Talk:Bob Barr 2008 presidential campaign/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I propose this page be moved to Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008. Barr has used the name Bob throughout his political career, and there's no indication that he's going to change his preference for his presidential campaign. His biographical article also uses Bob -- Bob Barr. -Noca2plus (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I'd do it myself but I don't have that privilege yet.--William Saturn (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I smell consensus in the air. I'll submit the request at WP:RM. -Noca2plus (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support as usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I am not aware of any rationale for using "Robert", which is not consistent with the names of other campaign pages, which have used the name the politician is generally known by. creativename (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support per all of the above arguments. Plus, it would avoid needless confusion for Wikipedia readers.--JayJasper (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Yes please - I just came here from trying to implement this move, because Bob Barr never goes by "Robert Barr". Using the name he actually uses satisfies the principle of least astonishment. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• I support the change to "Bob" but why is 2008 necessary as part of the title? Station1 (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, including 2008 in the title will prevent confusion, and an additional move, if Barr runs again (in for example, 2012). For example, John McCain has articles at John McCain presidential campaign, 2000 and John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. I've created Bob Barr presidential campaign as a redirect to this article. In the future, that redirect can be changed to point to the most recent (or most relevant) campaign. -Noca2plus (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. No one calls him Robert. — crism (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Pro-life stance?

The lead for this article casts Barr "as an advocate for Pro-life issues". It's not at all clear that this is a major thrust of his campaign. For example, at http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues, there's no mention of abortion. Further, under "individual liberty" on that web page, he states "Finally, an increasingly intrusive Nanny State is watching over our nation, meddling in the lives of its citizens." Which, taken at face value, seems to argue for a pro-choice stance. That said, I imagine that Barr is pro-life (the Libertarian Party takes no official position). What's at issue is whether those beliefs are prominently displayed by his campaign. I believe they are not. -Noca2plus (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to border security.--William Saturn (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the stance of the LP is that the government should not be involved, which is essentially pro-choice. creativename (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the LP takes no official position for the sole purpose of allowing LP candidates to assert their own specific positions on this highly contentious issue. As you imply, most Libertarians would be opposed to; for example, government funding of abortions, or a federal prohibition of all abortions. However, some Libertarians (myself included) believe that the government does have a role in protecting the right to life of the unborn. And indeed, Roe v. Wade allows states to pass laws prohibiting third-trimester abortions. Now, I'm not sure I would call myself "pro-life", but I do believe that most third-trimester abortions should be illegal. Further, I believe it is the responsibility of government to enforce that ban. -Noca2plus (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I just got back from Denver; the existing 2006 language was preserved in the 2008 platform, that the government should “neither compel nor prohibit abortion.” Individual Libertarians may disagree, but we are mostly agreed that the government should not be the agency of resolution, as creativename says. — crism (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected -- http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml. Perhaps I'm not as Libertarian as I thought. -Noca2plus (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations

The internet inline citations used in this article are improperly formatted. Internet citations require at the very least information on the title, publisher and last access date of any webpages used. If the source is a news article then the date of publication and the author are also important. This information is useful because it allows a reader to a) rapidly identify a source's origin b) ascertain the reliability of that source and c) find other copies of the source should the website that hosts it become unavaliable for any reason. It may also in some circumstances aid in determining the existance or status of potential copyright infringments. Finally, it looks much tidier, making the article appear more professional. There are various ways in which this information can be represented in the citation, listed at length at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The simplest way of doing this is in the following format:

<ref>{{cite web|(insert URL)|title=|publisher=|work=|date=|author=|accessdate=}}</ref>

As an example:

• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/3859|title=Avoiding a Thirty Years War|publisher=www.discovery.org|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2006-12-21|author=Richard W. Rahn|accessdate=2008-05-25}}</ref>

which looks like:

• Richard W. Rahn (2006-12-21). "Avoiding a Thirty Years War". The Washington Post. www.discovery.org. Retrieved 2008-05-25.

If any information is unknown then simply omit it, but title, publisher and last access dates are always required. I strongly recommend that all internet inline references in this article be formatted properly before this article undergoes any review processes, and indeed this is something that a reviewer should insist you do before promoting your article. If you have any further questions please contact me and as mentioned above, more information on this issue can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Anon added section removed from article.

I have removed the following from the article to the talk page for discussion:

"Gold States" strategy

Barr's campaign has begun to lay out a strategy by which he could win the election. There are a total of 538 electoral votes (435 represent Congressman, 100 for Senators, 3 for Washington D.C.). Traditionally in order to win the victorious candidate must reach a majority, 270 electoral votes - but if no candidate reaches that number, the election is thrown to Congress to decide, with each state having one vote for its entire delegation. The field is leveled. California with its 50+ electoral votes gets one vote. New York, Texas, and Illinois have exactly the same voting power as Montana, Wyoming, and New Hampshire.

In a tightly contested three-way race, it is possible--perhaps even likely--that no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes. If Barr is able to win just over one third of the electoral vote (180 electoral votes) while the other two candidates split the remaining electors with 179 each, Barr will be able to claim the mandate of the most electoral votes going into that congressional decision-making process. Barr need not win a majority of all votes cast even in any given state to win the electoral votes. Virtually all states give all electoral votes to the recipient of the largest number of popular votes.

If Congress is unable to agree to the selection of one of the two "major party" candidates, Bob Barr also then becomes the ideal "compromise candidate". McCain is loathed by his Republican Senate colleagues, who can use such a compromise to get back at McCain for his grandstanding and his outbursts. McCain is also distrusted by conservative Republican Representatives, who would have fonder memories of Barr's time in the House. Obama, on the other hand, is at the head of a party fractured by a grueling nomination process, and some die-hard Clinton supporters in the House and Senate - especially woman who experienced the sexism of some Obama partisans - may be so embittered by the tone of the race that they will take the opportunity to vent their frustration by also agreeing to such a compromise.

Barr's campaign has proposed a "Gold State Strategy", aiming to garner 197 electoral votes, while only needing to compete in 18 states. Thus if Barr can reach 34% of the vote in in 18 of 50 states, the election would be thrown to Congress with Barr as the leading electoral vote winner.

The link does not seem to be an official Barr website. The tone is speculative, especially with respect to what Congress would do. Can anyone confirm that this actual reflects Barr's campaign plan? bd2412 T 20:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, no, I cannot. This proposal is very interesting. But unsourced as it is, it appears to violate the No original research policy. Further, the speculative nature violates policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I agree with your implication that the only way this can merit inclusion, in its present state, is if the Barr campaign publishes it as their plan. If a journalist publishes it as a possible strategy for Barr, the text can likely be included with some modification. Barring that (get it? Barring?), I don't think it should be included. The non-majority "special case" text, if it can be verified, would be useful in the United States presidential election acticle. -Noca2plus (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I see the "special case" text already exists at United_States_Electoral_College#Contingent_presidential_election_by_House. Although this is not to say that United States presidential election wouldn't benefit from its inclusion also. -Noca2plus (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In any event, the information added is factually incorrect. It suggests that Senators would vote one way or another, but the article to which you have linked clearly indicates that only House members vote in such a scenario. I doubt very much that Barr's campaign would make a mistake of that nature. bd2412 T 23:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If there wasn't a majority in the electoral college, the House of Representatives would pick the president. The Senate would select the vice-president and therefore would not be voting for or against Barr.--William Saturn (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

endorsements

Is there any reason anyone should care that some state or county libertarian party chairs have endorsed Bob Barr? Isn't it to be expected that some Libertarians will endorse the Libertarian candidate for president? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.186.251 (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think those were endorsements for the nomination (I seem to recall seeing them a while ago). bd2412 T 06:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well that makes more sense, but in that case isn't it probably fair to say that it's irrelevant now that he has the nomination? The whole thing seems really silly to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.186.251 (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I suppose it would make sense to explain these as the endorsements that helped him secure the nomination. Need to confirm that, though. bd2412 T 06:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Rejected Endorsement

I added the story about Bob Barr rejecting Stormfront's endorsement because I think it shows an important aspect of his character; namely, he has no tolerance for racists and haters and (unlike Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin) will not accept endorsements and/or donations from them. I'm not a Barr supporter, but I was pleased to hear this. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorsements

Ron Paul did not endorse Bob Barr. Paul originally offered his support for four candidates. Barr chose not to participate and his name is not included on the official statement from that event: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=484

In addition, Ron Paul has now come out and explicitly rejected Bob Barr and endorsed one other candidate, Chuck Baldwin: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=582

Including the references to Ron Paul under "endorsements" of Bob Barr is dishonest. They do not belong there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.225.63 (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Per your comments, that section has been moved so as not to imply an endorsement by Ron Paul.--JayJasper (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ballot access

The picture on the Ballot Access section of this article shows him on the ballot in Louisiana, but not Massachusetts. But the Libertarian party website here shows him on the ballot in Massachusetts. And both that website and this article suggest that he might not currently be on the ballot in Louisiana. The article might need to be fixed. Although I'm not sure, so I'll leave it to someone else. - Shaheenjim (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it could one day be a featured article. The article is GA, and during the review, a user left a comment stating that it is close to being an FA: Talk:Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008/GA1. I nominated it for FA earlier in the year and it failed. They asked that I open a peer review. I would like to know how I can improve the article so that it can be an FA.

Thanks, William S. Saturn (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008/archive1.

Endorsement navbox proposal

I propose for this to be implemented and the "Endorsement" section to be removed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Support, for consistency with other campaign articles.--JayJasper (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Weak Opposed. I haven't seen this approach used before, and it doesn't seem like a natural use of a nav template, since readers are unlikely to want to navigate back and forth among of set of links just because they happened to endorse the same politico for some race. But then I don't think the amount of space WP articles give endorsements lists is warranted no matter how they are formatted – endorsements just aren't that important in modern American politics. However I seem to be in the minority on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This approach has been used on the Ron Paul campaign '08 page and, if I'm not mistaken, a few others. I think endorsements are a notable (if reliably sourced, of course) element of a campaign, and the navbox is a space-saver on the page if the list of endorsements is lengthy.--JayJasper (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you feel about the article overall? How can it be improved to pass as an FA? --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article clearly meets all the criteria - it's detailed, well-written, neutral, well-referenced, and littered with freely-licensed images. Passing straight off the bat. Rebecca (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree!!....very well written...Almost ready for FA level good job guys Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the quick review and comments. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)