Talk:Thomas R. Carper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Thomas R. Carper is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. You can help by editing this article.
This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles.

[edit] Spousal and child abuse

Does anyone know how legitimate these accusations of spousal and child abuse mentioned in this article are? If they were proven untrue, as it seems they were (see the letter from the Chief Judge of the Family Court), I believe that should be more strongly noted. Right now it seems like they were true and he just managed to politically survive them. 68.204.200.39 04:10, 31 January 2006

Information in wikipedia - particularly negative information about a person - MUST be verifiable. If the article is going to state that Carper abused his wife, then it needs a high-quality link/reference. Otherwise, this needs to stay out.
For what it's worth, the ONLY websites where Google shows such statements are this article and all of its mirrors, as far as I can tell. John Broughton 13:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
better attribution for the version at this moment added. stilltim 22:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change of name of article?

Wikipedia naming convention is FirstName Lastname, no middle initial, unless the middle initial is needed for disambiguation - see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). A google search shows 77K ghits for "Thomas Carper" and 60K ghits for "Thomas F. Carper", so this isn't absolutely clearcut, but I don't see any reason for the middle initial, and would like the opinion of others on moving this article to "Thomas Carper", which is currently a redirect. John Broughton 13:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for asking, but please do not change this. The middle initial is optional per the naming convention, and is appropriate here because it is the form of the name used by most official references, and it is the form of the name he generally uses. IMO for members of the U.S. Congress we should always use the form Congress uses, in this case, [1], unless we have to expand it to diambiguate. stilltim 01:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the enlightment; I'll drop the suggestion. John Broughton 19:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Although I don't agree, I suppose it is reasonable to accept the argument that incumbent office holders should use the office specific infobox, instead of the generic politician infobox that appropriately notes their other important offices, but there is no need to use nicknames when the Congress itself uses the full form of the name. Further, the word "term," generally refers to the full time elected, not time served. If you want it to say the later, please change the label. I don't much care for the use of this infobox, nor the label, but in an effort to be cooperative, only insist that if this template must be used, it contain quality information. I will be restoring this information as discussed and would appreciate your consideration of my points and my efforts to reach a consensus. stilltim 02:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In order to conform with wikipedia's 'don't perdict the future' policy, terms of office should not contain future dates in which terms will expire or officials will run for reelection. As can be seen by skiming other wikipedia political articles, both on American and foreign leaders, term refers to time served, not the time for which the leader is elected. If you feel placing a full name in the top of the infobox is that important, I'm not going to argue. But I do know that the term box should not contain future dates. I personally have gotten criticized for attempting the change the dates on the retiring Senators Sarbanes and Dayton to 2007, but I was overrun with complaints stating that adding a date in which a term expires does not correspond to wikipedia standards. I completely understand your point as to why you are changing the dates, but from what I've been told over and over, this is an incorrect pratice. Please excuse my action, but I must revert that change.VitaleBaby 04:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)