Talk:Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Remove Partisan Smear
Sandy, as in the Diane Farrell article, the tax smear attacking Diane Farrell has no place in a general overview of the election. Note that this is the only criticism of a candidate present in this article, it is not given any context, and no objective information is provided about Chris Shays record in Congress. I am giving you the opportunity to remove or modify the smear now, to more accurately reflect the NPOV required by Wikipedia's policies. In the event that you are not familiar with WP:NPOV, I suggest you read the primer at the link cited, especially the section regarding "undue weight."--Francisx 06:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please review WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS, and please refrain from using words like "smear" with respect to referenced text from reliable sources, and from making further accusations towards me: remember that assuming good faith and civility are policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia presents balanced, neutral information from all points of view, based on reliable sources. You are welcome to add content from reliable sources which adds to or counteracts any information here, but that should not be from an individual's Letter to the Editor of a local paper, as in the Diane Farrell article. Letters to the Editor can be written by anyone, are not subject to journalistic fact checking, and are not reliable sources. Also, please take care with your section headings, as the inaccurate heading "partisan smear" is inflammatory and accusatory. Sandy 13:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Adding URL of deleted "tax smear". Sandy 22:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think that having a criticism section is fine, but to maintain a neutral point of view, there must be criticisms on all of the candidates. Having only one mentioned shows bias.
Colea 02:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a good question. Why are there no criticism on Chris Shays on his brief bio, but there are of Diane Farrell? Why the double standard? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.86.126.212 (talk • contribs).
- The easy way to remedy that is to add appropriate, well-sourced, non-biased criticisms on Shays' page. -- Sholom 13:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Foley/Chappaquiddick - Please be aware of WP:BLP
Regarding this edit, please be aware of WP:BLP, particularly when attributing direct quotes to candidates. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we must get it right, particularly when putting words in the mouths of public figures. A CNN headline cannot be attributed to Shays as a direct quote: those were not the words he used, rather the headline of the article. Further, the words attributed as a direct quote from Kennedy were from his spokeswoman, according to the article. I have corrected the text and reinserted a corrected version. Sandy 06:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Duplicate content and original research
Regarding this edit: please see my comment here. This edit is original research, and duplicated on both articles, unnecessarily. It does not rise to the level of inclusion in an encyclopedic bibliography.
[edit] Phil Maymin
Why are Libertarian articles prohibited?
I do not support their party much; but, Mr. Phil Maymin is an actual candidate, w/ the "I approved this massage" commercial.
< http://mayminforcongress.com/index.htm?home.php >;
< http://mayminforcongress.com/home.php >;
< http://mayminforcongress.com >.
hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 23:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Facebook Election Polling
The Facebook election "pulse" polling data is not a scientific poll. It is just the number of people on facebook signed up with the candidate, hardly an accurate number. It is inaccurate and erroneous. I will remove it.
