Talk:Gerald Ford/Archive 4

Article length
Please note - I checked it, and the readable prose in this article is only 48K - not 102K - see Article size. That's a little longer than the guidelines suggest, but my opinion is that it's within reason and I think it can stand as it is. Since the subject is deceased, there shouldn't be large amounts of material added to the article, so it isn't likely to get any bigger. Tvoz | talk 23:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sports section
I'm a big sports fan, but I wonder if a disproportionate amount of attention is given to GF's athletic career. It seems to me that the sports section has more detail than, say, important aspects of his foreign policy. I think this is an excellent article overall, but I wonder if the attention to sports doesn't border on the unencyclopedic. Any thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benzocane (talk • contribs) 03:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Pro-life?
I removed the following:
 * At the same time, Ford was pro-life regarding abortion, and he opposed the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade.[ref]Ford, Gerald. Letter to the Archbishop of Cincinnati, published online by The American Presidency Project. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California (1976-09-10).[/ref]

First of all, the source does not say "pro-life" anywhere. It is original research to claim that Ford is "pro-life" based on the cited source. In fact, the way it reads is that he is trying to soften the fact that he would allow states to permit abortion, if they decided that on their own (and it wasn't on-demand). Next, we have multiple interviews were Ford explicitly identifies as being "pro-choice". All of this leads me to believe that the sentence I removed is simply inaccurate. Perhaps it is important to state somewhere his stance on this notable issue. What do others think, and does anyone have good sources about this from some of the better biographies on the man?-Andrew c 23:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ford's views (like those of many others) have apparently changed over time. Near the end of his presidential term (in 1976), he stated opposition to Roe v. Wade, opposition to abortion on demand, and support for a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe.  He said that that had been his consistent position for years:


 * "I have consistently opposed the 1973 decision of the Supreme Court. As President, I am sworn to uphold the laws of the land and I intend to carry out this responsibility. In my personal view, however, this court decision was unwise. I said then and I repeat today--abortion on demand is wrong. Since 1973 I have viewed as the most practical means of rectifying the situation created by the Court's action a Constitutional amendment that would restore to each State the authority to enact abortion statutes which fit the concerns and views of its own citizens. This approach is entirely in keeping with the system of Federalism devised by the founders of our Nation. As Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, I co-sponsored an amendment which would restore this authority to the States, and I have consistently supported that position since that time."


 * Ford, Gerald. Letter to the Archbishop of Cincinnati, published online by The American Presidency Project. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California (1976-09-10). Andrew c mentions some interviews from decades after he left office. In July of 1998, he said:


 * "Betty and I are pro-choice, but we can work with people who are pro-life on the broader issues involving Republican philosophy."


 * And, in August of 2000, he said:


 * "But the fact that George Bush welcomes people like myself and Betty who are pro-choice is indicative that he's building the tent that will give us a victory."


 * There's no reason to doubt the veracity of any of these three statements. They indicate a changing view over time.  It is important to state somewhere his stance on this notable issue.  And regarding the word "pro-life", perhaps the best thing would be to simply quote Ford in order to avoid pointless controversies about nomenclature.Ferrylodge 23:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So, shall I edit the article accordingly, or not?Ferrylodge 00:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that we shouldn't g et into nomenclature discussions. I hope you don't mind that I edited the article accordingly first ;) I also wrote the following, but couldn't find a place to fit it. Ford would later come under criticism for a 1975 60 Minutes interview his wife Betty gave during his presidency where she stated that Roe v. Wade was a "great, great decision."[ref]'[/ref] In interviews given later in his lifetime, Ford identified as pro-choice.[ref]'[/ref] I wanted to put it in the foot note, but it's strange to have foot notes inside footnotes. We could just create a section about his views on abortion. The reason I chose to include the content in the section I did is because his biggest political action in this regard occurred while he was Minority Leader.-Andrew c 00:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it ought to be mentioned that Ford maintained his position on a constitutional amendment throughout his presidency. For example, see the Presidential Campaign Debate Between Gerald R. Ford and Jimmy Carter, October 22, 1976:


 * "THE PRESIDENT. I support the Republican platform, which calls for the constitutional amendment that would outlaw abortions. I favor the particular constitutional amendment that would turn over to the States the individual right of the voters in those States the chance to make a decision by public referendum. I call that the peoples' amendment. I think if you really believe that the people of a State ought to make a decision on a matter of this kind, that we ought to have a federal constitutional amendment that would permit each one of the 50 States to make the choice."


 * This was his administration's policy from beginning to end.Ferrylodge 00:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well since this topic spans his life, perhaps choosing one section for its inclusion is not appropriate. I'd propose the following paragraph:
 * After the 1973 Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade, Ford, as House Minority Leader, co-sponsored an unsuccessful constitutional amendment which would have returned authority to the states to determine the legality of abortion. Ford would later come under criticism for a 1975 60 Minutes interview his wife Betty gave during his presidency where she stated that Roe v. Wade was a "great, great decision." Ford maintained the Republican Party platform on abortion throughout his presidency, favoring "a federal constitutional amendment that would permit each one of the 50 States to make the choice." In interviews given later in his lifetime, Ford identified as pro-choice.
 * The only issue is this article is written chronologically, and it seems strange to break up these 4 sentences into 3 different sections of the article. I would really like to hear from the editors who worked on getting this article FA status to see how they feel about integrating this material into the article. I'd suggest holding off on further editing for a day or so to give the regular editors a chance to discuss.-Andrew c 00:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of this relates to his presidency, and that's where I'd put this paragraph:


 * As president, Ford's position on abortion was that he supported "a federal constitutional amendment that would permit each one of the 50 States to make the choice." This had also been his position as House Minority Leader, in response to the 1973 Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade, which he opposed. Ford came under criticism for a 60 Minutes interview his wife Betty gave in 1975, in which she stated that Roe v. Wade was a "great, great decision."  In later life, Ford would identify as pro-choice.


 * The 1976 debate, the 60 Minutes Interview, and the letter to the archbishop all occurred during his presidency, so that's where this paragraph should go, IMHO.Ferrylodge 01:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

New approval rating graph
I made that graph, maybe you would like to put it on the page. --Jean-Francois Landry 17:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Gerald Rudolff Ford
The biography for the stepfather of Gerald Rudolff Ford who raised Ford and for whom Ford legally changed his own name has been nominated for deletion. You can enter your comments at Articles for deletion/Gerald Rudolff Ford. Americasroof 05:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph? What the...?
What kind of joke? The opening says that Ford died 8 years before becoming president. And, that Nixon left office for sugar production. 68.180.38.41 00:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Death: "last rites"?
The Death section says that his son, an Evangelical minister, performed last rites. The source cited also says this. Why would an Evangelical minister perform a Roman Catholic sacrament for his non-Catholic father? Surely the author of the cited source (and/or the source that the author used) was not very clear on the use of that term, and used the term to represent something that is not "last rites." —Preceding unsigned comment added by HolyT (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Cabinet
Recommend converting the cabinet table to use Infobox U.S. Cabinet. --— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  21:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Michigan template
Would it be a problem replacing the retired number template with Michigan Wolverines Football--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that if you're going to have two separate templates, the current one is more appropriate to have here. Is there a reason to maintain the retired numbers navigation box separately, since the same info is in the larger navigation box? MisfitToys (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please cite
Could you cite where you found that "Gerald R. Ford was born Leslie Lynch King, Jr. on July 14, 1913, at 12:43 a.m. CST, at 3202 Woolworth Avenue in Omaha, Nebraska"? --Ivan Isaak (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Slight issue with statistics citation
The quote "In fact, the Gallup poll the day before the election showed Ford held a statistically insignificant 1-point advantage over Carter.[87]" is somewhat misleading, and unnecessary. Without statistical significance, the lead isn't really notable at all, especially with the likely size of the sample. In any case, it's an extraneous piece of trivia that is not needed, especially with the material proceeding that line. I don't want to change it, though; I'm mostly a reader of Wikipedia, and this is a well-done article. Thanks. 66.82.162.17 (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Corporate career
There is no mention of Ford's corporate career. According to the theyrule.net he was on the board of directors of Citicorp for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.155.13 (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bit more on, you know, his presidency?!
At the moment the section on his presidency is a few (extremely negative) sentences and a link to the article on his tenure in the White House. Surely more space should be devoted to this in his own page. After all, most people would think of him as Former President Gerald Ford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.250.228 (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a full article on it: Presidency of Gerald Ford. I agree the section here should be lengthened a bit, though. Feel free to do so! I hope this helps. -- lucasbfr  ho ho ho 13:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you compare this article to the other one that is FA, Ronald Reagan, you will see that RR has a much more substantial "Presidency" section. RR's might even be a bit too much, but surely we could use a better summary that what currently stands. What worried me is that we might have to provide something that is very similar-sounding to the paragraph in the lead section. Striking the right balance is this case is a general problem. I added a note to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject U.S. Presidents.--Spellage (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is just plain silly that the section on his presidency doesn't even mention his pardon of Richard Nixon. Just to compound the omission, the first sentence of the following post-presidential years talks about the pardon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.134.9 (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Duplication
I noticed that the Gerald_Ford is duplicated at the end of Presidency of Gerald Ford. I think that we should have only one such section and the other should be non-existent or a brief summary. Even though this is an FA, I have removed the duplication from this article and added a sentence to the "Presidency" section. It is unfortunate that, for reasons of article size, we need to delegate this big piece and yet we have no choice but to provide a full and balanced paragraph about his presidency in the lead section.--Spellage (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved that section to the "Presidency" page. I also note that the current "Presidency" section is rather weak for an FA. What should we do here? One possibility is to move the ample "Presidency" paragraph from the lead down to that section, but then readers would find the lead unsatisfactory. I am sure that most other President articles after Ford face the same dilemma. What to do?--Spellage (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Smoking?
I've heard Ford was the last president who smoked in the White House, at least on a regular basis. Is this true? I've also heard smoking isn't allowed at the White House. When did the rule start? Is it only a rule for certain areas? Technically the 2nd floor is a private residence, so people could smoke there if they were allowed by the tennant, right? --98.232.180.37 (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Obama smokes. Un  sch  ool  19:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The White House is tax-payer funded housing. The president and their family cannot smoke inside the building because. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.28.25 (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Baby picture?
Should we remove the baby picture of him? it's kind of unnecessary and taking up space that could be used by something more helpful. 75.72.37.35 (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2009 (U

actually they are cute so you should just leave them were they stand

When?
The sentence saying he was the oldest living president sounds wrong. Why does it start with when in the parentheses?--D3t3ctiv3 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ford was the oldest living ex-President. His age at death (93 years, 165 days) was older than any other person who served in the office.  I have fixed the sentence in the lead to make it less ambiguous.  --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama  13:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Warren commission - USA Today bits - dubious
"Ford generally believed in the single assassin theory.[43] According to the same reports, Ford generally had strong ties to the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover.[43]"

Looking at the archives for USA Today using Google news, I don't see this article. I do see an AP article, and a Washington Post one, but they don't say these 2 bits, as far as I can see. It does seem clear he SUPPORTS the theory... belief is not clear. Nothing about strong ties. He didn't meet with Hoover, just an aid, it seems. I am not challenging the content, but I am dubious.- sinneed (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at it, I may have gone a bit far with the phrasing, but it's clear that Hoover and Ford maintained the relationship after the commission's work ended. Hoover is noted as sending gifts to Ford, and paying respects on the death of Ford's mother. The article phrased this as the granting of "favors". We can probably trim that back a bit, though I think some mention should be retained. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Public image section, plz
Obama, Clinton, Bush, W. Bush, Reagan, and Carter all have public image sections. I'd like to start one on Ford. This would be my jumping off point: .--Louiedog (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Commons has quite a few free images of Ford, you might check there. Gerald Ford. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Public image", image as a metaphor, not literally pictures...--Louiedog (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

FA?
If this article is to be an FA, it needs to have mostly sources from books. It's a relatively new FA rule. Just a heads up. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We've looked at and removed several dubious sources from the article, and added several books over the past few weeks. This article is actually already in the midst of FARC, here. Are there specific sources that are flawed? I know several news articles from around the time of Ford's death are used to fill in background, which seems acceptable. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The FA criteria changed earlier this year to require "high-quality" reliable sources, not just reliable sources. This means that the best sources possible should be used when practical. For an article on a former American president who has many books written about him, they should be used extensively; if the article was on a pop-culture topic, the expected standard wouldn't be as high.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 02:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Naval Services in World War II
4th paragraph in this section states Captain Ingersoll (of the Monterey) ordered Ford to lead a fire brigade below. This is inconsistent with the articles Typhoon Cobra (1944) and USS Monterey (CVL-26) which state Ford volunteered. Driftwood87 (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverted POV edit
Reverted edit by User:Binksternet. The original edit was to remove the word "ironically" (in the Longevity section) from the sentence about Ford's term in office being the shortest in the 20th century. Binksternet's comment was the word "ironically" was a POV issue. There is, in my opinion, no POV issue here. The statement of Ford's short term in office as President is preceded by the fact that he lived the 2nd longest time as former President. There is an irony in the contrast between these bits of information that is not POV. LarryJeff (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliable source that says it is ironic or is that our interpretation? This should only be in the article if a reliable source says that it is ironic.   GB fan  talk 15:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If we simply state the facts, the article is served. If we add editorial observations such as saying that some contrast is ironic, we are marking the article. Let's allow those editorial observations to come from published writers, verifiable, reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. I have no problem with the change. LarryJeff (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not to be piling on here, but "ironic" is also a word to avoid.  JGHowes   talk  19:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge
Why is Presidency of Gerald Ford a separate article? Please look at that article section-by-section, paragraph-by-paragraph before commenting. At least 90% of the article is completey identical to the main article to the word. There is no reason to have the inappropriate duplicate split, especially for a Featured Article. The redundant subarticle should be merged/redirected unless someone greatly modifies/expands it and makes proper use of WP:Summary style while not placing WP:undue weight in the article. Reywas92 Talk 01:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * After a week of no response, I have merged/redirected the redundant subarticle. Reywas92 Talk 13:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Quote boxes
Unless there is additional support for the newly-added quote-boxes, I will remove them.- Sinneed  22:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Unelected
According to the article, Ford is "the only President of the United States who was elected neither President nor Vice-President." What about George W. Bush: was he elected or appointed by the Supreme Court of the United States? Shulgi (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bush was elected. Georgia guy (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, second term TennysonXII (talk) 07:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing presidential party affiliation
This page never directly identifies Pre. Ford as a Republican - see format from other pages regarding presidential info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.139.3.25 (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC) --Opinion8it (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we identify him as such in the infobox, we say in the intro he was Republican minority leader, we say he won the Republican nomination in 1976, we say he remained active in the Republican party - I hardly think it's hard to find his party affiliation. I think adding it to the beginning of the intro - an already complex set of facts to set out - would slow down the flow, and really is not necessary. Tvoz / talk 20:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Spouse(s) section
In the sidebar "Spouse(s)" section this page reads "Elizabeth "Betty" Bloomer Ford (April 8, 1918 – July 8, 2011)," but on her page it shows "Gerald Ford (1948–2006, his death)." Shouldn't these both show the years of marriage, not the spouse's birth/death? Ulmanor (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jim Michael. Ulmanor (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Lain in State
Hi there, I noticed that this part at the very bottom of the article claims that Gerald Ford is the most recent; however Sen. Byrd was lain in state in 2010. I don't know the proper way to fix this, furthermore, I'm editing this from a Best Buy Kiosk. Can someone please fix the succession box? 168.94.245.8 (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Article length
Please note - I checked it, and the readable prose in this article is only 48K - not 102K - see Article size. That's a little longer than the guidelines suggest, but my opinion is that it's within reason and I think it can stand as it is. Since the subject is deceased, there shouldn't be large amounts of material added to the article, so it isn't likely to get any bigger. Tvoz | talk 23:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sports section
I'm a big sports fan, but I wonder if a disproportionate amount of attention is given to GF's athletic career. It seems to me that the sports section has more detail than, say, important aspects of his foreign policy. I think this is an excellent article overall, but I wonder if the attention to sports doesn't border on the unencyclopedic. Any thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benzocane (talk • contribs) 03:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Pro-life?
I removed the following:
 * At the same time, Ford was pro-life regarding abortion, and he opposed the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade.[ref]Ford, Gerald. Letter to the Archbishop of Cincinnati, published online by The American Presidency Project. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California (1976-09-10).[/ref]

First of all, the source does not say "pro-life" anywhere. It is original research to claim that Ford is "pro-life" based on the cited source. In fact, the way it reads is that he is trying to soften the fact that he would allow states to permit abortion, if they decided that on their own (and it wasn't on-demand). Next, we have multiple interviews were Ford explicitly identifies as being "pro-choice". All of this leads me to believe that the sentence I removed is simply inaccurate. Perhaps it is important to state somewhere his stance on this notable issue. What do others think, and does anyone have good sources about this from some of the better biographies on the man?-Andrew c 23:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ford's views (like those of many others) have apparently changed over time. Near the end of his presidential term (in 1976), he stated opposition to Roe v. Wade, opposition to abortion on demand, and support for a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe.  He said that that had been his consistent position for years:


 * "I have consistently opposed the 1973 decision of the Supreme Court. As President, I am sworn to uphold the laws of the land and I intend to carry out this responsibility. In my personal view, however, this court decision was unwise. I said then and I repeat today--abortion on demand is wrong. Since 1973 I have viewed as the most practical means of rectifying the situation created by the Court's action a Constitutional amendment that would restore to each State the authority to enact abortion statutes which fit the concerns and views of its own citizens. This approach is entirely in keeping with the system of Federalism devised by the founders of our Nation. As Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, I co-sponsored an amendment which would restore this authority to the States, and I have consistently supported that position since that time."


 * Ford, Gerald. Letter to the Archbishop of Cincinnati, published online by The American Presidency Project. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California (1976-09-10). Andrew c mentions some interviews from decades after he left office. In July of 1998, he said:


 * "Betty and I are pro-choice, but we can work with people who are pro-life on the broader issues involving Republican philosophy."


 * And, in August of 2000, he said:


 * "But the fact that George Bush welcomes people like myself and Betty who are pro-choice is indicative that he's building the tent that will give us a victory."


 * There's no reason to doubt the veracity of any of these three statements. They indicate a changing view over time.  It is important to state somewhere his stance on this notable issue.  And regarding the word "pro-life", perhaps the best thing would be to simply quote Ford in order to avoid pointless controversies about nomenclature.Ferrylodge 23:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So, shall I edit the article accordingly, or not?Ferrylodge 00:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that we shouldn't g et into nomenclature discussions. I hope you don't mind that I edited the article accordingly first ;) I also wrote the following, but couldn't find a place to fit it. Ford would later come under criticism for a 1975 60 Minutes interview his wife Betty gave during his presidency where she stated that Roe v. Wade was a "great, great decision."[ref]'[/ref] In interviews given later in his lifetime, Ford identified as pro-choice.[ref]'[/ref] I wanted to put it in the foot note, but it's strange to have foot notes inside footnotes. We could just create a section about his views on abortion. The reason I chose to include the content in the section I did is because his biggest political action in this regard occurred while he was Minority Leader.-Andrew c 00:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it ought to be mentioned that Ford maintained his position on a constitutional amendment throughout his presidency. For example, see the Presidential Campaign Debate Between Gerald R. Ford and Jimmy Carter, October 22, 1976:


 * "THE PRESIDENT. I support the Republican platform, which calls for the constitutional amendment that would outlaw abortions. I favor the particular constitutional amendment that would turn over to the States the individual right of the voters in those States the chance to make a decision by public referendum. I call that the peoples' amendment. I think if you really believe that the people of a State ought to make a decision on a matter of this kind, that we ought to have a federal constitutional amendment that would permit each one of the 50 States to make the choice."


 * This was his administration's policy from beginning to end.Ferrylodge 00:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well since this topic spans his life, perhaps choosing one section for its inclusion is not appropriate. I'd propose the following paragraph:
 * After the 1973 Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade, Ford, as House Minority Leader, co-sponsored an unsuccessful constitutional amendment which would have returned authority to the states to determine the legality of abortion. Ford would later come under criticism for a 1975 60 Minutes interview his wife Betty gave during his presidency where she stated that Roe v. Wade was a "great, great decision." Ford maintained the Republican Party platform on abortion throughout his presidency, favoring "a federal constitutional amendment that would permit each one of the 50 States to make the choice." In interviews given later in his lifetime, Ford identified as pro-choice.
 * The only issue is this article is written chronologically, and it seems strange to break up these 4 sentences into 3 different sections of the article. I would really like to hear from the editors who worked on getting this article FA status to see how they feel about integrating this material into the article. I'd suggest holding off on further editing for a day or so to give the regular editors a chance to discuss.-Andrew c 00:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of this relates to his presidency, and that's where I'd put this paragraph:


 * As president, Ford's position on abortion was that he supported "a federal constitutional amendment that would permit each one of the 50 States to make the choice." This had also been his position as House Minority Leader, in response to the 1973 Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade, which he opposed. Ford came under criticism for a 60 Minutes interview his wife Betty gave in 1975, in which she stated that Roe v. Wade was a "great, great decision."  In later life, Ford would identify as pro-choice.


 * The 1976 debate, the 60 Minutes Interview, and the letter to the archbishop all occurred during his presidency, so that's where this paragraph should go, IMHO.Ferrylodge 01:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

New approval rating graph
I made that graph, maybe you would like to put it on the page. --Jean-Francois Landry 17:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Gerald Rudolff Ford
The biography for the stepfather of Gerald Rudolff Ford who raised Ford and for whom Ford legally changed his own name has been nominated for deletion. You can enter your comments at Articles for deletion/Gerald Rudolff Ford. Americasroof 05:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph? What the...?
What kind of joke? The opening says that Ford died 8 years before becoming president. And, that Nixon left office for sugar production. 68.180.38.41 00:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Death: "last rites"?
The Death section says that his son, an Evangelical minister, performed last rites. The source cited also says this. Why would an Evangelical minister perform a Roman Catholic sacrament for his non-Catholic father? Surely the author of the cited source (and/or the source that the author used) was not very clear on the use of that term, and used the term to represent something that is not "last rites." —Preceding unsigned comment added by HolyT (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Cabinet
Recommend converting the cabinet table to use Infobox U.S. Cabinet. --— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  21:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Michigan template
Would it be a problem replacing the retired number template with Michigan Wolverines Football--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that if you're going to have two separate templates, the current one is more appropriate to have here. Is there a reason to maintain the retired numbers navigation box separately, since the same info is in the larger navigation box? MisfitToys (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please cite
Could you cite where you found that "Gerald R. Ford was born Leslie Lynch King, Jr. on July 14, 1913, at 12:43 a.m. CST, at 3202 Woolworth Avenue in Omaha, Nebraska"? --Ivan Isaak (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Slight issue with statistics citation
The quote "In fact, the Gallup poll the day before the election showed Ford held a statistically insignificant 1-point advantage over Carter.[87]" is somewhat misleading, and unnecessary. Without statistical significance, the lead isn't really notable at all, especially with the likely size of the sample. In any case, it's an extraneous piece of trivia that is not needed, especially with the material proceeding that line. I don't want to change it, though; I'm mostly a reader of Wikipedia, and this is a well-done article. Thanks. 66.82.162.17 (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Corporate career
There is no mention of Ford's corporate career. According to the theyrule.net he was on the board of directors of Citicorp for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.155.13 (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bit more on, you know, his presidency?!
At the moment the section on his presidency is a few (extremely negative) sentences and a link to the article on his tenure in the White House. Surely more space should be devoted to this in his own page. After all, most people would think of him as Former President Gerald Ford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.250.228 (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a full article on it: Presidency of Gerald Ford. I agree the section here should be lengthened a bit, though. Feel free to do so! I hope this helps. -- lucasbfr  ho ho ho 13:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you compare this article to the other one that is FA, Ronald Reagan, you will see that RR has a much more substantial "Presidency" section. RR's might even be a bit too much, but surely we could use a better summary that what currently stands. What worried me is that we might have to provide something that is very similar-sounding to the paragraph in the lead section. Striking the right balance is this case is a general problem. I added a note to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject U.S. Presidents.--Spellage (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is just plain silly that the section on his presidency doesn't even mention his pardon of Richard Nixon. Just to compound the omission, the first sentence of the following post-presidential years talks about the pardon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.134.9 (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Duplication
I noticed that the Gerald_Ford is duplicated at the end of Presidency of Gerald Ford. I think that we should have only one such section and the other should be non-existent or a brief summary. Even though this is an FA, I have removed the duplication from this article and added a sentence to the "Presidency" section. It is unfortunate that, for reasons of article size, we need to delegate this big piece and yet we have no choice but to provide a full and balanced paragraph about his presidency in the lead section.--Spellage (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved that section to the "Presidency" page. I also note that the current "Presidency" section is rather weak for an FA. What should we do here? One possibility is to move the ample "Presidency" paragraph from the lead down to that section, but then readers would find the lead unsatisfactory. I am sure that most other President articles after Ford face the same dilemma. What to do?--Spellage (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Smoking?
I've heard Ford was the last president who smoked in the White House, at least on a regular basis. Is this true? I've also heard smoking isn't allowed at the White House. When did the rule start? Is it only a rule for certain areas? Technically the 2nd floor is a private residence, so people could smoke there if they were allowed by the tennant, right? --98.232.180.37 (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Obama smokes. Un  sch  ool  19:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The White House is tax-payer funded housing. The president and their family cannot smoke inside the building because. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.28.25 (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Baby picture?
Should we remove the baby picture of him? it's kind of unnecessary and taking up space that could be used by something more helpful. 75.72.37.35 (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2009 (U

actually they are cute so you should just leave them were they stand

When?
The sentence saying he was the oldest living president sounds wrong. Why does it start with when in the parentheses?--D3t3ctiv3 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ford was the oldest living ex-President. His age at death (93 years, 165 days) was older than any other person who served in the office.  I have fixed the sentence in the lead to make it less ambiguous.  --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama  13:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Warren commission - USA Today bits - dubious
"Ford generally believed in the single assassin theory.[43] According to the same reports, Ford generally had strong ties to the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover.[43]"

Looking at the archives for USA Today using Google news, I don't see this article. I do see an AP article, and a Washington Post one, but they don't say these 2 bits, as far as I can see. It does seem clear he SUPPORTS the theory... belief is not clear. Nothing about strong ties. He didn't meet with Hoover, just an aid, it seems. I am not challenging the content, but I am dubious.- sinneed (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at it, I may have gone a bit far with the phrasing, but it's clear that Hoover and Ford maintained the relationship after the commission's work ended. Hoover is noted as sending gifts to Ford, and paying respects on the death of Ford's mother. The article phrased this as the granting of "favors". We can probably trim that back a bit, though I think some mention should be retained. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Public image section, plz
Obama, Clinton, Bush, W. Bush, Reagan, and Carter all have public image sections. I'd like to start one on Ford. This would be my jumping off point: .--Louiedog (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Commons has quite a few free images of Ford, you might check there. Gerald Ford. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Public image", image as a metaphor, not literally pictures...--Louiedog (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

FA?
If this article is to be an FA, it needs to have mostly sources from books. It's a relatively new FA rule. Just a heads up. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We've looked at and removed several dubious sources from the article, and added several books over the past few weeks. This article is actually already in the midst of FARC, here. Are there specific sources that are flawed? I know several news articles from around the time of Ford's death are used to fill in background, which seems acceptable. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The FA criteria changed earlier this year to require "high-quality" reliable sources, not just reliable sources. This means that the best sources possible should be used when practical. For an article on a former American president who has many books written about him, they should be used extensively; if the article was on a pop-culture topic, the expected standard wouldn't be as high.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 02:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Naval Services in World War II
4th paragraph in this section states Captain Ingersoll (of the Monterey) ordered Ford to lead a fire brigade below. This is inconsistent with the articles Typhoon Cobra (1944) and USS Monterey (CVL-26) which state Ford volunteered. Driftwood87 (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverted POV edit
Reverted edit by User:Binksternet. The original edit was to remove the word "ironically" (in the Longevity section) from the sentence about Ford's term in office being the shortest in the 20th century. Binksternet's comment was the word "ironically" was a POV issue. There is, in my opinion, no POV issue here. The statement of Ford's short term in office as President is preceded by the fact that he lived the 2nd longest time as former President. There is an irony in the contrast between these bits of information that is not POV. LarryJeff (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliable source that says it is ironic or is that our interpretation? This should only be in the article if a reliable source says that it is ironic.   GB fan  talk 15:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If we simply state the facts, the article is served. If we add editorial observations such as saying that some contrast is ironic, we are marking the article. Let's allow those editorial observations to come from published writers, verifiable, reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. I have no problem with the change. LarryJeff (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not to be piling on here, but "ironic" is also a word to avoid.  JGHowes   talk  19:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge
Why is Presidency of Gerald Ford a separate article? Please look at that article section-by-section, paragraph-by-paragraph before commenting. At least 90% of the article is completey identical to the main article to the word. There is no reason to have the inappropriate duplicate split, especially for a Featured Article. The redundant subarticle should be merged/redirected unless someone greatly modifies/expands it and makes proper use of WP:Summary style while not placing WP:undue weight in the article. Reywas92 Talk 01:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * After a week of no response, I have merged/redirected the redundant subarticle. Reywas92 Talk 13:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Quote boxes
Unless there is additional support for the newly-added quote-boxes, I will remove them.- Sinneed  22:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Unelected
According to the article, Ford is "the only President of the United States who was elected neither President nor Vice-President." What about George W. Bush: was he elected or appointed by the Supreme Court of the United States? Shulgi (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bush was elected. Georgia guy (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, second term TennysonXII (talk) 07:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing presidential party affiliation
This page never directly identifies Pre. Ford as a Republican - see format from other pages regarding presidential info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.139.3.25 (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC) --Opinion8it (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we identify him as such in the infobox, we say in the intro he was Republican minority leader, we say he won the Republican nomination in 1976, we say he remained active in the Republican party - I hardly think it's hard to find his party affiliation. I think adding it to the beginning of the intro - an already complex set of facts to set out - would slow down the flow, and really is not necessary. Tvoz / talk 20:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Spouse(s) section
In the sidebar "Spouse(s)" section this page reads "Elizabeth "Betty" Bloomer Ford (April 8, 1918 – July 8, 2011)," but on her page it shows "Gerald Ford (1948–2006, his death)." Shouldn't these both show the years of marriage, not the spouse's birth/death? Ulmanor (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jim Michael. Ulmanor (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Lain in State
Hi there, I noticed that this part at the very bottom of the article claims that Gerald Ford is the most recent; however Sen. Byrd was lain in state in 2010. I don't know the proper way to fix this, furthermore, I'm editing this from a Best Buy Kiosk. Can someone please fix the succession box? 168.94.245.8 (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)