Talk:Paul Hackett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paul Hackett article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
	This article is supported by the Military work group.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

Paul Hackett has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

This article was nominated for deletion on November 10. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Paul Hackett has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Contents 1 Hackett's ad with Bush 2 Netroots 3 Organization category 4 Edit 5 Good article 6 Image of Jean Schmidt 7 Talk radio 8 Rank? 9 The "Unterfuhrer" Controversy 10 GA Re-Review and In-line citations

[edit] Hackett's ad with Bush

Hackett is running an ad making it look like he and President Bush are buddy buddy. Here is the real truth.

What Paul Hackett Thinks Of Bush: “Hackett told USA Today that Bush’s taunting line, “Bring ‘em on!” was “the most incredibly stupid comment I’ve ever heard a president of the United States make.” He also told the newspaper that, while he was willing to put his life on the line for the president, “I’ve said that I don’t like the son-of-a-[expletive] that lives in the White House.” The full article can be read here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/30/AR2005073001092.html

[edit] Netroots

It might be good to include something about Netroots in the article. CNN has a good article about it, and google has a lot of information as well. Netroot article with Hackett. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Organization category

Isn't it odd to put an individual in a category called "veterans organizations"? User:PedanticallySpeaking.

[edit] Edit

Previous version of this article was insanely long... nearly as long as the page for Albert Einstein. For a person of fairly low notability, there was just too much padding and extraneous unecessary info (the places where his father worked for instance... uncessary information). I summarized things a bit. Article is still long, but touches on key points that are important and/or of interest to the general public.

On that note, why is evryone on Wikipedia obsessed with what the Colbert Report has to say? I think what he said on CR wasn't nearly as interesting as his interviews with Ed Shultz. I don't mean to rant, but c'mon--there's so much of this crap floating around. 72.24.182.238 21:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Menk

[edit] Good article

I'm delighted to see this tagged as a "good article" as I wrote and researched most of it. If someone would like to nominate it as a FAC, you can count on at least one support vote. PedanticallySpeaking 17:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's problematic to feature an article about a candidate in an ongoing race. It looks like favoritism unless Sherrod Brown and Mike DeWine could be brought up to FA status at the same time. JamesMLane 18:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. In many races, including Hackett's bid for Congress, there were several lesser known candidates running. It would be difficult to compile FA on all candidates. If one article is good, the fact other articles need improvement should be no bar to it being FA.

[edit] Image of Jean Schmidt

Please note that I have reduced Jean Schmidt's image on this page - primarily because the article is on Paul Hackett, not Schmidt. Stude62 14:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk radio

I added a reference to Hackett's appearance on Air America. Future career choice? Who knows. --Starkruzr 09:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rank?

What was his rank? Tempshill 03:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "Unterfuhrer" Controversy

I noticed an addition to the article citing this episode was removed, with the rationale that it was a non-controversy noticed by "some blogger". I submit that the fact that Hackett addressed his comments the next day on Mark Levin's radio show suggests that this is more than that. How much more is debatable, but sufficient that it can be noted in the article. I have modified the article accordingly. 207.47.232.64 20:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, so where is the quote from the Mark Levin show? --Asbl 23:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The quote is at the provided link [1](which contains a full audio clip of the segment). I've paraphrased from it in the (restored due to blanking) paragraph on the issue. Feel free to revise the passage further (but don't blank) if this is still not "balanced" enough, or discuss it here. Hiddekel 01:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 23:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)