Talk:Trent Lott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.


Contents

[edit] "Trent Lott controversy" merge

From talk on the "Trent Lott controversy" page:

Why is this in a separate article? It is of no importance except as part of his biography -- even when kings and presidents die, that event does not merit a separate article, and he was not even a head of state. His resignation was no more important than Kissinger's, for example, and neither one had any real impact on society -- they were media events, to be covered by newspapers at the time and then added to their biographies as footnotes to history. -- isis 14:27 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)
Agreed. this should just be part of the main Trent Lott article... -- User:kwertii

[edit] Tenure as Maj. Leader

There seems to be some confusion over Lott's tenure as Maj. Leader. The previous edit seems to interfer that Lott was Maj. Leader from 1996 to until Jeffords switched in 2001. This forgets the fact that Lott was Minority Leader when the Dems controlled the Senate from Jan 3-20, 2001, when Gore was still VP. To sum up:


Jan 3-20, 2001:

Dem 50 + Gore (D)
GOP 50

Jan 20-June 5, 2001:

GOP 50 + Cheney (R)
Dem 50

June 5, 2001-Jan 3, 2003:

Dem 50 + Jeffords (I) = 51
GOP 49

hoshie 22:40, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)


[edit] About his remarks about Strom Thurmond

About his remarks about Strom Thurmond and the defense of supporting Thurmond's position on national defense it should be noted that while Thurmond and southern dixiecrats had many problems with a liberal democrat like truman the thing that pushed Thurmond to run ,and at that time it was probably believed to be likly to cost Truman re-election, was that Truman stronly meant to support and take action on Civil Rights(I read this somewhere, need to check it) and that Thurmond's campaign might have had many positions it largly focused on segregation and civil rights. --rtaycher1987 08:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] further editing for pov politcal purposes

imho, further editing of the "contrast/durbin" paragraph belong on the durbin wiki page. it's getting a bit political

Faveuncle 00:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC) The original post did nothing to explain how or why Lott changed from Democrat to GOP. My edits give a more factual and informative flavor to the wholesale sea change in national politics that Lott's 1972 election to Congress was impacted by. Since Nixon in 1972, the old Solid South for the Democrats - sothern white voters - have voted exclusively for Republicans. Even Clinton in 1992 and 1996 and Carter in 1976 and 1980 failed to garner the majority of the white vote in any southern state, even their home states. Faveuncle 00:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

[edit] Current Event

Announcing future tomorrow 69.143.129.138 04:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

what??? --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 15:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racism

I have removed him from the racism category. It's obvious vandalism to put him in there. He has no history of racism. 75.3.4.54 20:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

oh please. Faveuncle 00:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

proof?

He was a white Mississippi Southern Democrat in the 1960s. Mississippi Democrats had ensured that Mississippi had the most and worst Jim Crow laws in the nation at that time. He worked for a segregationist Democrat congressman until such time the national Democratic party abandoned segregation. Later, he fawned over Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat candidacy. He certainly knows how to pander to the worst in his constituents.

Look, you can whitewash Lott's and Mississippi's history if you like, but to not categorize 1960s Mississippi government (which Lott was an instrumental part in) as racist is truly hilarious. And also a lie.207.101.64.178 18:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

OK then can we agree that Al Gore Sr was a racist? He was a southern Democrat voting against the Civil Rights Act. Where do these ridiculous accusations stop?

It is not a ridiculous accusation, it is the truth. What does what Al Gore's daddy have to do with Trent Lott - if you are the person who said that Trent Lott has no history of racism, then you are lying. And if you said that Al Gore Sr. had no history of racism, you would be lying about him too. Don't cover up your willful misstatement of fact by calling what I said a ridiculous accusation - I am not the one lying here. Faveuncle 01:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

with all due respect, Lott was never a part of the Mississippi state government in the 1960's - he was in college, then law school and after he graduated worked for a law firm on the Coast until he left Mississippi to go to Washington in 1968 to work for Bill Colmer - so he could not have been part of the Mississippi state government of the time, much less an instrumental part of it


Faveuncle, where you you get the right to make the statement in the page "most white segregationists became more willing to vote Republican after the national Democratic Party strongly endorsed racial integration."? The facts are that ever since Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves the democratic party was the main party that was promoting segregation. JFK promoted primarily segregationist judges in order to placate southern democrats. A major civil rights event in Little Rock ( Little_Rock_9 ) was brought on by a democratic governor Orval Faubus . It was a republican president that first intervened and forced the integration of the schools in Arkansas and the rest of the south Dwight_D._Eisenhower. It is simply a false statement to say that "the national Democratic Party strongly endorsed racial integration". At the very least it is a matter of debate. Pj367 17:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, but only up to 1964. The national Democratic Party, including the Johnson Administration (but not those Democrats who were Southern elected officials) "strongly endorsed racial integration" in the form of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It passed with quite a lot of Republican support, as well. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) was one of the most important people in its passage. Sen. Barry Goldwater voted against it on libertarian grounds, not because he was in favor of segregation, but that was good enough to win the support of a number of prominent Southern segregationists, most notably Sen. Strom Thurmond, who switched parties in order to be able to openly support Goldwater's candidacy. Ever since that era, the national Democratic Party has been much more supportive of civil rights than the national Republican Party has been, and most of the Southerners who were segregationist Democrats 50 years ago (and their descendants) are Republicans now. So the statement as Faveuncle made it is factually accurate and supported by a great deal of historical evidence. JTRH 18:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toupee

  • Removed "Senator Lott wears a toupee." No evidence and not documented.~~
    • Have you ever seen a picture of the man? I could spot that rat's nest a mile away!
      • He's got to have the worst toupe in the Senate, and that's saying something. Restoring. Griot 07:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Unless you can prove it, it doesn't belong here.JTRH 19:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
          • It takes a big ugly toupee to hide the point of his Klan hood - just kidding! Faveuncle 01:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle


he does not wear a toupee - he does, however, use copious amounts of hair gel and a blow dryer

[edit] Pix

Why are so many of the picture links broken? Mdotley 22:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Identity

I removed a remark about "support for Christian Identity" because it's a preposterous charge; Christian Identity includes the assertion that Jews are the descendants of Satan and that blacks do not have souls. Trent Lott has never indicated anything resembling those sort of sentiments and whoever wrote the Christian Identity note is an imbecile.

--The Lizard Wizard 04:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resignation due to gay scandal?

I heard Hustler is about to out him. True? 68.33.148.172 (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No idea whether it's true. Quite a number of blogs have mentioned that he was seen repeatedly with Benjamin Nicholas, a male escort. [1][2][] However, I don't know if it's been verified. samwaltz 03:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I've seen this mentioned on blogs as well, but we can't include it here unless it's verified by a reliable news source. At the moment, it's just rumours - and, well, what politician hasn't been the subject of gay rumours at some point? We can't include such claims without proof, not least due to the biographies of living persons policy. Terraxos 01:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Two references to the rumours were included in an earlier version of the article ([3]) but myself and another editor removed them as unsourced. LeContexte 11:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of BLP violations

I removed a lot of material from this article today for violation the biographies of living persons policy. This is irresponsible for an article on a high profile figure like this. There was an entire section accusing him of pork spending that had only one source (and it was a blog). He was also accused of being involved with a white supremacy organization and even attributed with a quote; this was all unsourced as well. I believe some of this material may be able to be restored once sources are provided, but someone needs to watch this page more closely. I left in some material that has no source but is obvious, such as his voting record, BET appearance, and quotes from his own book, but this needs to be taken care of as well.--Cúchullain t/c 21:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox is too big

The infobox is too big… it ought to be reduced somehow.—Markles 16:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

See how I made his succession box (if it hasn't been reverted again). Would doing it that way work better? Foofighter20x (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] < http://breauxlott.com > < http://breauxlott.com/images/header.gif > Chester Trent Lott John Berlinger Breaux


[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 16:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed this paragraph per WP:BLP

“ However, others suggested another possibility that porn publisher Larry Flynt and others may have played a role in the stunning announcement[1] - e-mail and other records confirmed that Lott and a gay male escort have met on at least two occasions.[2] ”

I removed the above as its reffed by two blogs which is generally not WP:RS and certainly not in a WP:BLP. Re-add if verifiend and written neutrally and within WP:UNDUE guidelines. Benjiboi 04:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Succession Box

I removed the Majority/Minority offices because they are consequent to another office--i.e. you wouldn't put Bill Clinton as President under political offices, and then put Commander-in-Chief under him as a military office. That's not how succession boxes work. As such, being majority/minority leader is consequent of two things: 1) being the party leader, and 2)your party being in the majority/minority, respectively. Thus, it's more efficient to just put it under the party office of party leader. Also, all the links for those office all go to the same page, which shows that the status jump back and forth. Foofighter20x (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So move them down to the next section for party offices, don't just totally delete them. I mean, seriously. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 00:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You aren't understanding me. "Senate Majority Leader" is not an office, it's a status. The same with "Senate Minority Leader." The actual office held is "Senate (Party) Leader." They don't elect Majority or Minority Leaders. They elect Party Leaders. Whether one then leads the majority or minority is based on that party's respective share of the body. And as I said before, removing which hand the potato happened to be in doesn't affect the links. SMajL, SMinL, SDemL, and SRepL all link to the same page, and that is Party leaders of the United States Senate. I suggest you go and read the Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines... Take special note of 3.A. Foofighter20x (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
There are two sets of succession boxes on this page, and they're redundant. The whole thing could be edited out, but I want to point out to the above poster that you're incorrect: "Senate Majority Leader" is a separate office from "Senate Minority Leader." It isn't automatic that the person holding one job gets the other when the party majority changes. The parties hold elections for their leadership every two years. A party which had just lost its majority could decide to clean house and choose a different person as "Minority Leader" from the one who had just served as "Majority Leader." The terms "Democratic Leader" and "Republican Leader" are fairly recent; if I'm remembering this correctly, when the Republicans gained control in 1981 and Robert Byrd was no longer the Majority Leader, he decided he preferred the title "Democratic Leader" to "Minority Leader." But the references in Federal law and in the rules of the Senate are to the Majority Leader and Minority Leader. So it's appropriate for them to be listed separately. JTRH (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I never said that the Majority and Minority Leaders were the same thing. Neither did I say the swtich between them was automatic. How on earth did you get that? Also, please provide links to your assertions. I'm not taking your word for it. When you take take the definitions given for Party leaders of the United States Senate together with what's given under Floor Leader, what I'm saying is way more consistent than what you've just said.
And since I apparently need to spell it out:
  1. The new senators are seated.
  2. The new senators elect their party leaders. The Democrats thus select the Senate Democratic Leader. The GOP selects the Senate Republican Leader.
  3. By default, those two leaders become the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, with regards to whichever party has more seats getting the former.
  4. If majority control changes hands, typically the Majority and Minority leaders get flipped, but that is not always the case as the new arrangement could lead to leadership changes within each party where either one or both are replaced. Also, leadership isn't set in stone for the entire two years of the Congress. All someone has to do is make the motion at the next meeting and carry enough votes. Majority and Minority Leaders and Party Whips
Using Allstar's logic, however, we should go back and put into each U.S. President's succession box both of the following: President under political office, and then Commander-in-Chief under military office. That's what is redundant. Just becuase B is a consequence of A doesn't mean one should defer to B, or list both.
One more thing. Look at what the constant switching of control has done to the infobox at the top of the page. It's massive and needs to be pared down. Foofighter20x (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You said that "the actual office held is 'Senate (Party) Leader'." From your explanation of your edits to the succession box, unless I'm misunderstanding you, you seem to think it's relevant only that Lott was the Republican leader from Date X to Date Y, but not that he was Majority Leader for some of that time and Minority Leader for another part of it. I'm saying that it's two separate offices that should be listed separately. Did I somehow misunderstand what you meant? I didn't suggest that you should "take my word for it," but I'd recommend that you read the historical section of the Senate Web site at senate.gov. That's everything you'd need (or want) to know about it. JTRH (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I was asked by Foofighter20x to intervene, but neither of you are going to like what I have to say:
    • I dislike the way the "Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization" project has created various classes of succession. Who cares if it's a party position, a political position, an elected position, etc? Just put them all in chronological order and be done with it.
    • It doesn't matter how official the position is. For that matter, "Dean of the House" is not a real position and "President Pro Tempore Emeritus" is official but ceremonial. We include them in succession boxes because it helps the reader understand when' the person served in those positions and who came before/after.
    • Commander-in-chief should not be included in a president's Succession Box because ALL presidents are C-in-Cs. However. Not all Majority Leaders are Republican Leaders and not all Republican Leaders are Majority Leaders.
    • Infoboxes are different from succession boxes. And I hate infoboxes, but that's a different discussion.
    • Please follow the Three Revert Rule.
    • Most importantly: Ignore all rules.
    • —Markles 03:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Ha! Follow WP:3RR but WP:IAR. There's good advice for ya... - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 03:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping for guidance and a third opinion, not support. :p But, I do appreciate the time you took to participate. :D Foofighter20x (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fact tags

No, my edit should not have been reverted. Factual information such as that he was pushed out of leadership and was repudiated by the White House should not necessarily require a citation. CopaceticThought (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually everything we publish should not only be true but verifiable. Try searching Google books for reliable sources. Benjiboi 07:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)