Talk:Maria Cantwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

For older discussions, please see Archive1

Contents

[edit] Phrasing problem

I think its problematic to begin assertions with phrases such as "Cantwell did support the view of many left-wing groups when..." (this in reference to her oppostion to the Roberts nomination) unless one can establish a causal link to the referenced group/position/event. That is, was Cantwell's vote the result of an effort to support/appease "left wing groups"? If so, document this. Otherwise we end up with an implication of causality when coincidence would be just as logical an inference. It's a common rhetorical device--"Bush echoes the actions of many neo-Nazis in eating breakfast cereal"--but hardly illustrative or fair. Is anyone else finding this more and more common in pages relating to active politicians (particularly those with a race this fall, 2006)? --Patchyreynolds 15:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign Issues and Cantwell's Positions

The '2006 re-election section' contained no information about the campaign issues or Cantwell's positions. I have revised the section in an effort to correct this. I've left the passage about the debate controversy, although I'm not convinced this is consistent with NPOV or relevant to this section. What do others think? Jimmyhogg 23:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your edits. I've been trying to improve some Washington State-related entries and I think you've improved this one dramatically. I'm not sure about the passage regarding the debates. I mean, given that the previous Senatorial race had the same number of debates as this one, I'm not sure this deserves a paragraph.Benzocane 00:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Reverted this and the follow-on edits by Bobblehead and others for the following reasons:
A.) Sources are either uncited original research apparently based on her campaign site, or citations are press releases, a letter from Cantwell, a dead link, and a link to a house resolution, not a senate bill that she supposedly co-sponsored.
B.) Discussing actual issues that have been meat of the campaign, discussed in the media, seems more appropriate to this section, rather than listing information in a largely uncontested manner similar to a campaign website.
C.) The photograph had no copyright tag, and doesn't add to the article -- makes it look more like a campaign website.
D.) There was no reason for deleting the previous information that gave info about the historical narrative of the campaign thus far.
E.) Bobblehead, double standard? [1] The listing of Hong Tran's campaign issues was too objectionable to stand, even after multiple citations. I would have expected a different approach from you here.
Emcee 00:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
What the heck do you mean the photo "had no copyright tag": I shot it today, I uploaded it at Commons, and it is absolutely clearly marked that I shot it and granted GFDL on it. As for "doesn't add to article": what the heck? The only other photo we have of her is an official portrait. This is a candid photo of her on the campaign trail. How does that not add to the article? - Jmabel | Talk 07:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see the tag. Still, it really doesn't add useful information to the article; we already know what she looks like from the main photograph (looking at the sites of other Senators as a standard, they generally don't have extra photos like this unless there's a specific event or incident worth documenting), and it's not particularly relevant to any specific issue or event in the 2006 campaign -- you can't even see anything besides her face and the side of somebody else's head. So it's basically redundant. A gratuitous "candid photo on the campaign trail" is generally something for a campaign website or TV ad. Emcee 16:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to seek at third opinion on that. - Jmabel | Talk 20:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with these reverts. If you want to add critical views of Cantwell's positions, fine; but you've erased those positions! I thought Jimmyhogg's edits were a significant improvement. I will not revert until I hear what others have to say.Benzocane 23:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I reverted positions that were either poorly sourced, unsourced, or erroneously sourced, and that were about topics that have apparently had little to do with the actual substance of the campaign narrative thus far. Jimmyhogg also didn't just add info -- he deleted valid information that was already there. Emcee 03:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, Emcee has deleted information about

Cantwell's activity as a legislator, including her positions on:

  • McCain/Feingold Act,
  • Clean Money, Clean Elections Act,
  • Pell Grants, Perkins Loans,
  • Pension Fairness and Full Disclosure Act

in order to replace it with information about:

  • Hypothetical elections in which Dino Rossi leads Cantwell
  • Republican electoral prospects in Washington
  • Bob Menendez' status as "most vulnerable Democrat in the Senate"
  • Mike McGavick's domination of a primary
  • Mike McGavick's criticism of Cantwell for "choosing to run a tightly controlled, closed campaign" in which, as in 2000 and 2004, two public debates occur
  • Two newspapers, a radio announcer, and McGavick's campaign spokesperson's criticisms of Cantwell's debate policy.

I don't see how Emcee's argument about sources holds water. Each of the deleted sections had sources. I don't see how a letter to congress or the text of H.R. 2233 constitute "poor" or "erroneous" sources. The job of this encyclopedia entry is to provide information about its topic, Maria Cantwell. Emcee's edits have compromised the entry in a way that seems disruptive to me.

Cyrusc 11:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry--Emcee has a valid point about the H.R. 2233 link. I replaced this link with the relevant Senate bill. Cyrusc 12:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
While I disagree with most of Emcee's edits, I do I think that some of the discussion about Rossi and the fact that Cantwell was considered vulnerable early because of her support for Iraq is important historically. Sabato, who Emcee quoted, is a respected source. I will also note a CQPolitics.com article here from Jan 2006, which opens with Restiveness within the liberal Democratic voting base appears a fresh complication for Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell, who faces a serious Republican challenge in her bid this year for a second term. Cantwell’s vote in favor of the 2002 Iraq war resolution, which authorized President Bush to employ military force, is the issue hindering Cantwell’s efforts to maintain party unity — a must in Washington, a Democratic-leaning but politically competitive state. It's a good story arc: from appearing vulnerable both within and outside the party, pulling ahead, winning the primary, her seat still being considered a potential pick-up for the GOP, and her pulling ahead in the pre-general election polling. But we lose half the story if we ignore the first part. -- Sholom 12:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. Is there a way to include this information without deleting what has been supplied by Jimmyhogg and Bobblehead? Cyrusc 14:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
CyrusC, I think your list was a mischaracterization of my edits. I was restoring the original info and removing recently-added material that was largely based off of poorly sourced or unsourced material. I was not "replacing" A with B; Jimmyhogg had replaced A with B, and I was restoring A. Some people take the attitude that once the election moves forward in time, historical information about how the campaign was viewed should be deleted... especially if it could be read as negative information about the candidate. The things that you re-reverted are not about the campaign -- they are (at best) about things that she has done as a Senator. There is a difference. These are not "campaign issues" as shown by any substantial coverage in the media or debate between the candidates. They may be listed on her campaign website or in old press releases from groups that were involved or sympathetic with those particular issues, but that doesn't mean that anybody views them as meat of the campaign. If people want to know exactly what Cantwell's public stance on any specific issue is, they can go to her campaign website; this is a biographical article, and a section about the 2006 re-election campaign, so there should be more of an attempt to provide material and sources that are less biased and actually following the campaign.

I am going to re-revert (including the photograph that you replaced, even though the person who added it in the first place has agreed to leave it out now). Let's try to come to consensus in the discussion that we've been having here before jumping into an edit war.Emcee 15:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Emcee, I apologize if I have mischaracterized your edits. My choice of examples may have been colored by my frustration at the disappearance of what I felt were improvements to this article. I also apologize for re-posting the photo. I did not realize that my revert would cause it to reappear.

I agree that we should come to a consensus before making edits. Since the revert that made our lack of consensus apparent in the first place is one of those edits, and since our disagreement centers as much on what should be deleted as on what should be included, it seems to me that the fair and civil thing to do is to allow both sides' contributions to stand until consensus is reached. Otherwise, the entry will emphatically not reflect consensus. The alternative is to allow both parties to delete freely, in which case the controversial section simply disappears. I think that the former option contributes more to the goals of the encyclopedia, and I have implemented it.

I continue to disagree with your edits. I don't believe that any of the first three paragraphs of the section as it now stands are germane to the entry, although I recognize Sholom's point that the narrative of the campaign deserves to be addressed. I also think that the phrases "heavy criticism" and "newspapers across the state" are POV at best. Cyrusc 19:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


References -- oy! But why were all the references (i.e., <ref>) removed! Can somebody put them back in please?! -- Sholom 16:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Emcee: you're right we should avoid an edit war. But several people all agree that the substantive campagin issues added by jimmyhogg are an improvement and your initial edit and revert are clearly AGAINST the consensus thus far. Again, if you believe there is some sort of NPOV violation, please make edits that correct the POV. How are the positions that a candidate basis her candidacy on somehow not 'campaign issues'?Benzocane 17:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the support for my original edit. It was emphatically not my intention to initiate an edit war, and I'm glad to see that concensus appears to be building. I simply felt that a subsection of the Cantwell page entitled, '2006 re-election campaign,' which was destitute of many of her campaign issues or political positions was severely lacking in essential content. I have to say that I am quite perplexed with Emcee's position on this matter, when Emcee states that my edit (and the recent re-vert) were, "(at best) about things that she has done as a Senator. There is a difference. These are not 'campaign issues' as shown by any substantial coverage in the media or debate between the candidates." I must admit that I fail to see how what Cantwell 'has done as a Senator' is not a campaign issue. I'm also not entirely sure what the problem was with my sourcing. I welcome constructive criticism on this front. Additionally, I believe that much of my original sourcing challenges the claim that the issues discussed in my edit have been absent from the media coverage of the campaign.
On a technical note, I've tried to replace the references that Sholom has noted as missing. I'm having some difficulty properly relocating the links to the 'References' section at the bottom of the page. I'm able to create a separate section, but for some reason am having trouble merging the two. Perhaps someone can help with this. Jimmyhogg 21:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I see what's happening with the reference links. Many of the links involve a redirect to the source itself, whereas the references from the '2006 re-election campaign' link to the 'References' section at the bottom of the WP. It seems like a uniform sourcing policy should be agreed on for the page. Since the majority of the article's footnotes link directly to their external sources, I'm going to revise the '2006 re-election campaign' footnotes, so that they link externally as well, and then I'll do away with the references section. Jimmyhogg 21:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh. I did the opposite, actually. Even if we are doing external links, you have to reference the sources in a reference section.(See WP:Cite) Generally want to use a more formal method than what I did, but I didn't want to spend a lot of time updating the reference links only to have them disappear if/when someone comes through and reverts the 2006 election section. ;) --Bobblehead 21:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow, there's a lot of debate here. My two cents are with the recent support for the re-vert. I think that Cantwell's past-campaign activity is (or should be) well within the purview of a section on her current re-election campagin. Sure, this is a biographical page, but if it's going to include a section on her current campaign (which it surely should), then this is relevant information. While we're at it, I'm going to second (or third or fourth, it seems) CyrusC's complaint that some of the phrasing in the first three paragraphs may violate NPOV (see CyrusC's talk post, above, from 24 October 2006). In light of this, I've made some revisions to the first three paragraphs of the '2006 re-election campaign' section. Beyond removing the NPOV-questionable phrases, I'm (a) removing an unsourced claim about Rossi being asked to run against Cantwell; (b) updating Sabato's post-primary quotation with a recent poll; (c) adding information about Cantwell's debates in her 2000 campaign. Henrystreet 19:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Can we be a bit slower with the cutting? "Everyone knows" that Rossi was being asked to run against Cantwell. He had just lost a close race, and Cantwell seemed vulnerable at the time. Rather than delete it so quickly (or is it too late?), why not look for a reference? Indeed, in about 60 seconds I found the following: Powerful Republicans in Washington, D.C. — from the White House on down — are pushing Rossi to run against Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell next year. But back here in this Washington, some of Rossi's biggest allies want him to stay home and take another shot at becoming governor in 2008. in this Seattle Times article. As I said above, it makes for a great story arc. -- Sholom 19:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I restored the debate controversy portion and added a couple of citations. I also edited the "issues" section of this segment to match the citations that were given. Note that _all_ of the sources given were either self-published (Cantwell's campaign site, or press releases on the web sites of various politically-involved organizations), which have to be treated with caution, according to Wikipedia policy per WP:RS (see: online and self-published sources)[2]; or else they were actual documents (the letter from the Senators, and the text of the Senate bill) -- which makes any kind of commentary that is not supported by an additional source original research. (Especially where the letter about the Perkins Loan Program was used to support claims about Pell Grants and social security privatization).

Back to the self-published sources: one of our editors (Bobblehead) has even argued on another page that campaign web sites are, by definition, unreliable sources that should not be used as a basis for WP material -- I don't necessarily agree with this stance, but I would like to hear him chip in on this and explain why the circumstances are any different here, or else why he has changed his mind on this topic. These sources do, however, benefit from both direct attribution in the article itself, and also by second sources (preferably more neutral). Just going through the list and writing "Cantwell's supporters say" is not adequate -- especially when the sayings are not supported even in the partisan citations.

Note that the citations are also (except for one) quite old -- either from mid-2005, or one as far back as 2001. It's difficult to argue that these citations have anything to do with the current campaign dialogue and controversies. My argument is not that the material can't be anywhere in the article, but that this is not the right section for it. You can put information about her campaign finance reform stuff in the "U.S. Senator" section; ANWR is already there; etc. etc. But this section should be talking about the CAMPAIGN.

I also want to remind folks that this is an article section _about_ an election, and not an election itself -- i.e., we're not just voting here. Just saying you like Jimmyhogg's edits doesn't help. Nobody has really addressed my main point, which is: how and where do these issues listed on her campaign page factor significantly into what the newspapers and the voters are talking about? Emcee 05:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooo. I've been called out. My stance on the use of campaign sites has been slightly modified following a visit to WP:C&E where I inquired about the use of campaign sites as sources [3] and was corrected.[4] Basically, campaign sites are reliable only for non-controversial topics about the candidate only (such as biography, issue stances that aren't disputed), but should only be used as a supporting source to a reliable source for controversial topics (such as issue stances that are disputed). They shouldn't be used as sources in reference to their opponents (you wouldn't use the Cantwell campaign site as a source in reference to McGavick's stance on issues).--Bobblehead 18:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's list some of the things the newspapers and voters are talking about and discuss how best to incorporate them. I cited the LOC BCRA entry for the cosponsorship claim. I'll reread the WP:RS business--but surely pointing out Cantwell's name on the bill's list of cosponsors, or linking to her campaign website to support a claim about that campaign's stated goals doesn't constitute "original research," does it? Cyrusc 12:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Emcee's edits suggest a violation of NPOV. Here's why:
  • There seems to be a definite slant to the cuts and additions by Emcee, all increasing negative portrayals and decreasing positive portrayals of this candidate.
  • There is now more coverage of the debate issue (two substantial and largely redundant paragraphs) than any other topic--in fact more than several other sections entirely. Is this issue really the single most important issue regarding Cantwell and her race?
  • Talk about reaching consensus followed by edits that seem to be against the established consensus seem disingenuous.
  • One of the newspaper citations (Seattle PI), which is cited as showing that Cantwell has been 'chastised' for refusing more debates, actually just covers the debate controversy in a neutral way.
  • Things like cosponsered legislation are clearly part of the established record and is reasonable to include. Same for statements describing political goals taken from the candidate's own official material. Where else would it come from? Why would we take it from "what the newspapers and the voters are talking about"? Isn't the public perception a separate issue from stated campaign and political goals?
I'm not trying to be overly aggressive here, but I've been following the debate without commenting for a while now, and it really doesn't seem like we're making progress. SlipperyN 16:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with SlipperyN's concern about a potential NPOV violation in Emcee's recent edits. I feel that enough has been said on the sourcing questions, so I'll pass over that. My primary concern is the new addition of a second paragraph concerning the 'debate issue.' This addition seems at once both redundant and off topic. On the one hand, mention of the critical press and response that Cantwell has received for her debates with McGavick is already included in the paragraph above. On the other, the discussion of Cantwell's 2000 debate with Groton and Murray's 2004 debate with Nethercutt, especially the latter, seem unnecessary. Emcee has been concerned about the inclusion of content that is not related to the re-election campaign. Patty Murray's debate record seems like an exemplar of unrelated content--unless, of course, the idea behind their inclusion is to suggest that Cantwell is particularly afraid to debate McGavick. This suggestion, itself, seems to be dubious when it comes to NPOV, but I leave this for others to decide. The redunancy-point remains insofar as Cantwell's 'fear' of McGavick is already suggested in the paragraph above. On the basis of these redundancy and NPOV concerns, I am removing the paragraph in question from the section. Jimmyhogg 18:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Addressing SlipperyN's comments:

  1. ) The intent of many of my edits is to eliminate what are, in my view, NPOV problems, and unsupported material. You say that my edits are "increasing negative portrayals and decreasing positive portrayals of the candidate." If the current portrayal is a POV that is slanted improperly in the positive direction, then yes, my edits may have that effect. But I am, in good faith, attempting to improve the article and make it more neutral. I hope all of you are as well.
  2. ) I agree that those two paragraphs are largely redundant. I'm not sure how they came to be about -- probably one was a slightly modified version of something that was chopped, the other was probably somebody (maybe me) restoring the original paragraph. As it turns out, the one that JimmyHogg deleted actually appears to be the original paragraph, which is not especially new -- from an Oct 14th edit.[5] I will try to combine this deleted paragraph with the remaining one and eliminate any redundancies.
  3. ) I agree that the P-I article[6] attempts to take a neutral stance on the debate controversy -- which makes it a good citation for this section. It does, however, support that she has recieved significant criticism across the state -- for example where it says: "But criticism of Cantwell has mounted. Olympia and Yakima newspaper editorials have chided her for refusing more debates. The Daily Olympian asked, "What is Maria afraid of?"'. This article reports on the criticisms of a Spokane radio commentator; Spokane, Yakima, Olympia -- pretty much statewide criticism in the major media.
  4. ) Cosponsored legislation is perfectly legitimate material to put in the article as a whole, as I have said. It (and sourced commentary about its purpose, effect, and relevance) probably belongs under the "US Senator" subheading in this article, however, unless you can add SOURCED MATERIAL relating it to the campaign, in which case it is reasonable to include it in the campaign section. This is the point that nobody is addressing -- WHO is talking about the Perkins loan program, the 2001 Clean Money, Clean Campaigns act, etc. etc. IN THIS ELECTION CYCLE? I'm not saying that nobody is talking about it, I'm saying that no reliable sources are being cited showing that these are material to the actual campaign. YES -- public perception IS different from stated campaign and political goals; if you read my previous discussion, I've already agreed to this material (the list of issues from the campaign site) for what it supports directly, nothing more nothing less, and with specific attribution in the article itself, letting the reader know that it is coming from Cantwell's self-published campaign site (without having to check a footnote or follow a link).
  5. ) It does seem a bit aggressive to lead off with "violations" of NPOV, but I won't make an issue of it. I'm not "violating" anything, just contributing to Wikipedia like the rest of these editors.

Emcee 05:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Emcee, go ahead and list some of the campaign issues people are really "talking about" and we'll figure out how to improve the article. I don't see how it contributes to our discussion simply to repeat criticism of facts the other participants in this forum seem to agree on.
  • I don't think it's 'aggressive' to continue mentioning POV in connection with your edits. I think your most recent edit has done nothing other than introduce POV, particularly with this line: "Newspapers across the state have chastised her debate approach, calling it 'unacceptable' and 'simply not fair.'"

Let me point out:

  • This sentence restates the information of the previous sentence, then introduces three pejoratives and the unwarranted intensifier "across the state." Yakima (dead link, by the way) and Olympia are "across the state" only in the most trivial sense.
  • As SlipperyN observed just yesterday, the single live link you cite does not substantiate this intensified/pejorated version of the preceding sentence.
  • The several intensifying "onlys" that you added later on in the paragraph compromise both the sense and the flow of the prose, in my opinion.
  • You may consider my decision to revert 'aggressive.' Let me address that in advance. If you want to improve the article, do so in a way consistent with your positions on the Talk page. Bring in sources, strengthen NPOV, and above all, introduce the "real issues" the absence of which you claim is the outstanding weakness of the article.
  • I'm trying to be courteous by justifying my edits on the Talk page, but I want to point out how counterproductive it is. It seems to me you're bringing a lot more substance to the debate than to the entry itself. To be frank, I feel that your combination of 1) detailed, critical Talk contributions about "real issues," responsible sourcing, and NPOV, with 2) repetitive edits that precisely counteract the spirit of those Talk contributions, is exploiting the cooperative nature of this project in order to diminish the quality of an entry you happen to dislike.
  • I welcome your disagreement--the debate, the unanimous struggle for consensus is the most exciting thing about this community. For the record, however, I find the way you enforce this disagreement irresponsible.

Cyrusc 13:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The consensus on this page is clear: Emcee's reverts delete relevant material. Emcee, if you want to make substantive edits to the text itself, do so! Those can form the basis for further discussion. Our obligation as editors is to respect consensus and move forward with useful edits. The community benefits when smart editors (yourself included) make new contributions and improvements. Benzocane 15:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)



Benzocane: the community also benefits when editors remove or ask for citations on unsourced material, check on the substance of citations to see that they actually do support the content, and review material for its worthiness for inclusion in an article based on WP standards.

CyrusC:

1.) SlipperyN was the one who brought up the word aggressive, I was just responding to his statement, and said that although it did seem a little aggressive to me, I won't make an issue of it -- not a big deal. I'm not throwing it around left and right. Mostly, his saying that I am "violating" NPOV was what I had an issue with. Talking about specific edits and identifiying NPOV problems is one thing; "violating" has the connotation that I have an intentional or significantly negligent attitude towards making POV edits. Perhaps some of the other editors could consider the difficulty of taking an unpopular stance, especially in the face of some comments that imply that I have an agenda or am intentionally slanting the article in an unfairly negative fashion. Please don't put additional words in my mouth and then answer them "in advance" -- I'm trying hard to work cooperatively and keep this civil.

2.) Where you say:

  • This sentence restates the information of the previous sentence, then introduces three pejoratives and the unwarranted ::intensifier "across the state." Yakima (dead link, by the way) and Olympia are "across the state" only in the most trivial sense.
  • As SlipperyN observed just yesterday, the single live link you cite does not substantiate this ::intensified/pejorated version of the preceding sentence.
  • The several intensifying "onlys" that you added later on in the paragraph compromise both the sense and the flow of the prose, in ::my opinion.

Let's look at the combined paragraph I made:

"Cantwell has received heavy criticism for declining most of the invitations she has received to debate McGavick in public forums. :Editorials in the Daily Olympian and the Yakima Herald-Republic have rebuked Cantwell, claiming that she is afraid to confront :McGavick. Newspapers across the state have chastised her debate approach, calling it 'unacceptable' and 'simply not fair.' Cantwell :agreed to a total of two debates with her opponent in Seattle and Spokane, lasting 60 and 30 minutes, respectively. However, when :Cantwell ran as a challenger for the Senate against the incumbent Slade Gorton in 2000, Gorton only agreed to two debates of a :similar format. In another comparison, when Washington's Senior Senator Patty Murray ran for re-election in 2004, she only agreed "to two debates with George Nethercutt, although both debates lasted one hour. [[7][8]"

A.) I can see how you can view sentence #3 as rehashing sentence #2 in some ways; however, a better approach to reversion would be to try to combine the two in order to retain the actual content. My combination of the two paragraphs wasn't perfect, but it was a step in the process. I would take it to the next step by combining the two sentences with something like:

"Media outlets across the state, including the Daily Olympian and the Yakima Herald-Republic, have rebuked Cantwell, claiming that she is afraid to confront McGavick, calling it 'unacceptable' and 'simply not fair.'"

"Across the state" is in fact warranted, though perhaps a revision to "media outlets" rather than "newspapers" would be justified with the radio citation -- as I mentioned in my previous comment above, the newspapers in Yakima and Olympia, as well as the radio in Spokane are all mentioned in the P-I article; along with Seattle (where at least one of the editorial pages, but I think both, of the major newspapers criticised her as well for this) that makes up all of the major population centers in WA, from east to west. I will see if I can dig up those editorials and add them as citations for this sentence.

B.) As for the two (not "several") "onlys" that I added to the following two sentences: they actually add meaning to those sentences. If you read closely, you will see that they serve the purpose of providing favorable (or ameliorating) comparisons for Cantwell: in both cases, they are saying that the incumbents (Republican Gorton, and Democrat Murray) ONLY agreed to two debates. As in, agreeing to only two debates is not uncommon for an incumbent senator of either stripe. So Cantwell is not doing anything particularly out of the ordinary here -- which is very much in line with what the P-I article is saying. Why, then, is this whole paragraph worthy of inclusion in the campaign section (as some editors have previously questioned)? Read the conclusion of the article:

'The UW's Gastil, a former campaign manager, said Cantwell, leading in the polls, is "running out the clock" until the election 38 days from today. It's a smart strategy, he said, but "it reflects very poorly on anyone who does that."'

There's the story: McGavick worked this to the hilt, by agreeing to 15 debates, forcing Cantwell to either debate more or decline 13 of them, angering the people who were snubbed by her and making a real media issue out of it. That's what this section should be about -- Cantwell makes the canny but unpopular decision to avoid debating any more than she has to; McGavick exploits it as much as he can. That's what election campaigns are made of -- not bullet points from a campaign web site.

3) As for your request that I bring in some more "real issues": as I told Benzocane, removing or asking for citations on unsourced or poorly sourced material is a perfectly legitimate function and activity for a Wikipedia editor. I do plan to add some more real issues, however. The next thing will probably be the "buyout" narrative as it applied to LaMagna, Wilson, Tran, and Dixon, in that order. Again, it's Cantwell leveraging her incumbent position of strength and funding in a way that probably gives her a net advantage in the end for the election; but it raises media attention and offends/angers people in the process.

4) I'm glad you welcome my disagreement; there are a few statements in your last few sentences that I could take as questioning my motivations. If so, I would ask that you assume good faith; if not, I apologize for misreading, and let's continue to focus on the edits themselves. We are all indeed spending some considerable time here on the talk page -- but that's how we reach an understanding on this, and also avoid just continually reverting each other.

Let me make one other comment: the citations I am relying on for the debate paragraph are major news publications, unlike the self-published and politicized sources (mostly the campaign page and lobbying groups' press releases) that are being used for most of the rest of the section. This IS an important distinction, and still needs to be addressed better for compliance with WP:RS.

Regards, Emcee 04:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, regarding the debate sentence that Cyrus C disagreed with:

The "three perjoratives" you are referring to I assume are the words "chastised," "unacceptable," and "simply not fair". The P-I article used the word "chided," which is a pretty close synonym for "chastised"; the Yakima link (which is not in fact dead, just slow -- try it again) used the word "unacceptable," and I believe one of the Olympian editorials made the "simply not fair" comment, though I may have to dig this up. Emcee 19:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion on Image:Cantwell_28A.jpg

Coming over per request on WP:3. Is the photo helpful? Well, no, not really, but it doesn't harm anything either; in the grand scheme of things it's sort of irrelevant. That said, the photo is of poor quality - too few pixels and underexposed - so I'm not sure this particular photo is Wikipedia-worthy. There's also the issue of the man in the photo, who is unidentified; there may be policy against that (though I'm not certain). Also, given how close we are to the election, it's probably worth pointing out that the Mike McGavick article has only the one photo at the top, so in the interest of fairness (or, at least, some semblance of calm during a time where everyone is extra-touchy about everything related to these articles), my tendency is to try to keep thigs more or less "even". So when you add it all up, I would say it's best that this particular photo not be a part of the article, and if anyone is insistent about adding any other second photo to the article prior to November 7, it would be best that another one be added to Mike McGavick as well, if only to keep everyone on both sides halfway content. (There is, of course, no policy or guideline requiring parity in such cases, or that only a single photo be on a candidate's page. But adding another one at this time does tend to give off the appearance of impropriety, so it's probably in the best interest of Wikipedia that the issue not be pushed before Election Day.) --Aaron 20:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That's acceptable to me. I agree that the photo is low quality: it's basically a snapshot, there was no chance to set up a shot in such circumstances. I certainly did not intend it as electioneering, and I have no particular reason to get it up before the election; I happened to crop and upload it almost immediately after taking it because a blogger friend needed it done ASAP. - Jmabel | Talk 03:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
So, now that the election is over, is there any objection to re-adding the photo? - Jmabel | Talk 06:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes; I still think the photo doesn't add anything to the article. Although the third opinion related from Aaron related some of the problems to the fact that the election was nigh, also note the other things he said: the photo is poor quality, doesn't help the article (even if it doesn't harm it), has the question of the other person in the photo, and he was "not sure [the photo] is WIkipedia-worthy." Emcee 15:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
At least one of his issues - that there "may be policy against" an unidentified person in a photo - is simply wrong. There is no such policy. - Jmabel | Talk 16:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emcee's environmental edit

I am willing to believe Emcee acted in good faith when he altered the text about Cantwell's environmental supporters. The reference supplied for the quote did specify the League of Conservation Voters. However, anybody familiar with this race knows that several other environmental groups have officially endorsed Cantwell, making the initial text more accurate that Emcee's revision. The Wildlife Action Fund, the Sierra Club, etc., have endorsed Cantwell. Instead of doing research to improve the entry, Emcee simply deleted text that was in fact more accurate. Benzocane 04:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I just now added the "citation needed" next to other environmental groups. The article is intended to supply information even to those who are not familiar with the race; hence, citations are a good thing. I see you've added a couple of refs -- please add the footnotes to refer this sentence to them. Regards,Emcee 04:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw you added them to the external links -- they really belong in the refs section, external links is just for a few very useful external pages, while the refs are where you put things like this, that just support a specific statement. Anyway, I went ahead and moved it to the refs section for you. They are better citations than most of the others in this section -- they are more recent, and one actually mentiones the election campaign. Emcee 04:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right--thanks for moving them to ref section. Sorry for the oversight. Benzocane 00:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)