Talk:United States presidential election, 1900

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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.

Please see Wikipedia:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy for standards for all "U.S. presidential election, yyyy" pages.

[edit] Electoral picture peculiarity

Why is the graphic depiction of electoral votes skewed? Rarely nowadays does one see democratic votes colored red and and republican votes blue. --maru (talk) Contribs 20:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This post has been copied to Wikipedia talk:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy#Electoral picture peculiarity. Please direct your responses there.
— DLJessup (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edits

Please refrain from deleting large portions of referenced text, as you have done in the past on:

I added that information several months ago, and like my contributions on those two other wikipages, it makes me a little bit angry when someone comes in and deletes my work. Your contributions to this page are great, but please refrain from deleting large portions of referenced text.Travb 15:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How could you argue that the election claims of the republicans about the Philippine-American War have nothing to do with the United States presidential election, 1900? These contributions are referenced too (you can look up the book on Amazon), and I guarantee that my references are sound and support the text.Travb 15:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the election not about the Philippines. No election study is cited to support the text--rather a book on the Philippines! the tone is totally POV as well. Rjensen 15:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen, the Philippine war was during the election. If you would have read this book I reference, you would know that the book focuses on the attitude in America through out the Philippine American war.
"No election study" What are you talking about? These are claims that the Republican party made during the election: untrue claims. If the section is so POV, why not rewrite it to be less POV? Why simply delete several referenced paragraphs as you have done on two other wikipages? I quote Republican leaders who said the war would be over in a few months.
Are you following me, just to harrass me Rjensen, if so, then that is one more thing I will add to the inevitable arbitration.Travb 23:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

3rd Opinion: I see no reason for a wholesale deletion of the paragraphs in question. Accurate references have been provided, and the paragraphs deal with the effects of the war in the Philippines on the election. I'm going to make a minor pass over the paragraphs to remove any lingering POV, but from a first reading nothing too major is there. Also, if it is true that User:Rjensen is engaging in stalking, that is specifically prohibited at Wikipedia:Harassment and can lead to a RfC.

I generally agree with you, but have left a note on User_talk:Travb to suggest that in circumstances such as these editors have to be even more careful than usual and reference things closely so there can be no dispute that the source has been used correctly. To delete whole paragraphs of work where there is a reference is not acceptable, though I think (as you are doing) they should be toned down a bit. The trouble is that it is no longer about the merit of the work, as it has become a confrontation between two editors (as on this talk page). This has to stop, or there will be no resolution about the content of the article. Rjensen might consider how Travb's research could be incorporated in a way that he/she would find acceptable by working on the text, rather than just removing it wholesale. It is also disturbing if Rjensen is following Travb, who is obviously editing in good faith, and should make sure he/she cannot be perceived as doing that, or it will definitely count against.
Tyrenius 15:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd party edit

I have been through the article, and don't find any major problem with it. I have edited to further reduce any possibly perceived POV, but have no real criticism in this respect. There are some stylistic edits, but again there is no real criticism here either. This is just the stuff of normal collaborative editing. The article reads well and has some interesting material (I am completely new to the subject).

I would be grateful if any significant changes to the currently existing material could be discussed on this page first, especially if deletions are envisaged, as a courtesy to the work which has been done to date. Of course additional material is welcome to expand the article, and there is a referencing system in place to cite sources properly.

It needs to be explained who Aguinaldo is (+ wikilink?) - I hope I have got it right.

I have removed the following, to be on the safe side. If there is a reference it can go back in. If no one objects to it within five days on this talk page, then it can go back in:

wanting him to leave the state[citation needed]

I have made a change from "demanded" to "pressured" as a less specific word in:

New York state party leaders pressured McKinley to pick a reluctant Theodore Roosevelt

However, if "demanded" is important, then it should be made clear how they did this exactly.


Tyrenius 16:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)