# Talk:Duncan L. Hunter 2008 presidential campaign

"Lets" should be "Let's", but it's a quote from a website that makes the same error, so I left it as is. Similarly, "dependant" is usually "dependent" although some dictionaries show both spellings. Art LaPella 04:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that it isn't common to include a section on campaign staff/advisors, but I think that in the light of recent developments (ie: Carl Rove, Harriet Miers, Michael Brown etc.) there is a growing concern over a candidate's ability to choose staffmembers.  Some of these advisors are potential cabinet members should the candidate be elected.   I am proposing the inclusion of prominent staff/advisors (and a short bio) to all candidates' campaign entries in order to help voters better understand each candidates' ability to judge character.  I believe that attention is inordinately focussed on individual candidates, when in fact, the major influence on any new administration will be in the advisors surrounding the new president.  Your input would be greatly appreciated.  ----Rawkcuf.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawkcuf (talk • contribs) 04:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC) 

This article uses a lot of loaded language. It really should be checked for NPOV. In particular, the comment that a particular straw poll was "spammed" by Ron Paul supporters is biased and unfair. It is also an incorrect use of the term.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.228.245.174 (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 

I removed the part about spamming, I don't know of any other loaded language in the article.--Southern Texas 19:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There is some serious work to be done on this article to make it encyclopedic.  There are far too many sections for the amount of information given and the flow of the article is all over the place and many of the sections need to be trimmed, consolidated or eliminated entirely. Remember, there is already a Duncan Hunter article. This article is ostensibly about his presidential campaign.  So why are there sections on Columbia University or the California fires?  I can see the connection to Duncan Hunter the congressman, but what does that have to do with the presidential campaign?  He's not running on the "California fire" platform, after all.
Worse, much of it is written in a blatantly promotional tone.  There is actually a section called  "Doubts about the campaign dispelled" that quotes a campaign aide?  Ridiculous.  And why are there so many extended quotes by Hunter himself?  This isn't his campaign website.  There is far too much self-referentiality in this article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've discovered that the longer and more reverential these XXX presidential campaign articles are, the lower XXX is in the polls.  Since Hunter's at the bottom, and will probably drop out after Iowa or New Hampshire, you may not want to put much "serious work" into it.  Just adding a final section detailing his underwhelming actual results in caucuses and primaries will readily deflate the article's many pretensions.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that seems accurate.  The better a candidate is doing, the more editors there are out there to push and pull the article into shape. This one has flown under the radar since Hunter is not even a second tier candidate (most polls don't even mention him anymore).    I'm going to make some necessary changes anyway and hopefully I'll get support from the other editors that aren't intent on migrating verbatim the content of Hunter's facebook page to this article.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This should not have been removed it aims to show what the campaign was doing in November.  Done
"Doubts about campaign dispelled" needs to be removed, it is irrelevant.  Done
The "Campaign focuses" sections needs rewriting.
I'd like to eliminate the sub-sections and make transitions from each paragraph in the "Campaign developments" section, much like Tom Tancredo presidential campaign, 2008.
It won't really be that hard to fix this article, it doesn't have as many problems as some other campaign articles. I'd like to focus more attention on making Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2008 more encyclopedic, it really needs some work.--STX 04:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, I hadn't seen the Biden one before.  It's really nothing but cut-and-paste press releases, just look at the cite list.  Bleah.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we all agree that the Biden article is the worst of the bunch, but that doesn't change the fact that this is probably the second worst.  The difference is, while the Biden article seems hopeless, this one could be fixed.  SouthTexas, you are on the right track with the plan to eliminate the subsections and merge the content into paragraphs, but there really needs to be some trimming in the process.  For instance, why is there an entire paragraph just to say essentially that "Hunter gave a speech honoring Veterans at the Veteran's Day parade" The notability seems dubious to me as I imagine about 400 of the 435 other representatives gave a similar speech in their home districts, but if it's necessary for a campaign timeline, it should be shortened. Also, the glowing language in a lot of these paragraphs needs to be toned down.  We should stick the facts and avoid saying that Hunter is "famously remembered for..." "made a statement that tried to pull the participants together..." "reflected on the importance of Veterans to America and the security of freedom", etc. etc.

Which gets to the next major point.  The quotes.  The overuse of quotes by Hunter himself is what really drags this article down into the realm of fandom.  They're completely unnecessary.  We can state his position without printing a two paragraph quote from a speech.  Here are some of the real problem areas.
Debates -  The point of this section is to point out that Hunter got some press for uttering the catchphrase "This administration has a case of the slows on border enforcement."  We should cite a mention of this (you know...the whole notability thing). The second quote is completely unnecessary and should be eliminated.  Done
California wildfires - I still don't see what any of this has to do with his presidential campaign. It certainly belongs in the Duncan Hunter article, but not here.  Are the wildfires part of his campaign platform now? And what is the point of the quote other than to inject POV?  Done
Endorsements Again, why are there long quotes by Hunter and the Missouri Republican Assembly, etc.  Even when not quoting, the language is absurdly non-NPOV. "They cited Hunter as a true Republican who shares their conservative values" is certainly not up to Wiki standards.  Done
Campaign focuses - Oh brother. This is where the article crashes. This entire section is copied verbatim from the campaign website (and every quote ends with a link to gohunter08.com?).  It needs to be completely rewritten to be up to standards and the quotes have to go. We can simply state his positions, in a sentence or two each, especially given that there is already a Political positions of Duncan Hunter daughter page.
Criticism - As always, criticism sections make an article weaker. These can easily be merged into the body of the article (and I don't really see what the criticism is in the Parents’ Empowerment Act of 2004)  Done
It's a lot of work for an article about a candidate that's going to drop out in a month or two, but that's the way it is. Your name is completely apropos, Wasted Time!  --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

These problems can be easily fixed and will make this article much better. I have a vision for fixing the article and I will do this once I have some free time.--STX 20:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite "Campaign Focuses" Done
Add to "Campaign Developments"  Done
Website hacked  Done
Debate over "don't ask, don't tell" Done
Happenings from May to August
Insert list of campaign appearances

This section has gotten rather long and slightly disorganized.  The other articles in the project tend to break this section chronologically with a seperate subsection for election results.  I suggest we have three subsections under Campaign developments: First half of 2007, Second half of 2007, and Primary and caucus results. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the section for campaign development should be able to flow all and hold together what happened during the campaign. It should not be a collection of talking points or of sections. Alot of sections doesn't look encyclopedic and is just plain messy. I also disagree on the point that it is disorganized. Tom Tancredo presidential campaign, 2008 was written the same way and it is now GA.--STX 19:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
At the very least election results need a subsection if not its own section.  I don't think anyone could argue argue that poll results (many of which aren't even real polls) deserves it own section, but that actual election results don't. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually looking at it now, it seems alright. You did a good job of splitting it.--STX 19:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Prose and images seem okay, though I am not sure about NPOV. There doesn't seem to be much criticism of him and his positions here, and given he had so little support there must be enough of it to feed into the article. Could also do with a few more references but that is not too bad, but some aren't using templates - should be consistent. Aside from that, only other problems I can see is that you have external links in prose and the list of people endorsing him his hidden - articles should work just as well printed and I don't see why you needed that as a drop down. Nothing else major, I'll come back in a few days to see how things are.- J Logan t: 13:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a bit more criticism to the "campaign developments" section but I doubt that anymore outside of blogs actually exists, Hunter received very little media attention. For the "endorsements" it is standard on these articles for them to be listed as a pop-out but Hunter received very few so I wouldn't have a problem with removing the "navigation".--STX 22:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, letting this pass.- J Logan t: 19:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of March 4, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Reference details could be padded out and maybe a few more, but no real problems.
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Could have done with a bit more criticism, but for a small time candidate there isn't much mainstream
5. Article stability? Very quite and constructive
6. Images?: Appropriate CR and usage
  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— - J Logan t: 19:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Expand "Background" section
Rework "Campaign foci" section
Combine Polling/Endorsement into "Campaign developments"
Add detail to "Campaign developments"
Expand "Aftermath"
--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Duncan Hunter presidential campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024200110/http://www.nationaljournal.com/pubs/almanac/2004/people/ca/rep_ca52.htm to http://www.nationaljournal.com/pubs/almanac/2004/people/ca/rep_ca52.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120722175530/http://sonoranalliance.com/2007/01/14/maricopa-county-arizona-gop-straw-poll-results/ to http://sonoranalliance.com/2007/01/14/maricopa-county-arizona-gop-straw-poll-results/
Added archive https://archive.is/20070909113557/http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=17785&pg=1 to http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=17785&pg=1
Corrected formatting/usage for http://thehill.com/endorsements-2008.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)