Talk:Gerald Ford

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2023

from the personal life section, change "black" to "Black" when referring to Ward 70.19.91.161 (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. Found another instance as well. CAVincent (talk) 05:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Add link to Nelson Rockefeller in "Succeeded by"

It does not have a hyperlink. It should. 73.14.121.206 (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a link to NR right above in the infobox where he is listed as Ford's vice president. The name only needs to be linked-to once. Drdpw (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2024

Ford is honored at the museum of national park rangers in Yellowstone national park for being the only president who was formerly a park ranger. Ford was a park ranger in his college years. However, this detail is not in his biography and I don't have the authorization to add it. 62.74.57.66 (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamedeus (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

So Ford once had a summer job as a national park ranger while in college. This seems like a rather trivial fact. Drdpw (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

East Timor

@Maurnxiao: I removed your claims concerning East Timor. These statements are inadequately cited. Offering "nsarchive.gwu.edu" as the source is about as useful and specific as "nytimes.com". Readers should not need to read an entire Web site to verify the claims made. If you can cite specific journal articles or abstracts that support these claims, re-add the content with the specific sources. General Ization ^Talk 16:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

New sources have been provided. Maurnxiao (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Maurnxiao: This statement remained inadequately cited and has been removed. The US provided Indonesia with weapons that were directly used to kill civilians in East Timor. General Ization ^Talk 17:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

References

I have changed the subsection header to 'Indonesia and East Timor'. Drdpw (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Why? The highlight of America's operation was the backing of a genocide and shouldn't the header reflect that? Maurnxiao (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

No, the focus here is foreign policy of the United States in South East Asia, specifically, Indonesia, following the fall of Saigon. Drdpw (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

PLEASE stop removing the information about his administration's support for the Suharto regime as it perpetrated a genocide with US weapons and support. It is part of his foreign policy alongside the collapse of South Vietnam and SALT. Maurnxiao (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The information doesn’t belong in the article lead. That said, the article should, and does, detail that the Ford Administration routinely allied itself with despots who supported the U.S. in the Cold War. Drdpw (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Why doesn't it belong any more than SALT and Saigon? Maurnxiao (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Because it is not of the same magnitude/historical importance. Drdpw (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

According to whom? ~200,000 civilians killed, with US weapons, supplied by the Ford administration, and you don't think that is equally if not more notable than the other two? Maurnxiao (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Not in the lead of this article, no. Neither Ford nor anyone in the administration was directly involved in the planning of the invasion and no U.S. personnel were involved in the genocide. None of it was a stated policy objective of the Ford Administration. Drdpw (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The US knew what Indonesia was doing and it continued to supply them. Ford. Maurnxiao (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The subject is noteworthy, and is noted in the article. The U.S. turned a blind eye towards what several despots did with American arms and aid during the Cold War. Regardless, however, this specific instance is not among the most important foreign policy points meriting specific mention in the lead section. Drdpw (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It is among Ford's. Ford wasn't in office for very long but he did fund this genocide. This fact has been noted and emphasized by notable writers and analysists, such as Noam Chomsky. It is definitely at the top of his foreign policy events. Maurnxiao (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

P.S. It is only in the article because I added it myself. And even then it got removed the first time I added it. Maurnxiao (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like to hear what others think about whether the proposed edit to the lead meets MOS:LEAD. Drdpw (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has been up for more than a day and so far only we have been a part of it. Maurnxiao (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If no one else joins in this discussion over the next couple of days, then open a Request for comment (RfC) discussion inviting others to participate. Drdpw (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Support inclusion in lead: it's a major topic.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Maurnxiao (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to leave it in the body of the article but exclude it from the lead. While it may be a major topic globally, it isn't particularly important to Gerald Ford's biography, which is this article's subject. I hesitate to mention this, but also noting that a certain editor's behavior is concerning. CAVincent (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Ford's presidency was relatively short and his administration's support of Indonesia during this period has been noted more than, say, Lydon B. Johnson's support of the same government as it committed mass killings. And your last comment is an unhelpful innuendo. Maurnxiao (talk) 12:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

That does not mean that this should be mentioned in the lead of this article. Drdpw (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)mention

You could say that for just about every argument I make. Why would it not be enough given how relatively short his presidency was and the fact that it has been noted by several historians, activists and analysists judging his foreign policy? Maurnxiao (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That "Ford's presidency was relatively short" is irrelevant to whether this event is notable enough to merit mention in the lead, and such a weak argument that I at least saw no reason to respond to it. When other editors have made their opinions known, they have no obligation to respond to the latest iteration of your argument, and their failure to do so does not mean that consensus has been established. Your having the most recent talk page comment does not mean that consensus has been established. Your belief that your points are much more compelling than the points raised by other editors does not mean that consensus has been established. Finally, please do not mark an edit as "Minor" when it is clearly contested. The slow (or slow-ish) motion edit warring is bad enough, and such clear misuse of "Minor" is taxing on the ability of others to assume good faith. CAVincent (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Fantastic. You not liking an argument does not make it bad a one, and that's on top of the fact that you haven't made any arguments, you've just made the statement that it is not his most important foreign policy achievement. But it has been emphasized by various scholars and activists as one of the defining policies of his presidency. Him being in power for a relatively short amount of time plays into this. Nixon, Johnson, even Carter, etc... funded genocidal regimes, but they accomplished various other things (for better or for worse) whilst Ford has this and SALT, as Saigon wasn't even really his own making. So far two messages, and two thinly veiled attacks. Maurnxiao (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Consensus is achieved not only through number of votes but also by quality of arguments. Maurnxiao (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of tamale event from Public image

@Drdpw - You removed my description of Ford's 'culinary oops' from Gerald Ford's public image, saying it is 'not noteworthy to his public image'. What standard are you using? My edit is directly relevant to the previous statement, which concluded with '... cementing Ford's image as a klutz.' This event is a notable or noteworthy because it contributed to Ford's public image. Mbcoats (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Undone. Support inclusion as it cements klutz image.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

there is no indication at this incident entered the Broader public consciousness, or that it played any significant part informing Ford’s public image as a klutz. To make a compelling argument to the contrary, you are going to need to show more than just a few newspaper articles about the incident. You need reliable sources stating how this incident made a lasting impact on Ford's public image. Drdpw (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreeing that this tamale event does not belong. The lampooning by Chevy Chase was widely known at the time, still remembered today, and I assume it would be extremely easy to find reliable sources that it impacted his public image during and after his presidency. Merely sourcing that the tamale event occurred is inadequate. What would be needed is RS supporting that it had significant impact on his public image in the US, and I would be somewhere between surprised and astonished if such a source could be found. Also noting for the young 'uns and forgetful, very few Americans outside of Texas / the Southwest at the time would have seen anything klutzy about the event. In 1976, I also wouldn't have recognized a tamale if you handed me a plate of them. Based on my personal (and so, yes, anecdotal) experience, in the 1976 Midwest, hard shell tacos were still an excitingly exotic ethnic food, while soft shell tacos were not yet known to exist. CAVincent (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not in agreement with y'all, since I was around and remembered the tamale business well, even before I'd moved to Texas from the Midwest. Nevertheless, I see it is my error to use my experience in place of a published reference to color the edit I made. Easy for me to do, since searching the Internet for 'Gerald Ford tamale' yields news stories from 2021, 2016, 1976 2023, 2022 etc. The notion that it hurt Ford's image is very much alive and well in the public discourse. At any rate, if I find a reference that spells it out and I'll take another crack at it. Mbcoats (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think I've ever eaten a tamale (male or female), but this event was clearly newsworthy at the time and contributed to Ford's image as a klutz. Jack Upland (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The tamale incident is simply not as significant or widely known as the lampooning by Chevy Chase. It had no real bearing on the public perception that Ford was a klutz. Drdpw (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The sources say otherwise.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I’d consider the last version acceptably sourced for inclusion. I am still a bit skeptical, but the Atlantic, New York Times, etc. are reliable national sources rather than local Texas newspapers. CAVincent (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Drdpw I agree the tamale business is not as significant as the Ford's fall. However, I submit that it is noteworthy and should be documented. If not here, then where? Can you suggest better place for the tamale incident? In a discussion of presidential campaigning perhaps? Mbcoats (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it belongs here. Otherwise the image of Ford as a klutz relies solely on his slipping on the stairs of the aeroplane.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Jack Upland. It belongs. Cbl62 (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Y I have restored, with modifications, the Great Tamale Incident material. Drdpw (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. I like the tightened narrative and use of relatively recent, high quality sources to confirm relevance. Also, it's always nice to see BRD work to generate improvement! CAVincent (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm pleased with the outcome. Mbcoats (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)