Talk:Ross Perot/Archives/2015

Much of this is word-for-word from biographicon.com
See here. 166.216.128.75 (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

last line a joke?
The "website with updated charts and graphs" is a joke, right? His 1990s television appearance bearing charts and graphs was joked about by Hillary Clinton during one of the 2008 Democratic Primary debates, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.94.17 (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Liberalpedia?
Now that America is much closer to bankruptcy (enormous spending, Moody's talking about the risk of the US losing its AAA rating, etc.), Perot doesn't seem like such a fringe figure in terms of his economic projections and predictions. The article on Perot is fine if Wikipedia is really "Liberalpedia," as its critics call it. If Wikipedia aspires to be politically neutral, then the article on Perot obviously falls far short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.147.74 (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Legacy Drive
Local folklore in Plano, Texas (where EDS is located) says that the city let Perot pick the name of the street that he built EDS on. I can't find anything to verify that, but I haven't looked for too long. Just wondering if someone could help me out. - Scm83x 08:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Page Improvements
Could this page be formatted more like Ralph Nader's, at least as referring to his campaigns? This might make the page seem more cohesive. Valerie 23:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I fixed a formatting problem and a grammatical error in the Early Life and Career section. Hildenja 15:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This page should incorporate reference to the term "Ross Perot moment" which is in common use, particularly during election years. Nextrelease (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Views
The page hardly describes his stances on any major issue, especially during the election. --Liface 00:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible Bias
I'm not sure the way the media is portrayed is appropriate in the "1992 presidential candidacy" section: "These adverse developments were used by the media to tarnish Perot's image, and his support in opinion polls was no longer rising." Hopefully somebody with more knowledge of the subject matter can check up on it.68.238.110.72 20:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

First Debate
The article says he won the first debate and made some great one-liners. However, the only one quoted is how the Constitution is no longer relevant for today and doesn't mention so many modern things. I doubt that Perot saying the Constitution doesn't mention satellites would have won him the debate; he had to have had some better quotes than that one that we can find and place in this article. Another point-- who hosted the debates and why was he invited? Was it ever an issue that he would be invited? These days, it would be difficult for an independent candidate to even get invited to the debates.--Gloriamarie 01:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Magna Carta
It's been about 11 years since I saw it, but I distincly remember that the copy of the Magna Carta that Perot bought and loaned to the US wasn't one of the original copies, it was an extremely early one (printed in like 1295 or something). So I edited the words slightly to that effect.-- HowardW, July 31, 2007

1992 presidential candidacy
The presidential candidacy portion of the article is poorly written. For example, it mentions that Perot got back into the race before it mentions that he dropped out. --JHP 20:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that the details surrounding his withdrawal are largely omitted. Some of these reasons (e.g. having received a threat on his daughter's life, which he believed originated from within the government) made a significant contribution to his image as being a crackpot...68.4.191.130 (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do change it. There's not a lot of people watching this article, you guys are the only ones who can do it. :) The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The article says, "By the summer Perot commanded a lead in the presidential race with thirty-nine percent of the vote.[26]"


 * I believe that whoever wrote this was attempting to say that by the summer he had a 39% plurality in the polls since he could not have had 39% of a vote in an election which had not yet been held. Unless someone can come up a copy of "Political Parties in American Society" the book that was referenced in the citation no one will know if this was what the book said or not. Therefore this sentence should be stricken. Such writing is an example of why people make fun of wikipediaTomandzeke (talk) 07:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the statement for a cite check, however will not 'strike' or remove it. Not far below, there is a sourced statement: "At one point in June, Perot led the polls with 39% (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton)." I'd agree that it should be checked in case it is bad WP:SYNTH. The onus is on you, or anyone else who doubts this to be correct, to check for veracity and whether it is a reliable source or a reliable, but WP:BIASED source, and to make informed decisions as to whether it is appropriate in the context of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone has removed or modified the sentence with "vote" thankfully. The issue above was never the veracity of the 39% number. The issue was that no vote was taken in the summer because the US doesn't hold elections in the summer. Thus nobody could have a percentage of the vote since not vote was held and so the statement that Perot had 39% of the vote was wrong. Not because of the number but because the word vote. I apologize to Iryna Harpy and all if I did not make myself clear on October 30th. The problem was it should have stated he had a lead in the polls (not the vote) coming in at 39 percent. Many thanks to Iryna Harpy and others here who put so much work into this any other articles.Tomandzeke (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was the IP user (below) who clarified your objection below, along with the relevant page so that I understood what the situation was. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for clarifying the content in question. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. If there are any more questions, the full content of the cited page 69 is available in preview on Amazon (.com, maybe others). 2600:1006:B111:859B:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There is something fishy about this statement: "In December 1969 he organized and flew to North Vietnam in an attempt to deliver thirty tons of supplies to beleaguered American POWs in North Vietnam. Although North Vietnam blocked the flights, the effort was instrumental in bringing the plight of those POWs to the world's attention and their captors soon began treating them better" It sounds like it is about Stockdale -- who was in a prison camp at this time -- and if it is about Perot, why have it here?? Pink18 (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Scott Barnes
I added a statement about how in 1997 the investigator who had backed Perot's story for quitting the race, revealed himself to have tricked Perot into believing that the Bush campaign was involved in dirty tricks. And I cited it. Not many people know this, because the reporting was limited. It was in major papers, but buried on Page 20 usually. This whole article needs to be cleaned up though and rewritten to make more sense, since --as its pointed out above--it still looks like it says he re-entered before it says he dropped out. If I get some time I'll work on that.Brianshapiro

WikiProject Iran?
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I don't see why Ross Perot's page is a part of WikiProject Iran? Maybe obvious...but I don't see it. Rishi.bedi (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

From the article: "Just prior to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the government of Iran imprisoned two of his [Perot's] employees in a contract dispute. Perot organized and sponsored a successful rescue." Penthamontar (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Uncited Direct Quotes
So maybe I'm just a little green to Wikipedia, but.. I'm thinking there probably should not be direct quotes without citation on an article, right? Perhaps when they're generally known quotes, but I wouldn't think the following example qualifies. Remove?

--

In debate he is noted to have said: "Keep in mind our Constitution predates the Industrial Revolution. Our founders did not know about electricity, the train, telephones, radio, television, automobiles, airplanes, rockets, nuclear weapons, satellites, or space exploration. There's a lot they didn't know about. It would be interesting to see what kind of document they'd draft today. Just keeping it frozen in time won't hack it."[citation needed]

Perot denounced Congress for its inaction. Washington, Perot said,

...has become a town filled with sound bites, shell games, handlers, media stuntmen who posture, create images, talk, shoot off Roman candles, but don't ever accomplish anything. We need deeds, not words, in this city.[citation needed]

--

expensivehat (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

On Wings of Eagles
With regard to you the part of the Ross Perot article. Particularly:

Perot denounced Congress for its inaction. Washington, Perot said,

… has become a town filled with sound bites, shell games, handlers, media stuntmen who posture, create images, talk, shoot off Roman candles, but don't ever accomplish anything. We need deeds, not words, in this city.[citation needed]

I think your citation can be derived from the Bibliography of "On Wings of Eagles" by Ken Follett. Although he is known as a fiction author, this book is non fiction. In the book, he describes the Human Resource motto of EDS as being: "Eagles don't flock, you have to find them one at a time." And Perot made it a personal guiding principle that: "You said what you were going to do, and did what you said you'd do." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.188.107 (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I recommend moving the whole section of the hostages to a separate page and linking to it.Mantion (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Perot for President NOW
Seriously, now is the time for a third party! ... a blanket of television ads in these next few weeks and we could write in anyone ! -- The people sitting on their couches that NEVER vote for either party, are pissed off and will get off the couch and vote for ANYONE besides Repubs and Dems. Seriously. Scotthan (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Better picture please
He's a two-time presidential candidate. There's got to be a better picture available.DavidRF (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC) - Seconded! 67.81.163.221 (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Honor system at the Naval Academy
A statement seems to make Perot responsible for establishing an honor system at the Naval Academy. I don't know what his role was, but perhaps he enhanced the system? The academy appears to have had an honor system since the 19th century. See, for example, | a book about the Academy.Student7 (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Another ref from the | NY Times 1915, page 2, bottom of third to top of fourth column claiming they have "always" had an honor system.Student7 (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, entered in 1942? That can't be right. (He was 12 at the time, and graduated in 1953.) Nwebster84 (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation 22 incorrect.
The author states "Some claim Perot would have won the 1992 election had he not dropped out of the election and returned" or something to that effect. The article he cites has nothing to do with Perot withdrawing from the race. Rather the source is some sort of inquiry as to whether Perot would have benefited from "approval voting", where voters can vote for as many candidates as possible.

I do not see how this could be an honest mistake. No one in their right mind could read this source and come away with the impression that it supports the statement for which it is cited. Rather, it seems like this is an attempt to mask the author's "weasel words" under the veil of proper citations. Perhaps it is laziness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.126.112 (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Religion?
It says that as a youth Mr. Perot attended church every Sunday. What is his specific religion and if it is verifiable and should it be included in his infobox? Invmog (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Steve Van Ogtegham
Mr. Perot,

Have you ev heard of teve Van gtegham? e is usin your name as a good friend to sell people into buying seminars o Federal Grants ($985). Iamjust checking him out to seif e is real.

Thank You,

Jennife Woolley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.66.136 (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Vagueness
It says during his early life his family attended church without specifying denomination.Autarch (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not add a section of the books he wrote
Why not add a section his books like:

My Life and the Principles for Success by Ross Perot (Paperback 2002)

...and other books?

Can someone do it? I'm not sure i know how to edit wiki articles.(don't want to miss up the layout.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.242.188 (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

can america be saved from going bankrupt
They are surely trying to bankrupt the country and pad their pockets at the same time. THEY BEING GOVERNMENT INSIDERS, THE ONES IN CHARGE. what team could bring us back from the brink. RON PAUL PRESIDENT, ROSS PEROT OVER THE RESERVE, JOHN OXIDE OVER FDA. SURELY AT YOUR AGE, YOU HAVE YOUR AFFAIRS IN ORDER. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS ARE YOU READY TO MEET YOUR MAKER, FOR WHAT GOOD IS IT TO GAIN THE WHOLE WORLD BUT LOSE YOUR SOUL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namruf namelob (talk • contribs) 03:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Ross Perot
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ross Perot's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "times": From Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992:  From 1992 Democratic National Convention: Michael Decourcy Hinds, “Pennsylvania; Democratic Ticket Heads Into Fertile Territory,” New York Times July 19, 1992, Section 1, Page 20 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

A More Dignified Photo Please
It seems to me that the common practice at other articles on political figures is to portray them not at their best but not at their worst (kind of a Goldilocks philosophy). Bill Clinton's picture is from 1993, Ralph Nader 2007, Pat Buchanan 2008The lead image of Perot is very recent, and this is a problem in a few ways. First, his greatest relevance stems from his candidacy for President back in 92. Secondly, time has not been very kind and this image is likely not the one members of his family or close friends would feel represented the man best. I propose something about 4 years newer (circa 2004), current enough to reflect he is still alive, but just old enough to bridge the man today with the politician from a couple decades back. If nothing else, it would be nice to have an image from his years as a Presidential candidate in 1992. See http://www.biography.com/people/ross-perot-9438032 or better http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/452410/Ross-Perot for the image they used in treating this individual. I know getting permission is tricky, I just think this picture is un-reflective of the scope of its subject.-- Canad iandy  talk  06:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

monogamous?
i believe he said you can not trust a married person who has sex with someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarksmom (talk • contribs) 02:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit war over his position on gun control in his 1992 presidential campaign
There appears to be an edit war going on, with an editor at IP 24.227.164.162 repeatedly adding that his 1992 campaign position included "opposition to gun control" and others reverting this change. Perhaps the editor at IP 24.227.164.162 can add some cites to back up the addition of this information? Or can a neutral third party intervene? Dewey Finn (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Presidential Candidacies: The Ears (no disrespect), The Charts & Graphs
Maybe some think these subtopics are not of an appropriate granularity level for an encyclopedia article, but I think a sentence or two on each would enhance this entry. I was surprised the account of his candidacies lacked these bits of color.

1. The ears -- I mean ... is this ("I'm All Ears for Perot" button) real? Or this (button with caricature-style image having exaggerated ears)? There are a ton of other caricature images out there, but these were created by his supporters, not critics, to hold in your hand, pin on your coat. As such I think they were tacitly endorsed by his campaign and thus tacitly endorsed by him.

2. The charts & graphs -- Even more significant. A major tool for him, as an independent, to gain any real traction whatsoever. A hallmark of his campaigning, used to help illustrate his ideas and logic. Buying the airtime was just a beginning. He had to capitalize on that by showing something persuasive, and maximized his effectiveness by conveying information visually rather than verbally, wherever appropriate. He clearly believed in their importance, as well, as evidenced by the frequency with which he used them, his familiarity with them and dependence on them (i.e. he cared about them; they were not just a prop), and the fact that he continued to focus on them on perotcharts.com.

Both aspects were quite arguably part of his "image" as candidate, like it or not, superficial or not. (Saturday Night Live, or not!)

Perhaps a curator could make the additions if there is a consensus that they are appropriate. I'm not going to, myself, because frankly, I have my doubts about that consensus, since I'm surprised to find these items not mentioned already. Just thought I'd submit it. BlackmailedIntoRegistering (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read information on the talk pages (conveniently located at the top of every article talk page, including this one) - WP:NOTGOSSIP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, kudos for the appropriate user name, but which part of his comment are you harping about? He's right on both points and s are precisely for article improvement and consensus building. Nothing he said is "gossip". — Llywelyn II   19:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)