivi, Tvoz, Turtlescrubber

Want to state their ages when married, without stating the difference: Dman727

Would require sourcing and/or proof of relevance before including any type of age info at marriage: Tom=ThreeAfterThree, SigmaEpsilon

SigmaEpsilon also points out that, according to WP:BLP, it is the responsibility of the person adding or re-adding information to justify their edits. It is not up to anyone to "prove" why a statement should be deleted. The burden of proof rests on the "includer", not the "deleter". In this case, as Zsero has documented, their ages at marriage have been in this article for only a small period of time. The ages should come out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrylodge (talk • contribs)
 * You forgot Threeafterthree, so I've added him above. Zsero 15:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify my position: until such time as well-sourced evidence (required by WP:BLP, as mentioned above) proving that this statement is revelvant to the article can be produced, I oppose any mention of marriage-age-related information in the article. Furthermore, if such sourcing can be found, it must (again per WP:BLP) be determined to be  a neutral detail, and must be included using neutral language (as opposed to "...years his junior", which carries a negative connotation). - SigmaEpsilon → Σ Ε 04:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've had enough. Ferrylodge,  how exactly does this:"I am very slightly opposed to including the ages but not would object to stating their ages as 59 and 35. I would object to "24 years his junior". Sbowers3 22:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)"  translate to "Agree with removal of the ages when they got married, plus removal of the difference when they got married"?


 * Please excuse this insertion into the middle of Tvoz's comment but the context will be lost if I insert way down at the end. My preference is to omit any mention of the ages. I would accept including their ages at marriage. I oppose "24 years his junior". So Ferrylodge's statement was not incorrect, but it is also true that I would agree (but not favor) including their ages. Sbowers3 18:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And Bytebear quite clearly said "I also agreed (if you had actually read what I wrote) that the age difference should be mentioned, but because it is relivant to the article, and not because it's "part of an encyclopedia". You really need to avoid personal attacks, particularly when they are aimed at someone who agrees with your position (just not your reaoning). Bytebear 18:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)"   and "The age difference is notable in the context of his political aspirations. They are not notable in the context of his acting carreer, or within society as a whole. If it is presented, it must be done in that context. Something like, "The age difference between Thompson and his wife has been scrutinized in light of his recent presidential aspirations". Note, I did not mention the age difference (as that is just a simple fact), but gave it context. Bytebear 02:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)"  and "The ages should not be on the page without context. I agree with their removal. If you want them added, add the context as well. Bytebear 03:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)".  HOw is that "Agree with removal of the ages when they got married, plus removal of the difference when they got married:"?  Can you keep the facts straight?


 * After this discussion and the one we had a couple of months ago about Lifelock, I can hardly wait to see what happens here when Thompson enters the race. The Obama, Clinton, and Edwards page editors are frequently attacked for what some people perceive as editing with a bias in favor of removing negatives about the candidates;  those critics ought to check out this article, Ron Paul and Rudy if they want to see sanitizing. I think I'll go back to editing the Beatles.  Tvoz | talk 04:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So are you saying that it should be included because it is politically notable? In effect the removal is a removal 'sanitation' of a negative fact? This illustrates the reason I think some want it included, and that is as a political position. The historical precedent of Grover Cleveland should be followed. Arzel 04:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind clarification, Tvoz. I have corrected my post above (the last paragraph of which you did not address).Ferrylodge 04:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Context, Context, Context! Cleveland's marriage was controversial at the time of the marriage because he was president.  Thompsons marriage was only controversial after he aspired to become president (5 years after the wedding).  The age difference must be presented wiht that context.  If he never had political aspirations, he would never have this age difference mentioned. It just isn't a controversy for a Hollywood actor.  Bytebear 04:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't even controversial for somebody running for President. WHO says its contraversial? An editor on wikipedia? An op-ed piece? Somebody who only thinks people should be married if they are within 5 years of age of each other? Its all about contect, relevance, and sourcability as has been pointed out by others. Anyways, maybe I should stick to editing articles about the Middle East since they never have arguments like this :) Cheers! --Tom 12:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with it being added with context - wording like Bytebear's suggestion could be fine. But we don't want to be doing OR, we just want to present the facts. That's why it is not being suggested as an entry in a "controversy" section (which I am against in any case) - their ages are merely being stated. The NYT article discusses this as a controversial matter that could have an impact on his campaign - that may be a place to start. Other sources may make similar or different points - I have not researched it. But I think stating the age difference is NPOV and allows readers to have facts that they can consider and draw whatever conclusions they want. By the way - I was looking at Robert Duvall for an entirely different reason and I see the age difference between him and his latest wife is  mentioned, so I guess actors are also subject to this kind of mention. Tvoz | talk 15:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They share the same birthday but have a 41 year age difference. Its more of a qwirky thing than anything else. Again, this example is extrordinarily exceptional and not common place as some/one have suggested. Anyways, --Tom 16:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)