Talk:Draft Condi movement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the United States presidential elections WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States presidential elections-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Contents |
[edit] Don't remove Rice for President Yahoo Group link
What's the big idea with Btl removing the link to Rice for President Yahoo Group?
I'm the owner of that group - and it is one of the longest established (2004) Condi groups on the web. So I don't take kindly to this censorship by whoever - Peter
Peter Dow (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[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)
The article has been changed significantly from a year ago. While it reports on a campaign, and campaigns accentuate the positive for a candidate, the article principally is a presentation of facts.
Seeing as there are no specific citations of POV, and the article has changed, it is appropriate to remove the POV tag. The tag was once removed, but reinstated without discussion.Ohioan1 00:38, 18 April 2007 (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)
- Time to start talking about it now? --Michael WhiteT·C 16:20, 21 January 2008 (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)
Agree page should not be merged, consistent with input from the Rice page. The Rice page refers to this article; tag should be removed. It was removed but later reinstated.Ohioan1 00:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
To put in my two pence worth - IT'S NOT OVER! Rice for President Yahoo Group is already a 2012 group - that is to say, campaigning to Draft Condi Rice to run for President in 2012. So factor that in guys.
Peter Dow (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Poll results
This section in the article contained what seem to me absurd claims (Rice finishing first in opinion polls), and some clearly POV statements. I've removed everything except the one sentence that actually was supported by the cited source.
I ask that editors not add back information to this section unless there is a link supporting it - there shouldn't be information about "poll results" unless someone can actually point to a poll with those results, right? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Condivshilary.jpg
Image:Condivshilary.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Linkfarm is ridiculous
Could somebody with more skill in this area tell us which are the most-trafficked of these sites, and perhaps which is the oldest? All but three or four should be removed. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
