Talk:Tom Tancredo

Odd comment from an experienced politician
Excerpt from CNN blog: Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo’s campaign stood by his assertion that bombing holy Muslim sites would serve as a good “deterrent” to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from attacking the United States, his spokeswoman said Friday.

“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack.” http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/05/tancredo-defends-threat-to-bomb-muslim-holy-sites/

Personally it is hard to believe that US can even entertain a presidential candidate who has this stand (foreign policy) on how to make US more secure. Being a foreigner in this country I cannot vote, and it makes me very angry that I cannot contribute to the election process.-Anon.

The election process is a means by which Americans select various members of their government to represent them and their interests. It has nothing in particular to do with visitors.

As for your anger... well, if you don't like it here, etc. 69.15.24.34 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As an American, I'll fill in the "etc.": ...[if you don't like it here] you can still stay, whatever, because a good half of us at any given time don't like it and feel we don't have a real say, either. Also, different political opinions enrich our politics, even when articulated by non-citizens.69.94.192.147 (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Excerpt from CNN blog" - would you provide a citation so we can read the whole thing? I know thought he proposed something similar to this as a response to a nuclear attack on/in a US city, but I can't find your text at cnn.com.  Thanks.  --CliffC 23:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Every politician says something stupid from time to time. When it's a routine slip of the tongue, or an obvious error, then we shouldn't make a point quoting it here. (Wikiquote exists for that kind of thing). We need to rely on the general media and history books as our guides for deciding what's important. For example, when President Gerald Ford said the Soviets didn't dominate Poland it became historic, even though it's obviously not what he meant. But when a politician slips and says "Obama" when he means "Osama", and it's only mentioned for a day in the papers, then it's less likely to be noteworthy. In the case of Tancredo, when he made the remark on a radio talk show about bombing Mecca it seems like a glib remark that he didn't necessarily intend. Seeing it in writing as well makes it appear that he really believes it. We should still take our cue from the general media coverage, and avoid combing through his writings to find evidence to support a thesis.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But the point is that Tancredo made the above statements on July 31, 2007, reiterating his position that he believes that the best course of action to deter a nuclear attack in the U.S. by Muslim terrorists is to make it clear that two cities in Saudi Arabia will be similarly nuked afterwards. He's had two years to think about his position so his statements can't be dismissed as an off-the-cuff gaffe. Anyway, the source of his July 31st statement was a Town Hall Meeting & Breakfast in front of thirty people at a restaurant; an mp3 (full of static but still audible) can be downloaded here. He was further questioned about this subject during the Iowa Republican debate and responded that the condemnation he received from the State Department was a sign to him that his ideas had merit; I was appalled at the applause that he received. You can watch his response here (about midway through). After this information is reported more widely by solid news sources, I think the reiteration of his views should go into the article. Pericles899 22:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion Page Test Raider3 21:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews interview with Tom Tancredo
I will be interviewing Tom Tancredo tomorrow for WIkinews. Please leave any questions you have for him on my Talk page. Thanks. -- David  Shankbone  19:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor edit request, please
The Early life and political career section contains the following sentence: "After Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1981..." Reagan was elected in 1980, and inaugurated in 1981. Can somebody make this minor edit, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.165.204 (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Feel free to create an account, so you can do edits like this in the future.  Jauerback 18:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Funding item needs editing
"It should be noted that the majority of Tancredo's funds are not disclosed." Going to the reference link provided shows that the opposite is true, certainly in dollar terms. Please make this change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.120.129 (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Race-based congressional caucuses
...was the title of a section under "Controversies" that I removed because the article did not make it clear why this was a controversy. The section was as follows:
 * Tancredo spoke out on January 25, 2007, against the continued existence of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Republican Congressional Hispanic Conference. "It is utterly hypocritical for Congress to extol the virtues of a color-blind society while officially sanctioning caucuses that are based solely on race. If we are serious about achieving the goal of a colorblind society, Congress should lead by example and end these divisive, race-based caucuses."

It seems like this could be worked in somewhere else unless there was some sort of outcry. As it stands, my reaction is, "So what?" Thompsontough (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material
This was recently removed from the article:

''Bush told reporters, "What a nut. I'm just disappointed. He's from my own my party. He's a Republican. He doesn't represent my views." Bush said he moved to Miami with his Mexican-born wife in 1980 because of its diverse cultures, and adds "it's just as American as suburban Denver."''

It was inserted between a statement and its source in a manner that supported a non-neutral point of view.

Further, there is the question as to whether it is noteworthy to the point of being a significant piece of a "Controversies" section that already states J. Bush's disagreement with Tancredo. That is, is Bush's personal thought on Tancredo's statement equally as important as his official correspondence regarding the same? Quissett (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That quotation is verifiable. I found it in "Tancredo 'pleased' by Gov. Bush's criticism",

Anne C. Mulkern, Staff Writer. Denver Post. Denver, Colo.: Nov 30, 2006. pg. A.12. I don't think it's a personal thought if it's been quoted by reporters. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent major changes
An editor has just made major changes with little explanation. Could he or she please give an explantion for the edits? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed--I too would like an explanation. The wikipedia diff tool is a little hard to read...a fair bit of the edit appears to be possibly gratuitous whitespace changes (is there an option to squash pure whitespace changes?), but I do see at least some incorrect changes, such as a the removal of the word "born" from what was previously "Tancredo was born in Denver, Colorado to Adeline Lombardi and Gerald Tancredo." Traumerei (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * After three requests for explanations on the user's talk page he refused, saying it was "a bit hard to go back and explain". That's exactly the problem - if it's too hard for the editing making the changes to explain them then other editors can't be expected to understand them either. So I've reverted the changes. I've asked the editor to use edit summaries and seek consensus here for major changes. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Were the changes actually reverted? The revision history doesn't show a revert. Traumerei (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here it is. Since then the editor has made some modest edits that don't appear as problematic. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

National Review
Removed this section from "Positions:" "John Podhoretz, writing on the National Review's website, said: "Tom Tancredo is an idiot."

It does not matter what John Podhoretz thinks of Tancredo. Referencing the article to show Tancredo's position on terrorism is acceptable, but Podhoretz's opinion is just that, an opinion. Including it seems to be an attempt at bias. Just stick to the facts on Tancredo's positions or we'll have to start listing all the people who disagree with him - a very long list! 208.88.132.251 (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Political Party
Currently he is listed as a Republican in the infobox. However, because he will soon be speaking at the Constitution Party's national committee meeting, it's now unclear exactly which party he is currently a part of; is he still a Republican (albeit one who sympathizes with the CP), or is he now a Constitutionalist? I couldn't find any sources which indicated whether or not he is planning to switch parties, so I'm just going to remove the "political party" line from his infobox altogether, until a source can be found that proves for sure which party he now belongs to. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tancredo has been a Republican for more than 30 years, serving in the Colorado House and the US House as a Republican. Just because he speaks to a forum of the Constitutional Party is insufficient reason to delete his long-term party affiliation.  Plazak (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As of 2010, he has made his party-switching plans official, so I changed the infobox to reflect that. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see where his spokeperson says he's planning to switch. Maybe we should wait until he actually switches before saying it has happened.   Will Beback    talk    20:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

MSNBC Interview/criticizm of Tancredo by Marcos Moulitsas
Entry concerning the apperance on the Ed Show on MSNBC

"On November 6, 2009, Tancredo appeared on MSNBC's The Ed Show in which he walked off the set during a debate about the quality of Veteran's Administration health services when he was criticized by Markos Moulitsas (The Daily Kos) for receiving a "1-Y" deferment from the military during the Vietnam War for depression while supporting the war."

I'm don't believe that this merits inclusion in the Political Future section much less the article as a whole.

I don't believe that this incident is significant enough for inclusion in the article and certainly not in the Political Future section. An example I can think of that would merit inclusion in this section would be something along the lines of (and this is totally a made up example), "In an interview with the Denver Post, Tancredo was asked if he planned a future run for governor and he indicated that the idea was under consideration." Abruptly ending an interview has nothing to do with a person's Political Future in and of itself. Additionally people end interviews abruptly all the time on the cable news networks and I don't think one particular instance is relevant enough to be included in someone's biography. Perhaps if it the interview was ended in an illegal or unusually different matter it would be relevant but pulling a mic off and walking away happens all the time. Perhaps this event could instead be made a part of an article concerning the abrupt ending of interviews on cable news networks.

Finally, I think that this entire article has a negative POV and needs to be worked on.


 * I agree with your basic conclusion that the material should be left out. If other news media had reported the walk-out as notable then it would be different. But the subject appears frequently on TV so just picking individual appearances that don't have added notability is unhelpful.   Will Beback    talk    20:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So Tancredo gets insulted by Markos and the section is written that he didn't deny the insult? Could it be written with any more bias?  Arzel (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed it entirely. I don't see that it have been covered in any secondary sources. Let's wait until it's reported elsewhere.   Will Beback    talk    02:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that the episode has been covered not only by liberal but by mainstream media sources still makes it un-notable? .  Sorry I don't know how to edit a talk page properly... If anyone has a problem with the facts that I posted, great.  If they have a problem with the style in which I posted them they should probably think about how elitism and the domination of wikipedia by a select few is leading to a severe degradation in quality and participation.
 * Is Politico considered a reliable source? The individual page apears to be a blog.   Will Beback    talk    04:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding CAIR.
"He has even described mainstream U.S. Muslim organizations such as CAIR as being "Muslim mafias"."

Whether or not the organization is to be called mainstream is questionable. It being a matter of opinion, the adjective would be better to leave out : "He has even described U.S. Muslim organizations such as CAIR as being "Muslim mafias"."

There has been much criticism aimed at CAIR, much suggesting a more or less hidden agenda due to suspected ties to Hamas. I believe it would be in direct conflict with the wiki page on CAIR to call it mainstream.

This is just a suggestion. No change should be made in case of a stronger argument than my own. Peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.80.88.10 (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal immigration
Removed lines saying that he supports legal immigration. The source is AMCON mag-by definition biased in favor of conservatives. He opposes the H1B visa as shown in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.91.142 (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Text
Tancredo Family History, based on published information the National Archives and the Ellis Island Foundation:

TomTancredo's paternal grandfather (Guiseppe Tancredi a.k.a Joseph Tancredo) emigrated from Potenza, Italy, departing from the Port of Naples to America. Joseph was 11 years old, born May 13th 1892. He was traveling with 3 family members (Lucia Trancredi, 24 years old, Giovanna Tancredi, 16 years old, Antonia Corrado 3 years old.), he was listed as the brother in law of their Denver sponsor. They arrived at Ellis Island, NY on November 9th 1903, aboard the 363 foot steamer ship, The Sicilian Prince.

On April 10th 1910 Joseph Tancredo married Antonia Lena in Denver Colorado. They had 3 children by 1917, Gerald (Tom’s Father), ; Angelina, and Marie. Tom’s grandfather was employed as a Butcher..

Between 1917 and 1918, approximately 24 million men living in the United States completed a Draft registration Card, including Tom Tancredo’s grandfather. On Tom’s grandfathers draft registration card, dated June 5th, 1917, District 9, Denver, he declared that he was an Alien, born in Potenza Italy and a citizen or subject of Italy, therefore exempt from induction into the American military.

In February of 1919, Tom’s grandfather declared his intention to renounce his allegiance and fidelity to Victor Emmanuel III, King of Italy.

By 1940, Tom’s Grandfather had two more children, Elizabeth and Lucille. Up to this point, Tom’s grandfather had never made a petition to become a naturalized citizen. On Oct. 1st 1940, he filed a petition for Naturalization under the Nationality Act. of 1940, and became a naturalized, legal U.S. citizen.

Sources: (all documents cross reference: date of birth, date of arrival and place of residence)

Discussion
I've moved this new material here for discussion. There are several issues. One is the length and quantity of detail, which is very unusual. Another concern is the extensive use of primary sources. Maybe we could pick out one or two of them main details. Maybe something like, "Tancredo's paternal grandfather emigrated from Italy to Denver in 1903 and was naturalized in 1940". Thoughts?  Will Beback   talk    04:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any of this as improving the article. It is already noted and referenced in Early life that his grandparents immigrated from Italy. Unless his ancestors are also notable, that's as deep as an encyclopedia needs to go. The motivation of these edits my be undermine credibility on immigration issues. Can't go there; WP:UNDUE on his ancestors' immigration status would put us in WP:ORIGINAL territory. --Kvng (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I modified the article and resubmitted, taking suggestions into account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mem5280 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which suggestions were you reading? I said it should be a sentence long and had a problem with sources, and Kvng said it should not be included at all. I don't see how your edit addressed those suggestions.   Will Beback    talk    22:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the contribution is a tad verbose and some of the details are uninteresting, but what's the problem with the sources? Additionally, given that Mr. Tancredo's political claim to fame is his strong stance against immigration, including birthright citizenship, and his views questioning the loyalty of immigrants, his family background is of general interest. We must not go too far in the interests of brevity. As for "undermine credibility", I don't understand the argument--we should let the facts speak for themselves, there is nothing in this contribution that amounts to an opinion. Traumerei (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is not about Tom Tancredo's paternal grandfather. While a sentence or two on his family background would be interesting, 272 words is overkill. As for the sources, they are all primary records. While primary sources may be used sparingly and with care, this entire contribution is based on them. One of the reasons why secondary sources are preferred is that they can provide a filter to separate irrelevant trivia from worthwhile content. How many secondary sources have written more than a sentence on Tancredo's grandfather? If there are any let's use those. If there aren't then we should follow their lead and be silent. The existing text reads "Both sets of his grandparents emigrated from Italy". How much more do we really need to say?   Will Beback    talk    09:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorist
I think [ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=38951 this interview with him] makes it pretty clear that he is one. He even claimed that George W. Bush "doesn't think America should be an actual place" and regurgitated North American Union conspiracy theories as well. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * How is it appropriate to place a living person currently involved in a high profile election, in a conspiracy theory category based on a comment they made four years ago that is a stretch to claim as a conspiracy theory in the first place? Is this something Tancredo discusses often? Is he a strong advocate for these particular views? The answer is no. Your motives on these subjects are unacceptable . Wikipedia editors should not be activists. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That edit was from two years ago. Dredging it up now is a blatant violation of NPA. Also, what does Chuck Baldwin have to do with this discussion anyway? Stonemason89 (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * But it's okay to dredge up (and misinterpret) something from four years ago and place it on the BLP of a candidate in a close election? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that he is a candidate in an election is irrelevant. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's be serious here; it is obvious why the edit was made. Don't act like the election had nothing to do with your edit, just as it did with Chuck Baldwin.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

MEK
Ive added some information on his stance regarding the MEK organization which he is a public supporter of. I think the text is concise, but if you got some more information on this subject, let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPz1 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been asked on my talk page why I made this revert and what policies/guidelines were breached.
 * Foreign Terrorist Organizations from the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism does not verify the following line: "Tancredo have assisted and pushed for more support for the exile-Iranian organization MEK (People's Mujahedin of Iran)."
 * I am not sure if Right Web is RS. Is there a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." as discussed at WP:IRS? I see no reason to believe that that site's organizer should be assumed to be a reputable publisher like The New York Times would be.
 * This was my initial thought on GlobalSecurity.org but i see it is attributed to UPI. The original article should be found. This will ensure that it reflects 100% what was in the original and the reliability and appropriateness of that source can then be verified.
 * The section is SYNTHY. Please see WP:SYNTHESIS. Using the quote as an example for "Tancredo have assisted and pushed for more support for the exile-Iranian organization MEK (People's Mujahedin of Iran)." is publishing an editor's thoughts which would only be appropriate if a source made such a correlation.
 * Overall, there very well might be a source that says something along the lines of "Tancredo have assisted and pushed for more support for the exile-Iranian organization MEK (People's Mujahedin of Iran)." but sourcing was questionable and it was not immediately verifiable. "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article." - WP:BLPSOURCES
 * Cptnono (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Already explained. No further explanation needed. Reverted. And my mistake for clicking "vandalism". It boarders on vandilism but is not 100%.Cptnono (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hate to step into what looks like a near edit war, but I think that Tancredo's support of the MEK deserves mention. If I get a chance to do some more research I will add more detail, perhaps as much as is in the paragraph that NPz1 keeps putting in and Cptnono keeps deleting. With a brief search I found this interview in "Right Wing News" in which Tancredo is asked by reporter John Hawkins "Let me ask you another question, it's Iran related. I heard that you support the National Council of Resistance (NCR), a political arm of the Mujahedin-e Kalq (MEK)..." and Tancredo replies "Yes, I do." http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/tancredo.php I'm going to be bold and add a sentence.--Mark Asread 04:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Asread (talk • contribs)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Tom Tancredo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.conservativesbetrayed.com/gw3/articles-latestnews/articles.php?CMSArticleID=959&CMSCategoryID=19
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/08/tom-tancredo-will-address-constitution-party-meeting/

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Tom Tancredo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFx-VNuLyUA
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/2007/speech_tancredo.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5668719,00.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tom Tancredo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070508224251/http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00006103&cycle=2008 to http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00006103&cycle=2008

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)