Talk:John H. Cox/Archives/2013

Disambigs
John W. Cox is a former (1991-1993) Congressional representative of what was then the 16th District, hailing from Galena, IL. John W. Cox the Illinois Democrat should not be confused with John H. Cox the Illinois Republican. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000836 I updated the disambiguation page to help make this distinction. --Dbackeberg [17:54, 4 April 2006]

Staffers
I've, again, removed the staffers that were previously listed in the article. If there were an article on the campaign, sure, maybe I could see putting them in, but this is a biography on Cox first and foremost. Metros232 01:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge from John H. Cox presidential campaign
Please merge any relevant content from [ John H. Cox presidential campaign] per Articles for deletion/John H. Cox presidential campaign. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 07:12Z 

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 07:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting letter, unwarranted speculation
In the first place, the fact that a letter by a presidential candidate appears in the paper is not notable enough to be published here. Further, it's unclear WHEN that letter was originally sent to the Des Monies Register for publication, so it is not helpful in determining if the candidate is still in the race (Cox is very, very far below the radar, so it's doubtful whether even the Register knows if he's in the race. What's more, the letter mentions NOTHING about his "still" being in the race, as the notation implied here. In fact it didn't mention his candidacy at all, except in the signature. The rest of the comments here, "He continues to travel..." are unencyclopedic content added by (according to her own admission) the press secretary for Cox. This is not an uninterested party, and until his continued travels appear in print, they are not notable here. Campaigns are not allowed to plant information on Wikipedia. I do happen to know that he's closed his campaign office in New Hampshire though it's from a blog, and is therefore not reportable here. But there are a LOT of sources out there to show he's done.
 * Preceding comment was by 24.128.72.100. I have made the comments more neutral and better sourced. Feel free to add accurate descriptions of what any of your sources say. It appears he is continuing to use the candidacy for reasons that don't relate to winning-- which, BTW, lots of people do. John J. Bulten (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you've done a nice job of navigating things, John. The only point I'd make now is that if he says he's not seriously running, is this guy worthy of a WP page at all, or if so, is he worthy of inclusion as a candidate along with the serious ones? - Nhprman 20:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The relatively stable consensus at the template talk is: to the first clause, "ask at WP:AFD if interested"; and to the second, "if WP-worthy, yes, template-worthy". He has spent $1.5 million, right? Sounds serious to me. John J. Bulten (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There have been several "non-serious" fringe candidates who have spent far more and gotten farther, at least in name recognition (consider Morry Taylor.) I won't start an AFD process quite yet, but frankly, it's getting to that point. - Nhprman 16:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Between running in Illinois Republican primaries for significant offices (albeit losing badly), hosted a (minor) radio show, and running for president enough to get written up by nationally-visible media such as Weekly Standard and the legendary Union Leader, I'd say the guy is notable. Not very notable, but notable enough for a WP article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. As I said, I'm very undecided about an deletion process here, and I hate Deletionism, as a rule because it's abused. He has made some noise, but compared with the third-tier candidates, some of whom, like Duncan Hunter, continue to appear on TV and radio and in print almost every other day (Hunter was on Lou Dobbs just today, for ex.) Cox is, frankly, a very faint footnote to the race. As long as that is reflected (fairly) in the article, it's existence here works as a record of this man's Quixotic race. - 03:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Reorg
I've reorg'd the article, without changing any content, to give it more the appearance of a biography rather than a campaign promo. In other words, early life first, business experience merged in with other biographical development, a separate top-level section for the presidential campaign, moving of the "future election" tag into just that section, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No Votes
I'm leaving Grandmasterka's edits as-is, partly because he was more succinct than myself and the previous editor was on that paragraph, but I'll note for the record that Cox was the only candidate on the ballot in Iowa to receive NOT ONE VOTE in any of the state's 99 counties. I think that's significant. Obviously, many other no-name candidates who weren't on the ballot didn't receive votes, either. - Nhprman 15:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't read the history here, but the Iowa GOP did not list any candidates beyond the top seven, whether or not they got votes. A report formerly available at LibertyBroadcastNetwork.org showed Keyes as receiving at least 20 votes in the Iowa caucuses, so Cox probably did have a few (and Pravda, of all places, put him in their participant list for the Iowa caucus). The claim that Cox received zero votes is unsourced, it appears.
 * Also, Iowa Politics said he is still running, and a S.C. paper said he was making campaign stops there and promoting his solution to the Iraq War. I have added these points and toned down talk that his quitting certain campaign events is a formal withdrawal from full candidacy. I hope these edits are neutral enough and represent both sides of this interestingly ambiguous issue. Please source any additional data, thanks. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Question one: Are you a volunteer/staffer for this guy? Your statements that are unsourced need to be reverted. Second, the fact that he got votes is what is NOT sourced. If you find something different, please show it. The last verifyable source quotes him as saying that it would be pointless to go on. Please back up your facts. This is getting tiresome. - Nhprman 23:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No connection with him, I'm just a ballot-access advocate. I have indicated his 40 votes in the NH primary and back up all my facts. I apologize for misdating the SC campaign stops, but I found another interesting SC campaign item which I will add in a bit. :D John J. Bulten (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does John Cox point here???
This man has never been elected to anything, yet there's a former congressman and a former governor who you share that name. Shouldn't John Cox point to the disambig instead? 216.15.126.14 (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And in fact, this is John H Cox, so it's pretty clear that there's only one. The disambig is unnecessary. Good catch. - Nhprman 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture
Does anyone have a picture which can be added to the page, and to other 2008 Presidential election pages?Casey14 (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Article for consideration
Matt Labash. "The Sane Fringe Candidate," The Weekly Standard 12, no. 34 (2007). --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)