Talk:Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign/Archive 2
Notable appearances
[edit]I changed the name as there is other appearences other than on the media included in the list. Furthermore this section seems to be a little bit outdated or is the 14th july the last time he appeared anywhere notable? Lord Metroid 09:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Online Ron Paul Rally
[edit]rally.ronpaulplanet.org has a mosaic with over 1400 Ron Paul supporters (as of this writing), each voicing messages of support for Dr. Paul. Anyone can add themself to the mosaic, and it is growing with each passing day. This is a unique form of grassroots support that no other candidate has. I believe it is worth noting somewhere in the article. There is also an accompanying YouTube video slideshow that shows 1300+ supporters and a mosaic image of Dr. Paul himself composed of their photos. There are also detailed statistics about the rally participants, including breakdowns by age, party, donations, and states.
I think it should at least be listed in the external links, if not in the main article. Anyone care to comment on this?
Should we mention a different Facebook app, Vote on The Book, on which he's leading the Republican vote, with 60+% of the primary? Maxisdetermined 15:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
It shall NOT pass.Please tell me where is my understanding of statistics incorrect, would you? While we are at it, would you explain how the references cited did not oint to astroturfing?
Mr. Janbrogger: the claims are not based on a blog, there's a whole thread of comments on the issue and the reference is to the exact website that is being manipulated. (sorry, late night) Daniel Mendes 05:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- The comment above is in regards to the removal of the following paragraph:
Some claim[1] that much of Ron Paul's internet support is a result of Astroturfing and that his supporters engage on questionable behaviour[2] in order to promote his candidacy and associated libertarian discourse. Paul's results in online polls, seldom less than double digits but often leading and even sweeping the board have also been linked to the same efforts by his supporters, especially when compared with the candidate's performance in scientific polls where he's rated consistently under the margin of error.
- Both of the cited sources are Digg entries: Ron Paul Morons Manipulating Digg and Ron Paul fs Digg Manipulation Exposed. The latter goes to a speculative blog article Digg Dirt: Exposing Ron Paul’s Social Media Manipulation.
- The wlinked entry on Astroturfing defines the term as formal public relations campaigns in politics and advertising that seek to create the impression of being spontaneous, grassroots behavior. In contrast, the cited sources are more concerned about the spontaneous, grassroots behavior going overboard.
- The claim that Paul's opinion poll numbers are "rated consistently under the margin of error" is misleading. The specific margin of error for such low poll numbers is substantially less than the reported maximum margin of error - for more about why, see the explanation in Maximum and specific margins of error.
It is not that I think that you are wrong. It is just that the paragraph is not properly sourced. Please take a look at WP:RS and WP:NOR. The following statement is BOLDED in the content guidelines, and for a reason: Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. If you can provide a source to a regularly published journal or newspaper article, quote that. But do not quote a Digg that links to a blog entry. It is not a RS. Until then, it should be left out of the article. If the Digg link points to a reliable source, quote that instead. Janbrogger 06:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please remember to sign your posts. Daniel Mendes has made comments here that are a little confusing to follow because they're not signed. I just reverted Daniel Mendes reinstatement of the blockquoted paragraph above. There was no comment on the talk page. I don't think I've misunderstood. The Digg link points to a blog. Again, if I have misunderstood, please explain or better just provide a link to a better source that conforms to Wikipedia policy, I will back down without question. Please let's avoid an edit war and especially a 3RR situation By the way, the "odds" on Ron Paul probably also is original research. Janbrogger 07:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just re-checked the sources for the odds. Apparently, it was a press release not one person's compilation of changes in odds, so WP:OR does not apply. Janbrogger 07:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Iowa Straw Poll
[edit]Someone mind helping? I put up the bare minimum information, but I accidentally put it in the wrong area, I guess. It's in the debate section. Someone better with the 'Pedia should move and improve.--Shink X 02:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Pie chart
[edit]Hey, can someone make a pie chart showing the results of the straw poll? That will put it more in perspective. Maybe even the amount of money spent by each candidate can be superimposed on it. Operation Spooner 06:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Internet Appeal
[edit]Should there be a mention of the small but loyal group of Internet support and related accusations of spamming debate poll results? WAVY 10 17:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- All hallucinations in Wikipedia must cite reliable sources. WP:REDFLAG —RVJ 06:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Academic Endorsments
[edit]I'm going to revert the endorsements and attempt to provide citations- it's pretty clear that this list has merit. I think the best thing to do is to allow them in the meantime while the citations are found or until the users who included them are warned of the situation. However, removing them without leaving a statement explaining the situation is a pretty low blow, especially from a user who is public Mitt Romney supporter. I believe the silent deletion was intentional. 84.112.5.251 20:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Daniel.Stevens from Wikibooks (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Daniel.Stevens)
- Once you source the endorsements they can stay, but there has been a real problem with the addition of unsourced content in this article. --Tdl1060 21:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Durham, New Hampshire Debate
[edit]The last line, where it says that Hannity said that the poll results were biased is biased. It was IMPOSSIBLE to vote more than once. I have already attempted to say this (with a source), but someone said it was a pov (even though it is a fact), removed the edit, and called it vandalism. Someone must rectify this mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radicalcentrist1990 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)