Jump to content

Talk:Tom Carper

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stilltim (talk | contribs) at 08:18, 26 July 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Wrong Information

According to the New York Times Online (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/elections/2006/DE.html) Carper won the 2006 Senate election with 70% of the vote, not 67%. Can someone explain where the vote percentage for 2006 in the Infobox came from? U R A GR8 M8 07:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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.Dcmacnut 13:52, 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 Broughton 13:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
better attribution for the version at this moment added. stilltim 22:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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. stilltim 01:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the enlightment; I'll drop the suggestion. John Broughton 19:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: if it is common to use the nickname for politicians (like Ted Kennedy or Chuck Grassley), why don't we use Tom Carper for the name of the article? Or is he referred mostly as Thomas R. Carper? Cassandro (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Tom" vs. "Thomas R."

I think it should be Tom Carper. His senate website, http://carper.senate.gov, is titled "Thomas R. Carper…" but most of the references there are to "Tom." After all, if he goes by "Tom" AND WP policy says we should use "Tom" then why make an exception here? Readers are going to search for "Tom" and Google will prefer "Tom." Those are WP standards. —Markles 14:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see both names used, but the subject's own campaign website uses "Tom", so that is a good indication that it's the preferred name.   Will Beback  talk  19:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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.VitaleBaby 04:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Carper&oldid=304258722"