Talk:Dick Thornburgh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

[edit] Trivia

I deleted the Trivia section. It was completely pointless, and had no real importance or revelance. I'm sure the editors would agree with the delete. I know that some would say that's the point of trivia, but discussing whether he actually saw a pornographic film, or made a verbal blip while trying to make a joke about an odd question on a talk show 16 years ago isn't trivia, and isn't even important, (as I said earlier). I strongly disagree with having it in their because it is so irrelevant and pointless, again all of this is a restatement of what I said earlier. --68.229.147.56 20:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Sparks libelled?

Karl Rove & Company's successful lawsuit against Dick Thornburgh is described in each man's Wikipedia article. Each description mentions that the judge, Sam Sparks, was an appointee of George H. W. Bush in a way that hints at impropriety. Alas, Times v Sullivan may have vitiated the judge's remedies under libel law.

The facts in the account may be, strictly speaking, true. But the facts are arranged in a way to imply wrongdoing. Even though neither article explicitly charges any wrongdoing, don't they, in effect, make an unsubstantiated charge of misbehavior against a living person?

Is this necessary, absent some evidence of malfeasance?

Mr Rove seems to be especially unpopular, but doesn't this language represent an unwarranted slur against Judge Sparks?

Cheers, --AndersW (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)