Talk:David French

Delete Debate

See article's entry in the Articles for Deletion page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Statesman 88 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

One of the references for this page refers to the subject as a "random dude off the street". I don't think that Mr. French's life story needs to be preserved in Wikipedia at this time. Dethslayer666 (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The possibility of an independent run for president is pretty noteworthy, if he runs. 99.108.45.119 (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

He's a random dude on the street compared to more "establishment" figures in politics, perhaps. It is easy to argue he is not notable enough to be a Presidential nominee, but it is hard to argue that he is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Statesman 88 (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can potentially run for President. At this point he is a hypothetical candidate for a hypothetical campaign. By this criteria he is no more noteworthy than any other natural born American citizen over the age of 35. Dethslayer666 (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 1 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum ¤ 04:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

---

David A. French → David French (writer) – Not very commonly referred to with the middle initial. He is best known as a writer. WP:INITS says not to add uncommon names for disambiguation only. JFH (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC) -- Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

When I created the page, I wasn't sure what to call it since there were already several other pages for David Frenches. I considered calling it David French (writer), but I decided against it because I could have just as easily called it David French (lawyer). I wasn't sure what he was more notable for, writing or law. It seems like a toss-up to me. I do agree a page name move is probably a good idea, I'm just not sure what the best new name would be. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries, it's not an crystal clear case, but I think it's a little better to have a parenthetical to make it easier to find. It seems like most sources are introducing him as a writer than a lawyer. --JFH (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

At the very least, we should make sure that both David French (writer) and David French (lawyer) redirect here. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose David A. French looks just fine. There's already a David H. French at the dab page; we don't need to identify all David Frenches by their profession. Note that his author bio at Amazon lists him as David A. French, so I see no reason to suppress the middle initial. I would however support Safehaven86's suggestion to create a (writer) redirect, but not additional (lawyer), (soldier) or (veteran); let's keep it simple. — JFG ^talk 12:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Support: pageview analysis shows that of all the David Frenchs, David A. French is the most popular search, but not by a significant enough margin. Adding "(writer)" would help identify. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - natural disambiguation is well suited for this person. Even when the current title may not be as commonly used as ambiguous "David French", the current title is "optimal" per policy. George Ho (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name

He should be listed as David French, not David A. French. He's not Michael J. Fox. He's never referred to by his middle initial.

I am going to move the page to address this Jaydavidmartin (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Controversy

Why was my updated edit removed? It was balanced and the two critics' views shortened, as requested. Can someone please explain this? THis constroversy is important, substantive and worth discussing.

User: o5o7 —Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

No response? I think it's fair to give this a week to see if anyone will argue the case and then I'm restoring what seems to me a balanced edit on an important controversy. Thanks.

User: o5o7 —Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this content is appropriate given the requirements of due weight. First, the text is seven paragraphs long; the entire rest of the article, including the lead section, is ten paragraphs long. I don't think devoting 40%+ of the article's total space is appropriate. Second, the text is a lot of inside baseball; it's basically a back-and-forth discussion between French and critics further to his right. There's no mention of receptions or reactions among centrists, liberals, libertarians, leftists, etc. to French's writings or statements. It's an interesting window on the American right and their internal battles, but presenting that without context or views outside the American right seems wrong to me.

I'm not opposed to having a "reception" section, but not at this level of length, and not focusing exclusively on the right. Also pinging Kleuske since he also removed this content. Neutrality^talk 19:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

She fully concurs with this assessment. Kleuske (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The controversy has obviously become important and widely discussed. I tried to write a fairly balanced account. It was blocked. I'm not bothered to try again. But I'm registering here my belief that the blocking of this controversy from the page was wrong-headed and possibly partisan.

User: o5o7 —Preceding undated comment added 12.26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Presidential vote

Hello,

I recently ran across an interesting fact in an article from Reason: in the 2020 election, French received one write-in vote for the presidency in Vermont (one of the only states to break down the number of votes received by each write-in online). I was wondering whether this is worth mentioning in the article. I’m admittedly not well-versed in judgment calls like this, but my gut tells me “no” — one person deciding to write in his name doesn’t seem particularly notable (Reagan and a misspelled Eisenhower received more Vermont votes than he did in the 2020 election!), and the author of that article regards it as more humorous than important — but on the very, very off chance that someone begs to differ, and thinks this is worth noting, I just wanted to put it out there.

(Note: moments ago, I attempted to post this, but it did not register on the Talk Page, so allow me to try again.)

Thanks, —Historical-idealist (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 18 May 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to David French. (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 22:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

---

• David French (political commentator) → David A. French (edit: or David French)
• David French → David French (disambiguation)

– WP:PTOPIC for the name David French. David A. French is good WP:NATURAL disambiguation. David French should redirect to David A. French. Page views, WikiNav. Schierbecker (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. JuniperChill (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. David French, the political commentator, is credited as David French when he writes for the papers. DuncanHill (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
• Move to David French. If he's the primary topic (and I agree he is), there's no need for any disambiguation, natural or otherwise. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Move to David French and I agree that he is the primary topic. Killuminator (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the first proposed move I guess that David French is a primary topic, so the best possible conclusion for the first move page is keep the current title but without any disambiguator whatsoever (just David French). 103.111.100.82 (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose the original proposal per WP:COMMONNAME. Graham (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

French was "canceled" by the Presbyterian Church in America

Full story here. French was attacked by the alt-right, Christian Nationalists, Trump supporters, and finally, his own church, who he now realizes (after all this time?) is full of racists, homophobes, and authoritarians. This should be included in the article. Much of the attacks on French began after he and his wife adopted a black child from Ethiopia. From there, it all went downhill. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I looked and was not able to find a good source for this. Maybe in a couple days something will appear. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That's fine. I think an opinion piece by the subject is relevant and can be used for their own bio, but it makes sense to wait for secondary sources. Just wanted to leave the update for anyone actively involved in this page. On another note, I did recently create God & Country, which has French in it. He talks about it here. Can his role in the film be mentioned here? Viriditas (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be, yes. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I've put the article material in, as it also clarifies that he was a Presbyterian, not an evangelical as many claim. No idea what he would claim now. I also rearranged the section. Mangoe (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I was hoping we would get a secondary source, but I think what you put in is fine. One small nit, the source doesn't actually say when he left the church except that it was 2022 or later. When he was invited to the panel in March 2024 he had already been away from the church for some time. Here's a secondary source [1] but it doesn't really say anything more than what is in the editorial. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)