Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Thompson controversies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ~ Wikihermit 04:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Thompson controversies

Fred Thompson controversies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Violates WP:NPOV#POV forks. The edit summary of the page's creation appears to imply an intent covered in the last paragraph of Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles. In addition to the summary and template link in the main article, the fork is also wikilinked to various statements within Fred Thompson and Political positions of Fred Thompson in a fashion similar to this example or this example. There are obvious NPOV disputes going on within the main and positions article, and this type of "resolution" is prohibited by WP:NPOV. Crockspot 05:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose deletion. Although this could potentially turn into a POV fork, it is not one now. There's a similar article for Hillary Clinton controversy and for Rudy Giuliani controversy. This seems a useful way to keep the more bland and undisputed stuff somewhat separated from the more contentious and disputed material. The stuff in this Thompson controversy article is briefly summarized in the main Thompson article in a completely NPOV way, as required for "Summary style" articles. Whether you're for Thompson or against Thompson, this article helps to divide up the content in a manageable way, IMHO.Ferrylodge 05:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
There isn't just the required summary, there are also wikilinks to the article sprinkled throughout two other articles, making conclusionary statements in Wikipedia's voice that these items are controversial. - Crockspot 05:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
If you don't like the wikilinks, then why not discuss deleting them instead of deleting the entire article? Crockspot, the example of wikilinking you gave is here. It merely says that Thomspon's conservatism is disputed, which it is. The wikilink is to this section which seems informative and useful --- perhaps in need of improvement but not deletion. I'm a Thompson supporter, I think I've done quite a bit over the past few days to clean up the main article, and I don't want to do anything to hinder his chances. My main concern is that this material in this article will migrate back into the main article, clutter up the main article, and lead to endless bickering at the main article. By moving it to a separate page like this, the bickering is minimized at the main article, while still making the relevant facts available in a potentially NPOV manner, just like for Hillary Clinton's article. You may think you're wiping out a place for attacks against Thompson, but in fact you'll make the problem worse.Ferrylodge 05:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a cop-out. Sweeping contention under the rug of another article is not the way we reach consensus, and in fact, subverts consensus. - Crockspot 05:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't support sweeping anything under a rug. All I'm saying is that if the most contentious controversies are explained and rebutted in the main article then the main article will be swamped with that stuff. Editing the main article will become a nightmare. That's all.Ferrylodge 06:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between WP:CONTENT FORKING and POV. This is a content fork. Also WP:AGF. The editor pointed out the other content fork in his/her creation.C56C 18:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is clearly an attack article. I dont know how you can label any of these items as "controversies". I think the author defines this by "anything that might bring negative attention on Fred Thompson". The PAC incident certainly wasnt illegal and the money laundering charges in there are not proven. How is lobbying for a group considered a controversy? The cigarette incident makes him a hypocrite, but I dont see any controversy there either and so on.... Corpx 05:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say that the article cannot be improved. It has NPOV problems. But the mere existence of a controversy article is not itself an NPOV problem. The article should be fixed instead of deleted, I think.Ferrylodge 05:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I dont find any controversies in the article. Its full of unproven allegations against Thompson. Maybe this should be moved to List of allegations against Fred Thompson. I could add that Fred Thompson was seen as authorizing the death penalty in an episode of Law & Order, even though he's against it morally. Corpx 05:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete after merging completely verifiable and notable "controversies" back into Fred Thompson. Having this page as a stand alone is an invitiation to add oftentimes POV mish mash, wholely unsuitable for our efforts to write an encyclopedia...we are not a tabloid.--MONGO 05:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Migrating this stuff back to the main article will cause endless bickering at the main article, and is contrary to what is done for Hillary Clinton controversy and for Rudy Giuliani controversy. If the verifiable material is good enough for the main article, it's good enough for a separate article.Ferrylodge 05:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Just because those other articles exist does not mean that this should. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Corpx 05:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, forget about what's done for Giuliani and Clinton. I still say that the stuff in this Thompson controversy article is briefly summarized in the main Thompson article in a completely NPOV way, as required for "Summary style" articles. As MONGO indicates, eliminating this article will just create a stampede of edits to the main article, and I really think there's enough difficulty already keeping the main article in good shape. The best approcah would be to edit this controversy article so that, as MONGO says, it contains "completely verifiable and notable 'controversies'" presented in an NPOV way.Ferrylodge 06:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I really dont think an article should exist just to protect the main article Corpx 06:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it shouldn't be that way, but it is. We'll see if others want to delete the article, over the next five days that this deletion request is pending. I won't stand in the way of a consensus to delete, but I also won't stand in the way of the flood of edits to the main article that will surely result.Ferrylodge 06:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You can request protection or semi-protection (against IPs only) from WP:RFPP if these POV edits get out of control, and also warn the offenders with the appropriate templates. Corpx 06:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
FYI, a similar deletion request was made here, and speedily rejected.Ferrylodge 06:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That AFD was speedy kept because it was nominated for a merge. There was a later AFD on that topic, which resulted in a no consensus. I think the criticism of an individual is fine within the main page of the article, but a seperate article solely to portray him/her under negative light shouldnt be something an encyclopedia should do.Corpx 07:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Description of a criticism/controversy, and discussion of whether that criticism/controversy has a basis in fact (or is itself controversial/criticized), need not portray anyone in a negative light. By the way, the Bush AfD that I mentioned came after the Bush AfD that you mentioned (i.e. November 2006 is after August 2006).Ferrylodge 08:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not a POV fork now. Come back if it becomes one. --Hemlock Martinis 07:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. POV fork. Would need hagiographic article to balance but both violate NPOV. --Tbeatty 07:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Current article is a pure attack article with minimal concessions to WP:NPOV, and clearly violates WP:BLP, among other problems. Trying to fix it would was valuable editor's time. Existence of article violates well-founded and long-standing consensus about POV forks. It has to go. CWC 10:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Sourced material. If not kept, then material should be placed in main article. Recurring dreams 10:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Consistent with other candidates' pages as noted above. Not a POV fork. Manages to express both sides of issues well (so far). Keeps the main article shorter and avoids edit wars there. Jdb1972 12:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies has been around for quite some time, but it is currently proposed for dismantling. There are reasonable arguments both for and against the existence of these articles; I wish the WP Powers That Be would decide on this for all politician articles, rather than each one's editors having to hash it out independently. For a long time I was a proponent of seperate controversies articles, but aside from whether they violate WP:Content forking and the like, there are a some practical problems with controversies articles: they are hard to summarize fairly in the main article; a surprisingly high number of readers fail to find them, thus concluding that the main article is a "whitewash"; and they tend to accumulate a lot of minor unto trivial entries, because they aren't competing for space as they would be in the main article. Of course the great benefit of them is that you can drill down into detail on the important entries, without disrupting the overall narrative of the main article. Wasted Time R 12:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
My views have changed on this. A year ago I would have said ,'get this minutia out of the main article'. I still think that's a good idea, but we shouldn't maintain a dump for negative (or positive) material about people. There are biographies, and pages about particular controversies where all sides can be presented in context. These Controversies about... pages remind me of Criticism of... pages, but they are about people. I think you could make a good case that such a selective collection violates our policy on biographies of living people. Tom Harrison Talk 13:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's not even a pov fork, it's opposition research. Cover the material in context at Fred Thompson, or Political positions of Fred Thompson, or in an article about the campaign. Tom Harrison Talk 12:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. Clearly, a POV fork. Basically, it's just a hatchet job, with only a barely minimal attempt at a neutral point of view. Turgidson 14:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Clearly, this article violates NPOV, but there does seem to be a precedent for "controversy" or "criticism" pages relating to politicians. If this article is edited to conform to NPOV and notability standards, then it would seem to me to be legitimate. That said, there's also the issue of WP:Notability. Some of these controversies may indeed be notable in the long run, while others are either not notable or may become entirely irrelevant.Dtoler 15:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete/merge whatever legitimate controversies about Thompson could be summed up in the main article. The article as now is a conglomeration of particular things whose controversial nature has not been establishes. Is it really so “controversial” that he was smoking a Cuban cigar? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep What's sauce for the gander (Hillary Clinton controversy) is sauce for the goose. The controversies would be too long of a section in the main article in this case as in the Hillary case. If they were few and brief, they could be part of the main bio article and could be merged there. In the 21st century it is likely that the controversies about a major contender for US President with a long career in Washington will be numerous and well documented. It will be an ongoing task to monitor and edit out unreferenced material which opponents of a candidate may seek to add. Referenced exculpatory material can be added for balance. If a person does wrong, there is not automatically some balancing fact that must be added to keep a section "NPOV." Edison 15:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is not a POV-fork, as it is simply about controversies, not solely about criticisms or other kinds of blatantly POV content. Controversy does not by definition need to reflect badly on the individual. But more importantly, this article needing expansion and cleanup is not a pass for deletion. If it needs fixing, just fix it. VanTucky (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Who categorizes these events as "controversies" ?Corpx 16:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The article does. If sections need NPOV work, then improve them. But an article on the subject as a whole adheres to a neutral point of view. VanTucky (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I dont think we, as an encyclopedia, should be claiming stuff to be controversies when they're just incidents that garnered media attention. Corpx 16:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • We do when the sources name them as such, try reading some of the articles. Besides, when events given wide attention in the media are controversial (as this very AFD proves) they generally called controversies. It's just common sense, which isn't trumped by your Wikilawyering. VanTucky (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Wide attention given by the media does not make a topic "controversial". Media covers lots of sporting events and I would hardly characterize them as controversial. Corpx 17:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not just simple media coverage, it's coverage of a topic that "...is a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate." (From the Controversy article). These events are certainly that, they aren't just plain reporting of an event and then leaving it alone. There was/is wide debate over the events and their implications. VanTucky (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
what is the intent of the green mark--to call added attention to your opinion? Bold is enough for the rest of us.DGG (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I resent your characterization of me as a "vandal". All I'm saying is that the article should be NEUTRAL. As written, it gives far more coverage of anti-Thompson points of view than of a pro-Thompson point of view. If you will notice, I supported KEEPING this article if it is presented fairly in a neutral manner.Dtoler 18:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Dtoler, 1) it is a template, and 2) have you have any previous accounts? C56C 18:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Your first ever talk page edit was the citation of policy, and interest in removing a page. Asking if you edited before with another is hardly out of line. C56C 21:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ugh. This seems to be a common tactic by C56C. He/she adds biased/non-notable content to an article, and when people resist, he/she lobs baseless accusations at them. Eseymour 19:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, if you check out Dtoler's contribs, they do qualify as an WP:SPA. But it should also be noted, and I direct this to you all, that being a single purpose account is not equivalent to being a vandal. ever. And neither does it mean that all their comments should be ignored. What it does mean is that a complete assumption of good faith may not be in order, as they joined Wikipedia for the single purpose of influencing this article. But Eseymour does not, even in the broadest definition, qualify as an SPA, he has many significant edits to various topics. VanTucky (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • comment, most of these are not real "controversies", they are things that are, how shall I put it, “anonymously controversial”, as in an editor (or more likely a blogger) says “lookie here”, and puts it under controversies. For example, are his relationships controversial, and if so, according to whom? For most of the entries on the article, there are only primary sources indicating facts, and no secondary sources indicating the controversial nature of the facts, and as such violate WP:SYNTH. The same with Aristide, no one has labeled his relationship with him as “controversial”. Sam with the PAC money transfer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TDC (talk • contribs)
    • Majority? The Abortion group isn't anonymous, and he denies it. The Moore thing isn't. The Cuban remark isn't. Liberal argument isn't. If you have issue with a particular item, voting on here isn't the way to deal with a single content issue.C56C 18:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Cleduc 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The use of "controversy" articles is well-established practice. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 20:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge to Fred Thompson and/or related articles. --JForget 23:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as others noted above. Documented controversies in a article about that is usual, just see this entire article about Criticism of Bill O'Reilly more than a year old. Whether or not it is a sole article doesn't seem to be an issues, as noted above with WP:CONTENT FORKING. If someone this a particular issues is NPOV they should discuss that and not use that as a basis to attack the whole article. Plantocal 00:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge back into context at Fred Thompson. Controversies can be discussed in relevant sections of biographies, no separate "controversies section" or article are required given Fred Thompson's current short length. Italiavivi 00:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Um, if you take a look at the many examples listed above, you'll see that a "Controversy" split is one of the most common performed, especially in articles for major politicians. You give no reason for your request as such, only stating that this action "can be" taken. VanTucky (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge back in. No need for splitoff as yet. Will eventually be necessary IMO. (C56C is behaving intolerably, harassing people, etc. Please stop.) -- Y not? 03:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge the stuff worth keeping, but dump the crap about his wife being younger and anything of the same ilk. Lobbyist for abortion group but now pro-life . . . controversial. His wife is 40 years old . . . huh? · jersyko talk 03:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into text of main article, and not as separate "controversies" section. Same thing is proposed at Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, eliminating separate article and specious items and incorporating valid items into various main articles. Tvoz |talk 05:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm... I checked out the Clinton article and it was almost as long as the article on Clinton herself. It's probably safe to say that (assuming Thompson runs), his controversies article would be similarly long by the time election day rolls around. It doesn't seem very encyclopedic to spend half of an article about an active, living politician listing controversies. Merge Thompson's controversies back in for now, and then spin them off again should the "controversies" section in his bio get too long?Dtoler 15:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Clinton has several subarticles and related articles - some of the "controversies" are going to be integrated into the text and/or footnotes of the main article, but others will go into subarticles and some will be eliminated completely because they are absurd stretches. The point is that if something is controversial and notable, it should be integrated - listing items as controversies per se is what we're trying to get away from. As for Thompson, I guess we'll have to see what comes out of the woodwork if he decides to run, but I doubt any other candidate gets the kind of scrutiny and attack Clinton has gotten, so if it works in her articles (we'll see if it does), it should work for Thompson. Tvoz |talk 15:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: What's happening to the Clinton Controversies page is interesting. It seems likely that her Controversy page will be broken up and the material merged with various Clinton sub-articles. In other words, her Controversy stuff would be scattered to the wind. In contrast, the Controversy stuff for Thompson would go straight into his main article, because he doesn't have nearly so many sub-articles as Clinton. Thus, Thompson would be treated in a way that Clinton never has been --- and never will be --- treated. This seems unfair to me. There is plenty of stuff in the Thompson Controversy article to justify a separate article, and the main Thompson article is getting too long to conveniently accommodate all of that controversy stuff.Ferrylodge 19:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge or Keep - Now is not the time to delete this. Modernist 13:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge back into Fred Thompson or Keep - let's see how the campaign progresses. (Note that I'm a Democrat.) Bearian 14:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Everyking 00:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. But only as long as the article has legit references and as long as there are also articles on the controversies of Democrat politicians. -- Voldemore 22:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Merges, cleanup, removal of POV etc can all be done without AfDing the article. —Xezbeth 09:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Fred Thompson since POV fork. None of the featured articles on politicians contain separate controversies articles since such remoteness from the main article creates a POV fork. Rather than improving Wikipedia, Fred Thompson controversies puts Fred Thompson further away from good article and featured article status. The material that can be kept may be merged into the Fred Thompson and the Fred Thompson controversies content may be replaced with a redirect to Fred Thompson. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: There's a similar article for Hillary Clinton controversy and for Rudy Giuliani controversy. There's also a similar article for GW Bush and many others.Ferrylodge 18:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Wikipedia's article on global warming has attained FA status, even though there's a separate article on the global warming controversy. There are probably other FA examples like this.Ferrylodge 20:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge all credibly sourced and NPOV material into Fred Thompson, delete the rest.--JayJasper 13:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and not Merge if this information was necessary to be merged it would have been included in the Fred Thompson page already. NobutoraTakeda 18:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [2]
  • Keep This is a notable topic and not inherently POV, so long as each area is referenced and presented in NPOV fashion, There is too much notable material to be just added Fred Thompson article without overwieghting towards the controversies. AFD not place for cleanup. Davewild 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I am not convinced that this article should stay in the end, but it should be discussed on the related articles' talk pages among interested editors, not in an AFD.--Gloriamarie 20:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • keep - AfD is not the place to argue about things like future possibilities of POV problems, I think. The editors of the main Fred Thompson article decided after long discussion to fork out the "controversy" section into a separate article. If his controversies are notable (and I thought this guy was only ever an actor!) then they should be somewhere; the eds of his page figured they should be forked, so I'll assume that Wikipedia's working the way it should. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.