Talk:Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Why is this article so friggin' long??

A fringe candidate that never stood even the slightest chance of winning, whom no one will remember a couple of years from now, gets an article this long? Why? Because there are a couple of internet residents that adore him and spend hours slaving away over a search engine trying to find out what brand of pancake syrup he likes or what color seats there were in his first car? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.238.194 (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Same reason things like Star Wars and video games are so thoroughly covered on wikipedia; lots of fat autistic virgins who spend 19 hours a day on the internet worship them and have plenty of time and energy to devote to writing exhaustive articles. But kidding aside, this shit needs to be merged into the main article for Ron Paul. No other American presidential candidate of so little consequence has an article devoted entirely to his presidential campaign. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Write-in candidacy

Ron Paul is listed as a write-in candidate in California. Should this be included in here? – Zntrip 00:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• OF course! 131.123.130.154 (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If reliable sourcing can be provided, yes.--JayJasper (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Indexing

I have requested that HBC Archive Indexerbot create an index of the talk archives for this article. I can't imagine why anyone would oppose this, but I'm open to discussion if you do. The index, once it is created, will be located here and can be easily accessed by clicking "Index" in the archive box at the top of the page. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Hello. I am going to have to fail this article's GA nomination, due mainly to the presence of a major cleanup banner and multiple citation needed tags, some of which have been in place since 2007.

There are other issues with the article, including:

• In the Campaign development section, it is probably unnecessary to have the first three sections split into quarters. All of 2007 could probably be combined into one heading, with short paragraphs combined or expanded.
• There are a lot of short paragraphs throughout the entire article. Many of these should be combined with other paragraphs or expanded.
• Web references need to be formatted with a title, publisher and access date at the very least. They should definitely not be left as just bare links.
• See this tool that shows you all of the links that have problems in the article. I counted 34 links that are completely dead, and at least that many that have been moved or are possibly dead.

This is not an exhaustive list, as I have not reviewed prose, images, NPOV or whether claims are sourced to reliable references. I would suggest that the nominator spend some time working on the article (as they have not made a single edit that I can find, either to the article itself or to the talk page), contact the editors that have been active in the past to see if they are still active and willing to collaborate, and renominate this article in the future after some significant work has been completed, especially with regard to references and sourcing. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Big whalloping lies.

The section under 'Social Networking' is one big walloping lie. Ron Paul is *NOT* "popular" on Internet social networks; Ron Paul is spammed and shoved down the audience's collective throats by a tiny minority of social sites while the majority are indifferent to the man and express loathing for his followers. Do not insult anyone's intelligence by asking me for a citation, either; go to any social media gathering in question and read the comments yourself.

There is no grassroots at all. There is asstroturf by a group of well-heeled millionaires who can afford to buy votes and hire commenters. This is highly common knowledge.

Not that I expect anything to get done about it, or even for this comment on the talk page to be anything but ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.53.13 (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Gee, why would people ignore such a civil, well-reasoned, thoroughly-sourced piece of cogent criticism, with such excellent spelling, punctuation, grammar and formatting? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the good folks at 4chan were responsible for flooding a bunch of the polls and the like. The records of their machinations are gone, but if I remember correctly, they treated the promotion of Ron Paul as one giant joke on the Internet. Burzmali (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Running Mate

Didnt he say he would pick Rep Dennis Kucinich of Ohio for his running mate?

Highly doubtful. Can you find a reliable source to support that?--JayJasper (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Newsletters

Section should be cleaned up a bit for clarity's sake. The newsletters were published by Ron Paul & Associates, so I think the phrase:

various names bannering "Ron Paul" prominently in the title, such as The Ron Paul Survival Report

is a little too delicate. Paul never denied that they were his publications, he just denied having written or edited them. Also, I think the excerpts in question should be included in the article. Njsamizdat (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've condensed the newsletters section a bit. (There have been ongoing complaints of undue weight being given to discussion of the newsletters controversy across multiple Paul-related WP pages.) A more in-depth discussion of the newsletters controversy, including details that have occurred since the 2008 campaign, will be developed at the separate Ron Paul newsletters page. See Talk on the main Ron Paul page for further discussion.

In accordance with WP:SPINOFF policy, the smaller section on the newsletters on this (Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008) should not be completely removed because the controversy was an issue of concern during the 2008 election.Dezastru (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia mani-pulation

When typed "Ron Paul presidential campaign" this pop up insted of "Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012". Fix it or know we know.99.90.197.87 (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)