Talk:Bob Barr/Archive 2

Political positions
There was confusion by a few users on the Libertarian Party's talk page over Barr's political positions; this article could be more useful if it also included a Political Positions section on Barr's views after he left Congress. The way it appears now, it's not clear for a newcomer of the subject that he changed his mind on a lot of things and doesn't hold those views anymore.--Gloriamarie (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's confusing, and I'd welcome your efforts to fix it. The present organization predates Barr's Libertarian conversion.  That is, his political philosophy had been fairly consistent up to that point.  So the section was largely concerned with illustrating this consistent philosophy with historical examples.  After Barr's Libertarian conversion, he significantly changed many of his positions.  This led to confusion in the Bob_Barr section of the article.  Some editors, like myself, attempted to restrict that section to only discussing Barr's political positions in Congress (hence the section title, and it's location within the Bob_Barr section).  This forced evidence of Barr's conversion to be discussed later in the article (e.g., Bob_Barr), rather than being juxtaposed with Barr's positions while in Congress.  To consolidate Barr's now-current positions, JayJasper created the Political positions of Bob Barr article, which has been very useful.  But this still leaves unresolved the primary issue you bring up:  It is difficult to understand Barr's philosophy and the evolution of that philosophy by reading Bob Barr. Noca2plus (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel that Barr's philosophical conversion needs to be discussed in an up-front fashion. For example, I think it should be mentioned in the lead of Bob Barr.  I think the proper forum for discussing Barr's philosophical evolution is Political positions of Bob Barr.  I propose that much of the text now at Bob_Barr be moved to Political positions of Bob Barr so that the before/after comparisons can be made without breaking up the timeline organization used at Bob Barr. Please make these changes, Gloriamarie, if you find them agreable. Noca2plus (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian?

 * Question: How is this guy a libretarian when he moved to ban the practice of a religon on a military base?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.148.228 (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Answer: Running for President as the Libertarian candidate might be regarded as prima facie evidence of sympathy with Libertarianism. Is Wikipedia the place to declare who is and who isn't a "real" Libertarian?Shrikeangel (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In the section where Lewinsky is discussed, I've changed the phrase "after the Lewinsky scandal came to light" to read "after the Lewinsky scandal broke". The "came to light" wording had just been used about two sentenced prior in reference to the same scandal. Berberry (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Quotes look NPOV
I have no opinion on this guy, but, call me crazy, is there any reason to prominently juxtapose two quotes regarding his changed views on medical marijuana use other than to paint him as a hypocrite? Is it not possible for a man to alter his views on issues? What about all the politicians who started out life as radical leftists only to later become moderate liberals or conservatives? What about Milton Friedman who started his career as a Keynesian economist before becoming the most prominent proponent of the free market? Perhaps we should juxtapose quotes regarding President Obama's executive order disallowing political lobbyists serving in his administration, before he granted a "waiver" to appoint Raytheon lobbyist William Lynn as deputy Secdef? It sure wouldn't be hard to find examples from every past president... Strikehold (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the intent was to paint him a hypocrite, but rather to highlight his revised view on the matter. That being said, I would have no objection to the quotes being removed.--JayJasper (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I should clarify that I don't think it was intentionally or maliciously written that way. But it does (to me) have the appearance, with one quote prominently displayed right next to one saying the exact opposite. I think it's clear from the content that he revised his views, and quotes are not necessarily appropriate where they can be paraphrased easily. Strikehold (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a valid point, IMO. If no one makes an effective counter-argument within the next few days, I think the quotes should be removed.--JayJasper (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--JayJasper (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Bob Barr Prominent ACLU Member
I'm not on Wikipedia a terrible amount, though I was just reading this article and made it to the section with the footnote 86. The sentence "More recently, Barr has become a prominent member of the American Civil Liberties Union, sometimes doing paid consulting on privacy issues." Upon reading the article given as a source, it states that he will "work on informational and data privacy issues." I believe the language used in the article is misinforming, and if he is a prominent member, should there not be a source citing this?

With respect,

Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.48.62 (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)