This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I'm not sure where that 67% came from. Could have been a mistake in math, since there was a Libertarian candidate for that office that garnered 1.1% of the vote. The official Delaware election results show Carper with 70.2% and Ting with 28.7%. I've corrected that in the main article, with slight rounding to conform to the round numbers from the other elections.Dcmacnut13:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Broughton13:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Broughton13:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. stilltim01:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. stilltim02:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.VitaleBaby04:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
