Talk:Earl Dodge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
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.

Contents

[edit] Some background on the 2003-2004 Prohibition quarrels

Since the above note indicates that the biography should be altered, I thought that some additional information might be of use.

In the summer of 2003, Dodge called a meeting in his house in Lakewood, Colorado. The Prohibition Party's executive committee did not issue a call for this convention. Dodge and six other people, including two daughters, met in his living room. The group nominated him for president and Howard Lydick for vice president. One of those present was Leroy J. Pletten, the secretary of the executive committee, who later "switched sides" as the controversy widened. Dodge and Pletten are not closely related.

The party's executive committee immediately objected to this meeting. The executive committee called a meeting in Tennessee to decide how to respond. This was in the fall of 2003. At this meeting, new officers were chosen for the executive committee, and Dodge was asked to give an account of the party funds and Storms collection. Chronicler3 11:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

Is this a joke?

[edit] Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick -- Zanimum 19:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] recent deletion

The recent derogatory paragraphs appear to me to be presenting the assertions of the non-Dodge faction as fact.

The second "citation" link is, in fact, to a web page maintained by said faction. Somehow, I don't think that counts as a valid citation. I mean, I could easily create a web page containing wild accusations against some other person - would it be legit if I cited that page in support of similar statements on Wikipedia?

Meanwhile, the first link appears to point to a page which was written by the person who added the derogatory paragraphs. If I understand correctly, this is considered to be spamming. If I don't understand correctly, I welcome correction from anyone who is knowledgeable on the subject.

At any rate, that's why I deleted the paragraphs in question. If they're added again, I'll delete them again, until the poster tires of the cycle, or one of us is blocked from making such changes, or someone can persuade me that mere repetition of the other faction's assertions is considered legitimate.

Caldodge 04:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Conflict of interest

Earl Dodge's son has taken it upon himself to censor information in his father's wikipedia biography. In so doing, he is in violation of Wikipedia policy. His threat to engage in a revert war with anyone who dares to present information he considers deragatory or otherwise unacceptable also appears to be in violation of Wikipedia policy.David Justin 16:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Reference tag

Following the posting of the tag calling for more references on November 8, the reference density has increased from one per 162 words to one per 25 words. Therefore, I have removed that tag.David Justin (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] not a threat

Sorry, Professor Hanson aka "David Justin", but I didn't declare war. I did say I'd delete your items which merely parrot the other faction's claims (with one exception, every non-Wikipedia link you added is a pointer to that faction's web site). I don't consider unsubstantiated allegations motivated by political considerations to be "information".

In addition, I see no citation for your claim that "divisiveness may continue because of the Amondson faction’s contention that the Dodge family controls most of the assets held by the party and its foundations". Who says "divisiveness may continue"? Are you quoting a member of the other faction? If so, who? Or is this simply your speculation, given your antipathy toward all temperance organizations? At any rate, I also don't believe the editorial comments of a biased party count as "information".

I'm not a Party member, and haven't been for years. But I know the Dodge family has no desire to "control" the party, and I'd say that knowledge has more validity than your biased uninformed speculations.

So, again, I'll keep deleting your crap until 1) you tire of this game, or 2) you or I are blocked from making such changes, or 3) someone persuades me that the other faction's claims are valid (you could do this if you cited real evidence, rather than playing "Polly wants a cracker" for Pletten and his bunch).

Caldodge (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] an alternative course for David J. Hanson

Professor Hanson,

One alternative for you would be to post your crap on the Prohibition Party page. I promise not to revert any claims you put there. Of course, I may also post counter-claims on that page, and let people see both sides of the story, instead of the one-sided story you are repeating over and over.


Caldodge (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Professor Hanson (aka "David Justin") conflict of interest

Professor Hanson has an obvious conflict of interest, too. He believes that moderate drinking is healthier than abstinence, and consequently has written numerous derogatory items about temperance organizations (as well as organizations which simply want people to not drink while they're driving).

It's obvious to me that his continuous reposting of the other Prohibition faction's claims is simply another way to attack a temperance leader, advancing Professor Hanson's cause.

Hi Caldodge- Writing about ones father necessarily constitutes a conflict of interest according to Wikipedia guidelines. However, writing about something or someone and having a point of view (as does everyone) does not. Thanks. David Justin (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Professor Hanson's latest error

Professor Justin was apparently ignorant of the date of the Earl Dodge quote on politics1.com.

A check with the Internet Wayback machine [[1]] shows the "fair and objective" quote dates back to 2000, and therefore CANNOT be a reference to the "divisive events" of 2003. That is why I removed the quote - it falsely implies his agreement the description of those events.

I added what I've been told is the real motivation of anti-Dodge faction (i.e., compromising prohibition goals). I didn't do so in some partisan spirit, since I've been a Republican since 1994.

Regarding "Dodge faction does not refute these allegations", Dad felt that what he _did_ was more important than what people said about him (believing God would judge his actions), so he was not in the habit of defending himself publicly (or, most of the time, privately).

And I know from discussions with Mom just how much Dad sacrificed to keep the party afloat in recent years, as well as when the party faced financial disaster in 1960. No, there are no citations available for this fact, since it wasn't published in any news story.

Caldodge (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Caldodge- I don’t believe your father’s quote regarding the accuracy of Politics1.com is misleading. By letting his comments stand, he is reasonably presumed to have acknowledged the accuracy of the material in question.
However, it is unacceptable to add, as you have, numerous statements based on hearsay and other non-verifiable sources. Even though you have a clear conflict of interest, I don’t doubt your integrity or the veracity of these statements. Nevertheless, their inclusion is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. Thanks. David Justin (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Professor Hanson's request for citations

Since Professor Hanson's "citations" consist almost entirely of links to the pagss of the anti-Dodge faction (with an occasional link to an article which merely mentions the fact that there _is_ a party schism), I'm assuming that similar links to the pro-Dodge's faction would also count as suitable citations.

I'll discuss this with the prohibition.org webmaster, to see what pages I can create which will then be used as citations.

Hi Caldodge- That would be most useful. It’s important that both sides of the issue be presented as well as possible. Thanks for your efforts. David Justin (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'm curious about Professor Hanson's obsession with repeatedly posting the anti-Dodge faction's allegations. Is his motivation simply a desire to denigrate all temperance organizations? Does he have some unmentioned conflict with Earl Dodge? Or does he have an undisclosed relationship with the anti-Dodge faction?

As one of Earl Dodge's sons, I trust my motivation is obvious. What is your motivation, Professor Hanson?

Hi again Caldodge - I regret that I never met or communicated with your father. From the obituaries and related news, he appears to have been a man with a magnetic personality with whom even strangers could easily relate, who loved his family, and who largely devoted his life to the cause of prohibition to which he was so deeply committed. Even some in the opposing faction considered him to be their friend and he seems not to have spoken ill of anyone regardless of their beliefs about alcohol.
My motivation is to help present a balanced encyclopedia entry for the man who was truly “Mr. Prohibition.” No encyclopedia entry about George Washington would be balanced without a discussion of his slave-holding, nor of Jefferson without attention to his apparently illegitimate offspring, nor of Nixon without an explication of Watergate, nor of Clinton without consideration of the Monica Lewinsky affair.
A man of your father’s stature deserves more than a superficial “puff-piece” and an encyclopedia entry demands it. Best regards,David Justin (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

24.8.225.172 (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I forgot to log in before adding this section. Caldodge (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been with the Amondson faction since 2004, and I have never heard of him by either name. I did take a look at his website once and realized that I agreed with the "neo-prohibitionist" agenda completely.Chronicler3 (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] restored "sudden"

I restored the "sudden" adjective because the death WAS sudden - unexpected by anybody.

Dad had a heart attack in 1984, and septuple bypass surgery in 1999, but to all appearances seemed to be healthy enough for his age (unlike my wife's grandparents, both of whom had an obvious decline in health for months before their deaths) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caldodge (talk • contribs) 18:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)