Talk:Fred Karger

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religion: Judaism[edit]

The source writes that he is Jewish but not if he is Jewish by religion. He can be Jewish by ethnicity but not Judaist. I am for removing Judaism. --Dezidor (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from the first sentence, it's not a sufficiently significant fact. We don't describe George W Bush as "a white methodist American" in his intro do we? --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but for Barack Obama, "African-American" is in the intro, in the second sentence, because it's something that is unusual in the context of who he is. "Jewish" may not be of particular interest within the context of Karger-the-activist, but should he officially start running for President, then yes, the out gay Jew aspect is of reasonable significance for the intro. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if sources show that to be important in the context of what makes him notable, it can go in the intro. But check out Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. Neither begin "xx is an African-American..." - the proper place for such a label is later in the intro and only with a mention of why it is important.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidacy[edit]

I see several places here where he is described as being a presidential candidate - but I cannot find any source saying that he has actually announced said candidacy (although he has announced exploration), nor that he is on any actual ballots yet. Barring either one of these two things happening, he may be a likely candidate, but he is not a candidate. Any disagreement before I edit those statements out? --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The claim that Karger is the first openly gay Presidential candidate in history is contradicted in the Wikipedia article about the 1980 election: "The Socialist Party USA nominated David McReynolds for President and Sister Diane Drufenbrock for Vice President, making McReynolds the first openly gay man to run for President." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.136.15.149 (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tobacco "Activism"[edit]

I have tried placing the work for tobacco companies in the "political consultancy" section, where other efforts in his gun-for-hire days are placed; in the "activist" section it begs the definition a bit, it's out of place in the path of his history, and it's creating a one-sentence section. The editor who placed it in activism then moved it back; I would like to see if there's any consensus for it being under activism, or whether there is agreement it is best seen as part of his political consultancy. (It should be noted that the source used on the tobacco statement refers to it in discussing him as a consultant, and does not refer to it as "Activism"). --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration reform[edit]

He also supports immigration reform. - What does it mean? What does he support? In the political sense, immigration reform may include promoted, expanded, or open immigration, as well as reduced or eliminated immigration. --Dezidor (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

William S. Saturn's choice of image.
Update image.

I just added an updated photo of Fred Karger, and it was immediately removed by User:William S. Saturn, who has reverted nearly every instance of any sort of image change that I have provided over the past 6 months, relating to the 2012 election. Because of this bias, I would like to obtain consensus as to which image is in fact "better", as William S. Saturn noted in his edit summary, who seems to have very serious ownership issues on all articles related to the 2012 election. The previous image is of very poor, pixelated quality, and is very unflattering of Mr. Karger. The image I have tried to replace the photo with is more recent, neutral in color, and is a much better representation of Karger. Please stop pretending like you have ownership of articles, and allow others to contribute to this project. You have done this over and over again, and am considering obtaining administrator intervention. Gage (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And simply adding the image lower in the article doesn't make a difference. Especially since you removed it completely from two other 2012 election articles. Gage (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A neutral expression, without sunglasses and excessive lighting is more encyclopedic. Your image was moved to the section on the campaign.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you just listed is considered "encyclopedic." Gage (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then please explain what is encyclopedic.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained why the updated image should be used in place of the pixelated image. Gage (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The edit that left both images somewhere on the page are better than the one which left only one image, as were encouraged to have multiple illustrations on the page. (Not, mind you, that two portraits are ideal for the multiple images, but it's what we have.) And it seems to me that the earlier image is more consistent with Karger's better-publicized appearances, and thus should be the lead picture. It is not our job to flatter Mr. Karger. (Not, mind you, that I think the new picture actually is more flattering; while he looks more "fashioned", between the reflection in the shades and the wide spread of teeth, it makes him look somewhat maniacal.) ---Nat Gertler (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, why isn't the photo of Karger at an actual campaign event not used in the elected section, rather than one where he is not? I added the pixelated photo to the election section, but still stand by my earlier assertions. Gage (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are not observing the bold, revert, discuss cycle. You are simply edit warring to promote your images. Yes, your image is clearer, but there is sun shining off the hair, the eyes are completely covered and the expression is unnatural.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop attacking me by saying I am trying to "promote" my images. If it wasn't my image, I would still attempt to replace the very bad photo of Mr. Karger that has only been in use because it was the only free image that was available. Gage (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not attacking you, I am describing what you are doing.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am not the one who has been blocked several times for edit warring. Gage (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, but we've all made mistakes, haven't we? --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those were for edit warring, which, as I noted, you have been specifically blocked for multiple times because of your inability to obtain consensus, and collaborate with other users. Gage (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters or has anything to do with this page, but all of the edit warring blocks were almost immediately reversed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it, you two! That said, the Skidmore image is quite light, has a perhaps-too-strong expression and has those glasses that obscure the face somewhat. Hekerui (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Image: Hekerui's comments pretty much said my opinion. The new image is too light and his glasses obscure his face. The old image would probably be better as a choice for those reasons in my opinion. Kessy628 (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think that the new one is better - the lighting is too dark in the old one, it is of low quality, he is in an awkward position - anyways, isn't there something in the MOS that prefers images with subject facing towards the text? New one wins for me. Connormah (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico primary[edit]

Perhaps someone can add that Karger had more votes than Ron Paul in the Puerto Rico primary? <http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ron-paul-topped-ran-fred-karger-puerto-rican-153210979.html> 69.225.238.73 (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fred Karger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Fred Karger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Fred Karger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fred_Karger&oldid=1206621213"