Talk:Bob Barr
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Bob Barr is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category." |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low." |
| person | This article is about one (or many) person(s). |
.svg/80px-Flag_of_Georgia_(U.S._state).svg.png) |
This article is part of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Georgia (U.S. state) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations. |
|
|
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||||||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||||||
|
|||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of the United States presidential elections WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States presidential elections-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
[edit] wonder why it wasn't given infobox for this long?
I just added the infobox for Bob Barr, but I still wonder why it wasn't added earlier. He was a fairly prominent member of Congress, yet no one was willing to give him a infobox. Even the most obscure and new congressman like this guy right here gets an infobox. Wooyi 01:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- As one of the major contributors of Infoboxes for Governors, U.S. Senators, U.S. Reps, State Senators, and State Reps, the answer is simple: I started with the currently-serving politicians. No conspiracy theories needed. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hmm
There's something wrong with this article. It seems a little to white-washed. Hempeater 21:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
What are the specific problems? The article seems overall balanced and well-sourced to me.--Gloriamarie 05:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, for one, there is no mention of his association with the Council of Conservative Citizens, the ultra-conservative segregationist organization he was with. Kevin mckague (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- You're correct, that content is not included presently. I've read a little about how he and Trent Lott got in hot water in 1998 for speaking at a CCC convention. Judging by what I read, it doesn't seem like Barr had any long-standing relationship with CCC. And certainly, once he was criticized for his speaking at the convention, he immediately condemned the CCC, and claimed he had been "tricked" into speaking for the group without them fully disclosing their views (after all, "Council of Conservative Citizens" doesn't exactly sound like the neo-KKK). For example, there's a post about the incident on the ADL website... and Barr wrote a letter to Time magazine clarifying his position. I'm sure you could find a lot of references on the topic. Personally, I don't think the incident is worth my time trying to include it. Although, this isn't the first time Barr critics have tied him to racist causes (for example, Chester Doles, which I see got recently cut from the article), so you might be interested in creating a section of "charges of racism" or something like that. Be bold! (WP:BB) -Noca2plus (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] In 1999, during the impeachment trial of President Clinton...
Wasn't the trial in 1998? Kingturtle 00:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Impeachment of Bill Clinton -- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "President of the United States Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999." VNCCC (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] This page needs to be entirely remade or deleted
This article contains lots of outright vandalism such as "reefer - endum " and the statement "He met with Borat in the United States Capitol where he was given cheese that Borat described as being made from his wife's breast milk.[19]"
I'm sure lots of other info in this article is fake and/or unsourced as well. I dont know anything about this guy, so I cant rewrite it. I suggest this page be deleted if no one fixes it up ASAP. There are rumors this guy might make an independent run for president with Ron Paul. Therefore, there is going to be alot of people coming here to find out who this guy is, and right now the page is trash. Byates5637 (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- He DID meet with Borat and eat cheese described as being made from his wife's break milk. It isn't vandalism, it is just funny as hell and I suggest watching it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.164.12 (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2008
[edit] Presidential Candidate?
There has been some talk of him running for president this year. This should be added in a new section. --Kalmia (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] External links in War on Drugs section
JayJasper (talk · contribs) brings up an interesting point with his edit in the War on Drugs section [1][2]. I had originally used an external link to refer the reader to the text of the ACLU lawsuit:
- Nearly a year passed before a lawsuit filed by the ACLU eventually revealed the initiative had received 69% of the vote.[1]
JayJasper converted the external link to a reference:
- Nearly a year passed before a lawsuit[2] filed by the ACLU eventually revealed the initiative had received 69% of the vote.[1]
I understand that my original style was inconsistent with WP:Manual of Style (links)#Link_titles and WP:External_links#Important_points_to_remember. However, I believe use use of an embedded external link in this case benefits the article (see WP:IAR). There's no dispute that inclusion of a link to the text of the lawsuit benefits the article. The question is how this text is best linked. My feeling during the original edit was that the lawsuit text was not a source verifying the sentence. The fact that the lawsuit was filed was fully supported by the reference citation appearing at the end of the sentence. The link to lawsuit was to allow readers to examine the complaint itself. Certainly this could be handled in the way that JayJasper suggests. The reason I find my way prefereable is because it provides a cue to the reader that the lawsuit link is not, in fact, a statement of verifiability. As a reader myself, I'm often annoyed when an article statement like "A lawsuit forced the company to refund the money" cites as a source... the text of the complaint! This is wrong. The text of the lawsuit, while germane in this context, verifies little more than its own existence. It does not verify that the court found in favor of the plaintiffs. Nor does it verify the subsequent actions of the defendants (which may or may not adhere to the court's ruling).
The sentence in this article, in JayJasper's form, implies (at least to me) that the citation appearing after "lawsuit" will take me to a source that verifies the length of time before the lawsuit was filed? Ruled upon?... I'm not sure what. But it doesn't immediately occur to me that clicking on that citation will take me to the lawsuit's text. Noca2plus (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- You bring up an interesting point as well. In my editing, I often convert external links within an article's text to a reference, in accordance with the guidelines you mentioned. However, you've made a valid case that some instances perhaps merit exception to these "rules". Your point is well taken, and from this point forward I will take your reasoning into account when encountering external links within an article's main text.--JayJasper (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Organization of "Post-congressional career"
I saw the {{proseline}} tag got taken down today in the "Post-congressional career" section. Now, I don't know about "inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline", but I can say that the organization of this section is definitely a mess. I'm not ready to be bold and redo the orgnization, but perhaps we could get some consensus on how to handle Barr's activities between leaving Congress and his Presidential bid.
For one, Barr underwent some major changes in political position during this time. I think there should be a clear section dealing with that. At present, that information is dispersed throughout the article. For example, within the "Political positions in Congress" section, there are sentences describing how, after Congress, Barr reversed his position. I would much prefer that be documented outside "Political positions in Congress", making an internal links where appropriate to a "Changes in political positions" section later in the article. But presently, no such section exists. Like I said, some of this text is imbedded in "Political positions in Congress", some is in the lead paragraph for "Post-congressional career", and some is in "Departure from Republican Party"
Another important change after Congress, is Barr's association with groups previously perceived as his enemies, such as the ACLU, the MPP, and the Libertarian Party. Most of this text is currently grouped under "Departure from Republican Party", and has little relvance to his actual departure (except perhaps the mutually exclusive relationship with the Libertarian Party). But breaking this text into a new section could be problematic with, for example, the ACLU. Barr worked cooperatively with the ACLU (mostly on anti-Clinton issues) back when Barr was in Congress. So it's incorrect to say "After Congress, Barr started working with his previous enemies, such as the ACLU", because of course, Barr was working with the ACLU even before he left Congress. One solution would be to treat, at least in the case of the ACLU, the association(s) in their own section, not tied to the congress/post-congress/president2008 timeline that currently seems to drive the article's organization. Noca2plus (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I boldly reorganized the latter half of the article.diff As of yet, there's no section dealing with Barr's revised political positions. Perhaps the new organization will obviate the need for such a section. I eventually decided that a "Criticism of Bush Administration" section was warranted. As I wrote in a comment tag at the beginning of that section:diff
- This is an overlapping bridge section. It starts with installation of Bush II while Barr was still in Congress (2001) and continues though the present day (2008). So it might be treated as a timeline, but it ties together Barr's criticism into a single narrative. The goal is to confine Barr's congressional actions and views to the Congressional Career section, and conversely, keep his post-congressional actions and views out of that section. Highlights should include Patriot Act, Privacy infringments, Failure of Republican Revolution to contain spending under Bush, Endorsement of Badnarick, and Departure from Republican Party. Because Barr joined the Libertarian Party while Bush was still in office, Barr's criticism should continue through his 2008 presidential bid
- In addition, I grouped the ACLU and Libertarian Party info under a new "Political Associations" section. Here again, we need not confine the information to Barr's post-congressional activities. For example, the NRA board position spans both congressional and post-congressional periods. I hope you'll find this new organization helpful. -Noca2plus (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- You've done an excellent job with the re-organization. Kudos. I agree that the article still needs a section on Barr's revised political positions. This will become even more necessary should he receive the LP nomination. It seems that it would be appropriate to work in such a section somewhere between the Departure from Republican Party section and the section dealing with Barr joining the LP. I haven't yet figured out a smooth way of doing this, but am giving it thought. In the meantime, the "pointers" you've added to various sections regarding views in which he has changed his stance are very helpful.--JayJasper (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Citation clean-up
I placed {{Cleanup-references}} on the article. There's a lot of good in-line citations, but the citations themselves could use some attention. For example, many of the citations are from newspaper articles, yet are presently cited as web sites, often without the name of the original newpaper publisher. That is, many of them could be improved by fully using the {{cite news}} template. Noca2plus (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] African American ancestry
Does Bob Barr have African American ancestry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.79.50 (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Don't all Americans have African ancestry? (see Human evolution) -Noca2plus (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This has been a long standing question that Bob Barr himself has been vague about. The answer maybe "maybe". A google search of USENET brings up several times when this was asked. Each time there was no definite answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.242.51 (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Please expand Clinton Impeachment
I've placed an {{Expand}} tag in the impeachment section. Seems to me that this one of Barr's major claims of notability. However, the section is very sparse. Half of it is on Larry Flynt digging up Barr's skeletons, rather than Barr's role in the impeachment. Barr wrote a WHOLE BOOK on this topic, can we get a few more paragraphs in here? -Noca2plus (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Photo revision
Thanks to whoever cropped the photo. The headshot works better and is consistent with the main photos in the vast majority of election articles.--JayJasper (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- It was Gage working at Commons.[3] Probably the same as Gage (talk · contribs). I agree, the new pic is better. The space at the top makes Barr look short, though. Is he short? -Noca2plus (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good job, Gage. Yeah, the space at the top does make him look short, I suppose. Oh well, it's still an improvement!--JayJasper (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] As of 2008, Barr has not made any additional bids for a congressional seat.
Yom (talk · contribs) recently pulled this sentence from the Congressional career section, commenting "unnecessary sentence. If he had made a bid, it would discuss it."[4] I disagree. Wikipedia is inherently unfinished, and unfortunately, spotting content omissions is difficult. I like this sentence because it makes clear that, as of the article's writing (2008; see WP:DATED), Barr's congressional career ended in 2003. Without the sentence, it's unclear if Barr made any addition bids that are, for whatever reason, missing from the article. Of course it's possible Barr might run for Congress at some future date, but from this sentence it's clear that such a run would have to have happened after 2008. I'm reverting. -Noca2plus (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fundraising
I took out the line on fundraising, since it was incorrect. The $18,000 was donations to the Libertarian Party in honor of Bob Barr, not donations to the Barr campaign. 75.24.23.97 (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] immigraion stance?
Nine pages of information on Barr and not a word on his stand on illegal immigration which I considered more of a threat than oil price and Iraq together... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.29.26.18 (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a work in progress. Be bold, and add something yourself! But please back up your text with citations. If you want some help, just ask. -Noca2plus (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bob Barr Libertarian-LOL
The sponsor of the Democrat/Republican "Patriot" Act and "the worst drug warrior in Congress" [[5]] is now the nominee of the LIBERTARIAN's??? What a joke. I've always voted Libertarian as a protest against the two police state/military industrialist parties as a protest vote. This year I will be joining many Libertarian's in voting for McCain as a protest vote against the hijacking of the party by a CIA drug warrior and a back stabbing megliomaniac opprotunist (Wayne Allyn Root). John celona (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Is there something about this article that you want to discuss? Please see WP:Talk#How_to_use_article_talk_pages. If not, I propose this section (including my comment) be deleted from this talk page. -Noca2plus (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I second the proposal to delete the section. This is not a forum or an op-ed page. Comments on the style, stucture or factual content of the article are always welcome here, however.--JayJasper (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I would like to discuss why the article lacks sources on how 2 non-Libertarians took over the party. PLEASE do not delete talk page contributions by other users. John celona (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- There are two possibilities:
- 1) Those sources haven't yet been incorporated, which is something you're welcome to boldly do.
- 2) Reliable sources for that view do not exist.
- The presidential campaign section in this article (i.e., Bob Barr) is only a summary of Barr's campaign, so you may wish to focus your editing on the Robert Barr presidential campaign, 2008 or perhaps the 2008 Libertarian National Convention. -Noca2plus (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- There are two possibilities:
-
- By the way, the reference you cited -- http://cannabisnews.com/news/13/thread13831.shtml is (already) cited multiple times in the Congressional career section. -Noca2plus (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] How much info on embarassing associates should be in a presidential candidate's biography?
The Barack Obama Featured Article, part of this project's scope, now has an important discussion on its talk page (at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details) that could affect other articles, including this one, on other presidential candidates. There is already talk on that page that the articles on other presidential candidates may need to be changed, so editors involved in this article may want to get involved with the discussion there.
Some editors here think that when a U.S. presidential candidate is embarassed by someone associated with that candidate, no information about it should be mentioned in the WP biography article, even if the campaign (and therefore the person who is the subject of the article) was affected. Others think WP should only mention that this person was controversial and leave a link in the article to the WP article on that controversial associate. Still others (including me), think we should briefly explain just why that person was controversial in the candidate's life, which can be done in a phrase or at most a sentence or two. Examples:
- Hillary Clinton and Norman Hsu
- Barack Obama and Bill Ayers (and Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko)
- John McCain and John C. Hagee
- Rudy Giuliani and Bernard Kerik
Whatever we do, we should have equal treatment, so anyone interested in NPOV-, WP:BLP-compliant articles should look at and participate in the discussion. We've started the discussion by focusing on how much to say about former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers in the Barack Obama article, but, again, this will likely affect many other articles.
If you click on the first link I give here, you'll find a comparison I did of negative information in the Clinton, McCain and Giuliani articles. I've also posted that information on the talk pages of those articles. In that discussion (and at the McCain, Clinton and Giuliani talk pages), I've also posted a comparison of what negative information is presented on each candidate, especially in relation to associates who give the candidates bad publicity. I think editors of this article would find the comparison useful. Noroton (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- On some other pages where I've posted this, people have been responding only beneath the post, which is fine, but won't help get a consensus where it counts. So please excuse me for raising my voice, just to make sure I get the point across: Please respond at Talk:Barack Obama#Attempt to build consensus on the details where your comments will actually affect the consensus!!! Sorry for the shoutin', won't do it again (here anyway). Noroton (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Don't forget Hillary Clinton and Juanita Broaddrick. Carol Moore 19:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
[edit] Life imitates art (or at least Wikipedia)
I was pleased to see that Treybien (talk · contribs) found a ref for Barr's early life section.[6] However, I was horrified to see that the reference is remarkably similar to... you guessed it... THIS ARTICLE. http://www.nowpublic.com/world/barr-and-root-personal-reflection was published 2008-05-27 where AlvarezGalloso says:
Bob Barr was born in Iowa City, Iowa on the 5th of November 1948 and his parents were members of the US Military. He attended the American School of Lima, Peru, Colegio Franklin Delano [in Peru], and graduated from the American School of Tehran, Iran in 1966.
...earlier that morning[7], back on Wikipedia, this article said:
Barr was born on November 5, 1948, in Iowa City, Iowa.[4] His parents served in the U.S. military,[citation needed] and he spent many years with them abroad; including Lima, Peru where he attended Colegio Franklin Delano Roosevelt, The American School of Lima,[citation needed] and Tehran, Iran where he graduated from Community High School in 1966.[4]
The article contains many other phrases indicating that AlvarezGalloso's first stop for reasearch is none other than Wikipedia. This is a problem. I understand that the The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, but in this case I fear that this article has bred it's own verification! That is, I believe that AlvarezGalloso simply ignored the {{citation needed}} tag, and now what was once questionable... is suddenly verifiable! Hence, Treybien's edit.
Now, I don't mean to disparage Treybien in any way. I'm glad Treybien took the time to respond to the need for verification. But truly, this is not right. The idea that Barr attended FDR in Lima was first inserted on 2008-05-14 by 66.177.51.160 (talk).[8] That statement needs to be verified by a source published prior to that date.
I think I now fully understand Jimmy Wales admonishment at WP:GRAPEVINE. I never thought the statement that Barr attended FDR was contentious or hurtful... I just thought it needed to be sourced. Now I think I fully understand the danger of allowing unsourced material to persist on Wikipedia. -Noca2plus (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Life Imitates Wikipedia II (Barr's "military" parents)
I decided to make this a separate section because including it above was just too complicated. Another ref added by Treybien (talk · contribs) today "verifies" the fact that Barr's parents were in the military... with the implication being that this is why Barr went to school in several different countries.[9] As above, this source -- http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_567921.html, published 2008-05-17, seems eerily reminiscent of THIS ARTICLE. Now, the unverified statement that Barr's parents were in the military dates all the way back to the 2006-12-02 version of this article.[10] I suspect that Bill Steigerwald has parroted that (up to now) unsourced statement.
This is troubling, not only for the reasons mentioned previously (i.e., citing a journalist who cites an unsourced Wikipedia statement shouldn't suddenly make the statement verifiable!)... but also because there's evidence that this statement is false.
For example, in a much more original-sounding article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/131748, George Will states on 2008-04-21:
The son of a soldier, Barr graduated from high school in Tehran.
This is consistent with both Barr's parents being in the military, but implies that only one of his parents was actually a soldier (not both as this article states). Further, an old newspaper article from the Atlanta Journal / Constitution (by Jim Auchmutey 1987-12-18) "He's every inch the barrister - U.S. Attorney Barr enjoys `great job'" states:[11]
The second of six children, he was born in Iowa but spent most of his boyhood hopscotching the globe with his family as his father, a civil engineer, went from project to project. Living in Latin America, the Far East and Iran left Barr with a precocious awareness that most of the world isn't much like Iowa.
Which implies, quite to the contrary of this article's implication, and Bill Steigerwald's cited article... Barr's family didn't travel around because of military duties... but rather civil engineering duties. Further, if Barr is the son of a soldier, it would appear that either his mother was that soldier... or his father was a soldier before he became a civil engineer. (although I guess it's possible Barr Sr. was in the United States Army Corps of Engineers for example). In any case, I am again horrified that our unwillingness to police unsourced material has produced verifiable "facts" outside Wikipedia. -Noca2plus (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- I asked Bill Steigerwald what source he used for the Barr background in Mr. Steigerwald's article. He responded:
- "i think i saw the barr stuff about lima and his military parents at his web site -- but not sure. google bob barr bio"
- I did as he said, but didn't find anything that didn't seem to parrot the Wikipedia article or Mr. Steigerwald's article. To prevent further propagation of this unsoured information, I'm going to rework the Early Life section strictly using old sources. -Noca2plus (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I asked Bill Steigerwald what source he used for the Barr background in Mr. Steigerwald's article. He responded:
[edit] Military Reform Movement
Since we're talking of Barr's military background here, I just found this article on the Military Reform Movement, which states amongst other things: The only presidential candidate who might pick up the reform agenda is Libertarian nominee Bob Barr Source: http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Military_Matters_Reform_history_Part_1_999.html [12] Can anybody work this into the article? VNCCC is too busy now, sorry.... VNCCC (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for ref VNCC! Unfortunately, that statement is ALL the article says about Bob Barr. Until Barr makes some sort of statement indicating opinion regarding MRM, I don't think it merits inclusion in his biography. -Noca2plus (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- I agree. Carol Moore 19:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
- Ditto--JayJasper (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Libertarian Nominee in infobox
Is there any way to put the Libertarian Nominee part to the top? It is his current position. Most presidential nominees have it right under their picture, why should he be different. Now I would do it, but I don't know how. --Mike Theodore (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- To answer your question, I don't know. However, I don't see what you're saying in terms of the nominee status being first on "most presidential nominees". So far as I can tell, Barr is the only candidate that both a former office holder and, as of 2008-06-11, an official nominee. -Noca2plus (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Barr says we should send troops from Iraq to South America?
I have seen this allegation numerous times, from supposed anti-Barr Libertarians. [13] Not only are such claims always unsourced, it is suggested his website is replete with articles to this effect. However, I can find no evidence of this. If this is a valid claim, it should be probably be here. Can anybody shed light on this issue?
Furthermore, much is made of his employ with the CIA. However, there is very little information on it, anywhere. What did he do with the CIA? Could he still have connections with them? Is there evidence either way?
Most of the Barr criticism so far, here and elsewhere, seems to be either vague, unreferenced, or circumstantial. This is not healthy, for either side of the debate. This article needs a well-researched discussion of these and other accusations. If they have a basis in verifiable information, that should be referenced here. If they do not, the article should say as much. Marshaul (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- If such accusations begin to surface in the mainstream media, rather than just within libertarian circles, I agree that the article should address them. Otherwise, I don't see a need for such coverage. As you pointed out, most of the accusations are unsourced, so they don't belong here unless reliable sources can be cited. FWIW, Barr was employed by the CIA in the 1970s (I'm not sure in what capacity), but left that organization 30 years ago (see the reference link in the "Early career" section of the article).--JayJasper (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
