Talk:Jeri Kehn Thompson

Untitled

Is she even 18 yet?? ?Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.125.241 (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Origins of article

The multiplicity of edits, about 35 virtually all by one editor in one day, does not suggest a properly researched and carefully written article.--SilasW 20:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The article originated at another article. See here. Is there something about the article itself that suggests it wasn't properly researched and carefully written, aside from its (incomplete) history? And aren't five refs more than zero refs? I personally don't have any big investment in keeping this article, but I think it's now written a lot better than it was originally, and this material is much more appropriate here than in the Fred Thompson article (where it might end up again if this article is deleted).Ferrylodge 20:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is a good stub. Given that she is controversial, the article is wiki-worthy as people might be looking for information about her. C56C 21:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The number of edits have nothing to do with anything. It's just the style some people have. Sometimes because they grew up in a world of crashing computers where they learned to save often. Other times because they edit like some artists paint, taking time to stand back and look at the overall picture. 71.39.78.68 14:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Child in info box

Why was their child removed from the info box[1]? The children are mentioned in the context of the article:

In October of 2003, Fred and Jeri Thompson welcomed their first child. A second child was born to them in November of 2006. Mr. Thompson also has children and grandchildren from a previous marriage (which ended in a 1985 divorce).

The info box is pretty standard. C56C 21:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, "I do not agree with including info about kids. It's bad enough to have the NYT making sleazy accusations about Ms. Thompson. Let's keep the kids out of it, please." There are lots of political bios on Wikipedia that do not include the kids.Ferrylodge 21:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I read your summary (indeed I linked to it above), but didn't understand what purpose excluding information from the info box that is included in the body serves. There are many info boxes for politicians that do include kids, such as Fred Thompson. Walk me through the implication of having her children listed in the info box. C56C 21:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning kids is one thing, and providing their names is another thing. If the Thompson campaign wants to put the kids' names on their web site, then Wikipedia can too. But until then, it's just not appropriate. Mr. and Mrs. Thompson could have lots of very valid reasons for not wanting their kids' names to be plastered all over the internet, and that includes security reasons, and it also includes privacy reasons. Please humor me here, okay?Ferrylodge 22:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

innuendo

this article stumbles into innuendo in its last sentence, with a vague reference to being at odds with the New York Times as a follow-up to today's article in that newspaper, on which this article stub relies. The article makes poor and rather inept use of the Times article, and the last sentence sems an effort to disqualify the statement about "trophy wife,"but without explaining how the Times's reporter defines the concept. Actio 04:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)actio

The last paragraph of the article is certainly complicated. The New York Times is defending the use of what is generally considered nowadays to be a very pejorative word, in order to describe the wife of a possible presidential candidate. The last sentence of this Wikipedia article is an attempt to put this very unusual incident in context.

I'm not sure how the last paragraph of the article could be written any better. Perhaps you could suggest a rewrite here at the talk page? The article links to the Wikipedia entry for "trophy wife" and also links to the NY Times article, so I'm skeptical that the last paragraph of this Wikipedia article can be improved.Ferrylodge 10:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

January 0?

If her real birthdate in 1967 is not known, please remove that obviously erroneous date. Then again, was her birthday 31 December 1966 perhaps? Julyo 09:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

United Church of Christ?

I added a fact tag to this as her religious affiliation. Is there a source that she is a member? I know Fred Thompson is, so she may have joined when she married him. "Kehn" appears to resemble "Cohen" or "Cohn" or "Kohn", a common Jewish surname. Professor Glass 21:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC) In a recent interview with Byron York from National Review, Fred Thompson states that this is her first marriage.

Removing Sleazy Stuff

According to WP:BLP:

“ Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP)s must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. ”

There has been some stuff in this article since July about "working the poll" (inserted here), and I think it's not only old news now, but probably shouldn't have gone in the article to begin with. So, I'll get rid of that titillating material, if there are no objections. I'm only referring to the Scarborough stuff, and nothing else.Ferrylodge 08:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

stuff about if he wins the Presidency

I removed the material about if he wins, yadda, yadda, yadda per wp:not#cball --Tom 19:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Even without the speculation part, its not necessary to add, even if its to counter the NY article piece. Thanks, --Tom 19:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm 99.99% sure it was an article. It says so right at the bottom, and there's nothing to indicate otherwise.Ferrylodge 19:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I hate that the NY Times is a pay site :( --Tom 20:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reinserted the stuff about Grover Cleveland and John Tyler, but with footnotes to news articles that have compared their marriages to Thompson's. Hopefully, this will be acceptable. I think it's important that at least some of the rebuttals to the Times article be mentioned here, and the stuff I've reinserted does a good, encyclopedic job of that, IMHO.Ferrylodge 22:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Does this lady even warrant an article?

Why is she notable? Because she is married to Thompson? --Tom 19:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

See here:

"She wields tremendous influence over her husband's would-be presidential campaign." Also see, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Edwards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Obama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_McCain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Nathan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Hanover

Ferrylodge 19:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not impressed that the other wives have articles. it seems that some of them can stand on their own merrits regardless of who there husband is, see Donna Hanover One news mention so far for Thompson? I still don't think she is notable currently but will not AFD, instead, will wait and defer to others. Thanks for the response. --Tom 20:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

On Age, Kids, Notability, Poles/Polls and Things

I've watched this discussion with interest. I haven't felt the need to intervene until now, but have several points to make:

• I reinserted the ages of the married couple at the top of the final paragraph because it helps to explain the Times article's discussion. The age is noteworthy (and I speak as a 64 year old). I didn't do the math (59-35), because I figured that anyone interested could to it.

• I mildly disagree with leaving the kids names out, because I think it is customary. I don't see the big deal about adding them, and as an Encyclopedia, that should be the kind of info we're supplying. However, I didn't add them, but leave it to others.

• I believe that Ms. Thompson certainly deserves an article in her own right. She is the very influential spouse and advisor of a prominent US president candidate. (That Senator Thompson hasn't announced is just political tactics.)

• Someone once said in this discussion that no one ever made an issue of Dolley Madison's age gap. I recall distinctly that it was mentioned in my American history textbooks and classes in the early 1960s.

• I agree with leaving out the "pole work" (the usage of "poll work" above is a fun inadvertent pun). That stuff is sleazy and unnecessary.

YMMV, Bellagio99 01:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bellagio99. I have no big problem including the childrens' names, but really it should be up to the Thompsons whether they want their young kids' names all over the internet. See here. No names. YMMV.  :)Ferrylodge 01:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Their opinions really don't matter. Wikipedia cannot afford to give a public person any sort of control over their article. What matters is relevance. If the fact that they have children is relavant to our readers, then that fact should be here. If our readers would want to know their names, then their names should be here. Otherwise, leave them out. But the wishes of the Senator and his wife are completely irrelevant. Johntex\^talk 08:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit explanations

>>>The following explains the reasons for the changes I've made to the article.<<<

Rewrote the intro paragraph because Mrs. Thompson had a career before marrying the Senator and that she come first before mention of her marriage.

Also, the paragraph about Sen. Thompson left out the fact that he's been a lawyer and a lobbyist as well as a movie actor--in addition to his TV gigs. In fact, the first thing I saw him in was The Hunt for Red October. If his CV is going to be included in this article, it should be complete.

• The Times also suggested that Mrs. Thompson is a "trophy wife," according to what that term "originally meant."

Removed this because it uses the phrase "trophy wife" for a second time and is thus redundant. Given the fact that she had her own career prior to their marriage she is most definitely NOT a "trophy wife" according to the usual meaning of that term.

It also directly contradicts the paragraph above which states that the New York Times noted that she wasn't a trophy wife because she'd had a career before her marriage.

"Trophy wife" is a derogatory term almost always used to indicate a wife whose sole asset is her beauty; i.e. a woman without any substantial professional achievements. Mrs. Thompson does not fit the meaning of this term at all. The fact that she's accomplished reduces the use of the term "trophy wife" to a smear.

• "When they got married..."

Changed this to the more encyclopedic/scholarly "When they married..."

• Mr. Thompson also has children and grandchildren from a previous marriage (which ended in a 1985 divorce).

As this is an article about Mrs. Thompson and not the Senator, how many children and grandchildren he had with his first wife does not, in my opinion, belong in this article, but, rather to the Senator's article. Thus I removed the sentence..

Changed "Mr." Thompson to "Sen." Thompson since this the proper term when addressing him or referring to him. (While the United States does not confer official titles in the manner of British peerages, the holders of elected or appointed titles and military rank are allowed to use them for life.)

PainMan 08:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

married 17 years after divorce

I removed this factoid per relevance. We don't do this for other folks so why do it here? Thanks --Tom 13:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Doonesbury

The Doonesbury cartoon strip for today was the first I heard of her, so I don't fully get the punchline:

"Sorry, Ma'am, this is a family strip. You'll have to cover up."

"Oh, please. What is this, Afghanistan?"

Can someone explain this? Does this imply what it seems to imply? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.204.24 (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Kasenich mention

Sorry for the bad spelling. I removed the factoid about his age difference to his wife. I am sure this has been addressed in his artilce by now. I don't think this needs to be beaten more than it already has. Anyways, --Tom 14:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeri Kehn Thompson. 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/20070811190242/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmI2ZjM0Yzk4YzIyYzQzNzljZTlmZDk1Y2U3Y2NiNDE%3D to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmI2ZjM0Yzk4YzIyYzQzNzljZTlmZDk1Y2U3Y2NiNDE%3D

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)