Talk:Michael Badnarik/Archive 1

Archive 1

question

How does one go about getting this listed in the 'news' section of Wiki? tpahl 22:22, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Stealth bomber?

Which one? There are four of them. This should be more specific. -Joseph 18:20, 2004 Jul 2 (UTC)

Election results

I'd like to put in the election results but I have qualms about editing a protected page. Maybe we can agree on a neutral passage here and get another admin to insert it. For now, let's stick it in the intro paragraph: "Badnarik received 371,820 votes, 0.32% of the popular vote. He did not win any states' electoral votes."

As for questions about my editing this page, I changed the tense of two verbs. This page is protected due to the actions of two specific people, and my opinion is that the rest of us should be free to edit it. Rhobite 20:26, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree considering that number is about 6000 off and that's even without all the totals in yet. 1 percent of precints are still left to report(one percent would be another 3000 votes) plus provisonal/absentee ballots. Aka you can't add in the amount he got untill we have federal certified election results, untill then it's according to [blank media] Badnarik so far has recived (number) amount of votes. Chuck F 20:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a better source? I'm going off of the info you added to the election in progress page. 3rd party tallies are hard to find on the web. Also, we can always change the number, and it's unreasonable to insist that we add no total until the very final results are in. Rhobite 20:40, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

I've been getting my results all night long from USAtoday which right now has him at 377,197. with 99 precincts reporting. I'm not saying we should have no data, but we need to source it as being so far he's recived with 99 percent reporting according to blank media. Chuck F 20:50, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with Chuck_F. Why Rhobite feels the need to misuse his Administrator powers to change a highly contentious protected article to suit his own requirements can only be speculated about. Chuck is right, the final results are yet to be certified and Badnarik's poor showing can be displayed then. I would welcome an administrator with a better reputation to make the change, if one is deemed necessary by consensus here. So far the consensus is against any change until the results are certified. Reithy 20:47, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

How's this? "According to USA Today, as of 3:52 PM on November 3, Badnarik received 377,199 votes, or 0.33% of the popular vote. He did not win any states' electoral votes. [1]" Rhobite 20:56, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

"According to USA Today, as of 3:52 p.m. November 3rd, with 99% precincts reporting, Badnarik received 377,199 votes, or 0.33% of the popular vote. He did not win any states' electoral votes. [2]" is better Chuck F 21:01, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Let's ask someone on the pump to add it. Rhobite 21:03, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

I am happy with the change as long as the administrator under a cloud does not make the change, he is unfit to do so. Reithy 21:05, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Asked on Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). Rhobite 21:09, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Why is this article even still protected? the edit war was about polling data before the election, it's kinda a moot point right now. I can't imagine us starting up an edit war about that again.(although I'm sure we'll find something else) Chuck F 06:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rhobite's continuing abuse of power

Rhobite has said as a Libertarian he avoids editing Libertarian articles.

Now he is proposing to edit the article even though it is protected. I actually don't disagree with the change but in the circumstances Rhobite should not only get over himself he should start to act with propriety and probity. Reithy 20:31, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

It is protected due to repeated vandalism by you. And I am not proposing that I edit it myself, I did fix the tense of two verbs but I don't want to add the passage. If you have an objection to the passage, let me know, otherwise we should ask a disinterested admin to add it. Rhobite 20:35, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

You throw terms of abuse around rather freely don't you? Now I'm a vandal, something not even Chuck accuses me of. No evidence of course because there isn't any. I agree a disinterested admin should make the change, I object to you changing articles where you have an admitted bias, where they are highly contentious, where they are protected. This is a continuation of your conduct as Administrator which I regard as contrary to Wikipedia principles. Let someone else make the changes, someone we can have faith in. Reithy 20:41, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Of course he called you a vandal. Rhobite 20:44, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Remember that guideline about assume good faith. Does that one not apply to you? Didn't remove that comment, your latest personal attack should be displayed as it proves me point about how unfit you are to serve as an Administrator. Chuck is a simple soul with a clear and stated agenda, an intellectually honest young man. You can only aspire to that. Reithy 20:59, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Chuck called you a vandal multiple times in your RFAr, and you certainly did remove my comment from this page. Rhobite 21:12, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Clearly unintended, due to edit conflict, trust me on this, I want every word of your personal attacks fully displayed, they prove my point, you are unfit to serve as an administrator, you seek to impose standards you will not comply with. You seek to edit articles that are highly contentious that have been protected. You threaten to block those that disagree with you. I don't see that Chuck called me a vandal here, you did. Your evidence? Nil. Your status as an administrator grows more tarnished. I feel your pain. Reithy 21:18, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

The Propriety of Editing Protected Pages in which the Admin has a Strong Personal Interest

Newly appointed admin, Rhobite has declared that he avoids editing Libertarian articles because he is a libertarian although not a party member. A wise approach some might think. In theory, yes. In practice, he edits articles, even highly contentious ones about Oval Office aspirant Michael Badnarek when they are PROTECTED. This seems highly likely to antagonize those who disagree with his views. I had no problem with what he was proposing to add, but to do so when others who disagreed, like Chuck_F, seemed highly unfair, highly improper and a complete abuse of his administrator's powers. Is there a process for removing or suspending an admin while they receive counselling? Reithy 12:19, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

You are correct in that admins should basically never edit an article when it is protected, even to correct grammar mistakes or other minor things. However, I am pretty sure it was in good faith, and it is really a very minor thing to argue about... — David Remahl 13:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We are speaking of minor edits, yes. But why an admin, a person with special privileges, would weigh into a protected and highly contentious article, make several changes and propose major changes does genuinely puzzle me. Particularly in circumstances where he had pledged not to edit the article at all. How are admin's held to account for their conduct? Does someone review them? Reithy 22:45, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Unprotected

Now that the election is over, perhaps you can agree on what to write about the candidate's popularity... Page unprotected. — David Remahl 18:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

npov edits

Hey how and where can we add in the fact that he managed to with being on the ballot in two less states and spending 1.4 millon less(200 percent) then Harry browne, he managed to beat his vote total?

re: your edit summary "encylopedia's are meant to build people up and show why they are important.. not knock them down in the first pargraph as why they don't matter", I think this may be a fundamental misunderstanding you have about Wikipedia's purpose. And your insistence on removal and reversion as the only solution to article problems is why our mediation failed. WP is not meant to build anyone up, it's mean to present facts objectively. Whether this inspires a negative or positive impression is up to the reader. I don't think the intro sentence is ideal, but due to your edit warring it is very difficult to make positive changes to this article. Rhobite 16:32, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Image caption

Please see Wikipedia:Captions, Reithy. Among the guidelines: a caption "establishes the picture's relevance to the article," and "provides context for the picture." Saying that Badnarik threatened to bulldoze the UN fulfills neither of these guidelines, while the previous caption fulfills both. Stop it. Rhobite 21:40, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Please understand the role of Talk pages, they are not for you to issue edicts about what will happen. The caption gives context to the photograph and is interesting in that Badnarik has some controversial views which are probably the only interesting thing about him. The revised caption explains what he said and where he said it. I don't see the problem with it. Reithy 21:48, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Given that he didn't even say the UN thing in his acceptance speech, I'd say that caption is pretty irrelevant. Rhobite 00:30, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

saved article enhancement: Economic stimulus: Badnarik says he would stimulate the economy by eliminating the federal income tax in concert with drastically cutting government spending, increasing personal income for most Americans, especially the wealthy. He also advocates the elimination of the Federal Reserve and the restoration of a commodity-based currency. As a so-called minor party candidate, he is seldom asked for detailed justification of this sweeping, populist sounding proposal, which by contrast surely a major party candidate would have to explain and justify in great detail. It is also not often countered by a critical response from the press or his opponents. Among academic economists specializing in the issue of monetary economics, many would quickly note that the current monetary system was in fact fashioned to replace a commodity (gold) influenced system that was antiquated; and that trends in mining activity was an odd choice to power and guide a modern industrial economy. Instead monetary growth is now guided by the rate of economic activity demonstrated by the economy and the capability for further growth shown by the growth of deposits in banks and the resulting capacity to make loans. it is not a strict lock step system but rather one guided by the judgement of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors who try to maintain an orderly growth in the money supply, while intervening to lessen recessions and moderate growth bubbles more successfully in recent years, lead by its chairman Alan Greenspan , than in past. Critics also note that prior to the establishment of the Federal Reserve System (which can still be criticized for centralizing power in the hands of elites and serving banking and business interests over those of consumer and creditors) the overall banking system was less stable, more diffuse, less efficient, and more prone to corruption. Monetary policy was subject to frequent and severe system crises and there was few effective tools to solve them other than to ride them out. This inability to fix an economy gone off the tracks in the early stages of the country's history later saw rise to the much publicized spectacle of courageous, creative and risky efforts of J.P Morgan and others, who, on behalf of the banking system and in fact the nation, worked to creatively solve them through personal interventions and the persuasion and coordination of the actions of others. These efforts and their degree of success can be said to have pre-saged and eventually lead to a stronger ongoing guiding institution. The Federal Reserve, with long-term appointments, acts independent of direct, immediate political influence to deal with these periodical difficult patches in capitalism but is closely watched by and provides regular testimony to the Congress and President.

response of deletion of recent article enhancement as being "a tangent": i posted some additions to the article that were aimed at a fuller discussion of his views. discussing his advocacy of abolishing the federal reserve is not a inconsequential tangent, it could re-introduce less stability and harm the economy. at least peole should be able to see concern about that. i thought it was useful to provide a counterpoint to a view that is largely unexamined. most articles about poiticians had counterpoints embedded over time for balance and greater information value to the reader; i think libertarian politicians deserve the same treatment. but somebody thinks a position of fundamental change of the foundation of our economy order is a tangent that doesnt deserve fleshing out a bit. i disagree. then i read some of the above discussion of reversions. this place seems far less free and friendly that i originally thought. i'll re-add the points under discussion page for now rather than wasting time on a revert cycle but i ask consideration of some inclusion of the original material by a neutral third party, not the reverter. it ran a little long admittedly but i honestly thought it had value and thought it could be worked on or moved to a new place, not just stripped. does the reverter in returning to the prior imperfect article find any value in re-inserting that the guy is a scuba and skydive instructor? but yet thinks that the candidate wants to completely change the banking system is a tangent that shouldnt have added detail? go figure on what's important! after all this is an primarily on article on him as a prominent candidate and political views not his personal life. the prior article on him reads like a pure political campagin brochure with only his platform planks. that is not how the better candidate articles here read.

Where's the neutrality dispute?

Seems to be accurate to me now. If anyone doesn't point out specific holes or inaccuracies, I think I'll remove the NPOV header. Johnleemk | Talk 13:23, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't look too bad to me. One sentence I found non-neutral:

• Civil rights: Badnarik supports all of the Bill of Rights.

which implicitly takes the position that others don't. But it's a minor point, not worth the NPOV header. Dbenbenn 10:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think he was joking when he was talking about letting prisoners get atrophy.

Added link to a video of Badnarik's Constitution class

I added the new hyperlink to archive.org's download page for one of Badnarik's recorded constitution classes. I added it here because I think it is a valuable work that not very many people know about. I know this article generates plenty of friction and I hope my changes do not cause anyone strain. Triddle 21:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removed neutrality dispute notice.

As there have been no disputes on this page for several months, I took the liberty of removing the neutrality dispute notice ({{npov}} from the article. If anyone has a problem with this, please state your issues here and reinstate the notice. -- Seth Ilys 19:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Questionnaire results

Badnarik's questionaire results are no longer available at the link in the article: http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=MTX77838 Any objections to deleting this reference out of the article? --Kyle, 8/8/05

I'm going to delete it. Its in my above comment if someone wants to add it back for some reason. -Kyle, 8/15/05

Political career

I took out taxation because to believe in constitutionally limited government you have to believe in some taxation. I unfortunately did not sign in, but I am stating it now. --RG415WBFA

---

Sigh

Well, as a long time Libertarian, I was looking for a source on info on the candidate so I could give it to my girlfriend so she knew something about the guy. "Cool," I think... "there's all his issues". Then I think, "Well, my GF thinks unrestrained immigration is a problem, but it's not here".

Turns out the "Project Vote Smart" has Badnarik's position, and in it he says immigration should have no limits, even in a welfare state. That is a %100 percent Libertarian position, but one which would be enough to prevent my GF from voting for him, and I'm sure others as well. Many Libertarians, unlike Badnarak, are not ready to have an open border until the welfare state goes away, and I have to believe that the ommission of such an important view was intentional.

Come on, people, get off the soapbox and let's at least PRETEND to be NPOV and write and research like an encyclopedist. Marteau 21:30, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You do know you can edit the article, don't you? :-/. — David Remahl 12:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I did. Marteau

Describing CPD

To the anonymous user who removed a sentence about CPD, claiming that "calling CPD a private entity is POV": How is describing CPD as a "private entity" POV? How do you propose we describe them? The sentence you deleted served to balance the neutrality of the whole paragraph, so you can't simply remove it. If you think CPD should be characterized in some other way, that's ok, but don't remove a vital part of the paragraph. In the mean time, I have reverted you. The commission is by all means private, and "entity" is a rather neutral word IMHO. What side's POV do you believe it reflects? — David Remahl 12:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The whole Entire notion of it being a private entity is what the lawsuit(and the order to show cause) was about... that the Cpd is using public funds and public areas for private purposes. CPD argues that they are a non-for-profit non-partisan donations to them are tax-deductabile. The Libertarian party is challanging that view and calling them a private entity for partisin purposes using tax-payer funds.

Also Reithy - Please don't edit an article, when you know nothing about that candidate. Calling him an obscure Joker is insane. over 3 million has been spent on getting him on ballots, he's on the most ballots, is the presidential candidate for the third largest political party, is campaigning full time with a large staff.

THE BOOK ISN"T EVEN POSSIBLE TO OWN YET... how are you using it to as source?

And reithy - about your added edits... If you actually watch the context that they were given in/written, you would never be stating this stuff as fact

Pro or anti Badnarik basis here aids no-one

I find it galling that Badnarik's more extreme views have been removed from this article simply because a Badnarik supporter may feel that they would make Badnarik less attractive to readers. I invite an investigation into the veracity of the items under the recently-deleted "political views" section. My sources are listed below.

I suggest the recent articles in Liberty Magazine

http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_11/armstrong-badnarik.html

An article in Liberty Magazine (a libertarian magazine) about Badnarik

// Well thanks, I hadn't seen that second article, no surprise, Liberty magazine has been anti-LP for years(ever since they rejected renting out their lists to them), so I generally take things from them with a grain of salt.

Anyway as to the rest of your edits , they all correspond to the first article(the 2004_08 one). First off, the book he hands out at these classes is not the same one being published(it has a lot of the same content, but it's not the same). Second none of the positions you stated are from that book, they are from the COMMENTS page of his old website, when he was joking around with people using jokes from his speech, you can not state jokes-hyperbole’s as someone's position. 203.112.19.195 20:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The very fact that Badnarik's present views on welfare, and Badnarik's own reasons for holding them have been removed is reason enough that a certain editor is deleting information because he/she is pro-Badnarik

I present here the deleted section on welfare.

Welfare & Poverty : Badnarik is opposed to any government assistance for the poor, insisting that it is not a legitimate govermental function, but that charity is the role of private individuals and organizations. Badnarik believes that under a libertarian government, with substantially lower tax burdens, individuals would more readily be able to provide charitible services.

• that even in itself is inaccurate and half-truths, check the postion paper on http://badnarik.org/plans_economy.php. He gave an even more detailed answer in the first debate with David cobb of the green party, I don't have time to go back and get it now. but that quote is spinning his postion(and compleatly changing it in terms of that last sentence)

Sorry -- Badnarik *is* opposed to the federal government providing assistance to the poor. Whether you like that fact, or agree with his position is an entirely different matter. I read his position paper, and I challenge you to provide me with any evidence that Badnarik supports federal (or state) assistance to the poor. (e.g. food stamps, medicaid, etc)

• Of course he is opposed to federal government assistance... but your viewpoint is npov, and you have a factually incorrect statement from badnarik as a counterpoint to that pov. Once we get the correct counter pov I'd be fine with that "basic" statement, if it's changed to be more npov.

A.K.A writing something like "Badnarik believes that Government assistance to the poor is not a legitimate form of government" or even “Badnarik belives assistance to the poor is something that should be handaled by charities” gives off an entirely different conation then “Badnarik is opposed to government assistance for the poor". You can even change the words around/subjects to make it seem entirly different from that. Or you don't even have to mention he's opposed to government funding... you can just say badnarik belives private charities help out the best.

That’s a huge problem with political articles and writing down viewpoints… even the slightest grammatical nuances can leave the reader with a different impressions and implant biases. (oh and it's half-truths because the statements from Badnarik are all wrong) 203.112.19.195

Differences Among the Candidates?

I used to be active within the LP, but I confess that was some time ago, and I've lost track of the inside baseball. What I wanted from this article was a sense of what were the differences between the LP nominee and the two unsuccessful candidates for that spot on the ballot. In what respects did they have differing views on the application of their common principles? When "protection" is lifted, I would like to see some knowledgeable person add material along those lines. Everything listed as Badnarik's "platform" here is stuff on which I am certain his opponents would agree.

To Chuck and 24.92.130.139

Chuck is 203.112.19.195 but he makes many of his edits anonymously. Chuck, you should fix that section instead of removing it. As a libertarian and a Badnarik fan, I recognize that it's poorly written and contains much POV and inaccuracy. Your job is to fix it, not remove it. 24.92, thanks for contributing, but you have to see the opinion that you're inserting here. Characterizing his views as "extreme even for libertarians" is POV. "unorthodox" is POV. Let the facts speak for themselves.

Both of you violated the 3 revert rule. Chuck, this is yet another time you've broken the rules. Rhobite 00:30, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I agree -- characterizing Badnarik's views as "unorthodox" or extreme would be a major POV violation. However, I would simply suggest that in the text I wrote, the two sentences where I used such language be deleted, and my additions as a whole be allowed to remain. A normal wiki editor would have made such a change, but Chuck seems to be a Badnarik partisan, and thus uninterested in facts about Badnarik that would detract from his popularity. Again, simpy delete two sentences of my additions -- review the rest, and you'll see that it's helpful information to have in the article

Here is the text I wrote: Removed for readability

Thanks for the reply. Sorry for removing the full text from this talk page but it makes this talk page less readable. It's available through the edit history of this article.

I don't have a problem with any of the facts, although I may find something later. For now, my only issue is that they are presented negatively. Let's work out an NPOV version on Michael Badnarik/Political views temp. Chuck shouldn't have reverted you, but it takes two people to have a revert war. You also engaged him and you both forced the article to be protected. Rhobite 06:44, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Request that biased editors not edit this article

Whoever the guy is who is clearly on an anti-Badnarik tirade, please refrain from editing this article. I haven't edited it myself, but when I see stuff like "obscure joker" floating across recent changes, it leads me to believe that whoever is making such edits ought not to be editing Wikipedia. Perhaps you ought to find another project, as this is not the place for such nonsense. --Delirium 05:54, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

obscure joker = pov/ badnarik's views= good article

I would never call Badnarik an obsucre joker. What I would do is present an outline of some of his less well-known views. Take a look at what I've written, and see that it's not biased (except for two words -- (1)"unorthodox" and (2) extreme). Delete those words -- I should not have written them -- but the rest of what I wrote is very helpful. Read it for yourself, it's reproduced above, on this very page.

I've already responded to you, you ignored everything I said. 1. You don't have his book yet, it beehooves me you are using it a source. 2. you are taking things that were written as jokes/hyperboles in the COMMENTS page of his website and using them as fact, Let's go to all the other presedntial candiates wikipedia pages and find things they said as sarcasm/jokes and have 1/2th of thier page be taken up with that. 203.112.19.195 07:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I assure you that Badnarik made these statements in the "issues" section of his official campaign site. I remember reading them and being disappointed that a libertarian would make such insensitive statements. They have since been removed, and I accept his explanation that they are hyperbole. But do not remove their mention. As for the book, I believe 24.92 misread the Liberty article. The statements were actually on Badnarik's website, not in the book. I changed this in the proposed subpage. Please Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Rhobite 07:19, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Still, putting thiese views in as his serious postion is detrimount to lying. They were joke fantasies to appeal/get the attention of hardcore libertarians, because he thought for sure he wasn't going to get the nomination. That somehow needs to be noted, not stating that this is what he truly belives. I belive I've fixed most of the article now, the first paragraph could still use some work 203.112.19.195 07:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's a simple solution to this. Include the text about the nutty-sounding pre-nomination statements (UN building, tying down prisoners, etc.), and expand the rest of the article with more about his statements during the campaign, issues he has focused on, campaign activities, and so on -- just as the George W. Bush and John Kerry articles do. The issues in question have gotten relatively little attention since the nomination, but should Badnarik break into the major media, you can be sure they'll be brought up again; they're therefore worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia article. They are, however, true -- I've personally heard Badnarik say some of them, I've discussed the driver's license issues with him personally, and his book is available, albeit only in a self-published form that he sells at his Constitution classes. -- Seth Ilys 13:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous folk, possibly jokers themselves reverted my entirely reasonable attempts to clean up and diminish the bias in this article. Note I didn't call this obscure joker an obscure joker in the article, only in the commentary. I stand by it, in both elements. The bias drips off the text, how the obscure joker "flees" from California, I mean give me a break. He left there and went to Texas. Big deal. It's hardly the stuff of headline news or a pivotal historic event like Hitler's move from Vienna to Munich. This obscure joker is a serial candidate for President for a nothing party no one votes for. The length of this article is unacceptably long for wikipedia given how irrelevant he is, I doubt John Kerry's is longer. He will get less than 1% of the vote in November. The article to be meaningful must reflect this basic truth: He's a dickhead and an obscure joker wasting time in a bizarre and obscure ideology that is lovely in theory but irrelevant in practice. So let's gradually remove the hagiography and delete the emotive and stupid words like 'flees' etc. The changes I proposed were not that consequential but were important first steps. More work needs to be done to make the article tolerable. Reithy 15:20, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, he pretty much speaks for himself, nothing I need to add. If your uneducated to an extreme degree on the subject, you shouldn't be editing a page. 203.112.19.195 15:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reithy, inflammatory comments such as that one do absolutely nothing to help this article or Wikipedia. Comments and edit summaries like yours are practically proposals for an edit war. Your personal feelings about Badnarik are pretty much irrelevant to this article, so I'm asking you to stop calling him names. The purpose of this talk page is to talk about improving this article, not respond to childish insults. Rhobite 16:30, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

With my two post-graduate degrees, I don't normally consider myself uneducated. My comments are truthful. Michael whatshisname is an obscure, irrelevant person in politics. How many votes will he get? Fewer than 1%. His 'achievements' do not merit such a lengthy biography. I repeat and would love to hear a rebuttal, he is an obscure joker. I don't have any personal feelings about him. I have picked a random page in this encyclopedia to improve. I had not heard of him prior to doing that. I think Libertarians are perfectly cool anyway, sceptical about government, that's great. But they're extremists, that's a fact. The Presidential election is a contest between the two major parties (and occasionally a billionaire who wants to buy his way in). I want the article to be a realistic account of who he is and what he is. It is currently hagiography, or pure POV, not worthy of Wikipedia. You can huff and puff all you like, I will persist in bringing truth to this article. I have little else to do as I am sick in bed. Pray for my recovery then I might go away. Reithy 21:57, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reithy, forgive me if I'm not petrified by your threats. We do not trim useful content out of articles simply because some new users believe they are about non-notable subjects. Badnarik is the Libertarian Party candidate for president. The LP holds the most local offices out of any third party. They are on the ballot in the most states out of any third party. This is a man whose name will be presented to hundreds of millions of Americans and they deserve an honest portrayal of who he is. You're welcome to dispute anything you like, but as of now all you've done is call Badnarik names, boast about your education, and complain that the article is too long. Rhobite 22:22, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Badnarik's Arrest Demonstrates His Obscurity and Stupidity

This allegedly high profile, more notable than Ralph Nader candidate has to resort to stunts like getting himself arrested outside Presidential debates. Not even that got media attention. No one wants to know about him. His views are so far outside the mainstream, they are just not relevant to the Presidential election. That's the point. I don't have a problem with his views at all, in many respects I agree. But this is pure hagiography.

Rhobite, Ralph Nader is clearly the third ranking candidate. Asserting otherwise is ignoring the truth. Ralph Nader is a self-important buffoon, which may well be less offensive that being an obscure joker, let the voters decide. This article and the puff piece on the Libertarian Party are outrageously POV. He IS an obscure joker, an assertion I did not include in the article. All I did was remove some POV rhetoric. I didn't boast about my education, I just refuted the assertion I am not educated. The article is GROTESQUELY out of proportion to the true obscurity of a candidate who will get much less than 1% of the vote. The article is an advertisement for a candidate, and a totally improper use of Wikipedia. Reithy 22:46, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I said that the LP is on more ballots than any other candidate [3]. This statement is correct, and I said nothing about rankings or polls. Both Badnarik and Nader deserve articles, despite your trolling.

Your comments are a totally improper use of Wikipedia. This isn't a debate site, it isn't a chat room. If all you want to do is insult candidates, take it somewhere else please. I am resisting the urge to delete your flamebait comments. Rhobite 00:17, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about your education, I said people uneducated about the subject shouldn't be editing the page, you yourself just confirmed you didn't know about him before this morning. My point proven 203.112.19.195 06:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are the writers here psychically gifted as well? How can anyone claim to know how many votes a candidate will or will not receive BEFORE the election?

Welfare

Look, it's crazy that just because a lot of libertarians write this article that Badnarik's opposition to all government welfare programs is deleted. Badnarik's reasons for this opposition should be given, in detail, and his views should in *no* way be attacked. However, when such an addition is posted, it is immediately deleted. This suggests bias.

If the editors in question are libertarians, then it's not clear why they would see the welfare plank as a bad thing. - Nat Krause 06:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Check out User:Reithy's user page. Rhobite 13:14, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Everything I just deleted badly needs a source -- Plus it needs to be written that it is alleged unless we have direct quotes from Badnarik.. I know that I recived a letter from badnarik before he won the nomination that used zip codes(although it is possible jon airheart or somebody mailed it for him). The tax code thing turned out to be a non-issue, that Badnarik had no troubles over, nobody ever really found out the truth about that though, claiming it as fact is just wrong 203.112.19.195 12:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Badnarik campaign extremely unprofessional

This (removed) text regarded falsehoods on the Badnarik site (at http://badnarik.org/whybadnarik/why_republicans.php ) which the author considers to be unprofessional. All comers have the author’s permission to remove the vestiges of this text since the consensus seems to be that, despite the content on this page, it was at odds with the object and purpose of this forum. I defer to persuasive reason and I issue my apologies for any annoyance caused.

Thanks to Remahl & Langelier for their informative posts (although, Remahl may wish avoid ad hominem abusive type assertions in the future – such attacks have no intellectual value and thus more closely approximate the meaning of ‘drivel’ [imho]).

An excellent question, and I don't know the answer either. I guess you could write a polite note on their talk page. Sometimes offtopic chat is harmless, but this is not one of those cases. The best answer may be to just stick it out until after the US elections. Rhobite 20:59, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Generally the community is very permissive about what users keep on their user pages. The above (drivel, imho) is acceptable, I believe. On this talk page, on the other hand, it is off-topic since it doesn't talk about how to make the article better. — David Remahl 22:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

An afterword note: If this article is out of character, I will remove it myself. It is not my purpose to be pushy or inflammatory, and if I somehow misunderstood the other content in this page, I will apologize.

One could not be faulted for thinking that this page was some kind of op-ed section given what has been posted before. To be fair, the entire page should be weeded of stuff not directly pertinent to the editing of the article. Like Rhobite said, there is a time and place for off-topic chat, and the line may be fine but when the off-topic stuff approaches essay length it is fair to say the line has been crossed. Marteau 22:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Edit Wars

This is the appropriate place for ChuckF/anonymous to defend his large-scale deletions of the information on Michael Badnarik. Go ahead ChuckF, otherwise please stop your vandalism. Guido1970 13:12, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could you please discuss your edits, Chuck? Particularly 2 edits: "restrictive gun control laws," which is a value judgment and hence POV. And the stuff about driver's license, ZIP code, etc. all comes from the magazine article, are you disputing its factual accuracy? I recognize that you frequently complain that information is "out of context," but unfortunately this isn't grounds for whitewashing.

I also hesitate to accuse everyone here of being Reithy, although it's clear we're getting some anti-libertarian activists from somewhere, that isn't grounds to revert all their edits without consideration. Anyway, I hope you won't accuse me of being Reithy. Rhobite 05:43, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Rhobite - I previously made my points, but nobody replied to them and Guido/Reithy made this section down here. I've made my case on Reithey's request for comments as to why it at least seems like they are all the same person... aka None of them have made another edit after the next account was created(although After I mention this that might change) all of them are using the excat same reasoning and editing the same articles all of them seem to be from Australia. and they all accuse me of being anoymous and because I refuse to sign in that my edits aren't valid

Addpendum: I really don't belive that's the reason Badnarik has given in the past for why he doesn't get a driver's liscence, the consituation class gives more of a huge techinal argument about why he doesn't have to get one.. it's far more complex then just because he is required to give his social security number(i've never heard him even mention the social securty thing before). I have an actual problem with the source, Liberty is basically just a small zine that is known to be Anti-LP and Considering these are the only places I've ever seen these reasonings given. (and the zip code thing never before) I feel it's more proper to write allegly, unless someone can find a second source or a direct badnarik quote.

203.112.19.195

Whatever Liberty's bias is, are you really claiming that they fabricated an interview with Badnarik? Because he told them these things in the interview: "Badnarik: ZIP codes are federal territories. It's just a style thing." The article says he puts ZIP codes on but writes them between the city and state: "Buda (78610), Texas." Can you verify that on your correspondence? Asked about drivers licenses: "Badnarik: They wanted my Social Security number and a fingerprint and I was trying to obtain one without that." If you think Liberty fabricated statements by Badnarik, you need to write a letter to the campaign and the magazine. Rhobite 06:10, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

And one more thing, don't be ridiculous. Of course his statements caused controversy among libertarians. Did you spend a month away from the Internet? The LP nominated a controversial guy, and OF COURSE some libertarians disagreed with it. Rhobite 06:13, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Protected... again

Chuck, you have again caused an article to be protected. I recognize that many sockpuppets are signing up and quite frankly, you're being trolled. You don't have to engage them. Anyway, you are still removing stuff for no reason. Here is what you reverted incorrectly, in my opinion:

• The two sentences about ZIP codes and Badnarik being extreme among libertarians. These are not POV and you have no basis for removing them.
• Style and grammar: You had no reason to revert "the levying of" and "unlikely to win." "unlikely" is preferable to the idiomatic expression "a long shot."

The rest of the stuff can go. Rhobite 19:27, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

The zip codes one is incorrect... His actual interview doesn't mention anything besides he puts them in different places as sorta proest(kinda stupid but yes)... and isn't the entire extreme modifer pretty pov? who says his views are extreme among libertarians? Okay... That's all I got

Agree with Rhobite. PockyChoc 21:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jesus christ Reithy... Stop following me around in every article spouting the excat opposite opinon of mine, In korea I was just putting facts forth and then you come in there arguging with compleatly inaccurate facts(that you presumed was the argument against) as the counter-point.

Enemy of your enemy, eh sockpuppets? You don't have to engage them Chuck. I'll say it again, they are doing it to get a rise out of you and it's working. YHBT. Rhobite 00:21, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

The page really needs to be unprotected so that we can include, the recent developments with His book and it's sells. Also The more i think about it the more I relize that the stuff about his poltical views is just a bunch of negative cricticsms thrown at him, his actual poltical views are below that. We should make that clear and combine the two sections. 210.142.29.125 06:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The page needs continuing protection does it not prior to the permanent banning of Chuck_F Reithy 12:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your point has been made; stop publishing his location. --Golbez 20:15, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Environment?

I want to know his views on the Environment. Anyone?

This seems to lay it out quite well: Plans:The Environment

Risking unprotection

After 5 days with no substantive discussion on the talk page, and the American presidential election 4 days away, I decided to risk unprotecting this page. The NPOV notice, however, remains until the parties in the dispute can come to an agreement. -- Seth Ilys 15:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Seth. I restored the two edits I mentioned above. I rephrased the expression "a long shot" which is idiomatic. I also put back in the bit about ZIP codes. This is based on Badnarik's own words in the interview, so Chuck, please don't remove it again. Rhobite 18:10, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Here's my stance on the current disputes. "Issue positions" should strictly be a list of issue positions, for the NPAT answers. The section on controversial views deserves its own section, which may need a better name than "political views" but that's beside the point. Chuck please don't put the controversy stuff in an inappropriate section. I also changed the section hierarchy, because "issue positions" and "political views" were both children of "political career," this is clearly wrong. I also clarified the point that he advocates that people should have the right to own a gun, he does not advocate that everyone should own a gun. Rhobite 00:50, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Chuck, do you even bother reading this page? Do not roll legitimate edits into your endless reversions. Rhobite 04:22, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I've already stated above my view on this postion.. in an encylopedia unless that is mainly what the canidate is known for... his controversial views should not be first above the rest of his views. Also as I said look at Reithy's succession of edits he just keep finding polls that put Badnarik at smaller numbers and posted them... most polls show him actually tied with or better then Nader.

Fine, I moved the section and removed the poll. It's not helpful that you insist on reverting anything you don't agree with 100%. COMPROMISE. Rhobite 04:40, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Rhobite, I really must question your intentions in insisting on compromise in a manner dripping with insincerity and pomposity. You are COMPROMISED.Reithy 12:57, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Chuck_F, certainly didn't wish to delete above. Rhobite's bad intentions need to be exposed. I fell asleep at keyboard, a sad state of affairs I'll admit, must have pressed the wrong keys. Reithy 22:59, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Protected again, please discuss on the talk page, not in the edit summaries. — David Remahl 11:00, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Badnarik polled poorly

Less than half of 1%. Very poor result.

Brilliant analysis, Walter Cronkite. Who says the public is not up on politics? When we have thinkers such as this, my faith in teh American electorate is restored. Thank you, citizen! Marteau

santa pic

do you folks like my santa pic? Kalmia 06:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Business Card and ZIP codes

The scan I made of Michael Badnarik's business card was removed. I think it should remain because it is posted next to the section discussing ZIP codes. That section should be reworded. If he made a comment about ZIP codes, put citation, but it is incorrect to say that he doesn't use them or that he uses them in the way that is mentioned in the article.

If there isn't sufficient objection, I will replace the image. I will give it a few days to be discussed.

Kalmia 23:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Uncommon Assertions in book

Some note should be made that at least one of those assertions is verifiably true. The Federal Reserve is not a branch of the government and is a private business. -23:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Lack of sourcing on Badnarik's views about taxes

I added some citation tags in the section on Badnarik's alleged agreement with various tax protester arguments. There are various citations, but they are citations to information about tax protester arguments. There is no citation that shows that Badnarik himself actually agrees with those tax protester arguments. Yours, Famspear 16:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing name

Under the 'Views on taxes' section, there is a line 'He has also cited[17], who has served time in prison for tax evasion.' Whom did he cite? The name has gone missing. 155.92.33.89 (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed that line, because it wasn't at all clear who was being cited, even when looking up the info on the given page number of the book that was cited in the ref.--JayJasper (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Tax materials

It appears that the subject of this article espouses (or at least has espoused, in the past) some positions that, if acted upon, can and have landed people in federal prison. It is not at all clear that the subject of the article is actually aware of that, so we need to be careful about what we write here. For example, one of the matters is the William Benson sixteenth amendment nonsense. I added some detail on that. Benson is an ex-con who spent time in federal prison for tax offenses. See The Law that Never Was. His own "sixteenth amendment was not ratified" argument is completely bogus from a legal standpoint, and (as noted in the article on Benson's book) has been ruled to be part of a fraudulent scheme. The argument also has been ruled legally invalid -- over and over, in leading federal court cases. Since it appears Badnarik has espoused this kind of stuff, I want to be very precise about what I say about it in the article (even more so than normal, especially since this is article on a living person). Badnarik himself might not be aware of the criminal background of Benson, Benson's prior tax problems, or the "legal" status of this kind of stuff. Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Radio Host

Mr. Badnarik hosted the radio program 'lighting the fires of liberty' for almost 2 years. This was his most recent, and probably most public project, yet no mention of it here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.157.33 (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Badnarik does not practice minarchism

No sources identify Michael Badnarik as a minarchist. PublicSquare (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

False - he self identifies as a minarchist here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_k93op7_Pc&feature=PlayList&p=6E26254DBE03EA59&playnext_from=PL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.112.48 (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Relevance of the ZIP code section

Is there any reason for this page to contain a description of Badnarik's views on ZIP codes? I'm not aware of this being an issue that a lot of people care about, and there's no indication that Badnarik is fanatical about it either--it was just something he said in response to an interviewer's question. The only reason it's in the article, as far as I can tell, is to make him sound kind of loony.

It's been there for a while, so I won't delete it right away, but I'd like to know if anyone has a good reason to keep it in.

Jwsinclair (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)