Talk:Draft Condi movement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] No wikibolding
Notice that there's no bolding of the defined term in the first paragraph of the article, as Wikipedia style guidelines suggest. Not quite sure how it should be done... AnonMoos 21:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Astroturfing
Why is there an astroturfing link? Is there a suggestion that the Draft Condi movement is astroturfing rather than real grass roots? If so, it should be cited in the article, not just implied by the link, I think... 71.137.149.1
- Agreed - if it has been suggested that the movement is astroturfing, that should be stated explicitly, with citation. In the mean time, removing link. Vilĉjo 15:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've never seen any reputable source claim that the Draft Condi movement was astroturfing in any sense of the term. In fact, Americans For Dr. Rice, as a "527 political organization" is prohibited by the FEC from having any communication or cooperation with either Dr. Rice or her staff at the State Department.
[edit] POV/Notablility issues
This article clearly has some POV issues as it reads like a promotional piece for this organization and could possibly be eligble for deltion. It only gets 404 G-Hits [1]including 2 for this article. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 06:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Look, I live in Japan, I am a limey that has never even been to the US and yet I have heard of this movement. Isn`t interest a Pacific Ocean away notable enough? Andycjp 17/8/06
- Sorry, but one solitary Google search http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Draft+Condi+Movement%22 is hardly the last word on the matter, since this is not any official name (there is no comprehensive "official name"), and different alternative phrasings will probably be frequently used... AnonMoos 17:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge page?
Should this page not be merged with the Condoleezza Rice page? And if not, why not? --Mhking 02:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Because it's about one specfic phenomenon (conducted by individuals who are largely personally unconnected with her), and because there are separate pages for Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008 etc. If she ends up definitely not running in 2008, that will be the time to start talking about merging this page... AnonMoos 03:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose merge. The Condoleezza rice page is already very long and doesn't need new content if that content can easily be made a separate article. There are pages for other presidential compaigns and a movement of this magnitude with the agenda of persuading someone to run for office seems sufficiently notable for a stand alone article. WjBscribe 06:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
