Talk:Ames Straw Poll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Iowa, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Iowa.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high-importance within WikiProject Iowa for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This article is supported by the government workgroup.
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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
A fact from Ames Straw Poll appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on July 25, 2007.
Wikipedia

Contents

[edit] Dates of 1979 and 1987 polls

Can someone track down the exact dates of the 1979 and 1987 Ames Straw Polls and then add those dates, giving an appropriate citation, in the article? This information seems to be unfortunately lacking on the World Wide Web, but it should be readily available in newspaper archives. —Lowellian (reply) 07:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Significance

In the section titled "Significance," the article makes some claims of general trends in the poll which I think are unfounded, given that the poll has only happened 4 times (soon to be 5). Ex: "in the history of the Ames Straw Poll, except in 1987, the winner (or in case of the tie in 1995, one of the winners) of the Ames Straw Poll has gone on to win the Iowa Caucus." 3 matches out of 4 (and one of those not even a clear victory) could very easily be chance. Perhaps, in reality, it only correctly predicts about 50% of the time, but due to chance we happened to get 3 out of 4 instead of 2 out of 4. There's really no way to know, and I think it's simply too early to draw out patterns, even after the upcoming poll (notwishstanding that it's a pastime of American politics to scrutinize every single datum to within an inch of its life).

Likewise with the first sentence of that same paragraph, "Only about half of the winners of the Ames Straw Poll have gone on to win the Republican presidential nomination." Well, right now it's 2 out of 4, which is exactly half. "About half," I feel, makes it sound like we've got a larger data set, with higher precision, than we do.

Just some thoughts.

Munion 19:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you make good points. Anyway, it's fixed now; the section has been rewritten to reflect the problems you wrote about. —Lowellian (reply) 02:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Format

It is unclear how the actual voting takes place... The article mentions the ones that already voted have their hands stamped, but how did they vote? By raising hands? Wikiak 00:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've clarified that electronic voting machines are used. —Lowellian (reply) 02:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Title

Why is the title of this article "Ames Straw Poll" instead of "Iowa Straw Poll?" The Iowa Republican Party (who runs the poll), refers to it as the "Iowa Straw Poll" on their website, the logo for this year's poll also refers to it as the "Iowa Straw Poll," and pretty much every media story I've seen about it this year refers to it as the "Iowa Straw Poll." Yes, it does take place in Ames, but that is not the name that it seems to have been given. Etphonehome 22:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, when I came back from vacation today and wanted to see an update on this, the first thing I typed was Iowa Straw Poll, yet I had to see the search screen first :/. Homestarmy 22:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
In order to avoid confusion with other Iowa Straw Polls; because, as detailed in in the introductory paragaph, there are actually multiple pre-Iowa Caucus straw polls held in different Iowa towns; this is just the most famous one of them. And what do you mean you had to see the search screen first? Iowa Straw Poll redirects here. Google currently shows 400,000 hits for "Iowa Straw Poll" and 204,000 hits for "Ames Straw Poll", so the frequency of the two terms is on the same order of magnitude. The problem with the phrase "Iowa straw poll" (and a reason to take the Google results with a bit of salt) is lack of specificity; that phrase could be referring to another Iowa Straw Poll besides the Ames Straw Poll. —Lowellian (reply) 02:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I think it's a historical thing. Before the polls in the 1990s, this poll was less important compared to the other straw polls in Iowa (also run by the Iowa Republican Party), and was known as the Ames Straw Poll. In the 1990s, this poll became gradually more important vis-à-vis the other Iowa straw polls, and came to be promoted and publicized as THE Iowa Straw Poll, rather than just any Iowa straw poll. —Lowellian (reply) 02:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
As an Iowa resident, I've heard both names used - and the usage is roughly equal. In this case the more precise term should be used for clarity's sake - with a redirect from the other common name, as is done with this article. --Tim4christ17 talk 04:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need for more eye witness accounts

Limiting information to only what is broadcast by entertainment networks is no way to run a current events encyclopedia. There must be some leniency for inclusion of amature primary accounts until scholarly investigation of the subject is completed. This policy just leads to sockpuppeting... Until that realization is made this discussion section will have to suffice. Below is a personal eye witness account of the event. For other wikipedians in attendence please verify my observations and add your own. (Here, not to the article as that is against current policy) Hopefully a reputable source will publish an article for citation.

It was advertised that Iowa State students could show a student ID to vote. However, those in possession of an out of state drivers licence and no voter registration card on them were turned away. Also, the polling center required voters to mark their thumb with an iodine based ink. This had the effect of marking every ballot with a thumbprint unless voters took to the non-ergonomic method of feeding their ballot into the machine without use of an possible digit.

Also, for voters on buses paid for by a candidate they had no unobstructed view of the tents of candidates Tommy Thompson and Ron Paul, as they were placed on the other side of the complex from the bus parking area.

In addition Romney supporters were allowed to fill the floor during his speech, while supporters of Ron Paul were limited to 150 supporters while hundreds more without gold wrist bands were forced to stay out of the area immediately in front of the podium.GrEp 03:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your desire to disseminate reports of what you presumably witnessed, but from WP:Talk:
  • Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.
It's really very clear, WP is not a publisher of original thought. There are literally thousands of such resources on the internet. Start a blog, contact your local independent media. Contact national independent media. But until something is verifiable, it does not belong on Wikipedia; I don't even think it belongs on this talk page.
I'm not trying to be a dick. I truly believe that what you're trying to do is right, and I applaud you for it. This just is not the proper forum. -Seidenstud 04:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Original material is not allowed on wikipedia - the content must be verifiable. One idea would be to write an essay, based on interviews and your own personal observations, and publish it. You'll want to concentrate on making the essay credible - for example, I'd suggest you get permission from those you interview to include their full name in the essay. Verify and cite sources for any factual statements you make in the article. Write the essay from a neutral point of view. Last but not least, find a credible source to publish your essay. Once your essay is published, it can serve as a source of information for use in this Wikipedia article. --Smiller933 17:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Straw poll logo.png

Image:Straw poll logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)