Talk:Trent Lott

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

"Trent Lott controversy" merge[edit]

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

It's really unfair and reeks of political bias to have him has a controversies section, whereas most senators, even controversial ones, do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.86.204 (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenure as Maj. Leader[edit]

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)


About his remarks about Strom Thurmond[edit]

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)[reply]

To follow up on that last, the article has "Thurmond had based his presidential campaign largely on an explicit States Rights platform that challenged the Civil Rights Movement and later, the Civil Rights Act as illegally overturning the Separation of powers under the United States Constitution.", which is a weasel-worded way of saying "Thurmond ran on an unabashedly racist platform". Jhobson1 (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

further editing for pov politcal purposes[edit]

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[reply]

Current Event[edit]

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

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

Racism[edit]

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)[reply]


You are being disingenuous. He has no BLATANT hostory of racism, but he has made racist remarks and supported racist people and groups.

Even Rush Limbaugh described Lott's comments as indefensible. I belive Sean Hannity had issues with his comments too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:5500:5081:6D00:5DD6:F6CC:76A7:9F38 (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toupee[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
        • Unless you can prove it, it doesn't belong here.JTRH 19:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It takes a big ugly toupee to hide the point of his Klan hood - just kidding! Faveuncle 01:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle[reply]


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

OK, if that's not a rug, is it permissible to say he has a very bad barber? Tsuguya (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pix[edit]

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

Christian Identity[edit]

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)[reply]

Removal of BLP violations[edit]

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)[reply]

Infobox is too big[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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


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

Removed this paragraph per WP:BLP[edit]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gunzburger, Ron (2007-11-27). "LOTT ANNOUNCES RESIGNATION". POLITICS1.
  2. ^ "Gay Escort Who Knew Too Much". Big Head DC. November 26th, 2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Succession Box[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Ha! Follow WP:3RR but WP:IAR. There's good advice for ya... - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 03:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Fact tags[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "cnnresignation" :
    • [http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/26/lott.resign/index.html Senate's No. 2 Republican to resign by end of year] CNN.com, [[November 26]], [[2007]]
    • {{cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/26/lott.resign/index.html |title= Senate's No. 2 Republican to resign by end of year |date=[[November 26]], [[2007]] |accessdate=2008-02-01 |work=[[CNN.com]] }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. Please note though the URLs were identical, that your AI algorithms were unable to discern the "better" wrapping of {{cite news}} versus the "plain" [link] format. You are merely charming, but not witty, enough. For future reference, Mr Bot, I refer you to WP:Sofixit. WurmWoodeT 20:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Editing...[edit]

This page needs to be edited immediately.

Someone has changed the page so it reflects a very biased view of history. Read the sections on Trent Lott's removal from office; the assertion that "George Walker Bush" wanted a more liberal party, and that the "liberal" Republican party tossed him out is nonsense. If anything, you could call them the neoconservative party, but that is all completely speculation (including the theory that the Republican party was completely against paleoconservatives).

National Review[edit]

I removed a line about National Review forcing him out despite attacks being "unfair" or "untrue." If you only read the cited source that might be the impression you get, but the cited source is basically a rambling multipage screed against Israel. The actual article from the editors of National Review is here: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/224557/lott-should-go/editors in which they use the word unfair in saying that "But it is possible for someone simultaneously to suffer unfair attacks, handle himself and his predicament poorly, and be an underwhelming political figure. Trent Lott has managed a trifecta." i.e. not all of the attacks are unfair. The word "untrue" (or any variants) is not used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CptBuck (talk • contribs) 12:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Trent Lott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trent Lott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Trent Lott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Scruggs Controversy[edit]

I removed the tag after integrating the controversy section into Lott's post-Senate career section and removed information that didn't adhere to BLP guidelines. Quorum816 (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trent_Lott&oldid=1208136718"