Talk:Fred Thompson/Archive 6

Post-Senate: Federal City Council
I propose an addition to the Post-Senate section. In 2003 to 2005, Freddie joined the Federal City Council where he served as the President. In this position Freddie coordinated the link of the federal and local government with the business community.

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2004/05/17/daily7.html

http://www.federalcitycouncil.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.99.48 (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The Church of Christ cited as a Stone Campbell Movement
Frankvass 21:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)frank Vassell The Church of Christ existed before Stone and Campbell according to New Testament record letter to church in Rome written by the Apostle Paul in his epistle Romans 16:16, The churhes of Christ salute you. Non-denominational does not appear in the text of Scripture in which the church first appeared and the label is to differentiate her from denominations. If the label appears then her original appearance in Scripture should appear also so that readers will not attribute the people to Stone and Campbell solely. The Church of Christ is not an American Church and emphasis should be given to its origin in the promise of Jesus Christ, Matthew 16:18 and its realizatiion on Pentecost Acts 2:47.

Can we please get a clear consensus on his name instead of edit warring on this?
1. What does WP:BLP state?

2. What is the common preference here at Wikipedia in case WP:BLP says nothing?

3. Can we at least freeze a version until we get this finished? (Per the comments I thought we have but anons say otherwise).

Sheesh. This may turn out to be another lame edit war. Spryde 21:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It already is lame. It should be a simple issue (my opinion is above in "Fred VS Freddie") - Taroaldo 22:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

All of the changers seem to be anonymous IPS. I haven't seen any named editors who were involved in the discussion trying to change the name. The consensus was mild but all named editors seemed to be observing the consensus.

If the anon editors were acting in good faith they would read and not blank the hidden comment in the article which tells them to discuss changes here. Then they would post some comments here requesting a new consensus. They are not acting in good faith and we should resist their changes until they act in good faith. Semi-protection may be the only way to end the edit war. Sbowers3 22:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (EC)This isn't a BLP issue as there are multiple reliable sources citing his name being Freddie Dalton Thompson, at least up until some point in the 1960's, this is a WP:MOS issue. WP:MOSBIO suggests that in situations where someone is better known by a "nickname" versus their full legal name that the nickname be put in quotes within the legal name. So, Johnny "John" Reid Edwards rather than John Reid Edwards. However, if the person legally changes their name, then it should be their current legal name followed by (born ). So William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III...). The problem is that while it is clear that Thompson was born Freddie Dalton Thompson and that name continued to be his legal name up until the 1960's and then his preferred name became Fred Dalton Thompson, it is unclear if his legal name changed to match the preference. Throw into that a mix of people that feel that the use of Freddie "Fred" Dalton Thompson is disrespectful, can be a source of ridicule for his opponents, etc vs a mix of people that think MOSBIO should be followed, that the only thing that matters is that the only known sourced legal name is Freddie Dalton Thompson, etc. All in all, this argument is well past the point of WP:LAME (it past that point the day there were 14ish reverts between all the various options), but the perpetuation of the edit war is mostly a function of the WaPo article that documented the edit war and the readers of that article thinking it'd be fun to revert it to Freddie "Fred" Dalton Thompson. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What is (EC)? Sbowers3 22:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point it is not a BLP issue or a MOS issue. It is an issue of acting in good faith or acting badly. In that battle, good faith should defeat bad faith. Once people are acting in good faith we can discuss other issues. Until then, those who act in good faith should be allowed to go about their business, while those acting badly should be blocked. I think protection should be semi, not full. Sbowers3 22:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (EC == Edit Conflict)
 * I would agree. It may appear the unofficial "Duke" rule may apply here (Widely known as one name, never legally changed). Up until the LA Times article, the man has been known as Fred Thompson, lawyer, actor, senator, etc. It appears the Freddie name is not used in good faith but as a derogatory term. Just to note my personal bias, I like the current term but I will abide by whatever is agreed upon. Spryde 22:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As noted above, California law does not require an official name change request to legally have your name changed. "Fred" is his legal name. Bytebear 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Bytebear, what does California law have to do with Fred Thompson? Fred Thompson's primary residence has been Virginia since he left Congress, before that his primary residence was in Tennessee, and before that it was between Virginia and Tennessee. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He was a Hollywood actor. I assumed at some point he had residence in CA.  Regardless, the CA law is just a specific case in the Federal law which is the same.  Use a name exclusively, and it becomes legal.  States do have the right to ammend the issue, as CA has done, but it still applies.  "Fred" is his legal name. Bytebear 23:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You know what happens when you assume, neh? Also, there is no exclusivity law at the Federal level, in most cases a person's legal name is a state determination. As far as the Feds are concerned, your legal name is the name you have on your social security card and the only way to change that is to provide the Social Security department with a marriage license, divorce decree, certificate of naturalization, or a court document showing that you legally changed your name.  The only one of those that is a federal determination is the certificate of naturalization and considering that Thompson was born in the US, he would not have a certificate of naturalization.  That does not, however, mean that Fred Thompson has not gone to the SS department and gotten the name changed at the federal level, unfortunately there has not been a reliable source provided that says he legally changed his name. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think full-protection is overkill. Warring arose because anons were not respecting requests by registered editors to go to Talk. Semi-protection should be sufficient to manage this. --- Taroaldo 23:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Much of the IP editing that occurred today was probably a single user using Tor proxies to evade 3RR. The IP addresses have been reported to WP:AIV. - Crockspot 23:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As I stated earlier in this discussion, you don't have to make a formal name change if you have used you new name on legal documents, as my mother did. I believe we should use what is on his congressional bio (Fred), and what he would most likely have on his presidential bio if he were elected.  I personally don't think "Freddie" is a bad name or has bad connetations, I have an uncle name "Freddie" who goes by "Freddie", but it is clear in this instance that the use of "Freddie" is mostly intended to embarass Thompson (although I don't think that is the intention of most named editors here).  Arzel 00:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The point of the anons is to vandalize/disrupt, if the lede of the article was Freddy "Fred" Dalton Thompson, they'd change it to Fred Dalton Thompson, just to be obtuse. Using the actions of vandals to bolster one side of the disagreement over the other is counterproductive. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Duly noted, it is not my intent to do so. Arzel 03:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My concern was that the semi-protection should not be used as an opportunity for registered users to win an edit war. However, I see little effort by the IPs to discuss this issue, so semi-protection is more appropriate at this juncture.-- Kubigula (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, Semi expired today and it looks like we are back to square one. I made my opinion known. I hope others do the same. Spryde 11:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I hope we all agree that there should be discussion (in yet another section) before change, that those who change without any discussion are not acting in good faith, and that we will all revert changes that are not in good faith. I do not have a strong preference for the current phrase, but I do have a strong preference for following proper Wiki process. Sbowers3 11:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if concensus was reached yet but my opinion is to use the name "Fred" in the lead. Then in the section "Early life and education", lead of with "Born Freddie Dalton Thompson in Sheffield, Alabama to Ruth Inez..." I'd also drop his middle name from the infobox. Morphh  (talk) 21:14, 04 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Except in many circles (i.e. his acting career), he goes by "Fred Dalton Thompson". The lede is fine as it is, and the middle name in the infobox is helpful. --Ali&#39;i 21:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Did some god sign that? Not clear.
&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 02:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeri Kehn Weenie_Beenie   Beenie Weenie_
Cnn has just said that when Jeri met Fred, he had been purchasing "Beenie Weenies", not "Weenie_Beenies". Which is true, please?? I have no knowledge of either. If cnn is correct, then another page is needed; but, if their script is wrong, well,...

Thank You,

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 02:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I'm not sure either one meets weight for inclusion but if you really want to include it, there is a FOX video titled "Fred and Jeri's First Campaign Interview with Sean Hannity" that is available on Fred's site that makes the statement (I think Jeri makes it). If I remember correctly, I thought she said Beenie Weenie, which is a little can of beans with slices of hot dogs in it.   Morphh   (talk) 12:32, 07 October 2007 (UTC)
 * One version of the product-name has an article; but, the version that is canned into an actual presidential-nominee-campaign is @ redlink-status??  Seems odd to me.  I do say that as a person who is not likely to vote f/ them, even if I were, well, you can guess.  I do not recall seeing either of these food-products, anywhere, ever.

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 16:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not notable enough to get an article.. I mean who cares about Beenie Weenies. The are an actual product or at least use to be.. I use to love them when I was young - tasty.  They even had Baked Beenie Weenies (baked beans and dog slices).  Morphh   (talk) 16:33, 07 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Who|Whom? I did search it when  cnn  had prompted it.  If anyone else does, maybe I could help by pasting your answer there.  I do not know any other way to improve this.

Thank You,

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 16:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This entire discussion is irrelevant - it's completely unnotable and not even interesting. Just because someone says something, or just because something is true, does not mean that it should be included in a bio. Tvoz | talk 07:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Remove protection
Because some people can't come to an agreement I can't add anything? Other editors shouldn't be penalized.

Jeremy221 00:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You can add stuff - it's just a bit more involved than normal. What you do is write your proposed edits here on the talk page. If there is consensus among editors to make the changes, then we can request an admin to make the changes. So go ahead and write your edits right here. Sbowers3 01:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is my edit to the "political positions" section:

"Thompson is skeptical that humanity is to blame for global warming.[69] He says citizens are entitled to keep and bear arms if they do not have criminal records.[70] Thompson's support of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation brought criticism from groups such as Gun Owners of America (GOA), who said that the legislation limited their ability to inform the public about the gun rights voting records of incumbent politicians.[71] Thompson now says that the limitation on political speech within thirty or sixty days of an election was wrong and should be repealed.[72] Thompson says U.S. borders need to be secured before considering comprehensive immigration reform,[73] but supports a path to citizenship “You’re going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship, but not make it so easy that it’s unfair to the people waiting in line and abiding by the law.” "

I tried to shorten the section by saying skeptical, added immigration view and removed part of his immigration stance saying that federal gov needs to work with states as that is more detailed and belongs on his political positions page. If you can please add this I will appreciate it.

Jeremy221 20:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

removal of logos
editprotected having reviewed the articles for the 2008 presidential candidates, i realized that the majority of the articles did not have campaign logos inserted in them. a minority of articles do have them. a campaign logo/poster/image, by definition, is intended to promote the candidate. promotion implies POV. the inclusion of these images is inherently POV. i've removed these images from a handful of articles, and would like to have the image removed from this article - in that way, all candidate articles will be represented equally, in service to NPOV. thanks. Anastrophe 17:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I object to this and have done so on Hackabee's article. There is also dispute at Hillary Clinton's article.  See there for discussion.  Morphh   (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. A candidate's logo is relevant to the campaign and reflects on their views and personality. Every candidate should have their logo included in the article.

Jeremy221 22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton for a discussion about this. Several editors there (including me)  disagree with this proposal to remove the campaign logo images - and with the assumption that this is an NPOV matter.  I think if we have the logo and editors find it illustrative of a section of their articles, it's fine to include it. Tvoz | talk 03:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be agreement to make the change. I'm disabling the editprotected tag for now. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * fair enough. thank you. Anastrophe 17:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Age difference and page protection request
Hmm.. Here's a thought, instead of just reverting each other over whether or not to include the ages of Thompson and his second wife at the time of their wedding, how about y'all talk about it? There were 8 reverts by 4 users in a little over 24 hours and I don't see a single word on the talk page between the two factions. Obviously both sides can not have the consensus version as claimed, so how about y'all actually discuss this? I've submitted the article for full protection until a true consensus is established. Also, please remember that consensus can change, so even though there was a discussion a month or so ago on this, several of the more active participants are no longer with the project. --Bobblehead (rants) 15:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that after reviewing the discussion on this that started in late August, I do not see that consensus was ever established. All I see is a bunch of personal attacks and the discussion spiraling out into a S/he said S/he said whine fest over how the other side is lacking good faith. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that, over time, there has been a weak consensus not to highlight the age difference between Fred and Jeri Thompson. Or, at the very least, those who favor highlighting the age difference have not demonstrated a consensus to add it to the article.  The age difference is obvious to anyone who sees a picture of the couple, and both Fred and Jeri's birth dates are accurately recorded in their respective Wikipedia articles.  Unless one of Fred's rivals turns the age difference into a campaign issue, there isn't any reason to highlight it in the article.  Eseymour 18:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The revert war with both sides claiming to have the consensus version seems to indicate that the consensus you speak of us non-existent at this time. I'm unsure what Thompson's campaign has to do with the information and whether or not it can be presented in this article. If the age difference becomes an issue, then the fact that it became an issue can be listed in his campaign article and the fact that it has not become an issue should not be used to exclude any mention of it from this article. Based solely on the number of links provided during the previous discussion that mentioned their age difference, it seems to be somewhat notable. As for the reliance upon the image to display their age difference... Wikipedia has a desire to be as accessible as possible to people with disabilities and relying upon an image to provide information about their age difference would exclude a visually impaired person that uses a screen reader to view this page from ascertaining this information. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Bobblehead's posts confirm my recollection of what went on - I don't think we reached any consensus, weak or strong - I think whoever was left standing when people left the discussion is what ended up in the article. In other words, the sense I have is that people from one side of what some of us tried to keep as a civil discussion had more stamina than people from the other side - there was an attempt to get consensus but some people's positions were misrepresented, and folks gave up. I know I did. That, my friends, is not consensus building, it is bullying.  I would reiterate my position on this:  the age difference was notable because it is somewhat out of the norm, and because of the press coverage it got; several simple, low-weight ways of adding it to the text were suggested (not to "highlight" it, just to include it); some Thompson supporters were resisting anything that even remotely seemed to have a negative tinge, rather than editing in a neutral manner; there was nastiness, talk page editing, name-calling, a lot of heat - and the result was that the language was out, but not because of weak, strong or any consensus.  I'm not sure that the decision should be based solely on whether another campaign turns it into an issue - this is a bio, not the campaign article - I think its notability is based on whether reliable outside sources talk about it.  I haven't looked at it lately, so don't know if there are more sources, but there certainly were some reliable ones some months ago.  Tvoz | talk 21:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Bullying? Let's try to assume good faith here.  My opinion is that the only reason to have a special mention about the age difference (which, as I said, is clearly available by comparing birth dates) is to imply that there's something inappropriate about it.  We don't mention the age difference between people and their spouses in thousands of Wikipedia bios where the age difference is 10 years or less, so age difference is not universally notable.  As for being "somewhat out of the norm," there are dozens of other bits of information about any notable person that would be just as much out of the norm, but would rightly be considered trivia.  There must be something else to establish the relevance, and a couple of political wags commenting on it a few months ago doesn't qualify. Eseymour 22:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't directing "bullying" at you, Eseymour - I was recalling the rather bitter exchanges that ensued over this tiny matter a few months ago, and although we disagree on this matter and others, I don't recall your being one of the editors who was using bullying tactics to get his or her way. But I'm not backing away from the characterization, because that's what was going on by some others.  I do assume good faith until it is shown to me that a person is not editing in good faith - I think there's a reason that this sentence is in bold red type in WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." .    But - back to the point, the only reason this was ever added to the article was that they have a 24 year age difference - not 10 year - which is, in my view, worthy of mention, not highlight. And I don't see the point of forcing readers to go to Jeri's article to find her birthdate and then do the math. There were several easy solutions that were low-key which would accomplish what I think is appropriate to his biography.  What has been done is that Jeri has been rendered practically invisible in this article, relegated to one sentence if I recall correctly, with no indication of the powerful role she has in his campaign. That strikes me as possibly responding to concerns that supporters had about how she is seen, rather than a neutral telling of his story.   The details indeed may belong in the campaign article, but they're not there either - she is relegated to the phrase "his politically experienced wife" there once, without even a wikilink to her page.  And while her page does talk about the age difference and cite some of the pieces that have been written about it,  it seems to me very odd that it not be mentioned =at all= on his page seeing as obviously the age difference applies to both of them - it is not just about her.  So I think something needs to be added to this article as well.  Tvoz | talk 23:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There was the semblence of concensus.

Agree with removal of the ages when they got married, plus removal of the difference when they got married: Ferrylodge, 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 (has since quit WP), Tvoz, Turtlescrubber

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

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

Those for leaving out, or at least leaving out without relevance at 6 to 3 (4 with retired user) for inclusion. I still believe the primary reason for inclusion is political in nature and should be left out. Arzel 22:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And I fear that the reason for removal is political, based in part on at least one of the above editors having declared himself to be a Thompson contributor. More importantly,  if you look further down in that archive, you'll see that the above listing was not complete or necessarily even accurate when it was posted originally.  I'm not claiming there was clear consensus to include  a short reference to their age difference, but there certainly also wasn't consensus to remove it - there was no consensus either way.  And let's remember, consensus means agreement, not majority.) Tvoz | talk 23:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6 to 3 is hardly consensus. Also, if you're going to mention Italiavivi leaving, you should also probably mention that Ferrylodge is currently indefinitely banned from editing articles which would change the "consensus" to 5-3.--Bobblehead (rants) 23:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll re-iterate the point I've stated several times: WP:BLP places the burden of proof (of whether or not something should be added) on the person(s) who favor inclusion. If these editors can demonstrate why this age difference is notable (that is, mentioned by several reliable sources) then the information can be included, with careful phrasing to ensure that the information is presented in a neutral manner. Simply asserting "I believe it notable because..." may be valid reasoning, but the standard, especially for BLP, is to require sourcing rather than conducting Original Research to determine notability. - SigmaEpsilon → Σ Ε 23:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a true statement of uncontroversial fact that Fred Thompson was 59 and Jeri Kehn 35 when they married in 2002. See next section - I don't see how that could possibly be a BLP concern. There is nothing false, libelous, or defamatory about stating their ages - any more than including their birthdates is.  Notability isn't even the issue - these are simple facts, easily included.  And agreement has been reached before on this simple statement of fact. Tvoz | talk 23:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (EC)Well, the article for Jeri Kehn Thompson includes several apparently reliable sources that reference the age difference. Not to mention several other sources I've found in a bit of quick searching.  I'm sure more can be found if you'd like. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To put it bluntly, everything about a major candidate for President of the United States of America is of interest to the public. In particular, age differences are always interesting. Bobblehead is too modest, his sources are articles about the age difference and are in major publications. The information should be included. Fee Fi Foe Fum 02:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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


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

Wording options regarding age difference
Consensus seems to be forming to include the ages. So which form with the ages are we referring to? (I guess using as the source):


 * 1) Thompson began dating Republican consultant Jeri Kehn in July 1996. They married on June 29, 2002 when Thompson was 59 and Kehn was 35.


 * 2) On June 29 2002, Thompson, then age 59, married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn, then 35. (although this doesn't really work with the first sentence... it could replace it, but then you miss that they began dating in July 1996. (is that important to keep?))


 * 3) On June 29 2002, Thompson, then age 59, married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn, then 35, after dating since July 1996. (to include the dating since part)


 * 4) [Your version here]

Some other wording? Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 15:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 5) Thompson began dating Republican consultant Jeri Kehn (b. 1966) in July 1996, and they married on June 29, 2002.

Also, remove excessive wikilinks to dates unless June 29th or 2002 are significant to the relationship between the two. Arzel 15:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The links in dates has to do with the user preferences, I believe. --Ali&#39;i 15:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

6) After nearly six years of dating, Thompson married 35 year old Republican consultant Jeri Kehn on June 29 2002.

7) After nearly six years of dating, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn, then 35, on June 29 2002.


 * A couple more options. I don't think the actual month that they started dating is particularly notable, it also drops Thompson's age, but retains Kehn's.--Bobblehead (rants) 15:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I like #7 the best so far. Morphh   (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I like #7 too. --Ali&#39;i 16:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No objection here. Sbowers3 01:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw a source that says they met when she was 21. I assure you, censoring this issue on Wikipedia will have repercussions all its own. Fee Fi Foe Fum 05:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it a reliable source and if so, care to provide it? All the sources that I've found is that she was 29 at the time they met. --Bobblehead (rants) 05:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Object based on consistency with other major candidates for president. Inclusion appears to be based on making a political point.  My suggestion includes all of the relevant information without any POV issues.  Arzel 05:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have another tweak which I think sounds a little better:


 * 8) On June 29 2002, after nearly six years of dating, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn, then aged 35. [fn] Tvoz | talk 07:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I still object to any special mention of the age difference between Fred and Jeri. Interracial marriage is roughly as out of the norm as "May-December" marriages, but would we write something like "Joe Smith, who is white, married Sue Jones, who is black, on 24 October 2007?"  I don't think so.  The special mention implies there's something worth raising an eyebrow over.  In my opinion, prejudice against a couple with a significant age difference (unless the younger person is not a mature adult) is just as bad as prejudice against interracial marriage.  The only wording I find somewhat acceptable is Arzel's. Eseymour 13:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Per Arzel and Eseymour I think the wording would be:
 * 9) Thompson began dating Republican consultant Jeri Kehn (b. 1966) in July 1996 and the two married on June 29, 2002.
 * Sbowers3 13:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you guys just mention the criticism/notoriety he received from some people? Like this:

Thompson began dating Republican consultant Jeri Kehn in July 1996 and the two married on June 29, 2002. Thompson received some criticism about the twenty plus year age difference....

Just write something like that. Lets stop this polymandering and take the page off protection off of something so stupid.

Jeremy221 01:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what polymandering means (nothing came up when I goggled it, and nothing was suggested either). The problem, from my perspective, is that people want to make it a political issue, when it really shouldn't be an issue at all. People want to make sure that it is known that he is 25 years older than her, but have yet to provide a reason why it is specifically important to note. I have proposed that it should be addressed the way it is in actual encyclopedia's by listing the birth year after the first mention of the person of note which provides the most neutral form of addressing the issue. It is not really a controversy either. Dodd and Kucinich are both similar situations but it is not a controversy with them, why would it be a controversy here? By making a specific note of the age difference it implies that their is something wrong with their relationship, and in essence manufacturing controversy where none exists outside political attacks. Arzel 03:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree but I believe the age difference should be noted. I have seen the issue come up in the mainstream media and the age barrier is not typical. If we don't mention the age difference it looks like we will be hiding it. As for Kucinich and Dodd, I haven't seen their wife's ages come into the mainstream but everyone I know mentions it. I have never heard a conversation about Kucinich's marriage where the age difference wasn't mentioned. I think it is more of an issue with Thompson because he is a frontrunner, running as a conservative and is trying to court the vote of social conservatives/Christians, whereas Kuchinic and Dodd are way at the back of the pack for their party and age is probably not as much of an issue among democrats. I think just noting that Thompson has been attacked is the best route as it doesn't specifically point out the age difference (implying something wrong) and merely reports.

As for the word polymandering, I made it up. I probably should have said polymaundering but I guess I just like the first one better. :)

Jeremy221 06:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If there has been any serious criticism of the age difference from notable sources, I'd support including that. So far, all I've seen is gossip column-esque "trophy wife" nonsense that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.  Eseymour 12:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Concord Monitor, The New York Times, CNN, and National Review definitely qualify as reliable sources... Granted, the Concord Monitor article was written by a columnist, but even they have to meet some journalistic standards (low bar, granted). But even if you discount that one you have three articles from reliable sources that feature their age difference prominently. I'm sure more can be found if you'd like.--Bobblehead (rants) 16:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, that's The New Republic, not National Review. Eseymour 22:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Those articles make one thing quite clear. It is not her age which is controversal it is her appearance.  She looks too young to be with FT.  She doesn't look like a first lady, that she is a trophy wife.  Her age is ancillary to the main issue as is their difference in age.  They may be reliable sources, but they are still gossip type articles and don't address a specific controversy about her age or their age difference.  Arzel 16:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Trophy wives by their very definition are a woman that is young and attractive... I'm sure referencing the age difference and leaving it at that is a more NPOV way of handling inclusion in this article than linking to trophy wife, but if you're set upon only including the documented controversy than we could do that.--Bobblehead (rants) 17:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * These are the reliable sources I listed back in August when this was discussed - see for a fuller discussion:


 * New York Times, Reuters, The Washington Post, Chicago Sun-Times, Newsweek, New York Post.


 * Added to the new ones that Bobblehead listed, and there may be others, makes it even clearer that the age difference is notable for inclusion - in an NPOV way, without analysis, without using the phrase "trophy wife" or anything similar - just the factual ages  as referenced by the Washington Post article. And if you want to include the controversy, which can be done in a very few words so as to not give it undue weight in the article, include the other references  too - they by and large argue against the trophy wife label, in fact. Considering the amount of attention this has gotten, leaving out this basic information seems to be the political edit.  And I again wonder why, considering the role that she is known to play in his campaign, she has been relegated to being only mentioned as his wife and mother of their children.  This editing too seems to perhaps  be influenced by politics. Tvoz | talk 19:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Those articles are by and large about her not him, plus they are gossipy type articles. Again I ask.  What point does it serve to specifically point out the age difference other than to pander to the political agenda?  Simply provide some good reasoning for specifically pointing out the age difference as opposed to listing her birth year.  At least it won't matter in a few months when FT is out of the race and then it won't even be an issue anymore.  He can go back to being one of the many public people throughout history that noone cares two bits about.  Arzel 20:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Arzel, the point for including it is because it is encyclopedic and will remain a point of interest whether or not FT is still in the race or not. It seems your objection to inclusion of the age difference is for purely political reasons, which doesn't really have a place in an encyclopedia. We do have to be mindful not to include the unsupported crap that political campaigns invariably dig up, but this seems to be well supported by reliable sources and is of encyclopedic value regardless of FT's current political status. As for the birth year, I've only seen your preferred format in a list of someone's children. I don't believe that I have seen it used in relation to spouses or unrelated people in an encyclopedic article before. Do you have an example of this outside of Wikipedia?--Bobblehead (rants) 22:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have hundreds if not thousands of examples in my Encyclopedia Britanica. I had stated earlier in our discussion a few months ago how ages are handled in an actual encyclopedia.  To be completely fair, birth/death years and ages are usually only listed in the BLP of the actual person at the heading of their article, unless dealing with specific time lines notable to their life.
 * By listing the birth year after the first mention you get all of the information presented in a way which is completely neutral. Information is never presented the way some people here would like unless it is very notable, as in the case of Grover Cleveland where his wife's age is listed because she was the youngest First Lady ever in the white house.  There is simply no other way to really list it without appearing to promote some POV, because at what age difference should it be noted? 5, 10, 15, 20?  Who makes the decision?
 * For the candidates right now we have. Fred Thompson is 24 yrs,  John McCain is 18 yrs,  Rudy Giuliani is 11 yrs, Christopher Dodd is 18 yrs, and Dennis Kucinich is 31 yrs older.  All of these have RS which point out the age difference, but is it important?  The Thompson issue seems to drive the most interest because of the way she looks.  With the upcoming elections it is going to hard enough to keep these articles free of POV criticism, I suggest we work to limit them here, and present the information (like I am suggesting) such that doesn't imply any hidden meaning.  Arzel 22:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I prefer #8 above. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 19:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Her being a trophy wife and talking about her looks implies age. Its relevant if the article is about his wife because his wife is part of his life. They wouldn't be writing the article about her if Thompson wasn't running. In this case the articles being "gossip" doesn't matter because they arouse issues that attract readers. You are over ruled Arzel and we can't stop the editing of this article any longer. We need to make a decision. There are errors on it that I need to fix.


 * Jeremy221 21:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Tvoz, if you're concerned that Jeri's role in Fred's campaign is under- (or un-) represented in the article, by all means add info about that. I think it's important to note that none of the articles actually criticizes the age difference, they just wink and speculate, etc.  So we still don't have anything of substance to hang a mention of the age difference on.  What would we write?  "Some commentators have suggested that their age difference might be controversial to some portion of the population"?  Pretty weasel-wordy.  BTW, Jeremy221, this isn't about having the majority in a 3-2 vote.  Wikipedia policy requires that we come up with a consensus on the article's content.  Despite all the discussion on this, I have never seen a consensus to add a special mention of Fred and Jeri's age difference (which, to repeat once more, is represented factually in WP since they both have articles about them in which their birth dates are listed). Eseymour 22:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 10)After dating Republican consultant Jeri Kehn for over five years, they married in 2002 and have two children. He was 59 and she was 35 when they married; some people consider this important. htom 13:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wording with more context
Upon further thought, I have come up with a wording that I could support. The key is including the appropriate context. This would go after "They have two children."

Some commentators have remarked that Jeri Thompson's relative youth and attractiveness is unusual for a Presidential candidate's wife. (references) At age 41, she is 24 years younger than her husband, however she was accomplished on her own before the couple married. (references) Mrs. Thompson takes an active role in her husband's campaign. (examples & references)

Your opinions? Eseymour 00:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not just that her relative youth and attractiveness that is unusual for a Presidential candidate's wife (Michelle Obama is currently 43 and was 42 at the time her husband announced his candidacy), what is unusual is that her age and attractiveness in comparison to Fred Thompson's. Also, the maintenance of the current age would require someone to come into the article every year and update the age. If her age is to be included it should be located in such a way that it is static and in relation to what makes it unusual (Their marriage and 35 years old or 24 years difference). I'm not opposed to including more context, but it should be in a manner that is actually related to what is unusual about her and Thompson. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. Tvoz | talk 07:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not perfect, but we have to have some context that is somehow relevant in order to have a special mention of the age difference. Otherwise it's trivia at best and prejudice at worst.  The above was my best attempt at a compromise version, and it also provides a good segue to describing Mrs. Thompson's role in her husband's campaign.  (The static age thing can easily be fixed, btw.)  If anyone has a better suggestion that doesn't rely on weasel wording, by all means post it here. Eseymour 13:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The attractiveness part seems weird an out of place. Why don't you just say something along the lines of "Thomspon and his wife were married in (Year), when he was (Age) and she was (Age). Rundar (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Compare to Dennis Kucinich
I found this interesting discussion from April on Talk:Dennis Kucinich:

Currently, the Dennis Kucinich article handles the age difference exactly how Tvoz suggested, which is also how Arzel suggests we handle the Fred/Jeri age difference--by listing her birth year after her name at her first mention in the article. Tvoz--I presume that you either would support that here, or you have changed your mind and Dennis Kucinich should also be edited to make the age difference more obvious to readers? Eseymour 13:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As near as I can tell, the difference between the two is that reliable sources have not indicated an issue of the age difference between Kucinich and his second wife, while they have made an issue of the age difference between Thompson and his second wife. That's one of the issues with the American national press in that second or third tier candidates like Kucinich tend to get a free ride while top tier like Thompson get the spotlight shined upon them. Although, I'm sure if you found some reliable sources that indicated that the age difference between Kucinich and his second wife was notable you could put them in front of the editors and propose some rewording to indicate that. You should also pay closer attention to what Tvoz was complaining about, it's not that the age difference is noted, it's that the article included commentary about Kucinich being older than her father and that she was 31 years younger than his first wife. That's the gossipy part. --Bobblehead (rants) 14:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The "older than his wife's father" bit was clearly unencyclopedic, but Tvoz also quite clearly wanted to "let people do their own math" regarding the age difference itself. I don't see why it's relevant whether reliable sources have commented on the age difference.  If a 25-year age difference is relevant to one person's biography (and that should be the standard here; if it's relevant only to the campaign, it should go on the campaign page), then a 31-year age difference is definitely relevant to another person's biography. Eseymour 17:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP requires that all such information be traceable to a reliable source. I haven't done any looking into Kucinich and his second wife, so I have no idea what is out there as far as sources that reliably document the age difference between Kucinich and his wife. It was also not my intention to imply that the age difference was only relevant to the campaign (although there may be aspects of it that are). My intent was to note that top-tier candidates get more attention so more stuff is brought up.  Several of the references provided above indicate that the age difference between Thompson and his second wife was at least "of notice" prior to his candidacy. It's just that his candidacy brought more attention to that.  It's a similar situation to his birthname. It was always there, but it took the LA Times to dig it up and they probably wouldn't have dug it up if it weren't for him being a top tier candidate for President. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The sources which reliably document the age difference between Kucinich and his wife would the ones which reliably document their birth dates. There seem to be three options at this point for Fred Thompson.  1) Present the age difference with no additional context, implying that it is notable in and of itself; 2) Present the age difference with some sort of notable context; 3) Make no special mention of the age difference, but cite Thompson's wife's birth year at her first mention in the article.  You and Tvoz seemed to be initially arguing for 1), but now it sounds like you (Bobblehead) are arguing for 2).  I suggested a way to do 2), but you and Tvoz rejected it.  If you'd like to propose an alternate version, please do so.  But a lot of the chatter I've seen in the media about Jeri Thompson is, in Tvoz' words, "gossipy and non-encyclopedic." Eseymour 19:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Bobblehead has it right: there were 'no sources provided at all at that time, 6 months ago, for the sentences: Kucinich is 31 years older than his current wife, and he is older than her father. He is one of few vegan politicians in the US. No source - reliable, gossip or otherwise - was provided saying that anyone found that of interest, or even that all of it was true.  So, what I said was If we have her year of birth then give that, and let people do their own math. because her year of birth was independently verifiable.  In fact we have multiple reliable sources regarding the Thompson age difference and the  attention paid to it, and that has been deemed notable for Jeri's article. My point, or one of them, is that they both share the age difference, and its potential for controversy, so both articles should include it with any of many reliable sources. And yes, if there are similarly reliable sources regarding the age difference between the Kuciniches, I would include them there too.  I also think that Bobblehead's observation about why attention is paid to these details for so-called top tier candidates but less so for lower tier is certainly correct.  Tvoz | talk 19:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a Wikipedia content guideline about only including facts that are of interest to somebody, according to a reliable source? I would think that the qualification would be whether it's relevant to the subject of the article (in addition to the fact itself--but not the interest in the fact--being backed up by a reliable source).  Therefore, if a man being 31 years older than his wife is not relevant in one case, then another man being 25 years older than his wife cannot be relevant without additional context which explains why it's relevant. Eseymour 22:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability pretty much covers the minimum threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia, but WP:BLP adds some additional measures. But I think we're heading down a bunny trail in trying to compare how Kucinich and his second wife are covered in Kucinich's article versus how Thompson and his second wife are treated on this article.  Articles within Wikipedia really are not comparable as far as content goes and each content inclusion should be judged on it's own merits and not whether or not another article properly covers a similar topic.  Eseymour, if you feel that the age difference between Dennis Kucinich and his second wife is notable enough for inclusion in Kucinich's article and is not being properly covered there, then I suggest you take it up there. Having a notability discussion about the Kucinichs here will only result in you having to rediscuss the topic on Kucinich's article. So you either need to focus on whether or not the age difference between the Thompsons is notable enough for inclusion in this article based solely on its own merits, or, well, you're going to be talking to yourself shortly. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Notability guideline only covers whether a topic should have its own article, it does not directly regulate the content of articles. I brought up Kucinich both because Tvoz' argument against including age difference there was exactly what some of us have been arguing here, and because I think it's important that Wikipedia treats all its subjects equally--particularly in touchy areas like politics.  Frankly, when you have someone arguing for including a potentially prejudicial fact on an article about a person they disagree with politically, and arguing for excluding that same fact from an article about a person they sympathize with politically, whatever reasons they give for that sound an awful lot like cover for their personal political bias.  This is exactly the sort of thing that leads to people complaining that Wikipedia has a political slant. Eseymour 13:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


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


 * Fair enough. Ponder away.  :-)  The only short options I find acceptable are #5 or #9--citing Jeri's birth date at her first mention.  All the others seem to imply something unsavory without explaining why.  Context is very important when treading these waters. Eseymour 22:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Here you go, read this. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07224/808904-176.stm A reliable source with all of the age differences mentioned. Still waiting to hear why it is important to be in this article aside from simply stating her birth year and avoiding any implications of context. Be aware, that forcing the issue is only going to result in similar plays in other articles to which ultimately it will result in other edit wars. Arzel 01:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


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

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


 * This is so ridiculous. I have been trying to add some edits for a week now. Is this just going to protected until the election is over? An edit war will resolve this problem much faster and not penalize people who can care less about it. Btw Jeske, my source is not "Youtube"; youtube merely hosts the source of FoxNews.

Jeremy221 22:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * An edit-war does penalize people. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting) Would it be feasible to tell editors not to edit that area until consensus on talk, and add a hidden comment to that effect at the appropriate place(s) in the article, and then unprotect the page for editing in other areas? Sbowers3 00:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is a great idea. There is no reason to lock the whole article indefinitely. There are errors that I need to fix in other sections but I can't because you guys are so adamant about protecting the article. However, the age dispute is an issue between a few editors and you are penalizing everyone else by prohibiting us from editing. Everyone hates edit wars and people will come to a faster agreement to avoid it. Locking it is taking too much time and this nonsense needs to end.

Btw can you please add my edit?

Jeremy221 01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

ADD EDIT
Why wont someone add my edit?

Jeremy221 04:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Edit Protected
My edit is in bold to his political positions section:

"Thompson is skeptical that humanity is to blame for global warming. He says citizens are entitled to keep and bear arms if they do not have criminal records. Thompson's support of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation brought criticism from groups such as Gun Owners of America (GOA), who said that the legislation limited their ability to inform the public about the gun rights voting records of incumbent politicians.[71] Thompson now says that the limitation on political speech within thirty or sixty days of an election was wrong and should be repealed. Thompson says U.S. borders need to be secured before considering comprehensive immigration reform, but supports a path to citizenship “You’re going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship, but not make it so easy that it’s unfair to the people waiting in line and abiding by the law.” "

Please include my edits as soon as possible. Thanks,

Jeremy221 23:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you find a source other than youtube? I don't have a problem with it, but it would be nice to have a secondary source. --Elliskev 00:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, YouTube can't be used as a source, since there is no way to verify whether something on there is true or not. See Reliable sources and Verifiability. Find the actual source of that, please, and then we'll talk. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 00:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Stylistically, it might be helpful to add the current wording but strike it out to make it clearer as to what is being changed. Sbowers3 00:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The first change is obviously just a minor wording change so I doubt that anyone will oppose. I have a quibble with the second change. This paragraph is supposed to be a summary of what is in the linked Political positions of Fred Thompson article; it should not introduce information that is not in the other article. I recommend that you first edit the Political positions article. Then I would check Thompson's most recent statements about immigration. We should not give undue weight to a sentence from six months ago. Whatever ends up in the other article should be fairly summarized in this article's political positions section and not give more weight to immigration than to other issues, i.e. just one sentence. Whatever Thompson said (and reliably sourced) is fair game as long as we don't give undue weight to a particular statement. Sbowers3 00:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Hannity and Colmbes doesn't keep transcripts. I don't have the original source but FoxNews quotes him saying it on Hannity and Colmes and Thompson acknowledged his statement. The information is very important to his immigration stance. He never mentioned that he changed his position and if he did people still need to know what his beliefs where before he announced. However, he stands by his statement and hasn't withdrawn it. I will add it to his political positions page right now but it really needs to be added on the summary page. Also this line from the section should be removed as its more detailed policy position for a summary:

and federal law must be enforced in sanctuary cities which currently ban cooperation between local officials and federal immigration officials.[74]

Jeremy221 07:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

editprotected

Just replace the second and third paragraph of his political positions section with my edit:

He says that Roe v. Wade ought to be overturned and that he is pro-life, but that states should not criminalize women for early term abortions. He would not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but would support an amendment preserving each state's right to decide the matter for itself.

Thompson is skeptical that humanity is to blame for global warming. Thompson says if citizens do not have criminal records they are entitled to keep and bear arms. Thompson supported McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation which aroused criticism from Gun Owners of America, who said the legislation limited the ability of people to inform themselves about the gun voting records of incumbents. Thompson now says that McCain-Feingold should be repealed. Thompson says U.S. borders need to be secured before considering comprehensive immigration reform, but supports a path to citizenship, saying “You’re going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship, but not make it so easy that it’s unfair to the people waiting in line and abiding by the law.”

The part about campaign finance has been bothering me for a long time. I really don't think the controversy belongs in the summary but I will leave the decision to others. I just cleaned up what I could so if someone can please add this I will appreciate it. When you past the html Wikipedia will highlight my edits.

Jeremy221 23:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Clarification to your proposed edits. Thompson doesn't think McCain-Feingold should be completely repealed--only the limitation on political speech within 30 or 60 days of an election.  Also, I think this might work better as a bulleted list, rather than a paragraph where every sentence starts with "Fred Thompson says..." or something similar.  But that's a style question, and it can easily be addressed when the article is downgraded to semi-protection. Eseymour 12:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ugh... no bullet points. This is an encyclopedia, and should have good stout paragraphs. If we need to combine a few of the sentences, and reword so that every one doesn't start with "Thompson says", "He says", etc., then that is the thing to do. Else, we cease to be an encyclopedia, and end up being a random collection of facts. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 12:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


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

Jeremy221 20:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Can someone please add the edit? I have been waiting forever. It seems like there were some objections so I further modified it to remove the GOA criticism:

Thompson is skeptical that humanity is to blame for global warming. Thompson says if citizens do not have criminal records they are entitled to keep and bear arms. Thompson initially supported McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation but now says certain parts should be repealed. Thompson says U.S. borders need to be secured before considering comprehensive immigration reform, but supports a path to citizenship, saying “You’re going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship, but not make it so easy that it’s unfair to the people waiting in line and abiding by the law.”

I think this is better as it's just a summary. If people want to learn more about Thompson's positions on McCain-Fiengold they can go to his political positions page where his position is explained in depth.

Jeremy221 22:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This article was protected because of edit warring. We don't add generally add content to pages that are protected for edit warring until they are unprotected. Please resolve through discussion the issues that led to protection and then request unprotection at WP:RFPP. The whole point of protection for edit warring is to freeze the article in its current state until the protection is lifted. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

New info
Longtime Friend,' Thompson Adviser Has Rap Sheet Records Show Philip J. Martin Sold Drugs, Took Bets and Stole Liquor Before Working on Pal Fred Thompson's Presidential Campaign

   Turtlescrubber 20:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Umm, yeah. 25 years before. Eseymour 14:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm, apparently the national news including fox, cbs and abc. Really, I don't care so much. Just adding it to the talk page in case other people do. Turtlescrubber 14:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with Thompson. If aaaaanything, this would go on the campaign article. Not his biography. --Ali&#39;i 14:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with Thompson? That's weird considering the articles are about Thompson. I agree that this is more appropriate for his campaign article. That is why I added it to the talk page there to. :)Turtlescrubber 14:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, folks, even if this information and the age difference don't make onto the Wikipedia page, it will still affect Thompson's presidential aspirations. Our debate itself shows that these things are important. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Context for age difference mention?
This should be very simple. If there's a valid reason for making a special mention of the Fred/Jeri age difference, we should be able to incorporate that reason into the text of the article. I proposed such a wording more than a week ago, but the editors who are most interested in the age difference didn't like it, and they haven't come up with anything better. If you can't succinctly explain *why* something is biographically important--other than that it's out of the ordinary--then it's probably not worth including. Biographies shouldn't be cluttered up with trivia. Let's just include Jeri Thompson's birth date after her first mention, and get on with it. Eseymour 14:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Valid reason, age difference between the two has been heavily reported by the national news media. It has become a campaign issue and is now one of the defining issues of their relationship among the media class and general public. Not including some relevant mention will cause future conflicts on this page, as it has done in the past. A very brief mention of their age difference (listing the numbers at the time of marriage and not the actual age gap) would be fine with me. Not listing or trying to hide the information is unacceptable. Turtlescrubber 14:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not hiding it if you include the birth year after her mention. I further dissagree that it is a huge campaign issue.  I agree that some want to make it an issue as a way to hurt Thompson, which only furthers the arguement that it should not be presented in a way which alludes to a point of view.  Do you feel that it should be mentioned on all of the other candidate articles?  Furthermore, listing the ages when they where married adds nothing to the article other than for some to make a WP:POINT about their age difference.  Still not encyclopedic, and still no valid reason why it should be important.  I am not a Thompson supporter, as some have alluded through other discussion regarding this issue (FFFF, you know you you are), but this is simply not encyclopedic, and I have given ample reasoning for why it should not be included.  The opposite cannot be stated.  Arzel 15:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Turtlescrubber, even if it were objectively true that the age diff has been "heavily reported by the national news media," that alone would not be reason to highlight it here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper; there are all sorts of topics and facts published by newspapers which are not proper content for an encyclopedia article.  Reliable sources is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for including something in a Wikipedia article. Eseymour 17:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not that it is a fact published by the newspapers, but that the newpapers consider it important, maybe even fatal, to the man's presidential aspirations. This makes it notable. 09:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the idea that the age diff is dangerous to Thompson's campaign is absurd. However, if you can find a major newspaper which has claimed that, that is *exactly* the kind of context we would need to have a special mention of the age difference. Eseymour 13:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Btw Arzel, what does FFFF mean? Guys, we are talking about 3 or 4 words. I think that I have adequately explained why it should be oh so ever briefly mentioned in the article. Another way to do this is to add a section to the political campaigns article and then have a one sentence reference to this matter in the campaign summary on this page. I don't see why there is a no compromise policy on the npov addition of a few words which summarized a well reported, known and verifiable fact. Turtlescrubber 18:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * FFFF means me, and my concern is not that editors are Thompson supporters, but that the news media will pick up the story the way they did before with Thompson's talk page, and call them Thompson supporters. Fee Fi Foe Fum 08:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What would you think if an article about a person whose spouse was a different race from them said, "Tom Smith, who is white, married Sue Jones, who is black, on November 6, 2007"? Without further explanation, wouldn't you think the article was reflecting prejudice against interracial marriage?  Well, it's exactly the same thing with marriages with significant age difference.  I think it's possible that the only reason some editors don't see it as prejudicial is because it reflects their *own* prejudice. Eseymour 13:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the race card in the deck. Turtlescrubber 21:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you advocate the deletion of the Age disparity in sexual relationships article because we shouldn't be allowing evidence of prejudice on Wikipedia? Fee Fi Foe Fum 22:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that prejudice itself can't be discussed, I said that it can't be reflected in articles, i.e. the article shouldn't present a prejudiced POV. Eseymour 16:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The media's commentary usually says that she is an assest to his campaign, some even say she is the ambitious one. We need to get all notable information, tastefully phrased, onto the page. Nobody is advocating using the term "trophy wife" here, nor that she was born after Thompson's daughter. All I want is something like this:
 * Thompson began dating Republican consultant Jeri Kehn in July 1996, when she was 29 and he was 53.[95] Their 24 year age difference has prompted a flurry of speculation in the news media on its possible effects on his presidential aspirations, with the consensus being that she is an asset to his campaign..

Is this one acceptable
"On June 29, 2002, after nearly six years of dating, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn, then aged 35."

Turtlescrubber 13:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: A section on the age difference and its coverage
If several major news outlets have writen whole articles which are exclusively on this topic, then it is relevant to the campaign. We could be justified in having a whole section on the age difference and its coverage. Fee Fi Foe Fum 06:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's relevant to the campaign only, it belongs on the campaign article. But I disagree that coverage automatically implies relevance.  Consider all the gossip and other junk that gets published about celebrities on a daily basis.  Clearly it's not all fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Eseymour 20:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, could you include it in the campaign article then? Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


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

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


 * Omit it as gossip, not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. See WP:NOT. --Marvin Diode 15:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. There are far too many high-end sources:. Gossip is the talk of Thompson being "Lazy". Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT still applies. The American news media are loaded with gossip. The fact that something is being chattered about does not make it suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Marvin Diode 01:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not getting us any closer to getting the article unprotected. You are devaluing the sources based on your concept of what is encyclopedic. Wikipedia is supposed to default to the sourcing in an event of a controversy. Fee Fi Foe Fum 01:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone object?
Does anyone object to this wording:
 * Thompson began dating Republican consultant Jeri Kehn (b. 1966) in July 1996, and they married on June 29, 2002.

It may not be your preferred wording, but do you object to this wording? We've seen lots of choices and you may prefer some of the others above this one, but can you accept this wording? The other variations are unacceptable to some editors, but I have not seen anyone say that this wording is unacceptable. Sometimes it is better to choose the universally acceptable over the divisive favorite. Sbowers3 14:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The mention of when they started dating seems like pointless information, but I don't have a problem with it. I suppose it makes it easy to do the math, which is why it is nice to include for some, but even then it does not expressely make a point of their ages (which is what we should avoid).  Arzel 15:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This wording is acceptable to me. Eseymour 18:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with that.. question though - I understand "b." but is this a universal and acceptable abbreviation.  Morphh   (talk) 19:33, 06 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I object to trying to hide the age difference. This is more acceptable to me.

After nearly six years of dating, Thompson married 35 year old Republican consultant Jeri Kehn on June 29 2002. Turtlescrubber 20:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I still prefer #8 from above:

On June 29, 2002, after nearly six years of dating, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn, then aged 35. [fn]


 * Seems to contain all important information in a neutral way. --Ali&#39;i 20:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That is also fine with me. Actually it's better than mine. Turtlescrubber 20:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't contain his age at the time. How about:


 * On June 29, 2002, after nearly six years of dating, Thompson (59) married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn, then aged 35. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs) 21:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Sbowers3, Arzel, Eseymour, Morphh
 * Acceptable

Turtlescrubber,
 * Unacceptable

"Every other option is considered unacceptable by some editors." Now this option is also considered unacceptable by some editors. Turtlescrubber 00:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I heavily doubt you're disagreeing simply because of opinion, and what you stated above shows that. One editor who has been haranguing the protecting administrator and trying unsuccessfully to get the article protected until after the election generally gets pegged as a disruptive account and is rewarded with a block.  You have until December, and by then I'll alert WP:COI/N to possible conflicts-of-interest. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 00:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. You are threatening to block me for discussing the issue on this page. Do you really think I wanted the article protected until after the election? Do you not understand what sarcasm is? Seriously, what are you thinking? Conflict of interest? Protected until after the election? Wow. I don't have the words. 6 of the 8 versions above are okay by me. Do not try to intimidate me off the talk page. It's not a cool thing to do. Turtlescrubber 00:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am doing nothing of the sort. I'm just informing you that bugging the protecting admin can be judged as disruptive, as is trying to push for a prot till after the election.  I'm assuming good faith here; I was the one who requested unprotection; the article will be unprotected on the 7th of December. I am not trying to scare you off the talk page, and I apologize for failing to notice your sarcasm. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 23:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Poll
Let's make a chart to try and make sense on who supports what, what is most supported, least supported, not opposed, etc. This is to help direct the discussion so we can get a clearer picture. I tried to add in some of the opinions that I see above.. but I don't want to speak for anyone, please correct as needed. Sorry if I missed a suggestion or opinion.. feel free to modify as needed. Morphh  (talk) 14:20, 07 November 2007 (UTC)

Poll discussion
The wording in #8 sounds better to me, but if the age is bothersome, how about a combination of numbers 5 and 8:


 * On June 29, 2002, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn (b. 1966), after nearly six years of dating.

Is this any better? Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 16:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Great minds think alike. :) I came up with something very similar, just before reading yours:
 * On June 29, 2002, after nearly six years of dating, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn (b. 1966).


 * There are many variations of wording, but the fundamental difference is:
 * Jeri Kehn, then aged 35
 * Jeri Kehn (b. 1966)


 * Both are acceptable to me, but both appear to have opponents. Sbowers3 18:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Both sound fine to me, but I think I like Sbowers3's version slightly better. Should we added it to the above list?   Morphh   (talk) 18:17, 07 November 2007 (UTC)

Ali'i, noticed you removed a couple ticks and specified that 8 was your preference. However, I think the purpose of this is not what is your preference (which you can specify in the comments) but what you would support or oppose. If you don't support it or oppose it, you could obstain or leave it blank if you rather not say anything. We all have a preference... the idea is to lead the discussion with some options we can work with. Morphh  (talk) 19:41, 07 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well then, let me state that I don't really give a fuck how it's presented. If everyone else is fine with it, then so am I. I would rather it be one way or the other, but in the end, it makes no difference. Let's just reach a general consensus so the protection because of this ridiculous edit war can end. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 20:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely happy with any of the sentences, but in particular I don't like ones that lack a parallel formatting of their ages. If one says "then age x" the other should say "then age y". If one says (b. 1966) the other should say (b. 1942)--which would be redundant from the lede. Those of you who have already polled, please reconsider your position on not including the "six years of dating" information. Fee Fi Foe Fum 02:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have to be redundant, first mention of the person of interest is where birth information should be inserted. Arzel 03:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why I liked the versions I liked. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

While there's still no clear consensus, there appear to be three main contenders here. Option 5 (4 in favor, 3 opposed), option 8 (4 in favor, 3 opposed--leaving out Ali'i's vote, since he (or she) stated he has no real preference), and option 9 (4 in favor, 2 opposed). Eseymour 17:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Ali's vote has to be more than a hanging chad, since s/he went to the trouble of voting. Why not discount Sbowers3 votes, since s/he voted for all of them? Fee Fi Foe Fum 06:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, either count Ali'i as yes for all (like Sbowers3), or abstain for all. Either way, it doesn't affect the comparative vote totals for the options. Eseymour 15:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out how to edit the above poll. But I would vote: Support - 1, 2, 3. The age difference should be mentioned for reasons (it is significant information that has been extensively covered by verifiable reliable sources) that are just as obvious as the reasons (it might make him look bad in the eyes of some potential voters) that some don't want it mentioned. option 4 is too clumsily worded, however. Dlabtot 18:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's separate wording from content
We have several variations in wording and several variations in content. Any of the variations in wording can be mixed with any of the variations in content. Unless I am mistaken, the wording is not a problem; the content is at the heart of the dispute.

examples of wording:
 * On June 29, 2002, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn.
 * On June 29, 2002, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn, after dating since July 1996.
 * On June 29, 2002, after nearly six years of dating, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn.
 * After nearly six years of dating, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn on June 29, 2002.

examples of content:
 * 1) Jeri Kehn (b. 1966)
 * 2) Jeri Kehn, then age 35
 * 3) Thompson, then 59 ... Jeri Kehn, then 35
 * 4) Thompson (b. 1942) ... Jeri Kehn (b. 1966) - I include this for symmetry but it looks silly to repeat his birth year

Let me suggest that we concentrate on these choices for content and leave the wording 'til later. The wording is relatively unimportant and should not be a cause for edit warring. Resolving the content is what will end the protection.

For me, all these forms of content are acceptable, along with any of the variations of wording. I think I understand the reasoning of other editors as:
 * Don't hide the age difference.
 * Don't overemphasize their ages because it might reflect a prejudice against marriages with significant age differences.

Sbowers3 18:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good summary. I have no preference to the wording, any are fine with me.  I believe, and it is consistant with the encyclopedia's I have read, that the proper context/content is to list the birth year after first mention.  Everything else is ancillary.  Arzel 21:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with Arzel. Eseymour 15:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Facts? Wording is everthing
Here are some ways of phrasing the facts. I've put them in order of most "prejudicial" to least, for purposes of illustration:
 * Jeri and Fred started dating on July 4th, 1996, when she was nearly half his age.
 * Jeri and Fred started dating on July 4th, 1996, when he was almost twice her age.
 * Jeri and Fred started dating on July 4th, 1996, when he was 1.81 times her age.
 * Jeri and Fred started dating on July 4th, 1996, when she was 55.24% of his age.
 * Jeri and Fred started dating on July 4th, 1996, when she was 29 and he was almost 54.
 * Jeri and Fred started dating on July 4th, 1996, when she was 29 and he was 53, making them 24 years apart in age.
 * Jeri and Fred started dating on July 4th, 1996, when she was 29 and he was 53.
 * Jeri and Fred got married on June 29, 2002, when he was 1.675 times her age.
 * Jeri and Fred got married on June 29, 2002, when she was 59.71% of his age.
 * Jeri and Fred got married on June 29, 2002, when she was 35 and he was almost 60.
 * Jeri and Fred got married on June 29, 2002, when she was 35 and he was 59, making them 24 years apart in age.
 * Jeri and Fred got married on June 29, 2002, when she was 35 and he was 59.

Do you see why saying only "On June 29, 2002, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn." is asking for too much of a compromise?

This is why we must follow the reputable sources, which are far more genteel, and simply say that:
 * 1) Fred Thompson was born on August 19, 1942.
 * 2) Jeri Kehn was born on September 30, 1966.
 * 3) They started dating on July 4th, 1996.
 * 4) They got married on June 29, 2002.
 * 5) They were born 24 years apart.
 * 6) The fact that they were born 24 years apart has been the main topic of a number of articles in major TV networks, major daily newspapers and major weekly newsmagazines, with those articles delving into the possible effect this age difference will have on the likelihood of Fred Thompson being elected President.
 * 7) If the articles venture an opinion on the extent of the effect of the age difference on the likelihood of Fred Thompson being elected President, it is that it won't have an effect.

Now, I'm sure that we can all agree to place facts 1, 2, 3 and 4 into the article. They don't have to be in the same sentence. What we are arguing about is including facts 5, 6 and 7. Again, my position is that all verifiable, encyclopedic facts from reputable sources belong on Wikipedia. Since the facts are verifiable and from reputable sources, what we are disagreeing about is whether or not they are encyclopedic. It is my contention that they are. I base this belief on six things. One, people in the news media have spoken and written a lot about the topic. Two, Fred Thompson himself has spoken out on the topic. Three, Wikipedia users will notice the age difference on their own, wonder if it has been the subject of media speculation, and turn to Wikipedia to research the topic. Four, in October, the Fred Thompson page was the 57th most accessed page on Wikipedia. Five, debate on this talk page itself has been reported on, with Tvoz actually quoted. Six, people are fighting on this talk page to exclude or include the information. Fee Fi Foe Fum 06:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "All verifiable, encyclopedic facts from reputable sources belong on Wikipedia" - I agree, and these are. Their ages and the fact that their age difference has been widely commented on should be in the article, with the appropriate citations, as it is in Jeri Thompson, as has been said for months.  No one has explained to me why the age difference is relevant on her article and not on his. I've stopped commenting here because we're going around in circles and it is obvious to me why some people are fighting this.  So this is just in case anyone forgot what my position in - I think Fee Fi summed it up well. Tvoz | talk 07:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: I can't deal with charts at 2 in the morning, and I'm more concerned about including all of the facts than the wording. Tvoz | talk 07:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, from my perspective it's obvious why some people are fighting to include a special mention of the age difference. We all have our biases.  Tvoz told the Washington Post that she's a Democrat, and a glance at Turtlescrubber's contributions indicates an interest in liberal politics.  I've been trying to find a compromise version, but I won't roll over and accept a prejudicial wording. Eseymour 17:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So what? You say on your user page "Because I am politically conservative, I am most interested in articles describing conservative political figures."   By the way, I'm also in favor of dismantling the controversies page for Rudy Giuliani. Does that mean I edit with a bias in his favor?  Your position above was "An explicit mention of age needs context", and I agree with that - for starters, as Bobblehead suggested, and Fee Fi Fo Fum, and R. Baley, and Turtlescrubber, and I haven't looked to see if there are others -  my position remains as it has been for months that the ages should be included with the well-sourced context for including them, as they are at Jeri Kehn Thompson.  This is notable, and would be done in a footnote - not blasted across the page in a prejudicial manner - but you're not willing to even have that, despite your offer of compromise wording which is appreciated, but was kind of off the mark.  Tvoz | talk 17:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to get upset. As I said, we're all biased, and that includes me.  But I don't see anything here indicating that anyone is not editing in good faith, so it would be best if we all kept our cool and did our best not to make remarks that could be interpreted as accusatory.  What is it that you're saying I'm not willing to have?  I have repeatedly offered to compromise on a wording with proper context, but I haven't seen anything proposed by those of you wanting more attention to the age diff.  So go ahead and propose something.  But it shouldn't go in a footnote.  If the age difference is important enough to include in the main text, then the context which shows why it's important should be there, too.  Or else put them both in a footnote. Eseymour 18:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with FFFF and Tvoz above. This material has been extensively covered in the media, and it deserves at least a brief mention in this article, with all verifiable facts included in a concise way.  R. Baley 07:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with FFFF, Tvoz, and R. Baley. Facts are facts and it is sad that we are still talking about this. I guess whittling a paragraph worth of information to three words isn't good enough for some people. I think the side pushing for inclusion of this information has done everything humanly possible to compromise. Turtlescrubber 14:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As for compromise, my initial preference was to mention nothing at all other than having their birth dates in their respective articles, but I've gone as far as proposing a wording that actually included the calculation, with an appropriate amount of context. Those who are pushing for more attention to the age difference rejected my version, but after more than two weeks, they haven't come up with their own version.  So I say to you: Come up with an unbiased wording with context that shows why the age difference is relevant, and we can discuss it. Eseymour 17:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think FFFF has presented a strawman arguement. I don't think it should be presented on the JT article either. To this point, the only reason for inclusion has been "People need to know", however, this is a BLP which is to present the information in the most neutral form possible, yet several here, including some that actively support other candidates, sttongly seem to want to include this information for political reasons. Arzel 17:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh my god, who do I report this bias to? He's the one that married a woman 24 years younger than him, and do you really think that fighting to keep it off of his Wikipedia page will help him? It's making his supporters look like they think that they think the age difference will have a negative impact on his campaign. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I am illustrating that wording is important, and that in order to resolve this conflict we need to follow the sources. I have bent over backward to accomodate a few users who don't want well sourced, important information to appear on the page. It's not like I'm demanding the following phrasing be used: "When Fred Thompson was 24 years old and in his second year of law school, his future wife Jeri Kehn was born." But if that was what the talk shows and major newspapers kept saying, then we should put it on Wikipedia, with perhaps a sourced rebuttal too. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what his supporters think, I certainly could care less from a political point of view. However, his detractors seriously feel it should be included.  The real point is that it is purely political gamesmanship.  I am looking at this like I would a real encyclopedia, and a real encyclopedia simply does not list information this way, unless there is some implicit reason for mention.  If you mention it as you would like, you are stating that there is something special about it.  Without context of what that is, it reads like POV pushing within the article.  It is clearly not all that important by itself (there are several candidates on both sides in similar situations).  Now if you want to have a special section to discuss the age difference, then we should be prepared to do the same for every candidate, because that is where it will lead.  I seriously think people should read some real encyclopedias and other bibliographies.  I shouldn't have to remind people that this is a BLP, not a gossip page. Arzel 00:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, I've said it before, and I'll say it again; we must follow the sources. This issue has been seriously reported on by serious journals, and is important. It's not going away. I'd be happy to report on whatever similar situation exists on whatever candidate, as long as reputable sources have reported on it. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here you go again. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07224/808904-176.stm  Arzel 00:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And for your edification:. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read those (mostly gossip and fashion writeups), have you read this "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia" - Jimmy Wales.  I suggest a re-read of WP:BLP.  If it is truely a presidential issue (as you claim it is) perhaps you should edit his presidential election page where you can discus in context this issue.  Arzel 00:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll believe it when you edit the campaign page and dicuss the issue in context. Fee Fi Foe Fum 09:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Believe what? If you feel it is a major campaign issue then you should work on it there.  Arzel 14:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The order of the wording is (almost) nothing
Let me try again. What I suggested earlier is that the order of words in a sentence is not important; the facts are important. It shouldn't matter a hoot whether the date they married is at the beginning, middle, or end of the sentence. It shouldn't matter whether the fact that they dated six years is at the beginning, middle, or end.

I did NOT suggest that "On June 29, 2002, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn." be a compromise. That was just one example of the ordering of words, but without the important facts that I described in the very next paragraph. To that bare sentence we could add a fact item about hers and/or his age, e.g.: Or we could reorder the words:
 * On June 29, 2002, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn (b. 1966).
 * On June 29, 2002, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn, then age 35.
 * On June 29, 2002, Thompson, then 59, married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn, then 35.
 * After nearly six years of dating, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn (b. 1966) on June 29, 2002.
 * After nearly six years of dating, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn, then age 35, on June 29, 2002.
 * After nearly six years of dating, Thompson, then 59, married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn, then age 35, on June 29, 2002.

These variations have the exact same set of facts (about age), but the words are in different orders. In the original 9 choices from the poll above, many had the same set of facts, just different wordings. E.g. 1, 2, 3, 4 all had the same age facts, just different wordings: Options 5 and 9 have the same age fact (b. 1966): Options 6, 7, and 8 have the same fact (then 35)
 * Thompson began dating Republican consultant Jeri Kehn in July 1996. They married on June 29, 2002 when Thompson was 59 and Kehn was 35.
 * On June 29, 2002, Thompson, then age 59, married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn, then 35.
 * On June 29, 2002, Thompson, then age 59, married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn, then 35, after dating since July 1996.
 * On June 29, 2002, after nearly six years of dating, Thompson (59) married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn, then aged 35.
 * Thompson began dating Republican consultant Jeri Kehn (b. 1966) in July 1996 and the two married on June 29, 2002.
 * On June 29, 2002, after nearly six years of dating, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn (b. 1966).
 * After nearly six years of dating, Thompson married 35 year old Republican consultant Jeri Kehn on June 29, 2002.
 * After nearly six years of dating, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn, then 35, on June 29, 2002.
 * On June 29, 2002, after nearly six years of dating, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn, then aged 35.

What I was trying to do was whittle the 9 choices down to the 3 fact sets that are at their heart:
 * 1) Jeri Kehn (b. 1966)
 * 2) Jeri Kehn, then age 35
 * 3) Thompson, then 59 ... Jeri Kehn, then 35

So with one ordering of words we would have three choices of facts: With a different order of words we would have the same three choices of facts:
 * 1) On June 29, 2002, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn (b. 1966) after dating since July 1996.
 * 2) On June 29, 2002, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn, then 35, after dating since July 1996.
 * 3) On June 29, 2002, Thompson, then age 59, married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn, then 35, after dating since July 1996.
 * 1) After nearly six years of dating, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn (b. 1966) on June 29, 2002.
 * 2) After nearly six years of dating, Thompson married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn, then 35, on June 29, 2002.
 * 3) After nearly six years of dating, Thompson, then age 59, married Republican consultant Jeri Kehn, then 35, on June 29, 2002.

All I'm trying to suggest is that we first choose the set of facts, then we can think about the order of wording. I will accept any of these three choices of facts with any of the various orderings of words. Is it possible to achieve consensus on one of these three choices of facts:
 * 1) Jeri Kehn (b. 1966)
 * 2) Jeri Kehn, then age 35
 * 3) Thompson, then 59 ... Jeri Kehn, then 35

Sbowers3 22:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * These address that one sentence, but say nothing on the flurry of media speculation on whether or not the 24 year age difference will affect Thompson's Presidential aspirations. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the age difference will have the slightest affect on his candidacy. And I couldn't care less about the media speculation. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news reports. As editors we are bound by policies such as WP:BLP, notability, and undue weight. Sbowers3 07:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "5. News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news.[5] Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for Wikinews."


 * A brief period? This is their marriage.
 * Harm? Means you think Fred Thompson will be harmed by us telling readers of this page his wife is younger than him.
 * The sources are substantial. The 24 year age gap will last forever. Fee Fi Foe Fum 09:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what you think. The sources think it is important, and many editors do to. You must try to reach concensus. I have made the effort. Fee Fi Foe Fum 09:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We have been trying to reach a concensus. The inclusion of the birth date in that section allows the reader to do the math themselves.  Nothing relevant is removed, and it doesn't try to present the information from any point of view.  I dissagree that sources think it is important.  There are sources that wonder whether it will have an impact, but that is hardly the same, if the age difference alone was an important aspect, then there would be continuing reporting on it along with those of the other candidates in similar situations.  Even the references you provided earlier are much more interested in her general appearance, than her abstract age.  Arzel 14:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Post your proposal for age difference context here
I believe it's possible to reach a consensus here. To simply state the age difference (or, equivalently, their ages when they were married) without context that shows why it's important implies that there's something suspicious about it. For those who want more attention to the Fred/Jeri age difference in this article, please write one to three sentences of text that would go at the end of the subsection "Marriages & children" in the section "Personal life." I will post my own proposal from October 26 as an example. Please follow the format and place comments in the designated section to maintain readability of the proposals. Thank you. Eseymour 14:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal by Eseymour
This would follow the sentence "They have two children."

Some commentators have remarked that Jeri Thompson's relative youth and attractiveness is unusual for a Presidential candidate's wife. (references) Born in 1966, she is 24 years younger than her husband, however she was accomplished on her own before the couple married. (references) Mrs. Thompson takes an active role in her husband's campaign. (examples & references)

Proposal by {CouldOughta}
The 24-year age difference between the two has been the subject of commentary in the news media. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/fashion/08JERI.html

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

Proposal #2 by Turtlescrubber
Born in 1966, she is 24 years younger than her husband. Questions concerning this age disparity has attracted media attention. .

Proposal #3 by Tvoz
Born in 1966, she is 24 years younger than her husband; this age difference has attracted some media attention.

New Proposal by Eseymour
(edited on 16:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)) starting at the end of the current paragraph...

Thompson began dating Republican consultant Jeri Kehn (b. 1966) in July 1996 and the two married on 29 June 2002. They have two children. There has been some commentary on the 24-year age difference in their marriage, although. Despite being younger than her husband, Kehn was accomplished on her own as a lawyer and media consultant before they married. She takes an active role in her husband's campaign. (references where necessary)

Proposal #5 by Turtlescrubber
Thompson began dating Republican consultant Jeri Kehn in July 1996 and the two married on 29 June 2002. They have two children. Some commentators have remarked that Jeri Thompson's relative youth and attractiveness is unusual for a Presidential candidate's wife. Born in 1966, she is 24 years younger than her husband; this age difference has attracted some media attention. Kehn worked as a lawyer and media consultant before marrying Thompson and now takes an active role in her husband's campaign. (references to be added)

Proposal by Bobblehead
Just to throw out a modifications to Eseymour's new proposal:
 * In July 1996, Thompson began dating Jeri Kehn (b. 1966) and the two married almost six years later on June 29 2002.[reference] The couple has two children, Hayden (b. 2003) and Samuel (b. 2006).[reference] Although Kehn had established a career as a lawyer and political consultant prior to meeting Thompson, their 24-year age difference has generated commentary.[reference]

Mostly minor wording changes to make it flow better, the only "major" change was that I dropped reference to her being involved in his campaign. While it is notable and true, it's probably better placed in the campaign section or article. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Discussion of proposals
This is a positive direction. And this is a much better approach. --Ali&#39;i 16:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can say that the age difference "has become an issue" in the campaign. Although there have been some gossipy pieces in the media talking about it, I haven't seen any serious criticism. The Watergate thing and the abortion lobbying thing have been much more prominent. To conclude that the age diff "has become an issue" would be original research. If we're going to say anything, we should just say people have commented on it, and give some footnotes. Eseymour (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be original research but I do agree that it is not as big a story/controversy as Watergate or abortion. How about proposal #2. Turtlescrubber (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears to me, that most of the suggestions thus far are an excuse to throw out the age, and don't stand on thier own merit. The age difference continues to not be much of a story, and no one has yet to provide a good reason why stating the age difference is a needed alternative to simply stating the year in which she was born.  If it really is a campaign issue, then it belongs in his presidential campaign article.  Eseymour has provided a good start, but even that IMO belongs in the presidential campaign article.  Arzel (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I basically agree with you, and I prefer your simpler version, but we need to get something that everyone will agree to so that we can move on. Also, keep in mind that as long as Thompson is in the running, there will be people who want to push the age difference into this article for political reasons, and we'll have to constantly revert biased phrases like "24 years his junior." It is to everyone's benefit to get an agreeable version now. Eseymour (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that you are adamantly against any mention whatsoever of the age difference, even in proper context with sourcing. Where is your compromise proposal? Turtlescrubber (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have given my compromise proposal many times, unfortunately those that wish to push a POV don't view it as a compromise. Arzel (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure you have. Still waiting to see your "compromise" proposal. If you actually had tried to compromise then this page probably wouldn't be protected right now. Turtlescrubber (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't give me that. In a perfect world there would not even be need to mention her birth year after first mention, the compromise is to include the birth year.  It would appear that your only compromise is to force it into the article without any context.  Arzel (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No getting anything by you. Forcing the age difference into the article without context is obviously my only compromise. So where is your compromise proposal? Turtlescrubber (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Proposal 2 3 and age difference should be mentioned. We aren't here to quell what we see as unfair attention to the age difference.  Fact is, it exists and we here are here to report on what has been oft-mentioned in the media.  Should be "Questions...have become" not "Questions...has become"; good work Turtlescrubber Tvoz.  -- David  Shankbone  02:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not the news, we are not here to report news. This is an encyclopeida, this is supposed to be a bibliography of the person and what they have done in their lives which is notable and important, not to regurgitate gossip and anything else that makes the headlines one day or the next.  Arzel (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We report all manners of things that are notable and in the news, which is why people come to us for information. Because we are relevant.  Whether it be about Anna Nicole Smith's death or the Tsunami, we certainly report news and the things that affect a person's life.  -- David  Shankbone  17:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikinews reports the news, this in an encyclopedia, sometimes I wonder if people ever read actual encyclopedias anymore. Arzel (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Proposal 3  "age difference" is perhaps more neutral than "disparity", and I think that it's not really "questions" about the age difference that have attracted attention, but the age difference itself.  Hence my 3rd proposal which also has the advantage of being fewer words.  (Also note that the NYT ref was listed more than once in #2 which should be fixed.)  I also could agree to #2 - I think either of these two would satisfy Eseymour's concern above in this section: we're just saying there has been attention, not that it's an issue. And the refs would be in a footnote as shown.  Any chance of getting agreement on this tiny part of this article so we can get on with it?  Tvoz | talk 05:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks David. I do think that Tvoz's version is better than my own draft. Fewer words are fine by me. Hopefully we can all agree on something soon, I think we are closer now than we have been since the articles protection. If there is opposition to Tvoz's proposal, please explain what is wrong and how it can be fixed. Turtlescrubber (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tvoz that "difference" is more neutral than "disparity." I think the passage should be "fleshed out" a little more than Tvoz' version.  See my new version above.  Thanks. Eseymour (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the direction that this is going. My newest proposal is a mix between Eseymour's two proposals and Tvoz's "third" proposal. Eseymour, I don't like the word "although" in your latest version because it sounds like an excuse, when it's really just a fact.Turtlescrubber (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've modified my proposal to make it more clear that it compares the age difference with the fact that Jeri was "accomplished in her own right," as they say. I'm also OK with Turtlescrubber's latest version as well as Bobblehead's proposal.  I think it's worthwhile to mention Jeri's involvement in Fred's campaign, because that was brought up as a reason why the age difference is relevant here in the first place. Eseymour (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not a big fan of Turtlescrubber's proposal #5, it kind of gets caught in a recursive loop covering their age difference and that it's been commented on. As for her involvement in the campaign, I don't think it is her actual involvement in the campaign that has drawn extra attention to the age difference, it's that Thompson entered the race. The age difference would have been commented on even if she wasn't involved in the campaign. It also seems, to me at least, a bit disjointed for mention of her involvement in the campaign to be in the family section rather than in the campaign article. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The age difference has only been mentioned heretofore within the context of how it affects his campaign. And even then it is mostly gossip and ancillary in nature.  Arzel (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree about the recursive loop. I am basically just throwing things up to see what sticks and what is acceptable to other editors. I would be fine with your proposal and I am pretty much okay with Eseymour's. I still think that using modifying words like although or despite seems like a knock on her career. I think it should just be stated as a fact. However, that is a relatively trivial objection and I would be okay with either version. Turtlescrubber (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, perhaps reorder the sentence so the "Although" is associated with the commentary rather than her career? Something like this:
 * In July 1996, Thompson began dating Jeri Kehn (b. 1966) and the two married almost six years later on June 29 2002.[reference] The couple have two children, a daughter (b. 2003) and a son (b. 2006).[reference] Although the 24-year age difference between Kehn and Thompson has generated commentary, Kehn had already established a career as a lawyer and political consultant prior to meeting Thompson.[reference]
 * Would that work? --Bobblehead (rants) 18:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that works for me. I think it is informative, flows well and is neutral. I wonder if this is okay with Esseymour? Turtlescrubber (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's fine with me. Eseymour (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the work she does on his campaign, we could also write a small section detailing her involvement in his campaign on the campaign article and then add a summarized section to the campaign summary.Turtlescrubber (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Bobblehead's latest works for me, and I also think we should include a small mention of her contribution to his campaign as per Turtlescrubber's comment just above this one. Tvoz | talk 20:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't think we really have a sticking point on including her involvement in the campaign, so that can be handled after the unprotection. Since most of us are agreed on the age difference wording, is anyone opposed to me request an unprotection of this page so we can slip the agreed upon wording in and then go about our regular editing? --Bobblehead (rants) 21:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Tvoz | talk 21:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no issues with the latest compromise proposal.Turtlescrubber (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No objection here. Eseymour (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. I've asked the protecting admin for an unprotection. If the admin doesn't respond in a timely manner, feel free to post on WP:RFP and ask for it there. It'll probably be up to one of us to make the change itself. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should mention the children's names. See this from WP:BLP: Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger. Other than this, I don't have a problem with the current proposal. Nor do I object to including their names. But I think there should be some discussion to decide if appropriate or not. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The names are readily available, but they can be left out, just change to a sentence to "The couple have two children, a daughter (b. 2003) and a son (b. 2006)." A five word sentence just seemed like an after thought so I added the details about their names and years of birth, but not a problem to leave the names out. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Change made. If you see any tweaks, or want to change a reference, feel free to do so. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of sources
You all do realize that the most recent change links to an article that makes no mention of their age difference. It is an article that presents her as a Trophy Wife, and focuses on her apperance of youthfulness compared to Fred Thompson. As such this is WP:SYNTH. Please tell me what it is you are trying to say, because the current wording is in violation of WP:BLP and restate my position that this discussion has been nothing more than a way to force the age difference into the article without any context whatsoever. Arzel (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The NY times article mentions their age difference in the second paragraph, covers the discussion taking place regarding the age difference, and also covers the fact that prior to them being a couple she already had a successful career as a lawyer and political/media consultant. I'm not seeing a BLP issue and the source covers everything mentioned in the sentence. However, if you have a different source that does the same thing, you're more than welcome to provide a different one. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is about her appearance, not her age (it makes no explicit mention of the age difference as it is currently written), it is not up to me to find a better source, it is up to the person including it in the article, and unless it is fixed it has to go.  If people are going to be hell-bent on including this, they better do it correctly.  Arzel (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm misunderstanding which article you are talking about. Can you please clarify if you are talking about the Washington Post article, the CBNnews article, or the NY Times article? The second paragraph of the NY Times article clearly mentions the age difference:

Now, with the possible candidacy of Fred D. Thompson, the grandfatherly actor and former Republican senator from Tennessee, whose second wife is almost a quarter-century his junior, comes a less palatable inquiry that is spurring debate in Internet chat rooms, on cable television and on talk radio: Is America ready for a president with a trophy wife?
 * While the seventh paragraph defines the original definition of "trophy wife" as "younger, beautiful and...accomplished in her own right":

THE term “trophy wife” was coined by Fortune magazine in 1989 and immediately entered the language. Although it often has a pejorative spin, the term originally meant the second (or third) wife of a corporate titan, who was younger, beautiful and — equally important — accomplished in her own right, which describes Mrs. Thompson.
 * That seems to hit all the points covered in the sentence it is citing. So if you are complaining about the NY Times article, I'm a little unclear as to what your concern is. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The way you have it worded right now indicates that commentary has resulted because of her age, and lets be fair, the issue you and others wish to include is that she is much younger than Thompson. However, the article you have referenced (#96) focuses on her apperance, not her age, (which is probably why it is in a fashion section).  By presenting the information the way you currently are, you a providing OR with respect to the article.  In essence reporting on the article from your point of view, and not reporting the facts of the article.  Neither of the other two articles (#94, which is pretty worthless, and #95) provide commentary about the age difference either.  Arzel (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Repeating the same thing over and over again isn't going to make what you're saying any less incorrect, Arzel. The article clearly includes the age difference is part of the "commentary" and that it is not solely focused upon her attractiveness, but if you would prefer, we can add to the sentence that the commentary is in regards to the difference in age and relative attractiveness between Kehn and Thompson... --Bobblehead (rants) 21:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As Bobblehead invited ("If you see any tweaks, or want to change a reference, feel free to do so.") I have changed the ref in question to a different one from Tvoz's list of references. It's from The New Republic which could hardly be called biased toward Fred Thompson but it seems reasonably neutral and a little more in depth than some of the others. Arzel, does changing the ref take care of the problem? Sbowers3 (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Definitely covers the age difference in depth. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Presidential Categories
Please add these two categories to the page. They belong on the biography page, as the category refers to a person, not an organization headed by the candidate (which is what the campaign article is about, where they were removed). At this point, only the Fred Thompson articles are exceptional on this convention. -- -- Yellowdesk (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 
 * Declined. There is no urgent pressing need to have them added, it can wait until the protection expires or is removed. Stifle (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This was an uncontroversial request. Why not do it? This has nothing to do with the reason the page is protected. I am re-requesting. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, should have posted here to. I added the 2008 category, but not the general one. The 2008 category is a sub-category of the general one, so it seemed redundant to me to have both on the article. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Errors
This article has a subsection incorrectly titled "Resignation." Thompson did not resign from the Senate any more than LBJ resigned from the presidency.

This article also incorrectly states that his wife is an attorney.69.183.255.90 (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This editor seems to be right about her not being a lawyer - see this. I'm looking into this some more, but meanwhile removed it from the article.   And the editor is also right about the incorrect heading "Resignation", which I have removed. Also removed the McCain senate campaign chair heading for flow and to avoid one-paragraph subsections.  No subsection needed in Senate career.  Tvoz | talk 03:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The section on his personal life has no link to the article about his wife, Jeri Kehn Thompson. That link was deleted without explanation here.  Perhaps it should be reinserted.69.183.242.239 (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - looks like it got lost in the hubbub of rewording that sentence. Fixed now. Tvoz | talk 06:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing those errors, Tvoz. I neglected to sign in.Ferrylodge 21:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You know you can make those edits yourself now, Ferrylodge. Your arbcom case is completed and you were unblocked.--Bobblehead (rants) 21:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I heard. BLNT.Ferrylodge 21:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Copy edit about wife
I see that there was a alot of talk about the wife's age ext. I edited the article to reflect how most bios read. Thanks, --Tom 18:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)ps, why is this even an issue anymore? Thanks--Tom 18:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tom, if you see there was a lot of talk about this including full protection a few weeks ago, and you see there's hidden text asking that the wording be left alone, and you're reverted by an editor with an edit summary asking that it be discussed - why would you make this edit? Come on - you're not a newbie. Read the archive if you missed some of the drama.  The wording in the article is what's called a "compromise" - probably none of us are completely happy with it, but  we reached consensus and moved on.  If you have new arguments to make about changing it, I'm sure someone will be interested in further discussion. Tvoz | talk 20:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Tvoz, I was involved with this guys naming convention and the "drama" about his wife's age and have read most and have edited this page in the past. Why not treat this bio like most other bios. Do we put birth dates next to wife's names and childrens birth dates in parentheses on other bios? Oh course not. I don't spend all my time here like some editors who even draw national media attention due to their editing but I still can edit. The birth date in parentheses draws attention to this "issue" and makes it into one. There is already "commentary" about it that is included. Anyways, so much for consensus :) Cheers, --Tom 20:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tom, the reason why the (b. XXXX) is used is because it is common to do it in bios outside of Wikipedia and because it ended the constant edit warring over whether or not Jeri's age at the time of their marriage should be included in the article. The children's birth year is included because they do not have an article and it makes sense to include something beyond their gender in the sentence. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I know who you are Tom - my memory's not that short! I was not saying you shouldn't edit, just that those few sentences were discussed ad nauseam, again, after having been discussed ad nauseam earlier, and we finally came up with something that most editors who cared at all about it could live with.  So going in and changing it without talking about it first is not the best approach, given the history of the page, don't you think?   As for the substance of your argument: yeah, I was one of those who thought the better approach was to state Fred & Jeri's ages when they married and/or specify the age difference, rather than list the birth years. But I can live with it the way it was finally agreed on. And Bobblehead is right about the children.  Tvoz | talk 20:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tvoz, I actually have THE worst memory in the world. I catch major crap about it at work. If I don't write it down, its gone. Its actually quite a convenient excuse I use :) --Tom 20:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Bobblehead, we are talking about this project and it is NOT common to put the birth date of other family member's name in that format. It draws unneccessary attention since it is not a "standard" wiki convention. WHY is is being included here when it is not done in any other bios I have seen. I know all about the "age difference" issue. You folks have tried to address that but to put the birth date in parentheses is not needed since the issue has already been addressed in the next sentence. Thanks, --Tom 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't have a standard convention regarding the use of birth years within parentheticals, so it is really up to each page whether or not they use them. There may be a frequently used practice to not include them, but that by no means they can not be used when their use has been agreed upon on the article's talkpage. This page decided to use them, so there you are. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Every article does not need to have the same style. We can "ignore all the rules" when it helps improve the encyclopedia. Not having a constant edit war helps the encyclopedia more than consistency in this case. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 20:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent to left) Bottom line is that adding the birth date adds nothing to the article. Nobody cares when Thompson's wife was born. It is added to make some kind of point, driven out of some kind of agenda. I think we can all agree on that. Anyways, --Tom 21:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's time to move on, Tom. Regardless of the reason behind wanting to include Jeri's age (and I'm sure some of those included in the discussion would take umbrage to your interpretation of their reasons), the use of the birth year in parantheticals ended the edit war. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if the truth hurts but its obvious this "solution" is a result of editors with an agenda to push. Its too bad but it is one of the flaws with this project. I doubt they have these type of problems at an article like iron ore.Wikipedia might not be the best at what they do, but they are the only ones who do what they do :). Cheers--Tom 00:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)ps, I just went to iron ore and some editor thinks that it is biased, go figure :) --Tom 00:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Bobblehead, just to clarify, I meant that folks with an agenda have created the need to go through all this rigamoreroll. You still might not like that, but that is pretty self evident. Also, no need to "close" this discussion. This article can still be improved and the family section can and should still be review and discussed going forward. Cheers, --Tom 01:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom, The para method is common in actual encyclopedias. As for the actual wording, that is still a point of contention, and the hidden text is coming out because there is not actually a concensus at this point. I predict it will become a none issue in the near future and be changed again. Arzel 01:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Arzel, Eseymour, who was essentially on the same "side" as you on this matter, is the one who added that hidden text, and it was a good add.  This article was locked for a while as you know because there was so much disagreement on the matter.  We apparently reached enough consensus here that Eseymour's advisory and the agreed-on wording have remained as is in the article until Tom chose to ignore the request to discuss and made his edit and commented here at the same time. You may not love the wording about their ages - I know I don't, for quite different reasons - but this is what we agreed to a few weeks ago.  Removing the hidden text I think is inflammatory and goes against the consensus we reached.  It did not say, and no one is advocating, that discussion is closed.   But it asked editors to discuss here, not edit war there.  By removing the advisory, new and returning editors who haven't lived through the battles and haven't poured through the archives would have no way of kn owing it was something under contention and might edit in good faith without discussing here first, as anyone can for most of the rest of the article.  The only place that can lead, it seems to me, is  a return to the fighting.  I'm reinstating the advisory, and I'll make sure it is crystal clear that nothing is ever final on Wikipedia, and always open to more discussion on the Talk page.  By all means, discuss it - as I see you have started to below.  Tvoz | talk 01:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I was hasty, but the hidden text seemed to imply no changes should be made, but there is no complete concensus. Futhermore I made an edit to reflect the true nature of the references being used, which was then reverted.  Please explain to me why people here feel obligated to violate synthesis of material on this issue?  It is clear from the current two references, and the previous reference that was used, that her appearance is the driving force for the commentary regarding her.  Arzel (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Age Issue
Ok, as I have said before, the issue regarding Jeri Thompson is about her apperance, not her age. The current version has refs that discuss her apperance, the age is ancillary to the issue.

ref1:

http://www.tnr.com/currentissue/story.html?id=43abb294-19e7-4451-b58c-d2e3f1a43311&p=2

"Last June, at a fund-raiser for the Virginia GOP, Jeri Thompson entered on her husband's arm looking more Dallas beauty queen than D.C. power player. The hair was a shade too bright, the skin a shade too tan, and the sleeveless V- neck dress a shade too snug. Although Jeri is chronologically only 24 years Fred's junior, she is a young-looking 41 to his old-looking 65, making the gap appear much larger."

ref2, which talks about all of them:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07224/808904-176.stm

Never mind that, by all accounts, Ms. Thompson is an experienced political professional who worked for the Republican National Committee and as a media consultant for a Washington law firm. She's also devoted to her husband, who was single for years, dating starlets and country singer Lorrie Morgan, before marrying Ms. Kehn.

But her relative youth -- she is 40, he's 64 -- and her predilection for tight, low-cut outfits, as well as a blond hairstyle more often seen on Hollywood's red carpet than in dowdy Washington, D.C., provided the perfect opening for MSNBC commentator Joe Scarborough, who jokingly wondered on camera if she "works the pole." Amid cries of "inappropriate!" and "sexist!" Mr. Scarborough insisted it was all in the context of a discussion about a new exercise trend using strippers' poles.

This is twice now that the ref's did not support the wording, I am reopening this issue because it is apparant that the issue is not the age difference, but her apperance. Arzel 01:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Arzel, the references make it clear that it is age AND appearance difference that is the issue, not just the appearance as you say. If you'd like, the sentence can be reworded to include both the age and appearance difference as being the issue. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would something along the lines of "Although the 24-year age and relative attractiveness differences between Kehn and Thompson has generated commentary, Kehn had already established a career as a political consultant prior to meeting Thompson. " work? I bolded the addition just to make it clear what I changed. I would hope the bolding would not be repeated in the article itself. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Bobblehead is right--it's age and attractiveness. I don't like Bobblehead's wording above, though.  It reads as if it implies that Thompson is ugly.  If we're going to change the wording, I'd go with something like "Although the 24-year age difference between Kehn and Thompson--as well as Jeri Thompson's glamourous appearance--has generated commentary, Kehn had already established a career as a political consultant prior to meeting Thompson." Eseymour 16:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I like the "as well" within the mdash as it seems to imply the appearance portion is less important than the age difference, Perhaps "Although the 24-year age difference between Kehn and Thompson and Jeri's glamorous appearance has generated commentary, Kehn had already established a career as a political consultant prior to meeting Thompson."--130.76.32.181 16:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there should be any wording like "glamorous appearance". How is that neutral? While her looks might play somewhat of a note in the gossip magazines, I think we should stick to the facts (ages, etc.), and leave the editorializing out of it. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All the sources mention her attractiveness and age as being a factor in the commentary, so something in relation to her appearance is warranted. Would you be open to changing glamorous to a different word or leaving the word out entirely? So "24-year age difference between Kehn and Thompson and Jeri's appearance..." --Bobblehead (rants) 17:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the first one again. Age is ancillary to the issue, and in fact is saying that the age would be a complete non-issue if not for her appearance.  The second focuses on her appearance as well.  As have all of the references put forth regarding this issue thus far, the primary reason for the commentary is her appearance compared to Fred Thompson.  Let us stop trying to WP:SYNTH the issue into more than it really is.  Arzel (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So no futher response? The wording is still synthesis of material, but yet I see it has been reverted without discussion.  Arzel (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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

But that was not a reason to remove the 24-year age difference that we reached consensus on after weeks of dispute. Tvoz | talk 17:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Watergate role
The quote "thereby revealing the existence of tape recordings of conversations within the White House." is misleading because if you look at the sources that reference that information, (17) http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=6757748 is no longer working and (15) http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/archives/9612.cottle.html says
 * "Far from a surprise attack by Thompson, this question had already been answered by Butterfield the previous Friday, during questioning by investigators of the minority and majority staffs."

Who was the staffer that actually asked Butterfield the question? This NY Times article says that it was Donald G. Sanders.
 * Mr. Sanders dug deeper and asked if it were possible that some sort of recording system had been used in the White House. Mr. Butterfield answered, I wish you hadn't asked that question, but, yes, there is. Mr. Sanders then hurried to tell Fred D. Thompson, the lead minority counsel who is now a Republican senator from Tennessee.

Also, this University of Missouri Archives article says
 * "As minority counsel, it often fell to Sanders to directly question witnesses called to give testimony before the committee. And so it was that Sanders asked Butterfield the fateful question: "Is there any kind of recording system in the White House?""

Even (20) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16019179 says
 * On that program, Thompson recalled events this way: "Don Sanders on the staff really was the guy who asked the question at a staff meeting. He came to me and told me that. And that was kind of my reaction, somewhat of a surprise, to say the least." Sanders was Thompson's deputy counsel.

Opti280 (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)opti280

The description of Thompson's Watergate role is just incorrect. I can't even find a credible reference that says Thompson had anything to do with Baker's comment, "What did the President know and when did he know it?"

Instead, it was Thompson's question of Alexander Butterfield, a former aide to White House chief of staff H.R. Haldeman, "Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the President?" that led to Nixon's resignation 8 days later.

The article should be edited to reflect the correct question and remove the reference to Sen. Baker. GregE625 (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a reference regarding Thompson's role in the question "What did he know and when did he know it?" Also, the article already mentions that "Thompson asked about listening devices in the White House" (though the article does not quote Thompson).Ferrylodge (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've found several sources that say that Thompson is "sometimes" or "often" credited with Baker's line, for example this AP article and this Weekly Standard article, which implies there may be some doubt. It would be nice to have something more definitive on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


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

Council on Foreign Relations
I think this reference should probably be removed from this page. I can find no credible source that can verify that Fred Thompson is a CFR member. There are plenty of far left and far right sites that make this claim, often posting long lists of names of supposed members. But I can find no valid evidence for Fred Thompson being a member -- those sites are not credible references. So I am posting this to let people comment. If there are no objections, and if no one can find a credible source for this, then I will delete this bit from the 2nd paragraph. SunSw0rd (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See the previous discussion here. Is this source adequate?  Here's another source.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think probably neither source is adequate. The first source you provide goes to an advocacy site: stopthenorthamericanunion - I suggest the credibility of that one is nil. The second source is no longer valid, the current link is here: mpa.utk.edu/fredthomson -- and it no longer makes that claim.
 * So I think we still need a valid source. One from the CFR site itself would be best, but I can't find anything there. SunSw0rd (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good job. I think that link -- U.S. Department of State -- is a valid one. I will reinsert the statement now with the attribution. SunSw0rd (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"born Freddie Dalton Thompson"
This wording (born Freddie Dalton Thompson) is less than precise. Children are usually named some time after they are born. Table Manners C·U·T 21:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, give me a break. Whether a birth name is given at the precise moment of birth or several weeks later is utterly irrelevant. It's still a birth name.  If you have a problem with the English language, go take it up with the Academy for the English Language - oh, wait, there isn't such a body.  Oh well.  -- Zsero (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * God bless Wikipedia. Where else would such a matter ever need to be brought up.  Hilarious. Hooper (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * When is the exact moment of birth, as shown on a birth certificate? Crowning, or completely out?  I want to know so that I can name my children when they are born, and not before or after. Robert K S (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)