Talk:Bob Barr/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

wonder why it wasn't given infobox for this long?

I just added the infobox for Bob Barr, but I still wonder why it wasn't added earlier. He was a fairly prominent member of Congress, yet no one was willing to give him a infobox. Even the most obscure and new congressman like this guy right here gets an infobox. Wooyi 01:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As one of the major contributors of Infoboxes for Governors, U.S. Senators, U.S. Reps, State Senators, and State Reps, the answer is simple: I started with the currently-serving politicians. No conspiracy theories needed. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm

There's something wrong with this article. It seems a little to white-washed. Hempeater 21:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What are the specific problems? The article seems overall balanced and well-sourced to me.--Gloriamarie 05:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one, there is no mention of his association with the Council of Conservative Citizens, the ultra-conservative segregationist organization he was with. Kevin mckague (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You're correct, that content is not included presently. I've read a little about how he and Trent Lott got in hot water in 1998 for speaking at a CCC convention. Judging by what I read, it doesn't seem like Barr had any long-standing relationship with CCC. And certainly, once he was criticized for his speaking at the convention, he immediately condemned the CCC, and claimed he had been "tricked" into speaking for the group without them fully disclosing their views (after all, "Council of Conservative Citizens" doesn't exactly sound like the neo-KKK). For example, there's a post about the incident on the ADL website... and Barr wrote a letter to Time magazine clarifying his position. I'm sure you could find a lot of references on the topic. Personally, I don't think the incident is worth my time trying to include it. Although, this isn't the first time Barr critics have tied him to racist causes (for example, Chester Doles, which I see got recently cut from the article), so you might be interested in creating a section of "charges of racism" or something like that. Be bold! (WP:BB) -Noca2plus (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In 1999, during the impeachment trial of President Clinton...

Wasn't the trial in 1998? Kingturtle 00:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Impeachment of Bill Clinton -- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "President of the United States Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999." VNCCC (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This page needs to be entirely remade or deleted

This article contains lots of outright vandalism such as "reefer - endum " and the statement "He met with Borat in the United States Capitol where he was given cheese that Borat described as being made from his wife's breast milk.[19]"

I'm sure lots of other info in this article is fake and/or unsourced as well. I dont know anything about this guy, so I cant rewrite it. I suggest this page be deleted if no one fixes it up ASAP. There are rumors this guy might make an independent run for president with Ron Paul. Therefore, there is going to be alot of people coming here to find out who this guy is, and right now the page is trash. Byates5637 (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He DID meet with Borat and eat cheese described as being made from his wife's break milk. It isn't vandalism, it is just funny as hell and I suggest watching it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.164.12 (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2008

Yep. True, and notable (Borat didn't meet with him out of random chance). bd2412 T 05:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Presidential Candidate?

There has been some talk of him running for president this year. This should be added in a new section. --Kalmia (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

External links in War on Drugs section

JayJasper (talk · contribs) brings up an interesting point with his edit in the War on Drugs section [1][2]. I had originally used an external link to refer the reader to the text of the ACLU lawsuit:

Nearly a year passed before a lawsuit filed by the ACLU eventually revealed the initiative had received 69% of the vote.

JayJasper converted the external link to a reference:

Nearly a year passed before a lawsuit filed by the ACLU eventually revealed the initiative had received 69% of the vote.

I understand that my original style was inconsistent with WP:Manual of Style (links)#Link_titles and WP:External_links#Important_points_to_remember. However, I believe use use of an embedded external link in this case benefits the article (see WP:IAR). There's no dispute that inclusion of a link to the text of the lawsuit benefits the article. The question is how this text is best linked. My feeling during the original edit was that the lawsuit text was not a source verifying the sentence. The fact that the lawsuit was filed was fully supported by the reference citation appearing at the end of the sentence. The link to lawsuit was to allow readers to examine the complaint itself. Certainly this could be handled in the way that JayJasper suggests. The reason I find my way prefereable is because it provides a cue to the reader that the lawsuit link is not, in fact, a statement of verifiability. As a reader myself, I'm often annoyed when an article statement like "A lawsuit forced the company to refund the money" cites as a source... the text of the complaint! This is wrong. The text of the lawsuit, while germane in this context, verifies little more than its own existence. It does not verify that the court found in favor of the plaintiffs. Nor does it verify the subsequent actions of the defendants (which may or may not adhere to the court's ruling).

The sentence in this article, in JayJasper's form, implies (at least to me) that the citation appearing after "lawsuit" will take me to a source that verifies the length of time before the lawsuit was filed? Ruled upon?... I'm not sure what. But it doesn't immediately occur to me that clicking on that citation will take me to the lawsuit's text. Noca2plus (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You bring up an interesting point as well. In my editing, I often convert external links within an article's text to a reference, in accordance with the guidelines you mentioned. However, you've made a valid case that some instances perhaps merit exception to these "rules". Your point is well taken, and from this point forward I will take your reasoning into account when encountering external links within an article's main text.--JayJasper (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Organization of "Post-congressional career"

I saw the {{proseline}} tag got taken down today in the "Post-congressional career" section. Now, I don't know about "inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline", but I can say that the organization of this section is definitely a mess. I'm not ready to be bold and redo the orgnization, but perhaps we could get some consensus on how to handle Barr's activities between leaving Congress and his Presidential bid.

For one, Barr underwent some major changes in political position during this time. I think there should be a clear section dealing with that. At present, that information is dispersed throughout the article. For example, within the "Political positions in Congress" section, there are sentences describing how, after Congress, Barr reversed his position. I would much prefer that be documented outside "Political positions in Congress", making an internal links where appropriate to a "Changes in political positions" section later in the article. But presently, no such section exists. Like I said, some of this text is imbedded in "Political positions in Congress", some is in the lead paragraph for "Post-congressional career", and some is in "Departure from Republican Party"

Another important change after Congress, is Barr's association with groups previously perceived as his enemies, such as the ACLU, the MPP, and the Libertarian Party. Most of this text is currently grouped under "Departure from Republican Party", and has little relvance to his actual departure (except perhaps the mutually exclusive relationship with the Libertarian Party). But breaking this text into a new section could be problematic with, for example, the ACLU. Barr worked cooperatively with the ACLU (mostly on anti-Clinton issues) back when Barr was in Congress. So it's incorrect to say "After Congress, Barr started working with his previous enemies, such as the ACLU", because of course, Barr was working with the ACLU even before he left Congress. One solution would be to treat, at least in the case of the ACLU, the association(s) in their own section, not tied to the congress/post-congress/president2008 timeline that currently seems to drive the article's organization. Noca2plus (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I boldly reorganized the latter half of the article.diff As of yet, there's no section dealing with Barr's revised political positions. Perhaps the new organization will obviate the need for such a section. I eventually decided that a "Criticism of Bush Administration" section was warranted. As I wrote in a comment tag at the beginning of that section:diff

• This is an overlapping bridge section. It starts with installation of Bush II while Barr was still in Congress (2001) and continues though the present day (2008). So it might be treated as a timeline, but it ties together Barr's criticism into a single narrative. The goal is to confine Barr's congressional actions and views to the Congressional Career section, and conversely, keep his post-congressional actions and views out of that section. Highlights should include Patriot Act, Privacy infringments, Failure of Republican Revolution to contain spending under Bush, Endorsement of Badnarick, and Departure from Republican Party. Because Barr joined the Libertarian Party while Bush was still in office, Barr's criticism should continue through his 2008 presidential bid

In addition, I grouped the ACLU and Libertarian Party info under a new "Political Associations" section. Here again, we need not confine the information to Barr's post-congressional activities. For example, the NRA board position spans both congressional and post-congressional periods. I hope you'll find this new organization helpful. -Noca2plus (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You've done an excellent job with the re-organization. Kudos. I agree that the article still needs a section on Barr's revised political positions. This will become even more necessary should he receive the LP nomination. It seems that it would be appropriate to work in such a section somewhere between the Departure from Republican Party section and the section dealing with Barr joining the LP. I haven't yet figured out a smooth way of doing this, but am giving it thought. In the meantime, the "pointers" you've added to various sections regarding views in which he has changed his stance are very helpful.--JayJasper (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation clean-up

I placed {{Cleanup-references}} on the article. There's a lot of good in-line citations, but the citations themselves could use some attention. For example, many of the citations are from newspaper articles, yet are presently cited as web sites, often without the name of the original newpaper publisher. That is, many of them could be improved by fully using the {{cite news}} template. Noca2plus (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

African American ancestry

Does Bob Barr have African American ancestry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.79.50 (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't all Americans have African ancestry? (see Human evolution) -Noca2plus (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been a long standing question that Bob Barr himself has been vague about. The answer maybe "maybe". A google search of USENET brings up several times when this was asked. Each time there was no definite answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.242.51 (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, my girlfriend glanced at Barr on Fox News a couple of months ago and asked "Is he black?". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.156.137.169 (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please expand Clinton Impeachment

I've placed an {{Expand}} tag in the impeachment section. Seems to me that this one of Barr's major claims of notability. However, the section is very sparse. Half of it is on Larry Flynt digging up Barr's skeletons, rather than Barr's role in the impeachment. Barr wrote a WHOLE BOOK on this topic, can we get a few more paragraphs in here? -Noca2plus (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Photo revision

Thanks to whoever cropped the photo. The headshot works better and is consistent with the main photos in the vast majority of election articles.--JayJasper (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It was Gage working at Commons.[3] Probably the same as Gage (talk · contribs). I agree, the new pic is better. The space at the top makes Barr look short, though. Is he short? -Noca2plus (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Good job, Gage. Yeah, the space at the top does make him look short, I suppose. Oh well, it's still an improvement!--JayJasper (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the blank space on Commons. -Noca2plus (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the best version yet.--JayJasper (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Another photo of Bob Barr was just uploaded to Wikicommons. Rauterkus (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Bob Barr speaks in October 2008.

• Google Video of Bob Barr talk from Pittsburgh's Carnegie Mellon University on October 10, 2008.

Thanks for the info on the new pic.--JayJasper (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

As of 2008, Barr has not made any additional bids for a congressional seat.

Yom (talk · contribs) recently pulled this sentence from the Congressional career section, commenting "unnecessary sentence. If he had made a bid, it would discuss it."[4] I disagree. Wikipedia is inherently unfinished, and unfortunately, spotting content omissions is difficult. I like this sentence because it makes clear that, as of the article's writing (2008; see WP:DATED), Barr's congressional career ended in 2003. Without the sentence, it's unclear if Barr made any addition bids that are, for whatever reason, missing from the article. Of course it's possible Barr might run for Congress at some future date, but from this sentence it's clear that such a run would have to have happened after 2008. I'm reverting. -Noca2plus (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Fundraising

I took out the line on fundraising, since it was incorrect. The $18,000 was donations to the Libertarian Party in honor of Bob Barr, not donations to the Barr campaign. 75.24.23.97 (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

immigraion stance?

Nine pages of information on Barr and not a word on his stand on illegal immigration which I considered more of a threat than oil price and Iraq together... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.29.26.18 (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress. Be bold, and add something yourself! But please back up your text with citations. If you want some help, just ask. -Noca2plus (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

How much info on embarassing associates should be in a presidential candidate's biography?

The Barack Obama Featured Article, part of this project's scope, now has an important discussion on its talk page (at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details) that could affect other articles, including this one, on other presidential candidates. There is already talk on that page that the articles on other presidential candidates may need to be changed, so editors involved in this article may want to get involved with the discussion there.

Some editors here think that when a U.S. presidential candidate is embarassed by someone associated with that candidate, no information about it should be mentioned in the WP biography article, even if the campaign (and therefore the person who is the subject of the article) was affected. Others think WP should only mention that this person was controversial and leave a link in the article to the WP article on that controversial associate. Still others (including me), think we should briefly explain just why that person was controversial in the candidate's life, which can be done in a phrase or at most a sentence or two. Examples:

• Hillary Clinton and Norman Hsu
• Barack Obama and Bill Ayers (and Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko)
• John McCain and John C. Hagee
• Rudy Giuliani and Bernard Kerik

Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article, but, again, this will likely affect many other articles.

If you click on the first link I give here, you'll find a comparison I did of negative information in the Clinton, McCain and Giuliani articles. I've also posted that information on the talk pages of those articles. In that discussion (and at the McCain, Clinton and Giuliani talk pages), I've also posted a comparison of what negative information is presented on each candidate, especially in relation to associates who give the candidates bad publicity. I think editors of this article would find the comparison useful. Noroton (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

On some other pages where I've posted this, people have been responding only beneath the post, which is fine, but won't help get a consensus where it counts. So please excuse me for raising my voice, just to make sure I get the point across: Please respond at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details where your comments will actually affect the consensus!!! Sorry for the shoutin', won't do it again (here anyway). Noroton (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Hillary Clinton and Juanita Broaddrick. Carol Moore 19:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Life imitates art (or at least Wikipedia)

I was pleased to see that Treybien (talk · contribs) found a ref for Barr's early life section.[5] However, I was horrified to see that the reference is remarkably similar to... you guessed it... THIS ARTICLE. http://www.nowpublic.com/world/barr-and-root-personal-reflection was published 2008-05-27 where AlvarezGalloso says:

Bob Barr was born in Iowa City, Iowa on the 5th of November 1948 and his parents were members of the US Military. He attended the American School of Lima, Peru, Colegio Franklin Delano [in Peru], and graduated from the American School of Tehran, Iran in 1966.

...earlier that morning[6], back on Wikipedia, this article said:

Barr was born on November 5, 1948, in Iowa City, Iowa.[4] His parents served in the U.S. military,[citation needed] and he spent many years with them abroad; including Lima, Peru where he attended Colegio Franklin Delano Roosevelt, The American School of Lima,[citation needed] and Tehran, Iran where he graduated from Community High School in 1966.[4]

The article contains many other phrases indicating that AlvarezGalloso's first stop for reasearch is none other than Wikipedia. This is a problem. I understand that the The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, but in this case I fear that this article has bred it's own verification! That is, I believe that AlvarezGalloso simply ignored the {{citation needed}} tag, and now what was once questionable... is suddenly verifiable! Hence, Treybien's edit.

Now, I don't mean to disparage Treybien in any way. I'm glad Treybien took the time to respond to the need for verification. But truly, this is not right. The idea that Barr attended FDR in Lima was first inserted on 2008-05-14 by 66.177.51.160 (talk).[7] That statement needs to be verified by a source published prior to that date.

I think I now fully understand Jimmy Wales admonishment at WP:GRAPEVINE. I never thought the statement that Barr attended FDR was contentious or hurtful... I just thought it needed to be sourced. Now I think I fully understand the danger of allowing unsourced material to persist on Wikipedia. -Noca2plus (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Life Imitates Wikipedia II (Barr's "military" parents)

I decided to make this a separate section because including it above was just too complicated. Another ref added by Treybien (talk · contribs) today "verifies" the fact that Barr's parents were in the military... with the implication being that this is why Barr went to school in several different countries.[8] As above, this source -- http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_567921.html, published 2008-05-17, seems eerily reminiscent of THIS ARTICLE. Now, the unverified statement that Barr's parents were in the military dates all the way back to the 2006-12-02 version of this article.[9] I suspect that Bill Steigerwald has parroted that (up to now) unsourced statement.

This is troubling, not only for the reasons mentioned previously (i.e., citing a journalist who cites an unsourced Wikipedia statement shouldn't suddenly make the statement verifiable!)... but also because there's evidence that this statement is false.

For example, in a much more original-sounding article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/131748, George Will states on 2008-04-21:

The son of a soldier, Barr graduated from high school in Tehran.

This is consistent with both Barr's parents being in the military, but implies that only one of his parents was actually a soldier (not both as this article states). Further, an old newspaper article from the Atlanta Journal / Constitution (by Jim Auchmutey 1987-12-18) "He's every inch the barrister - U.S. Attorney Barr enjoys `great job'" states:[10]

The second of six children, he was born in Iowa but spent most of his boyhood hopscotching the globe with his family as his father, a civil engineer, went from project to project. Living in Latin America, the Far East and Iran left Barr with a precocious awareness that most of the world isn't much like Iowa.

Which implies, quite to the contrary of this article's implication, and Bill Steigerwald's cited article... Barr's family didn't travel around because of military duties... but rather civil engineering duties. Further, if Barr is the son of a soldier, it would appear that either his mother was that soldier... or his father was a soldier before he became a civil engineer. (although I guess it's possible Barr Sr. was in the United States Army Corps of Engineers for example). In any case, I am again horrified that our unwillingness to police unsourced material has produced verifiable "facts" outside Wikipedia. -Noca2plus (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I asked Bill Steigerwald what source he used for the Barr background in Mr. Steigerwald's article. He responded:

"i think i saw the barr stuff about lima and his military parents at his web site -- but not sure. google bob barr bio"

I did as he said, but didn't find anything that didn't seem to parrot the Wikipedia article or Mr. Steigerwald's article. To prevent further propagation of this unsoured information, I'm going to rework the Early Life section strictly using old sources. -Noca2plus (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. -Noca2plus (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Military Reform Movement

Since we're talking of Barr's military background here, I just found this article on the Military Reform Movement, which states amongst other things: The only presidential candidate who might pick up the reform agenda is Libertarian nominee Bob Barr Source: http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Military_Matters_Reform_history_Part_1_999.html [11] Can anybody work this into the article? VNCCC is too busy now, sorry.... VNCCC (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for ref VNCC! Unfortunately, that statement is ALL the article says about Bob Barr. Until Barr makes some sort of statement indicating opinion regarding MRM, I don't think it merits inclusion in his biography. -Noca2plus (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Carol Moore 19:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Ditto--JayJasper (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian Nominee in infobox

Is there any way to put the Libertarian Nominee part to the top? It is his current position. Most presidential nominees have it right under their picture, why should he be different. Now I would do it, but I don't know how. --Mike Theodore (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, I don't know. However, I don't see what you're saying in terms of the nominee status being first on "most presidential nominees". So far as I can tell, Barr is the only candidate that both a former office holder and, as of 2008-06-11, an official nominee. -Noca2plus (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, forgive my vagueness. The candidates that I see with the nominee part under the picture never held office before. But it is safe to assume that Obama and McCain will have it above them being Senators. --Mike Theodore (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Barr says we should send troops from Iraq to South America?

I have seen this allegation numerous times, from supposed anti-Barr Libertarians. [12] Not only are such claims always unsourced, it is suggested his website is replete with articles to this effect. However, I can find no evidence of this. If this is a valid claim, it should be probably be here. Can anybody shed light on this issue?

Furthermore, much is made of his employ with the CIA. However, there is very little information on it, anywhere. What did he do with the CIA? Could he still have connections with them? Is there evidence either way?

Most of the Barr criticism so far, here and elsewhere, seems to be either vague, unreferenced, or circumstantial. This is not healthy, for either side of the debate. This article needs a well-researched discussion of these and other accusations. If they have a basis in verifiable information, that should be referenced here. If they do not, the article should say as much. Marshaul (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If such accusations begin to surface in the mainstream media, rather than just within libertarian circles, I agree that the article should address them. Otherwise, I don't see a need for such coverage. As you pointed out, most of the accusations are unsourced, so they don't belong here unless reliable sources can be cited. FWIW, Barr was employed by the CIA in the 1970s (I'm not sure in what capacity), but left that organization 30 years ago (see the reference link in the "Early career" section of the article).--JayJasper (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

War in Iraq

"In 2002 Barr, like all but six Republicans in the House of Representatives, voted for the Iraq Resolution in 2002.[51]"

"like all but six Republicans in the House of Representatives" is deleted because it is sneeky and runs 2 disjoint items together.

Why not include what the democrats did in the vote in the sentence? Why not expand it to the senate also.

To illustrate the disjoint: It is such poor sentence constuction that reads like this (exaggerated): "In 2002 Barr, like a 1967 Ford F150 lugnut should be torqued to 48 ft-lbs, voted for the Iraq Resolution in 2002." Which is obsurd. But it is the same mating of 2 facts which have no real dependence on each other. If you think they ARE related facts then it should come straight to the intended sneeky point "In 2002 Barr acted like the Republican he is and voted for the Iraq Resolution in 2002." and let that fly. But you know it wouldn't fly even though that's really the intent of the original sentence. Hence better to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.26.74 (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I was one of the LP state chairs that nominated Barr to the LNC (I was state chair of Alabama in 2006). I am by no means anti-Barr. That shouldn't matter, but my point is that the mention is informative. Barr was a Republican, and a reminder of the circumstances of his vote could be helpful to the reader. I think the mention should remain. DickClarkMises (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why 98.223.26.74 (talk) believes that expanding this section to include the political circumstances of Barr's vote "wouldn't fly". Provided references can be found, I think it'd be quite useful to expand on how supporting the war on Iraq was seen by many in Congress as being important. Especially to those who owed their seat to the RNC. It's also worth noting that Barr had already lost his re-election bid by the time he voted to go to war. So, you might argue that he had nothing to lose by going against Republican leadership and the Bush administration, if that's truly where his conscience was leading him at the time. His vote suggests that he felt going to war was genuinely a good idea, and wasn't simply caving to political pressure. Noca2plus (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That said, I think this section is problematic overall because it isn't confined to the parent section of Bob_Barr#Political_positions_in_Congress. Of the three sentences presently composing Bob_Barr#War_in_Iraq, only the first one deals with Barr's "Political positions in Congress". The other two sentences describe his positions after Congress. I see similar problems elsewhere (e.g., the 2007 quote recently placed in Bob_Barr#War_on_drugs). This could mean that the present organization of the article is not working; that the primarily temporal organization of his positions should be scrapped in favor of a primarily topical organization. I sense there are strong desires by editors to point out Barr's flip-flop on various issues, and a primarily temporal organization (like we supposedly have now) doesn't facilitate this. Should we be policing the Congress section more; excluding non-congressional info? Or should we be talking about reorganizing the article to provide for a "Polital positions" section? Personally I think the latter might be confusing to readers trying to know "what Barr's political positions are now" because they'd have to wade through the whole history of Barr's development on a particular issue. (see also Talk:Bob_Barr#Organization_of_.22Post-congressional_career.22 above) Noca2plus (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ice Cream Controversy?

Just letting the editors know...the citation provided for Barr's ice cream incident in the "Controversy Section" doesn't actually do anything to support the claim, its just a link to an Economist article about Barr as a candidate for the Libertarians in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.216.69 (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it does refer to the particular incident in the last sentence of the second paragraph of the cited article.--JayJasper (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Washington Post recently ran an extensive piece on Barr which addresses this incident - Bob Barr, the Master of a Curious Universe (password required), Monday, August 18, 2008; Page C01: "Two people who observed the act say it wasn't exactly a bosom lick but more like a neckline lick, at the sort of event where business and civic leaders perform dares to raise money. Barr was cajoled into it precisely because he was, well, Bob Barr. 'Not exactly Mr. Effusive', says Matt Towery, the former chairman of Newt Gingrich's political organization, who observed the brief and awkward licking. 'You can hardly get the guy to smile'". Cheers! bd2412 T 21:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. 128.164.132.31 (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Childhood in Lima, Peru

Bob Barr spent part of his youth, 1962-1964, in Lima, Peru with his family and attended Colegio Franklin D Roosevelt, the American School of Lima. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.145.72 (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to include this in the article, but so far, I haven't been able to find a reliable source for that fact. Please also see Talk:Bob Barr#Life imitates art (or at least Wikipedia) above. If you find a source, cite it here on the talk page, and I'll add it to the article. Noca2plus (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Verifiable by clicking the American School of Lima, Franklin D Roosevelt alumni website at http://www.fdralumni.com/ASP/RosterDetail.asp?AlumniID=3717—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.145.72 (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2008

That site appears to be restricted to registered alumni of the school. I'm not an alumnus, so I wasn't able to access the page. I'll see if I can get the webmaster to send me the info. Noca2plus (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Borat

No mention of his appearance in the Borat movie? Why so? 90.192.92.137 (talk) 05:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Barr's Borat appearance is noted in Bob_Barr#Other_activities. See also the Talk:Bob_Barr#This_page_needs_to_be_entirely_remade_or_deleted section above. Noca2plus (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference Template Formatting

Centrx's edit from a couple weeks ago collapsed much of the reference template code.[13] For example, Centrx (talk · contribs) changed the lead paragraph code from

'''Robert Laurence "Bob" Barr, Jr.'''<ref name="State Bar of Georgia">
{{cite web
  | title = Mr. Robert Laurence Barr Jr. 
  | work = Member Directory
  | publisher = State Bar of Georgia
  | year = 2008
  | month = May
  | url = http://www.gabar.org/directories/member_directory_search/member_detail/?
id=MDM5NDc1
  | accessdate = 2008-05-21}}
</ref> (born [[November 5]], [[1948]]) is the [[Libertarian Party (United
States)|Libertarian Party]] nominee for [[President of the United States]] in
the [[United States presidential election, 2008|2008 election]].

to

'''Robert Laurence "Bob" Barr, Jr.'''<ref name="State Bar of Georgia">{{cite
web |title = Mr. Robert Laurence Barr Jr.  |work = Member Directory |publisher
= State Bar of Georgia |year = 2008 |month = May |url =
http://www.gabar.org/directories/member_directory_search/member_detail/?
id=MDM5NDc1 |accessdate = 2008-05-21}}</ref> (born [[November 5]], [[1948]]) is
the [[Libertarian Party (United States)|Libertarian Party]] nominee for
[[President of the United States]] in the [[United States presidential
election, 2008|2008 election]].

Centrx's reasoning was: "It needs to be clear where and how to edit, not cluttering the page with refs longer than whole paragraphs". I agree that the article's code style should help editors see where and how to edit. However, I think Centrx's change is not helpful in this regard. I feel that the vertical style of ref template code helps differentiate what is visible text in the paragraph vs. what is code to generate the citation. And in any case, seeking consensus before making such a broad (and now undoable) change to the article would have been much more appropriate (see WP:Cite#Citation_templates_and_tools). Noca2plus (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to continue using vertical formatting of citation templates in this article. How do others feel? Noca2plus (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Support return to vertical formatting. I agree with the above reasoning, and feel that the veritcal style actually makes it more "clear where and how to edit".--JayJasper (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Over the past week, it looks like this page has seen about 50 edits, almost all of which were either vandalism or their reversion.[14] Only three edits have added useful content: One from an IP editor,[15] and a pair from Rauterkus (talk · contribs).[16] Most of the vandalism is coming from IP accounts. I propose that this page be semi-protected (WP:SEMI) for at least one month, which should take us past the US presidential election. Noca2plus (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been considering the same thing. Is the vandalism being promptly reverted? Jon513 (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it. A couple this week persisted for an hour or two, though. I find that it's the cluttering of the history page that's more annoying than anything. Noca2plus (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for one week. Jon513 (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Whew! When I read the edit summary, I thought you'd fully protected it. Which would be bad, because I'm sure AnnieBot needs to come back and fix whatever it is it fixed. — trlkly 23:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Federalist?

Check this out, the article says:

Barr has been careful to note that he isn't pro-drug, but rather against government intrusion.[84] In interviews he has expressed the nuanced position of simultaneously opposing legalization, yet advocating the federalist ideals of State legislation and enforcement over Federal control.[87][88]

While there might be a bias problem in the use of the word "nuanced", the thing that gets me is the "advocating federalist ideals of State legislation and enforcement over Federal control." Assuming "federalist ideals" still exist, aren't federalist ideals the exact opposite? That is- don't federalists believe in the federal government's power over the states- an idea completely contradictory to the one expressed in this article and the ideals of libertarians? Tell me what you think. --Zaphod Beeblebrox (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that sentence is an accurate summary of Barr's belief as articulated in the cited interview. In particular, Barr said:

"...my views with regard to medicinal marijuana... are in accord with fundamental principles of federalism. Get the federal government out of these issues, these decisions and return the power to the people."

A separate issue is whether or not Barr is confused about the definition of federalism. I think many people believe, as Zaphod Beeblebrox apparently does, that federalism is a position advocating federal power over state power. Indeed, this was the major contrast between the Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton and Anti-federalists who opposed the US Constitution. But truly, in that (original?) sense, federalism simply means advocacy for the enumerated federal powers contained within the Constitution. I believe this is the sense that Barr intends. That is, because control of drugs is not an enumerated power of the federal government, that power should be returned to the states or the people. Noca2plus (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The idea that restrictions on federal power can be viewed as "federalism" is supported by Federalist No. 45. At the time of that writing, James Madison was a self-identified federalist arguing in support of the US Constitution which expanded federal powers beyond those granted in the Articles of Confederation. Madison argues in Federalist 45:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

Which I think is entirely congruent with Barr's view. So to the extent that federalism means that the federal government has only a few powers, I think Barr is correct in using the federalism label to describe his opposition to federal control of medical marijuana. Noca2plus (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What's confusing is that after the Constitution was ratified, supporters of the Constitution such as Madison and Thomas Jefferson came to oppose the Federalist Party headed by Hamilton. And indeed, Madison and Jefferson were opposed to the Federalist agenda of expanding federal power. So in this sense, federalism can mean any push to expand federal power. In contrast, the view articulated in the Federalist papers (such as 45 and 84) suggests that federalism is as much a belief in limited federal power as it is an explcit belief that a strong federal government is necessary. Noca2plus (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

bob barr

bob barr was running for president —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.62.125 (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct! In fact, as of this writing, he still is -- a fact duly noted in the article. Noca2plus (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does it say bobby badass ontop of his picture?

On the ballot it said "Bob Barr". Maybe he legally changed his name in 2 days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.158.7 (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That was vandalism, which has thankfully been reverted.--JayJasper (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)