Talk:Gary Johnson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Page cleanup

I cleaned up the page and made it a little bit more orderly. I also added a few refrences Kika chuck (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

New photo of Gary E. Johnson

Hello, I have a photograph of Governor Johnson that he would prefer to be used on this site. How do I go about substituting the photo Gary Johnson would like to be used for the one that is currently shown? Please advise.Snivi (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You can find guidelines and instructions for uploading photos at Wikipedia:Images.--JayJasper (talk) 06:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This Article Reads Like Campaign Literature

1. "Johnson's campaigns were notable for being "100% positive," never once attacking an opponent in print, radio, or television." The source on this is a link to a CSPAN video in which Johnson says the above.

2. "In 1999, Johnson became the highest-ranking elected official in the United States to advocate the repeal of drug prohibition." This is a pretty strong statement that requires citation. None is given.

3. "His position was similar to that of the Libertarian Party in many ways, and led many political observers to believe he would run for political office as a Libertarian in the future." No citation / dead link.

4. "Under Johnson's administration, New Mexico experienced the longest period without a tax increase in the state's history, the rate of growth in the state government was cut in half, half of the state's prisons were privatized, state Medicaid was shifted to managed care, and the state was left with approximately 1,000 fewer employees (with no firings) and a budget surplus.[7] Johnson vetoed 750 bills (which was more than all the vetoes of the other 49 Governors in the country at that time, combined), which earned him the nickname Gary "Veto" Johnson.[7]" The citation for this is in no way academically acceptable. It goes to a website called "race42012.com" that looks like it may have been made by a high school keyboarding student, contains no background on its editorial status or management or who owns it and, per quantacast, has virtually no traffic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.46.29 (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

5. "To this day, Johnson carries with him his "Seven Principles of Good Government:" Irrelevant. This is a two-term governor of a small state, not a major philosopher. This is best kept to a campaign website, not wikipedia.

I did some cleanup based on the above remarks, which I hope adequately addressed these concerns. There is still room for improvement, particularly in improving sources, which seems doable.--JayJasper (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning out the position statements

This article had been turned into a campaign ad for Johnson in 2012. I removed the "campaign positions" section, as it was a clear violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point. He's not a declared candidate (as of yet anyway), so the section is not presently warranted.--JayJasper (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not he's a declared candidate for 2012 (which he's not currently), there should be a section detailing his political positions. After all, as a politician, his political positions are a defining factor, particularly as one that held the office of Governor. However, I agree that that section should have been deleted: derivative, as it was, of Johnson's initiative's own website. Bastin 21:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

He served 2 terms as a governor, at the very least there should be a section on the positions he took while serving in that capacity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.210.215 (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible 2012 presidential run section

This section also seems a bit over the top and seems more like political positioning from his campaign. It basically just says the same 3 things over and over and includes lots of speculation from talking heads. I'm going to start summarising the main points to make the text of encyclopediac notability. Ashmoo (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that the section is overlong - especially for a possible campaign - and in dire need of trimming and copyediting.--JayJasper (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Preemptive strike against claims of gay marriage support

a lot of media outlets are exaggerating this guy's libertarianism to make him more interesting. They are claiming he is pro-gay marriage. Several reputable sources such as Politico and The Hill have said as much. However, straight from the horses mouth, he only supports "gay unions" and stops short of marriage: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/08/09/washington-wire-q-a-gary-johnson/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.38.14 (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't do so at the moment, as far as I can tell. TheNgeveld 02:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Religion?

Conservapedia has him as Lutheran? andycjp (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it significant to his notability? If not, we don't need to mention it, do we? Yworo (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, social conservatives will want to know.andycjp (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

While the US Constitution says no religious test is required of any political office, religion does play into politics. See: United_States_presidential_election,_1960#Campaign_issues.--S. Rich (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course religion is notable. In fact, religion is notable for anyone (and I say that as an arch-atheist...), provided it can be verified by a reliable source - which, of course, Conservapedia is not. However, this article used to say that he was Lutheran until a lack of references meant it was deleted (as is fitting for a WP:BLP).

My understanding - which I read in some newspaper article, but can't remember where, and so I'm not suggesting that I be cited! - is that he is a Lutheran, but not a particularly observant one. Quite a few major outlets report that he's Lutheran, or at least raised Lutheran, so that ought to go in and be referenced. If more details come up later - and, as noted, they will, because it matters a lot to some voters - that can be qualified and added to in its own separate paragraph under 'Personal life' or whatever. Bastin 10:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say that a person's religion is notable if noted by the person. If Johnson doesn't identify himself as a Lutheran, one has no right to declare him to be one. On the other hand, if the wall street journal (or some other reputable newspaper) were to report that he attends a lutheran church regularly, that would be worth noting in some minor way. Personally, I wouldn't add it to the article, because from what I've seen of him, he doesn't make a big deal about religion one way or the other. TheNgeveld 02:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Big J has a web site

Big J. Possible useful information and their logo might dress up the article a bit.Geo8rge (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The logo could only be used for fair use, which means only in the article about Big J (which doesn't currently exist, although there's no reason it couldn't), and not this article unless we got permission to do so. Bastin 17:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Added Link to the article. I think this thread is closed. TheNgeveld 21:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not link to external websites half-way through articles. It adds them as 'External links' at the bottom of the page. Bastin 00:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I've seen it in about a million places. Will fix (if you haven't already). TheNgeveld 11:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 15, Forbes.com profile, http://people.forbes.com/profile/governor-gary-e-johnson/3646 seems broken

Seems like broken link I could not figure out where the page moved to. There seems to be a few Gary Johnsons and even a few Gary E Johnsons.Geo8rge (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Did someone fix this or delete this link? I can't find it. TheNgeveld 02:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Found link. It goes to a search page that doesn't produce an article. Marked as dead TheNgeveld 11:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 42 seems broken

Gadi Schwartz (5 November 2009). "Supporters call for former Gov. Johnson to run for president". KOB News 4. Retrieved 6 November 2009.[1]Geo8rge (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't find this link in the article. Did someone remove it? TheNgeveld 02:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Marked link as dead TheNgeveld 12:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

100% praise, no criticism -- not even any ambivalence -- for a TWO-TERM GOVERNOR

No two-term governor in history has left office with not a word of criticism or even ambivalence, but only praise. This article strongly needs some sourced criticism of his time in office (and I'm not referring to the obvious point that legalizing pot is controversial -- I mean in terms of his behavior, policies, and executive acts, beyond one controversial opinion). Otherwise it's just a PR puff piece.63.17.61.86 (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You are free to add said sourced criticism...that's the beauty of Wikipedia. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is definitely a little poofy, not because of the vague notion that there's not criticism only praise therefore..., but because the language of the section isn't sufficiently neutral. I'll add it to my life of things to do if no one beats me to it. TheNgeveld 02:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I just did a quick review of the footnotes here. Of 71 notes, 6 are refer to blogs, 7 to various organizations with strong political points of view (like salon, national review, politico, 5 straight up advocacy groups, and at least one source that looks like an opinion piece but requires a subscription to read. On my quick glance that's 19 of 71 foot notes (26%) that are probably not the best quality sources.

I just added some information about controversy -- bitter negotiations over 2000 budget leading to near shutdown of government, and 2001 controversy of Phelps-Dodge mining cleanup deal. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

As this is a biography of a living person, statements must be verifiable by reliable sources. HCN and Gila are advocacy groups that opposed Johnson, so they aren't third parties. Meanwhile, editorials are not appropriate for anywhere near such prominence, as they deliberately eschew neutrality. If news articles reference the editorial, eg "The Santa Fe New Mexican published an editorial this week...", you can mention it, and then cite the editorial to support a specific statement from that editorial. However, if reliable sources do not mention it, it's not notable.

On the specific topic, Google '"Phelps-Dodge", "Gary Johnson"' and you'll find that the top hits are this article and a host of environmentalist groups - the two of which you cited! This suggests that you're giving it undue prominence. Bastin 20:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Moved my goofy volunteers and status thing to a new section Talk:Gary_E._Johnson#Rewrite_volunteers_and_progress so that the two threads don't get totally munged. TheNgeveld 19:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC) And thanks to (User talk:Jytdog for adding controversies, etc. TheNgeveld 19:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we agree that the first and second term sections are better now and that we can move the POV template down to the "Legacy" section instead? If there are no objections, I'll do that sometime after the sun has set on Greenwich. TheNgeveld 12:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It is very difficult to find unbiased sources on the web for events that happened during his tenure, much less overall data and summaries. Johnson ran on a platform of job creation. OK, how did he do on that? He valued education; what did he do other than try and fail to get vouchers established? I have come across several references to big efforts on prisons, privatization, and road building but no good citable sources for what he did and why. The only summary information I have seen are the Cato Institute reports and they are of course a libertarian thinktank and are narrowly focused on cutting spending. The lack of information about his actual performance significantly impairs the utility of the article. Any ideas about where to get such information? Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably the best (and hardest) thing would be to subscribe to the alburqurquekalafhadk journal and dig through 8 years of articles. Painful. I think it's probable that because the legislature was democratic and he's a hard core libertarian (even too libertarian for at least some hard-core conservatives), it's likely that little of his own agenda was ever enacted (or perhaps even acted upon). So perhaps he was left with repeatedly saying "no". http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/BillFinderNumber.aspx seems to go back to 1996, so we could probably find some things there, but that's pretty close to primary research. Might give some hints though. TheNgeveld 22:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite volunteers and progress

I think this piece definitely needs a rewrite. Maybe if everyone who cares just grabs a section and spends an hour or two on it, we can get it done. Sign up below?: TheNgeveld 19:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Headline: TheNgeveld 19:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC), I'll try to do it this weekend. COMPLETE TheNgeveld 12:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

no longer complete, my changes were replaced with the original. In discussion. TheNgeveld 15:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Early Life: <Waiting for a volunteer>

Governor-First Term: MODIFIED - Not fully happy with it, but I think it's better. TheNgeveld 19:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Governor-Second Term: <Waiting for a volunteer>

Governor-Legacy: <Waiting for a volunteer>

Post-gubernatorial life: <Waiting for a volunteer>

2012 Campaign: (Is this premature?) –CWenger (^ • @) 23:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Political Positions: (Is this even appropriate content?) –CWenger (^ • @) 23:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal Life-Sports: <Waiting for a volunteer>

Personal Life-Family: TheNgeveld 19:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC), I'll do it with the merge with his deceased former wife. COMPLETE TheNgeveld 13:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

TheNgeveld 19:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I will see what I can do this weekend. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

Resolved

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Someone (I can't tell who) add a proposal to merge the article on Dee Johnson (First Lady) with this article. Let the discussion begin. TheNgeveld 02:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC) I agree. The article on Dee Johnson is brief and lacking in any significant substance beyond that associated with working with Gov. Johnson, or being the first lady of New Mexico. I'll be happy to do the work if there is consensus. TheNgeveld 02:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC) I agree also. I say go for it. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC) I agree also. No point in having a separate article that only consists of a brief paragraph and the information is more or less already incorporated into this article.--JayJasper (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Agreed. Stubs are fine, but if it's a stub because there's nothing to say it needs to go Jgr2 (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Merge it. 78.16.49.61 (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC) For everyone's info, I invited the originator of the Dee Johnson page to come here and post a comment. I'll wait a couple days for a response before doing the deed. TheNgeveld 18:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC) As I wrote when I split it from Dee Johnson, it's possibly not notable, which is why I didn't bother adding to it. However, there are a lot of references (in-state stuff) to work that she did as First Lady. Since the articles say things like 'NM First Lady Dee Johnson has done this' and not 'Gary Johnson has done this and Dee Johnson was standing next to him', I think that probably would make her notable. Opinions? Bastin 10:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC) I think I agree with your original opinion, that she's not really notable. I was planning on keeping the bits about what she did as first lady in this article, and of course the redirect will go there, but it seems to me that outside of her relationship with Johnson, there will never be much to say. Contrast her with, for example, lady bird johnson, or betty ford, both of whom were notable outside of their relationships to their politician husbands. I mean, I support breast cancer research and built an addition to my house, but I'll never be notable in a wikipedia sense. See Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria. I don't think see makes this threshold. TheNgeveld 11:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC) My proposed merge is now incorporated into Gary E. Johnson#Family. All that remains to be done is to redirect the dee johnson page to there and close out the merger proposal. TheNgeveld 13:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Merge was completed by [User:Bastin]. Thanks. 8 May 2011 TheNgeveld 11:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC) If the merge was completed, why hasn't the article Dee Johnson (First Lady) be redirected to this article?--JayJasper (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC) I just made the redirect. Perhaps there was miscommunication earlier?--JayJasper (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Political Positions - Does it belong here?

Folks, the political positions section makes me uncomfortable (I think I'm about to revert my own addition to it). I've posted a question to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Politics_and_government to see if anyone there knows of some recommendations or whatever that talks about things like this. Does anyone have an opinion? TheNgeveld 20:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it. Have you heard that it is frowned upon somewhere? –CWenger (^ • @) 22:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Haven't found anything either way. It seems to me that it's hard to do a section like that without having a point of view (by inclusion or exclusion), and that making it comprehensive is next to impossible. When I looked at "A" rated articles for politicians, none of them had anything like this. They focused on what the person did. I don't know. That's why I threw up the question. TheNgeveld 11:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes they go in separate articles. See Category:Political positions of United States presidential candidates, 2008 for examples. Btyner (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be impossible to give a complete description of a politician's political positions. However, we can and should list all political positions for which he is notable. That is, if the media has repeatedly mentioned his position on some issue, then that position should be described here in a neutral way. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protect article?

As Gary E. Johnson is a potential presidential candidate, should this article be semi-protected to prevent spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrett247 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I would say not. I just glanced at the Semi-protection policy page which say "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by unregistered and newly registered users." Haven't seen any nastiness yet. I guess we should wait before asking. TheNgeveld 13:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:21, 8 May 2011 (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. Clear case for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Hadal (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Gary E. Johnson → Gary Johnson – Gary E. Johnson, two-term Governor of New Mexico and 2012 Republican presidential candidate, is by far the most notable of all the Gary Johnsons on the Gary Johnson disambiguation page. He also goes by "Gary Johnson," without the middle initial. Under WP:Article titles, he fits all four criteria to be the subject of the page "Gary Johnson," with a link to a new, separate WP:Disambiguation page using the standard template. The vast majority of people looking for "Gary Johnson" on Wikipedia are looking for him. He is the most recognizable person with the name "Gary Johnson," he is naturally referred to that way, the name is more precise and concise, and is consistent with other articles of the same type.Wikophile (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. For as long as he's in the race, he's by far the most notable Gary Johnson. --Coemgenus 13:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support unless someone wants to make a case for one of the sports players. His daily page views are in the thousands; the others are in the dozens. —Designate (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support: No competition for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support per all of the above comments.--JayJasper (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support per all of the above commentsJytdog (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Per the nom, the proposed title clearly meets all criteria listed at WP:TITLE. The issue here is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Relative to all other users of Gary Johnson, this topic clearly meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria -- "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box" -- per page view statistics:
  • Gary_E._Johnson has been viewed 87304 times in 201105. [2]
  • Gary_Johnson_(Wisconsin_politician) has been viewed 777 times in 201105. [3]
  • Gary_Johnson_(footballer) has been viewed 2014 times in 201105. [4]
  • Gary_Johnson_(American_football) has been viewed 275 times in 201105. [5]
  • Gary_Johnson_(rugby_union) has been viewed 92 times in 201105.[6]
  • Gary_Johnson_(baseball) has been viewed 57 times in 201105. [7]

  As noted by Cwenger... "no competition". This topic gets over 40 times as many views as the next most popular use. If that's not "more likely than all the others combined", then nothing is. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. A parallel would be the page for John Roberts, which was once at John G. Roberts but was then moved. --Dagko (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Given the numbers above, I don't see how this could even be controversial. Bastin 20:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Good, we seem to be in complete agreement here. However, since this would require moving the disambiguation page from Gary Johnson to Gary Johnson (disambiguation), we should also get agreement at Talk:Gary Johnson before we act. We will also need help from an administrator because Gary Johnson (disambiguation) (which would be overwritten) has a non-trivial revision history. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I just posted a notice at Talk:Gary Johnson#Move discussion in progress, which should be sufficient. I doubt many people are watching that page anyway. An admin should come along in a few days and perform the move with no issues. I think it is implied that when an article becomes primary topic, the disambiguation page gets moved even if it is not part of a multi-move request. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The article Gary E. Johnson presidential campaign, 2012 will have to be moved as well. --Dagko (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I just moved it over redirect. Since there are no other Gary Johnsons running for president in 2012 (that I know of) I assume it is uncontroversial. –CWenger (^ • @) 03:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Yes, please move per all the comments above.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2011 (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.

Citation Needed: Post-gubernatorial life

I find no reference to him serving on the SSDP's board of directors. He does currently serve on their "Advisory Council". The various chapters elect students to serve on the board of directors. His position on the council is listed on their site. SSDP Advisory Council Members C. Lupton (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

New Photo

I found a new photo that I think may be better than the current lead photo, which seems bland and computer-generated.

• 
  Current
• 
  Proposed

What are the opinions of the regular editors of this page?--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Both of those pictures are a little unflattering. Here's the thing: If you go through the file history of the first picture, it looks like there's been an edit war between two badly lit versions. The original doesn't have that "computer-generated" look, it's just washed-out. Someone altered the colors but took it to an unnatural extreme. If we can subtly improve the lighting on the first picture it'll probably be best. —Designate (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/ Designate. A better lit version of the first pic would be the best choice.--JayJasper (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

For me a big issue is the white background, it just doesn't look natural.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree— I don't like it on Obama and Biden's portraits either. I hope it doesn't become a trend. But the eye contact and composed expression make it a superior biographical picture IMO. —Designate (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's no real reason not to want a picture with a white background. It's either that or have one with the stock "American-flag-and-some-books" look. However, the eye contact means it's vastly superior. The reason is to be able to identify the individual - which means eye contact and neutral expression where possible trump pretty much everything. Bastin 16:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The article already has

• 

which looks very similar to the second photograph above. This argues for the first photo above which gives a different impression of him. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The white background is weird, but it's otherwise the better shot. Is changing the background possible? Would it violate the MOS on images? --Coemgenus 19:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's allowed as long as it's a mild edit (not adding a flag or a bookcase or something). This photo of John McCain was edited a few times while it was a FA. —Designate (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Could someone explain why looking into a camera somehow makes a better photo? It's not our job to allow a reader to "connect" with the subject, they just need to see what he looks like. And to dispute what Bastin says above, an unnatural, computer-generated image is about as impersonal as it gets.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

How about this? Designate (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• 
  Color adjusted

edit: I added it to the article so you can see how it looks in context. —Designate (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Much better.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The enhanced background is a big improvement.--JayJasper (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's very good. Problem solved? --Coemgenus 04:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Good article nomination

What would it take for this to become a good article? Any thoughts? —Designate (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

President

Does he have a chance to be win any of the Republican Libertarian votes in the primary with Ron Paul still in the race? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofmyth (talk • contribs) 01:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Also what are the major differences between him and Paul if any? Manofmyth (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Position on online gambling?

Is it worth including his position on online gambling? Specifically with regards to the recent indictment of large online poker firms in the US? He is vocal in support of online gambling and online poker. For example, he is currently answering questions on the issue in the largest online poker community: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/answering-some-your-questions-1072715/. In additional he has mentioned this in various interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.147.19 (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it notable? That is, is it mentioned in media other than poker-specific media? If so, then put it in, with references to such non-poker-specific media. JRSpriggs (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nominee vs. candidate

The Candidate article is unsourced on this and the words candidate and nominee tend to be used interchangeably. However it is pretty clear that technically a nominee is someone who has been nominated by not elected or chosen, while a candidate tends to be chosen. I could not find a source that clarifies this better. But looking at other articles about politicians, I think there is an unconscious tendency to see "nominee" as less "serious" than "candidate" and call someone "unserious" (or someone who lost) just a "nominee" but call someone you like or who won a "candidate." Anyway, I think Johnson is past nomination stage and a candidate and don't see that "nominee" is more proper. Please explain and if possible provide refs that prove contention that nominee is proper. CarolMooreDC 07:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

See Presidential nominee. Johnson is the 2012 Libertarian Party presidential nominee after winning the 2012 Libertarian Party presidential nomination on Saturday. Before that he was just a candidate like R. Lee Wrights, RJ Harris, and others.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually the ONLY reference in that article from New York Daily news one use of the term nominee doesn't clearly make the point: "Then, 10 potential candidates crowded the stage, including Huckabee, Romney, and eventual Republican nominee John McCain."

However, read in the context of this 1914 reference - and other things I've read - it is clear that you call a candidate a nominee when they get a party nomination. A candidate may be independent, just getting themselves on a ballot with help of their own campaign committee, or a candidate maybe nominated by a party. Also, it really depends on the context of the sentence. You can say Johnson is the nominee of the Libertarian Party -- but if you are just talking about a list of nominees without specifying party, you are more like to call them candidates for the office of president. I'm sure there's some source somewhere that says that explicitly. Anyway, so nominee IS correct here, except in reference to Palin where it is not stated explicitly what party she ran on. I hope that solves the problem!! :-) CarolMooreDC 15:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Religion?

Is he religious? This guy sounds like a cooler version of Ron Paul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.222.153 (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

He attended a Values Voter Summit early in the Republican nomination process (before switching to the Libertarian Party), so I would assume that he is some form of Christian. But no, his religion has never been explicitly discussed in the media as far as I know. 143.236.34.54 (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

He identifies as a Lutheran. There should definitely be more of a mention of this in the article than the mere category. JJARichardson (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, he is a non-practicing Lutheran. He has said in one of his online town halls that he has not been to church since his confirmation, and on an episode of Stossel he said that he believes in God but does not attend church. 24.181.217.218 (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone above said that because he attended a values voter event, he's probably some sort of Christian? WOW, only Christians have values, or only Christians vote, or what? 75.147.20.249 (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

no, 75.147.20.249. the "Values Voter Summit" is a right wing christian event where candidates go to show that interest group, that the candidates stand with the christian right on social issues (anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc etc). For conservatives who are not socially regressive, it was disappointing that he chose to go there, and it was especially disappointing to libertarians who want the government out of our personal lives altogether. You may want to learn about what is being discussed before you apply sarcasm....Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Gary is a non-practicing Lutheran. He described it in his book. You should add it to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.190.137.61 (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry

Not a big issue here, but the article states that Gary Johnson's mother's ancestry is Russian. Looking at the reference, the reference actually says his mother's parents were both FROM Russia. They may very well have been Russian, but if his maternal grandparents immigrated to North Dakota, where Gary Johnson was born, then they were most likely ethnic Germans from the part of Russia that is the present day Ukraine. In fact, 40% of present day North Dakotans are descended from Germans from Russia who immigrated to the state from the mid 1870s through 1917, when emigration was stopped by the Soviet Union. Just a possibility. I know, who cares. Just thought I would mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.114.177 (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

They were Ukrainians, actually. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gary Johnson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 21:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take this review. I'll start with a close readthrough, noting any issues here I can't easily fix myself, and then go to the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

Okay, I'm part of the way through and so far this looks good. A few initial points:

• "Johnson was elected in a nationally Republican year, although party registration in the state of New Mexico at the time was 2-to-1 Democratic" -- As a statistic, this requires a citation.
• This isn't required by GA criteria, but for brevity, consider abbreviating "United States" as "US" after its first appearance in the text (including in the titles of positions and organizations).
• "given his inability to gain any traction with the primary just over a month away." -- needs citation
• Johnson's reception as governor could use more criticism. It's clear that he was a popular governor, but he nonetheless had political opponents and a contentious relationship with them, as this article itself describes; it would be interesting to hear more of how they portrayed him. Quotations like this would give a start, though I'm not saying you necessarily need this one: "Mr. Chavez, a political moderate, says he is a public policy person who will concentrate on improving New Mexico's low standing nationally in social and economic rankings. The Governor, he argues, has done next to nothing to improve those rankings because he has concentrated on killing and vetoing programs."
• Parts of the "Political positions" should be updated to past tense--for example, his opposition to a US role in the Libyan Civil War, generally considered to now be over. We don't know for a fact that he still holds all these positions (and will even less as this article continues to age), so it's better to use past tense or a sense of when he staked out each position if possible.

More to follow! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I have done some edits and I believe I have accomplished these tasks. yonnie (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Johnson participated in third party debates in October 2012.[64] -- this sentence seems like it's in the wrong place--we're jumping too far ahead in time.
  • Sorry, I should have been more specific here--the above sentence appears in the "Early history" subsection of "2012 presidential campaign". Can this sentence simply be removed, since these debates are detailed in their proper chronological place later? I do like the additions you made for context on the debates, though.

Oh, I didn't even notice that. Fixed. yonnie (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

*"campaign is being run" --update tense *"Johnson's economics advisor is" -- is this guy still GJ's advisor? Probably better to say "was" *I removed a number of redundant sources for the noncontroversial fact that GJ announced his libertarian candidacy on a certain date. They're here, if you think they're needed anywhere else.

• This is not at all a Good Article criterion, but you might consider archiving some of these citations with a website like [8] or [9] and the archive parameters ( |archivedate= |archiveurl= |deadurl=no). An article like this that relies so heavily on Internet news sources is very prone to linkrot, and archiving now can save lots of time later. This is something you can tackle once the review is over, though, or not at all; it can be time-consuming. Wholly up to you.
• "A November 1, 2012 poll of likely voters shows Gary Johnson with 5.1% nationally" --I'd suggest cutting the discussion of the Ohio poll. First of all, the first sentence seriously misrepresents its source--the linked page only discusses Ohio. Second, there's no need to show the poll results from both 11/1 and 11/2--it's getting a little redundant. Third, I'm not sure it's helpful to provide isolated data from Ohio at all; while it was a key battleground state, that's not really discussed here (nor are other battleground states), so it feels cherry-picked to find a state where Johnson did much better than his national average.
  • This is definitely an improvement, but I'm concerned that presenting a Reason-Rupe poll alone is not the best choice. Reason is a libertarian advocacy magazine, and I'm not familiar with Rupe as a pollster; I'd be inclined to give more weight to established, independent names like Gallup or Zogby. Gallup put Johnson at 3% in June [10] and 1% in September [11], results which were borne out in the voting. Zogby appears to have put Johnson at 2% right before the election.[12] What would you say to replacing, or at least balancing, the Reason figure with some more established names--either some of these sources, or others that could be found?

I added the Gallup polls as well as two Zogby polls. Each have one summer poll and one closer to the election. yonnie (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

*" This established a Libertarian Party record for total votes won in a Presidential election and the second-highest Libertarian percentage ever, behind Ed Clark's 1.1% in 1980" -- the sources don't appear to have this information--can we confirm this record from a secondary source? *"and has quoted that he does not" -- who is he quoting? Or is it meant here that he's just stating this? *" they were getting divorced four months later" -- a bit ambiguous -- did he announce one day that four months later they would be divorced, or four months later, did he announce they would be divorced? (If the latter, how about, "four months later, he announced that they would divorce?")

• "Johnson is now engaged" -- another moment where it would be better to add "As of [date]" per WP:REALTIME; it's not a sure thing that someone will come back to update the page the day they marry or break up.

This looks like solid work! It covers his governance, his supporters and critics, his political positions, and his personal life. The prose is for the most part clear and moves at a good clip through the important milestones of his life. Once you've addressed the above points, there shouldn't be much left. Thanks, -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your assistance and also for your additional edits. For the first point I added some info to make it seem not so sudden. I also added an actual national poll and removed the Ohio poll. The info was indeed misrepresenting the source. Also included the most recent article I could find as a source indicating they are still engaged as of November. I may get to archiving links at a later date. Thanks! yonnie (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks much for your fast responses. I clarified two remaining issues above when you have a chance. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass--good work on this!