Talk:Chris Dodd/Archive 1

This archive includes threads from Talk:Chris Dodd from the page's creation until December 31st, 2011.

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Misc

I've reverted some simple vandalism to the page. XanFan 19:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Fascist?

I've reverted the sentence calling Dodd a fascist. This is pretty clearly not neutral. It is only your opinion that gun control is fascism--it is not a fact. Therefore, it should not be included in the article.

Also, please be aware of the three-revert rule. Essentially, you're not allowed to revert a single article more than three times in a day. Just fair warning.

Again, please make sure that you clearly distinguish between facts and opinions when editing. Thanks, Meelar (talk) 18:03, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Please answer the following questions from a NPOV, as opposed to a MRPOV (Morally relative point of view):

Is the sky blue?

Do the stars shine?

Is grass green?

Is George Bush an evangelical christian?

Were Nazis fascist?

Do tyrannical governments always impose gun control?

Is someone who sponsors legislation originally authored by Nazis himself a fascist?

Is there a difference between having an open mind and having one so open that one's brains fall out?Mlorrey 18:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Hitler built the Autobahn. Eisenhower built the U.S. Interstate Highway system. Does that make Ike a fascist? Of course not. This is silly. Firebug 16:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I have seen friends who only wanted to exercise their constitutional rights gunned down by jack booted storm troopers. I know what is and is not fascism. Fascism is state dictation of what private property owners can do with their property. Are you declaring that the Roosevelt/Truman/Eisenhower era *wasn't* fascist? Over 60% of GDP went to national defense and/or socialist welfare programs during most of that period. My questions above were an attempt to learn from Meelar what his/her opinion of proper NPOV language should be. Mlorrey 20:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dodd is a pansy Castro sympathizer

If he became President, our country would go to hell fast. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.20.52.144 (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

very insightful. thank you for that rich and intelligent political commentary. 67.105.187.10 23:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Its true, he votes against our 2nd amendment rights and he says he is for the people. How can you be for the people and against their rights? Call me crazy, but I live in America where the final law of the land is the constitution and bill of rights. But how can someone run for president and vote against the constitution. Also he is against America’s involvement in Iraq. Does he not like Americans? I say he hates them. He's even damaged doughnuts from dunkin' donuts, a major american landmark.

131.109.225.4 23:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Waitress Sandwich

Surely there is a way to report this infamous episode without breaching guidelines or becoming libellous -- it is covered in multiple magazines.....? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.183.206.130 (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Bianca Jagger

Someone who knows Wikipedia better than I should add his relationship with Bianca Jagger to the page. See the Bianca Jagger article and many other references easily available with a Google search. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.160.109.194 (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Dodd Pod

Not sure too many people are watching this talk page but the recently created Dodd Pod should definitely be merged into this article. Pascal.Tesson 23:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I move that the Dodd Pod should NOT be merged with the Chris Dodd entry. The Dodd Pod is far to important a device to merely exists within another article; it deserves one of its own. The Dodd Pod is a separate entity, and we should treat it as such.

I just rewrote and merged it. Cheers. Haus^Talk 12:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

2010

This article cites that Chris Dodd said he wouldn't run in 2010. But he is clearly running. Regardless if he said he wouldn't, everything else in the universe says otherwise, including Chris Dodd. Even Wikipedia's article on the 2010 Senate elections states "Dodd is running for reelection". This article should either reflect that he is running, or omit the line about not running, as it is misleading. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that Dodd has announced he isn't running, I've shortened down the 2010 election section, which is too long and has been updated a number of times without having old info deleted. It still reads like a newspaper article, recording current events, rather than an encyclopedia giving an overview of the subject's public life. Frankly, I think the whole section should be deleted. If he's not going to be involved in the election, then an extensive section on his prospects in the election is not needed. BuckyRea, 6 Jan 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.22.174 (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Vice Magistrate

What is going on in the portion saying he was vice magistrate of the student body at Louisville, followed by (There was no such position). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.180.127 (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidate for President

"He is a candidate in the 2008 U.S. presidential election." Surely this should read, He is a candidate for the Democratic Party's nomination for the 2008 U.S. presidential election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.173.110 (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Bio Needs to Explain How Dodd Managed to Slip into the Reserves in 1969 and Avoid Vietnam

Dodd'd entry in the Biographical Directory of the U.S. Congress claims that Dodd served in the US Army from 1969 to 1975. In fact, though, Dodd was in law school and privately practicing law during those years. Wikipedia correctly notes that Dodd was in a reserve component, but doesn't explain how Dodd managed to slip into the Reserves and avoid being sent to Vietnam. As anybody who tried it can testify, you had to know somebody to get into the Reserves in 1969 because everybody was trying to do so to avoid Vietnam. Dodd was clearly seeking to avoid the war and to continue law school. By the way, I don't point this out as an enemy of Dodd; in fact, I like him. But a biography is a biography and it should be accurate and complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.144.184 (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

On August 2009 user:Dcmacnut deemed the following comment as vandalism and deleted it. As I do not consider it to be vandalism, I post it again:

you had to know somebody to get into the Reserves

This somebody probably was his daddy, who did a good job in Germany. 62.226.20.4 (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Nobody knows Dodd's reasons for joining the reserves. To imply a reason is editorializing and is neither neutral nor unbiased! Further, it did NOT guarantee avoidance of Vietnam. My entire squadron of the Air Force Reserve was called up and served in Vietnam - one year tours for individuals and several years for the squadron collectively. Twenty-two years later that same squadron was called up again, and we served a year in Operation Desert Storm. --24.62.247.188 (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Kentmich

In serious need of cleanup

This article definitely needs a thorough editing and cleanup. I made some minor revisions to the second section, but it would be good if someone better versed in Dodd's life and political history, with better writing skills, gave the whole article a once-over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaterTerribilis (talk • contribs) 17:46, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

His marijuana comment should read: "I DON'T go that far." (who changed it to "totally"?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.90.71 (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Remarks on Sen. Byrd

Why is there no mention of Dodd's "Trent Lott-esque" remarks about Sen. Robert Byrd, a former recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan. Why does a liberal Democrat making comments that can be easily interpreted as racist or pro-KKK not generate as much controversy as a conservative Republican making remarks that can be interpreted as pro-segregationist.129.22.33.30 17:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Got a reliable source? Haus^Talk 19:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ned Lamont Controversy

I don't see any controversy in the Ned Lamont controvery section, so I'm going to delete it. If someone is going to re-nsert it, please demonstrate someting controversial. --Cjs56 20:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Alleged" Sexual Assault

I have removed the line about Dodd's "allegedly sexually assaulting" a waitress. This is libel. Use of the word "alleged" does not clear Wikipedia from libel, especially if no charges were ever filed. The incident is still in the article, as it is documented in other places, but that wording is removed. The Newsmax link is also removed. Newsmax is an unreliable source to begin with, but the article linked to here is completly speculative. They take a part of Imus' interview and completely add their own imagined context to it. Neither Dodd nor Imus mention the incident specifically, so it is not a good source. nut-meg 03:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Online sources suggest that Kennedy threw the woman on Dodd, thus making Dodd out to be a passive player in this incident. If having a woman thrown upon you by a drunken Ted Kennedy is notable, then there's a small channel in eastern Chappaquiddick which needs its own article. (There might even be the potential for a whole WP:Category here.) I suspect the Roll Call referenced quote begins in media res, but someone needs to look up the dead tree source. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the above, I am removing the section. hgilbert (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

National Securities Market Improvement Act

The article now says:

Public Campaign's report cites the following examples: Dodd was an original cosponsor of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and he helped to organize the Senate's override of President Clinton's veto. The National Securities Market Improvement Act, which ultimately weakened oversight that would have protected investors. Dodd lined up as a cosponsor of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, an extension of the earlier securities litigation legislation. The bill was strongly supported by The Uniform Standards Coalition, an ad-hoc group of securities, accounting and high-tech computer firms.

Following the second sentence, I inserted the HTML comment (visible only while editing)

Preceding was not a complete sentence; perhaps the intent was "Dodd was an original cosponsor of the ..."?

Checking Thomas, I find that in 1996, there was a Senate bill, S.1815, the Securities Investment Promotion Act of 1996, sponsored by Phil Gramm (R-TX), and Dodd was one of six cosponsors. According to Thomas [1], "Senate passed companion measure H.R. 3005 in lieu of this measure by Unanimous Consent." H.R. 3005 is the "National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996" — the bill noted in the article. Somebody should review Public Campaign's report and see how they connect Sen. Dodd to this bill. Failing that, the incomplete sentence should be removed. Anomalocaris 16:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Imus comments

I added the section about Chris Russo criticizing Dodd based on the Imus firing. If you don't think they belong in that spot, please DO NOT DELETE THEM. Please try to find a spot for them in the article. I feel those comments were pretty important because Mike & The Mad Dog have a large audience including most of CT. Russo himself is a CT resident.

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick -- Zanimum 19:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

DoddPod

Is this section really notable? It seems ridiculous to me, and its source is a single page on his campaign website. I advocate removing it, but if not then it should really be reduced to a one/two sentence bit within the campaign section. Carl.bunderson 17:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well as no one has objected, I'm going through with it. Carl.bunderson 18:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Is Carl.bunderson really notable? He/she seems ridiculous to me, and his/her source is incest. I advocate removing it, but if not then it should really be reduced to a one/two sentence bit within the incest section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.51.209.21 (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"His parents were Britons"?

This article states:

His [Chris Dodd's] parents, Grace Mary Murphy and Senator Thomas Joseph Dodd were Britons;...

His father was definitely a native-born American, as his own article clearly states. Not sure about his mother.. But the article is quite wrong in implying that Senator Dodd the Elder was a native of Britain. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 02:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Right; people apparently think New London is somewhere outside London. My mother has a small ranch outside of London, so I know better. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

McCain-Kennedy

Er, the article now says this bill was voted on in 2007, but I'm fairly certain the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act was in 2005, and never even voted on. Anyone care to clarify? -- Kendrick7^talk 02:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, User:68.14.84.60 provided the clarifying sources. I'll wikify the refs. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Golden Leash

Removal of uncited, Golden Leash award, per WP:BLP, and WP:N

The Golden Leash award given Dodd is from a primary source. Who decided on the award? Who cares about the award? It doesn't even has its own wiki-page, seems to be a precursor to a single blog award. EvanCarroll (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Find information on this old content at diff —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvanCarroll (talk • contribs) 02:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

renamed section in talk -- decided to limit involvement in article rather than rewrite EvanCarroll (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Reduction of Dick Morris comments

User:EvanCarroll made a good start on breaking down the 'Criticism' section; I've continued that by further merging material into the Senate section or Presidential campaign section as appropriate. Also, I've substantially reduced the space given to the Dick Morris comments about him and Arthur Anderson and Enron. It's a legitimate topic, but given how short this article is overall it was getting WP:Undue weight. Moreover, Morris is the world's most unreliable source — he's a political hack, whether flacking for the Clintons in the 1990s or bloviating for Fox News in the 2000s. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal life

The article says "Dodd lives in East Haddam when Congress is not in session."

But this article "Iowa Results Lead Dodd and Biden to Quit Race" (new York Times, January 4, 2008) says: "Mr. Dodd had moved his wife and children to Des Moines to try to eke out at least a fourth-place finish, but finished a distant sixth." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/us/politics/04dodd.html?ref=politics

Perhaps the meaning is not clear, but if Sen. Dodd moved his family to Des Moines, then saying "Dodd lives in East Haddam" is incorrect ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmathu (talk • contribs) 08:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Moved" almost certainly means nothing more than "installed in a hotel suite or house of a supporter or friend"; in any case, with the primary over, Dodd and family have no doubt returned to their more permanent locations. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Role on Banking Committee

I suggest a section on his role as chair of the banking Committee. These issues are playing a big role in the news. For example I'm reading that Merrill Lynch is getting gobbled up by Bank of America with Federal involvement and that Lehman is moving towards insolvency and liquidation. Dodd's legislative record and his actions in regard to oversight of the financial system seem to me to be of critical importance. I'm happy to do some research and fill in some of the record if others think this would be useful. Eventually the Countrywide Scandal might even be a subheading? Maybe not as I realize it's pretty big. Anyway. That's all for now. (Wallamoose (talk) 04:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

is it "POV" to quote someone directly?

Some hack tried to put the Fannie/Freddie secion into the memory hole as "POV". Most of the material were direct quotes from Dodd himself reported in major newspapers or TV networks. This sort of b**l is Orwellian....politicians should have to defend their own statements. If Dodd claiming Fannie Mae was "sound" weeks before it failed was "negative", well, facts are facts and the facts were negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.141.78 (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section

The criticism section needs a lot of work. Stating that estimates project costs at 20 billion dollars to bail out the mortgage sponsoring firms in july and 200 billion dollars in september is hugely misleading. I will rework the section this friday if no one objects. --Pengutron (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, can you clarify which section you are referring to and why it's misleading? I didn't see a criticism section, and I was curious about your proposed change. Thanks.(Wallamoose (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Sure, the contrast between the two cost estimates makes it seem that Dodd was culpable of destroying 180 billion of tax dollars; while that could be true, it may also be that the first estimate was mistaken in measuring the size of the problem. Simply, no relevant source points to Chris Dodd as the culprit of this discrepancy and putting it in the criticism section is misleading. This section should simply be a collection of criticsm of Chris Dodd from relevant sources; not speculation on the part of the author. --Pengutron (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

AIG Campaign Contributions Noteworthy?

I was initially going to delete the mention in the lede that Dodd is the largest recipient of AIG campaign contributions from 1989 - 2009 because it sounds like it was written by someone with an ax to grind. It also has a typo in it. It seems properly referenced, but shouldn't this be moved farther down at the very least? Clemenjo (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Censorship is a bad thing

"If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Christopher Dodd, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Oh yeah, baby X MarX the Spot (talk)"

Every thing I've posted on Dodd has accurately quoted what has appeared in either a) a major CT or national newspaper; b) a major financial trade publication or c) a political blog of significant readership.

Frankly, what the rest of the AIG section contains without my posts is a whitewash of Dodd's ex post facto explanation for his somewhat inconsistent statements.

Is it NPOV when the largest paper in CT did a banner headline "Dodd Flip-Flops" or the third largest does an editorial "Dodd lies on AIG bonuses". Maybe the whole CT news media ought to be banned as a biased source? Does that work for the WP editors?

Perhaps the #29 best movie line of all time applies to Dodd's apologists [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.194 (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikiwashing is also a bad thing

Vandals have removed documented material critical of Dodd (citing major state and national publications or TV channels) and replaced it with uncited NPOV trying to rehabilitate his image. This is lame and stupid.

Perhaps the lamest attempt is to claim it is "alleged" Dodd lobbied President Clinton to get his crooked friend pardoned when he admitted writing the letter to the President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.194 (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "Congressional scandal" category

There are 2.15M hits on Yahoo for "Chris Dodd" and "scandal"

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22chris+dodd%22%22scandal%22+&fr=yfp-t-501-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

including numerous cites from the Wall Street Journal and the Huffington Post. Perhaps Dodd's various controversies are not "scandals" for many observers, but I think enough observers think that they are to merit the category. Some scandals did not lead to arrest,sanction,resignation or electoral defeat but were embarassing to the incumbent nonetheless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.194 (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Prostate cancer

mr chris dodd

I see that you are 67 and been diganoised with prostate cancer. How would you feel now if someone from the government was to appear at your door and want to talk about end of life treatment?????? But of course no problem, because you don't have public insurance. We the tax payers will pay your your way.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.57.79 (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Senator Dodd probably has Medicare with his Congressional insurance covering the deductible.Acme Plumbing (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The prostate cancer was mentioned in the intro but not in the main part of the article. This is bad writing. I have fixed it. I put it under his Senate career, just one sentence. Others may put a sentence in the intro if you want.

I just looked up prostate cancer in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a disclaimer so we can't be 100% it is correct. But Wikipedia has an article about prostate cancer staging. It seems like you need to do surgery to tell the stage. Yet, Dodd has not had surgery. So this thing about calling it "early stage" may be correct but is just spin and speculation. I do hope it's the "good" cancer and not the "killer" cancer but nobody knows.

So we have to be careful what we call it. We shouldn't repeat spin but then we don't want to call Dodd an idiot and a liar either (since he can't know the stage of cancer).

Of course, if Wikipedia is wrong about the prostate cancer staging article, then forget about the above.Acme Plumbing (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I just modified what someone else wrote (THIS IS THE PREFERRED VERSION)....

On July 31, 2009 he announced he had been diagnosed with an prostate cancer, which his aides say is at an early stage and will result in surgery during the Senate August recess.[18]

instead of (too positive)"On July 31, 2009, he announced that he had been diagnosed with an early state of prostate cancer or (too negative) "On July 31, 2009, he announced that he has prostate cancer, which he claims is early, but which he can't know because Wikipedia's article says you need a lymph node sampling to determine the stage and he hasn't had surgery yet." Acme Plumbing (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Acme Plumbing (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hartford Courant references

When you link to articles on the Hartford Courant, be sure to get links to the actual story rather then their "topic gallery" thing. There's at least one reference that's currently a "dead link" (in the Political positions section) only because what the link is pointing to isn't the news story.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 11:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

More cleanup necessary, Politial Views and Political Positions should be Combined

This is the first time I've been to this article. A lot of politicking going on here, for instance:

"and authoring the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA),[13] which guarantees employees unpaid leave in the event of illness, a sick family member, or the birth or adoption of a child. To date, more than 50 million employees have taken advantage of FMLA protections."

"To date, more than 50 million employees have taken advantage of FMLA protections" is politicking for the act and belongs in the FMLA article. A more neutral approach would be:

"and authoring the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA),[13] an unfunded mandate (costs paid by employer) requiring larger employers to provide employees unpaid leave in the event of illness, a sick family member, or the birth or adoption of a child."

perhaps the best way here would simply be:

"and authoring the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA),[13]"

and leave the description of the FMLA to the FMLA article.

There are still many similar non biographical entries here.

I'll combine the political Views and Political Positions sections in the coming days. I suspect this will generates a lot of edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angloguy (talk • contribs) 13:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Page name

Is there a reason this page is here instead of at Chris Dodd, which is much more commonly? -Rrius (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Does it matter? Chris Dodd redirects here. Dodd's Senate homepage says "Christopher J. Dodd," but his (now-defunct) election page says "Chris Dodd," though that could just be because it's an easier domain name to type in. "Chris Dodd" does appear to be somewhat more common, fwiw. THF (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Pages should be at the most common name per WP:Name. Also, it was at Chris Dodd, but was moved here without discussion. I'm not really looking for a discussion of the merits of moving, though. I'm wondering if there is any reason it's here before I go to the trouble of initiating a page move. -Rrius (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no discussion on the talk page. I'd ask the editor who made the move, since that's the person most likely to know why it was done or to object if you were to move it back. THF (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I read that editor's explanation in his edit summary, and I don't think it's a good reason. However, I want to give other regular editors here a chance to register their opinions. -Rrius (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Ucucha 13:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Dodd → Chris Dodd — Chris Dodd is more commonly known as "Chris Dodd" than as "Christopher Dodd". This page used to be at Chris Dodd, but was moved here with the explanation that "Christopher Dodd" is his full name. That is obviously not the proper criterion for page names, so the page should be moved back. —Rrius (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Support per nom. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Support per nom. THF (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Support common name. --William S. Saturn (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Support as it's the common name. Why can't we do this speedily? —Markles 17:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Support for same rationale. Is there a specific criterion for naming biographical articles? —Screwball23 talk 20:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose since the subject signs his name "Christopher J. Dodd"[3] (cf. Bill Clinton who signs .) This is an encyclopedia, not Facebook, and should use a style more like that of a newspaper[4][5][6][7][8], almost all of which use the full name of prominent political figures. However, note that Dodd's website has "Chris Dodd" prominently displayed on almost every occasion. — AjaxSmack 16:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's nonsense. First of all, if your initial criterion, how he signs his name, made any difference, then this article would be at "Christopher J. Dodd". Second, you are linking to profiles, not to articles–profiles aren't much of an indicator on what the most common name for the subject is. Such profiles, like people's signatures, tend to go for a formal tone; Wikipedia has chosen to go with what's more commonly used than with what is more formal. What's more, this article itself repeatedly refers to him as "Chris Dodd". -Rrius (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  - Christopher J. Dodd is fine. — AjaxSmack 01:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  - Actually, there is some merit to keeping his full name. Since there are newspaper articles that use his name, and abbreviations/nicknames/chosen names generally should not take precedence over the normal name, I think it might be good to keep it as is.—Screwball23 talk 22:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
    - Except that it is a question of which is the "normal" name. He is far more commonly known as Chris Dodd. That comes from more than just news articles. When he is referred to on news and new analysis shows, he is almost invariably called "Chris Dodd". Ditto the Senate floor and in committee hearings. Edward M. Kennedy is at Ted Kennedy, Christopher Bond is at Kit Bond, Addison Mitchell McConnell is at Mitch McConnell, Richard Durbin is at Dick Durbin, Samuel Brownback is at Sam Brownback, Robert Dole is at Bob Dole, Charles Schumer is at Chuck Schumer, Robert Menendez is at Bob Menendez, Russell Feingold is at Russ Feingold, Patricia Murray is at Patty Murray, John D. Rockefeller IV is at Jay Rockefeller, etc., etc. This is just one more like those. -Rrius (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
      - Yes other stuff exists (and you can review my comments at a recent similar request at Talk:Ted Kennedy for consistency). Some of the subjects such as Kit Bond, Sam Brownback, and Jay Rockefeller sign their names as such and are more frequently referred to by their nicknames in major media. Others such as Chuck Schumer should be moved to reflect the most common media usage. (Schumer's own website refers to "Senator Charles E. Schumer" in very large type at the top of each page.) You are likely correctly about how these politicians are referred to on video media but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a politics chat show, and usage should ideally hew more closely to other print media. Regular daily newspapers are not considered particularly formal and their usage provides, along with self-identification can be a useful guide for article titles here. — AjaxSmack 01:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
        Once again, how one signs one's name is irrelevant. One's banner on one's website is also pretty useless. You are simply wrong in presuming that print news is the only or the main basis we should use for assessing how people are commonly referred to. Wikipedia does not not have to be a "politics chat show" to take note of how Dodd is referred to in media other than print news stories. What's more, you are simply wrong to presume that Dodd is predominately referred to as "Christopher" in print news, anyway. He is referred to as "Chris" roughly as often. I also referred to how they refer to each other on the floor of, in this case, the Senate and in interviews. It is clear that unless you take the bizarrely narrow definition you do, he is more often known as "Chris Dodd". What's more, your belief that self-reference is a vital piece of the picture is misguided, as are your two criteria for judging it. Signatures and webpage banners are terrible signs. As I sign my name "First I. Last", but I am commonly known by a standard short form of my first name. That is not at all unusual. Your point about Chuck Schumer is hard to distill, because if you are saying his website banner somehow trumps common usage, I have no idea where you get that. The man so much better known as "Chuck" that it would be absurd to have his page at "Charles Schumer". Finally, I would note that your opinions on these matters did not prevail at Ted Kennedy. Instead, the community chose, per guidelines, to go with the most common form of the name. -Rrius (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
        After reading this winded response, it's becoming clear to me that there really is no reason to move the page. Christopher Dodd is fine. Oppose--Screwball23 talk 21:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
        So you think we should follow AjaxSmack's made up policy instead of the actual one? Interesting. -Rrius (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
        Actually, I wasn't proposing a policy at all. I was commenting on how to interpret existing policy: WP:UCN (use common names) with perhaps an eye toward WP:SOURCES (reliable sources) and WP:NOT. There are various shades and degrees of usage of nicknames that should be considered when deciding titles. At one end of the spectrum are cases such as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair who use their nicknames in nearly all contexts. But there are others who may be referred to by families and friends by a nickname but who use their full names in almost all public contexts such as Henry Louis Gates (Skip), Lee Kuan Yew (Harry), or Mikhail Gorbachev (Misha). In between fall those whose nicknames might have wider usage in reliable sources but whose full name is also widely used. I would argue that Scooter Libby, Abu Mazen, or Gus Dur are more commonly used but the titles of Lewis Libby, Mahmoud Abbas, and Abdurrahman Wahid are (correctly) preferred at Wikipedia. I mentioned the signature of the subject because it's a way of determining the subjects assessment of the formality of his own nickname. Usage in major English print media is another. Through discussion we can decide titles ad hoc just as is happening here. — AjaxSmack 01:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

- Whatever you call it, you put far too much emphasis on signatures, and ignore any source other than print media. The sources for determining commonality are not the same as determining what is a reasonable source. Print media is not the only, or even necessarily the main source. What's more, as Also, the print sources are more or less evenly divided (in part due to internal style choices that have nothing to do with commonality of usage). As a result, even putting as much weight on print news as you do, other sources of determining commonality are necessary. I have said, and you have not refuted, that he is more often called "Chris" when discussed (whether that be by news commentators, politicians, or average citizens). In consequence, I find it hard to understand your vote other than as a reflection of the bewildering weight you put on signatures. As an aside, it is worth noting that people whose edits show a great deal of interest in US politics and have voted here think it is obvious on its face that "Chris" is the more common name for him. -Rrius (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. The current name appears to be the most common. A google search on "Christopher Dodd" yields 4,390,000 hits and for "Christopher Dodd" we get 1,460,000 hits. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- I did a search for "Chris Dodd" -"Christopher Dodd" and got 1,460,000 hits, but "Christopher Dodd" -"Chris Dodd" gets 499,000 hits. In any event, Google searches are not great indicators on their own, and 3:1 doesn't seem overwhelming enough to base such an opinion on. -Rrius (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  - FWIW, adding the middle initial only adds 74K more responses to the 499,000. -Rrius (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dodd succeeded by Tim Johnson - source?

Could someone please tell me what the source is for saying Dodd is succeeded as chairman of the senate banking committee by Tim Johnson? I phoned up the banking committee and they haven't announced the new chairman yet. 16 Jan 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geliyormusun (talk • contribs) 10:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991

As stated in Gretchen Morgenson's book entitled Reckless Endangerment, Chris Dodd quitely inserted an amendment to the FDICIA that dramatically expanded the availablity of federal assistance to include investment banks and insurance companies. Prior to that amendment, the availability of federal assistance was limited to commercial banks. The author stated that this amendment was inconsistent with the stated purpose of the FDICIA, which was to limit the taxpayers exposure to failing financial institutions. The author concluded that the FDICIA amendment gave non-banks no incentive to act responsibly giving rise to the condition of "Moral Hazard" as it encouraged risk taking amoung banks because they knew they could be bailed out if they got into trouble. Fifteen years later, the Fed rescued AIG providing $180 billion in taxpayer's assistance.

LargoSteam (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.