Talk:Lincoln Chafee

Untitled
Lincoln Chaffe seems to be a Republican out of family tradition. Certain his father was a moderate Republican at best (the only kind that could realistically be elected in Rhode Island), but Lincoln seems to be a genuine liberal. I can only see two reasons why he might see himself as a Republican – either he wants to stay in the party of his father, or he wants to keep alive the tradition of there being a true spectrum of views in both U.S. parties. This is flying in the face of how things are going; there are now very few conservative Democrats at the national level and even fewer liberal Republicans – in reality, he's

buoren


 * His being a Republican is a remnant of the days when the Democratic and Republican parties were not really ideologically distinct. This started to come to an end in the 1970s and probably completed fairly recently. This is a separate issue from moderate Democrats and Republicans like Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, because in the US 2 party system, there is no centrist party. Bostoner (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

What does the one sentence mean "he cast his ballot for George H. W. Bush over George W. Bush in the 2004 election"? How could he cast a ballot for a former president?
 * He wrote-in Papa Bush, citing RI's liberal write-in laws, to protest the neo-con direction the party has taken in recent years. Youngamerican 15:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sad we need reminders that the constitution doesn't require we vote for someone endorsed by a major party or that George H.W. Bush was eligible for the 2004 election. Read Article I my friends, it will all become clear.--Δζ (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph about Chafee's political views seems to be written in a POV style ("he is fairly liberal," "these are liberal characteristics that many Republicans do not possess," etc.). The article should talk about how he is to the left of the national Republican party and about the conjecture that he might switch parties at some point, but it could be done in a NPOV. Anyone disagree? Otherwise I'll take a stab at rewriting it. - Cleared as filed. 03:16, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Have at it. Youngamerican 15:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Category:Leaders of cities in Rhode Island
Do we keep former leaders of cities in this category? I could see maybe doing it if they retired as the leader of a city, but it doesn't seem to make sense for Chafee, who is a United States Senator. I think this category should be removed. Any comments? —Cleared as filed. 15:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Do we keep former leaders of cities in this category? I could see maybe doing it if they retired as the leader of a city, but it doesn't seem to make sense for Chafee, who is a United States Senator. I think this category should be removed. Any comments? —Cleared as filed. 15:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Chafee has tremendous prominence in his home state. He may be out of politics right now, but there is absolutely no doubt he will be running either for Governor (he'd win in a walk, nomatter which party he chooses, or as an independent) or for Mayor of Providence (ditto, as Cicilline, a good man, has garnered a certain amount of disaffectation.) I think it's fair to say that the Mayor is more important in the state than the Governor. When Cianci was Mayor, his limo plate was very simple: "1". I doubt we've heard the last of Chafee--especially in Rhode Island, but possibly on a wider stage. What defeated Chafee when he ran against Whitehouse (an excellent campaigner) was the fact that Chafee refused to slough off the Republican skin in a year when anger at Bush was immensely high. But he's an Independent now, and, especially were he to switch to the Democratic Party, he'd be very competitive against either Senator. There's a reason why the delicious "cocky wacko" remark was so well-carried. When Chafee speaks in RI, people know what he said. NaySay (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Often votes"
A recent edit changed this:

"...which means he often votes with the Democrats in the Senate."

"...which means he has voted more with the Democrats than with the Republicans in the Senate."

I don't think this is accurate to say. Obviously he's liberal Republican, but the second sentence says that he has voted with the Democrats in an absolute majority of cases, as opposed to the first, which merely implies that he votes with Democrats more often than is typical for a Republican senator. Honestly, the phrase "votes with the Democrats" is itself problematic. What does it mean? The vast majority of non-procedural votes in Congress don't break down on party lines -- virtually every vote has some dems and some reps voting both yea and nay. So what constitutes "voting with the Democrats"? Are we talking about Democrat-sponsored bills, or bills where the majority of the Senators voting on his side are Democrats, or...? There's got to be a better way to phrase this. --Jfruh 00:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed this statement, for the reasons you mention, and reworded the section. Saying Chafee is liberal, and has been accused of being a RINO, is quite adequate, I think (but I added the "on some issues he is mainstream Republican", for the oblivious). John Broughton 14:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Bias?
This article glorifies his "achievements" within the senate, and forgets about everything else. Please, before you vote in September/November, learn as much as you can about EVERY candidate in every party, and try to find that represents you the best. Don't listen to this self-glorifying b/s. He says that he "makes his own decisions" when all he does is switch parties on every issue (i.e. playing it safe). Don't believe his photoshopped pictures in his campaign videos either. Learn about every candidate before you vote (and don't use Wikipedia as a factual source for these kinds of things, bias always sneaks in). (Unsigned comment by 70.188.184.129)
 * What passages in this article, if any, do you believe to be biased? Just slapping on a NPOV tag doesn't help improve the article. I've read through it, and I don't see any huge bias or nonfactual statements. modargo 20:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The article does not include (what I deem to be) negative things achieved during his campaign. http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:SPbxfwA3EloJ:www.senatevote.com/Senate/Lincoln_Chafee.htm Although biased itself, this page states where Chafee stands on many very important issues. I feel that wikipedia should be a factual resource that lends no bias at all, including bills/ideas that Chafee supports that may not be the best for Rhode Island and/or the working class. This information should be included in the article. (Unsigned comment by 70.188.184.129)
 * First off, you're probably looking for http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Lincoln_Chafee.htm (a much more current version of that site). Second, that site you linked is just a big list of his various votes and positions. Most of the important aspects of that are mentioned in the article; the article states his positions on abortion, gary rights, environmental issues, federal health coverage, affirmitive action, gun control, the estate tax, the income tax, free trade agreements, and tort reform. It further goes on to give details and history about how Chafee is considered a liberal, which is the same conclusion that site reaches (it calls him a "moderate liberal"). Unless you can point at specifically issues that are not covered as a result of bias, I'm inclined to call the NPOV tag unwarranted. If he have specific things to add on the topic of "bills/ideas that Chafee supports that may not be the best for Rhode Island and/or the working class", that could be added in, perhaps to the part where it discusses the issues that he is more in line with Republican and conservative thinking on. modargo 02:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A politician can say a lot of things about how he/she supports specific causes during their election campaigns, but do they ever actually go through with it? For someone who supposedly values family, education, and values, why would he turn down funding for educational agencies and also turn down funding to help lower sizes of classes in public schools, instead suggesting that children get tutors? This may appeal to rich people living in Each Greenwich, but not to the general public, including people that may have children that could benefit from having smaller class sizes! Basically what I'm getting at is that people look to wikipedia for all of the facts, not just the ones that make the person look good. At least I do. I was looking here to learn all I could about candidates in the upcoming election, only to learn that not all of the facts are present. There are bills that he has passed and voted against that clearly contradict what he proclaims to be his values and beliefs. I'm not saying that he hasn't done things that were ok, but he has done a lot of sleasy things (like refuse to give money to schools, voting to accept gifts from lobbyists, not increasing funding to provide generic prescriptions to medicare and medicade recipients, reauthorizing the patriot act, privatizing social security, and voting against repealing the DEATH TAX!). I just think, and I'm sure that you will agree, that the negative things he has done should also be included with the positive things he has done in order to give a better picture of Lincoln Chafee. I don't want to debate the ineffectiveness of his term as a senator, I just think the truth should be stated.

Changes 9/21/05
This started as a minor change, because a previous user changed "anti-abortion" to "pro-life." I would argue that both terms fail to present a NPOV, so I changed it to "groups that oppose abortion"

I filled in a cite somebody was looking for on Chafee being called a RINO, and changed some of the language as per what the above user said. Unfortunately, this page seems to need some heavy editing and I only scratched the surface. This should be more than a glowing biography that seems to have been written by his staffers glowing about his accomplishments--it should also reflect the reality of his record. Not that Senator Chafee has a particularly bad record, but it isn't right to glow about his "independence" and not mention votes where he's proved crucial to the Republican leadership.

Finally, I took out some misinformation on Steve Laffey. It said he was anti-gay rights, but Laffey supported civil unions and opposed the Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He may not have been exactly pro-gay (for more, see his article), but he was by no means Chafee's polar opposite on the issue. Dadip6 05:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This was me. Every issue in politics has a PC euphemism.  No one is ever "anti-abortion" or against rights in politics.  I suggest we use the language of euphemisms the media has adopted on these issues.  Also, "the most conversative groups" isn't a term of any meaning.--Loodog 00:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Professional blacksmith
Does anyone know anything more about Chafee's time as a blacksmith? It sounds very interesting. --BDD 20:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I would love to konw about this. I'm a rabid Demo but totally admire Linc. Luigibob 10:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I too would like to know more about his time as a blacksmith. -- Lincoln F. Stern 16:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The article refers to him as having been a farrier which is NOT a blacksmith. A farrier deals with tending horses feet & shoes. DEddy (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

So Chafee would have been 18 in 1971 as the Vietnam War raged. What was his draft status and how did he deal with that? A biographical sketch cannot just ignore the biggest war of a person's lifetime and forget the tumult within America in the late 1960s and early 1970s, yet this article does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.20.187 (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Lincoln is my cousin and you don't know him.
My dear cousin is not a "RINO", but a traditional Northeastern Liberal Republican of the Lincolnian GOP. How dare you write so fallaciously of him? Rhode Islander 02:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I work for Lincoln Chaffee; So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies. Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about. But trust me.... You don't. I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about. This is how bad info gets passed around. If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do. Cos some Wikipedeans believe anything they hear.” (sorry, I had to) -- Lincoln F. Stern 16:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes
It is important to state the current state of events, not what will happen soon. As such, the Senator is still in office, and has not been succeeded yet. Stealthound 20:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

He said, on Daily Show, that the recent moderate Republicans are: Arlen Specter, Sue Collins, Olympia Snowe, Jim Jeffords, & Linc. For a while, they would eat together.

Thank You.

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta &#124; &#91;&#91; &#91;&#91;%c2%a1]] &#91;&#91;%c2%bf]] &#91;&#91; %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 15:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Daily Show interview
He was interviewed on the Daily Show somewhat recently. Can someone dig up some info on that so maybe we can include it on the page? At least as a mention in the trivia section. -- Lincoln F. Stern 16:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

NARAL
In the sub-section on abortion, I've deleted the sentence "NARAL supports individual candidates based on a litmus test of their political records on abortion and related issues; thus NARAL mainly endorses Democrats or Republicans wishing to keep abortion legal," since the organization's political philosophy and electoral tactics are explained in the main article. Fenwayguy 02:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Rockefeller Republican
I put in a bit about him being a Rockefeller Republican. He seems like a Traditional Rockefeller Republican to me. Dose everybody concur?Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.111.139 (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC) DoneFry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.111.139 (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I certainly do. Or Jacob Javits.  Or John Chafee. NaySay (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Some Broken Links
These links, listed in this article's footnotes, are broken or no longer useful: (most notably), , , , and . I suggest that these links be replaced, if possible, with links to other sites that contain the relevant information. If that is not possible, I suggest that these links, and the information in the article that was taken from the linked-to sites, be removed. Please give me feedback. Penthamontar (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Chafee for Governor 2010 Exploratory Committee
Could someone please add something about Chafee forming an exploratory committee and announcing his interest to run for governor in the 2010 election? thanks :) jrun (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Rhode Island State Constitutional Convention
What is that? We need an acticle about it. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you don't feel like creating the article yourself, you could maybe add it to the list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rhode_Island&action=edit&section=2 Or maybe find someone who has created other Rhode Island history pages and ask them on their talk page. Good luck ;)

"a life rating of 96% voting liberal" (in Abortion section)
I think this needs to be sourced, especially considering it uses a subjective description such as 'liberal". Also, how does directly relate to abortion, especially as an opening sentence? I would have have removed (per wiki policies on unverified claims about living people) if I didn't still feel like newbie to wiki editing. Instead I just left a "citation needed" tag. Anybody else feel that this should be removed if it remains unsourced? jrun (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

sequence of governors of the territory, province, colony and state known as Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
The post-independence title of "Governor of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations" stands in legal and chronological succession to prior titles held by those men who administered the pre-independence territory and colony predecessor to the state including Chief Officer, President and royal Governor. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colonial_governors_of_Rhode_Island

In the absence of a discrete template box which presents a composite depiction of this complete pre- and post-independence line of succession, which starts in the 17th century, as is the case for Maryland's current Governor O'Malley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_O%27Malley, Massachusetts' Governor Patrick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deval_Patrick and Georgia's Governor Deal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Deal - all of which display pre-independence office holders at the rank of governor, the inclusion of the additional discrete template for colonial governors will best enable viewers of the pages of all post-independence Rhode Island governors to have a complete understanding of the entire line of succession for the role of governor since the founding of the territory, colony and state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Anyone who has the time to create a composite template box for these Rhode Island and Providence Plantations gubernatorial rank officeholders is welcome to do so. The page for Governor O'Malley of Maryland offers a good model to follow.


 * What you mean is the Template:Governors of Maryland is the model you would like follow. In that case the Template:Governors of Rhode Island and the Template:Colonial Governors of Rhode Island would need to be merged. I think you need to suggest this on the pertinent talk page Template talk:Governors of Rhode Island. GcSwRhIc (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Local politics (1985–1999)
Chafee entered politics in 1985 as a delegate to the Rhode Island Constitutional Convention. A year later, he was elected to the Warwick City Council, where he served until his election as Warwick's mayor in 1992, a post he held until his 1999 appointment to the U.S. Senate.

GrantOster (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC
 * ❌ While this link provides useful information, unfortunately it doesn't seem to meet our standard for reliable sources as it appears to be self-published. We need source/s to be from traditional media, publishing houses etc. Iselilja (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead needs rewrite
The lead should be no more than four paragraphs. It looks clutter-ish and might not summarize the whole article. --George Ho (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph
Talk:Rick_PerryAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Needs citations!
Argh, the entire section of positions has no citations! Is this really up the standards of a living person bio page? 50.136.158.31 (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Reduced length of introduction
I reduced the length of the introduction considerably. I removed most of the information that was repeated in the main body --- including specifics about his policy positions and details about his career + education.

I felt the most important points to be included in his introduction were the following:
 * 1) He is a politician from Rhode Island and entrance into politics as a Republican.
 * 2) His father being a famous Republican senator.
 * 3) Lincoln Chafee filled his father's position after his death.
 * 4) Lincoln Chafee's tenure in the Senate being most noted for this opposition to Republican positions (which was his party).
 * 5) His eventual shift to the Democratic party.

If anyone is making changes to those edits, please keep in mind that the introduction should focus only what makes Lincoln Chafee most notable. Tale.Spin (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources for infobox religion?
I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.

Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox (religion in the body of the article has different rules):


 * Per Village pump (policy)/Archive 126: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.


 * Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?


 * Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.


 * Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

The forty candidates are:

Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016
 * Name: Farley Anderson: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: Jeb Bush: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism Religion name mentioned in Body? Yes, but all links cited are dead. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Ben Carson: Infobox Religion: Seventh-day Adventist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
 * Name: Darrell Castle: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Lincoln Chafee: Infobox Religion: Episcopalian. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Darryl Cherney: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Chris Christie: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Catholic. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Hillary Clinton: Infobox Religion: Methodist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Methodist. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Ted Cruz: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Southern Baptist. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Sedinam Curry: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: Carly Fiorina: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Jim Gilmore: Infobox Religion: Methodism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Lindsey Graham: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation fails direct speech requiement. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: James Hedges: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Tom Hoefling: No Infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Mike Huckabee: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
 * Name: Bobby Jindal: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "Evangelical Catholic."
 * Name: Gary Johnson: Infobox Religion: Lutheranism. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation is a dead link. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: John Kasich: Infobox Religion: Anglicanism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Christian but citation doesn't have him specifying anglicism in direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Chris Keniston: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: William Kreml: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: Gloria La Riva: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Lawrence Lessig: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: John McAfee: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Kent Mesplay: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Martin O'Malley: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, comes really close to self-identifying but I would be more comforable if we could find a citation with unambigious direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: George Pataki: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Rand Paul: Infobox Religion: Presbyterianism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Rick Perry: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home" and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Austin Petersen: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: Marco Rubio: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch." and assigned him as being Roman Catholic based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Bernie Sanders: Infobox Religion: Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13.
 * Name: Rick Santorum: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body. Many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifioes using direct speech. Religion name mentioned in body,
 * Name: Rod Silva (businessman) No Infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Mimi Soltysik Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Jill Stein Infobox Religion: Reform Judaism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Donald Trump Infobox Religion:Presbyterian. Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1
 * Name: Scott Walker Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "born-again Christian". Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Jim Webb Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Note: Citation in infobox fails self-identification requirement.

My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements.

You are encouraged to look at and comment on the other pages, not just this one.

Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing religion from infobox
Previously, I asked for citations showing that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing religion in the infobox and in the list of categories. There do not appear to be sources establishing compliance with the rules for inclusion, so I have removed the religion entry and categories.

As a reminder Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox and categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):


 * Per Village pump (policy)/Archive 126: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.


 * Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". In the context of politicians and political candidates, there is a strong consensus in discussion after discussion that The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?


 * Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.


 * Per WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having -- such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (Emphasis is in original)


 * Per WP:DEFINING: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right [...] a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun..." or "Subject, an adjective noun,...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. [...] Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic.


 * Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

Note: this page has not been singled out. I asked for citations on all forty candidates (some now withdrawn) for the 2016 US presidential election. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The article does not seem neutral
Chafee’s tenure as Governor seems to be written as more of a campaign advertisement than a true historical account of his tenure. He was, objectively, one of the most unpopular governors in Rhode Island’s recent history - although Carcieri was unpopular during his second term and Raimondo has faced low approval ratings also. Comments about his low approval ratings even seem to have been removed. The article simply does not seem neutral. Jmjacobyfan (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That section especially is biased. There's a bit of OR in there, cherrypicking of sources, promotionally written, etc. It definitely needs some help and I agree with the neutrality tag. Vermont (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Chafee's political positions need to be updated
I have added a template on the section that discusses his political views. His views have shifted since he was governor of Rhode Island. Let me know if you disagree with this template. Scorpions13256 (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)