This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why not stick to election picture which is what the article is about instead of trying to insert later but more impressive pictures? Student7 ( talk) 14:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Please do not use WP:POV and media terms when describing material for the encyclopedia. The intent is not to inflame readers, it is to inform them. Boldfacing is reserved for article titles in accordance with WP:MOS. While we all depend on the media for information, we try to avoid media terms which are seldom informative. "Blue", for example, means nothing to someone from another country. Material should be written so a member of any party can read the material and say "that is a fair description." If you feel smug at the end of editing, please re-read it. The material may be slanted. Student7 ( talk) 20:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
calling a state a blue or red state persnally does not make alot of sense as a british person and is i just want a quick summary of the subject reffering tp unknown terms is time wastinng and frankly inefcieint. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ekul81 (
talk •
contribs) 16:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Can past elections be mentioned in 2008 election article? non- WP:ARTICLE Can unreferenced material be placed in article? Can apparent WP:POV, original observation WP:OR material be placed in article? Can material whose only intent is to annoy rather than inform, be placed in article? Student7 ( talk) 18:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The paragraph supplies an analysis based on prior years. But the article is about 2008 and invites no such analysis. What is "reliable" anyway? West Virginia was once "reliably Democratic." Now what is it? Unreliably Democratic? New Jersey was once "reliably Republican." The names are foolish media pretensions. States vote the way they are going to vote and no one really knows right up until the lever is pulled. There is no "straight-lining" voting patterns from year-to-year. Only the media does this sort of stuff.
A paragraph reads:
" Vermont was won by Democrat nominee Barack Obama by a 37.0% margin of victory. The state was generally considered as "solidly Obama" or a safe blue state during the final week of the 2008 election, by The Takeaway.org, which assessed 15 different news organizations that made state by state predictions. http://vote2008.thetakeaway.org/2008/09/20/track-the-electoral-college-vote-predictions/ Obama carried every county by more than 60 percent of the vote with the exception of Essex County, which he won with 56 percent. citation needed"
What does a poll, and the takeaway radio have to do with elections? They are not run by the state. They are just media, attempting to do what all media do, which is to draw attention to themselves. So what if there were 50,000 polls or no polls? So what? A poll is just a small segment of the population. Polls are not elections. If you want to start an article "Polls in Vermont" and cover all polls done down through the ages, I'm sure you would have interested readers.
The comment seems to confuse the poll and the actual election. Did Obama win each poll with 60% of the vote?
Why can't vote count be given once? Why does it have to be given over and over? What is the point? He had a 37% margin of victory. Does the vote count not reflect this? He won by more than 60% of the vote. Does the vote count not reflect this?
The point seems to be, "How many times and in how many ways can we say that Obama won the election in Vermont?
The article borders on boring to start with. 11 people read it a day. Mostly editors, I would guess.
Some of the stuff in the bottom seems useful. Fundraising. Student7 ( talk) 19:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Referenced material says that Obama performed better than Kerry. This would mean, at the same time, that "McCain performed worse than Bush." To me, this is not encyclopedic. It is the type of thing a researcher might write after reading material in verious places. It seems WP:OR even though it quotes somebody as saying this. It does not seem scholarly to me because it begs the opposite question about McCain. Anyway, the elections were held at different times.
For example, in 1972, Nixon beat the daylights out of 1968 Nixon. So what? The observation is unhelpful. If someone else (the reader, for example) chooses to make it, fine. But it is silly and we should not quote it IMO.
Anyway, it has absolutely nothing to do with the 2008 election per se. Student7 ( talk) 02:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Editors have tried to extend the scope of the article well beyond what the article is supposed to comprise. There is a reason for confining the scope to what the article is named. For starters, please see WP:TOPIC. If expanded scope was allowed for all articles, all articles would require extended maintenance. Restricting the scope to the title allows editors to focus on the topic of the article instead of being concerned with giving extended compass to all articles. It does not make sense to talk about all other elections here. Confining the issue to one topic should be sufficient for each article. Focusing on that one topic should allow us to be quite accurate for each instead of trying to squeeze all topics into every article. Student7 ( talk) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
United States presidential election in Vermont, 2008. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on United States presidential election in Vermont, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why not stick to election picture which is what the article is about instead of trying to insert later but more impressive pictures? Student7 ( talk) 14:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Please do not use WP:POV and media terms when describing material for the encyclopedia. The intent is not to inflame readers, it is to inform them. Boldfacing is reserved for article titles in accordance with WP:MOS. While we all depend on the media for information, we try to avoid media terms which are seldom informative. "Blue", for example, means nothing to someone from another country. Material should be written so a member of any party can read the material and say "that is a fair description." If you feel smug at the end of editing, please re-read it. The material may be slanted. Student7 ( talk) 20:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
calling a state a blue or red state persnally does not make alot of sense as a british person and is i just want a quick summary of the subject reffering tp unknown terms is time wastinng and frankly inefcieint. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ekul81 (
talk •
contribs) 16:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Can past elections be mentioned in 2008 election article? non- WP:ARTICLE Can unreferenced material be placed in article? Can apparent WP:POV, original observation WP:OR material be placed in article? Can material whose only intent is to annoy rather than inform, be placed in article? Student7 ( talk) 18:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The paragraph supplies an analysis based on prior years. But the article is about 2008 and invites no such analysis. What is "reliable" anyway? West Virginia was once "reliably Democratic." Now what is it? Unreliably Democratic? New Jersey was once "reliably Republican." The names are foolish media pretensions. States vote the way they are going to vote and no one really knows right up until the lever is pulled. There is no "straight-lining" voting patterns from year-to-year. Only the media does this sort of stuff.
A paragraph reads:
" Vermont was won by Democrat nominee Barack Obama by a 37.0% margin of victory. The state was generally considered as "solidly Obama" or a safe blue state during the final week of the 2008 election, by The Takeaway.org, which assessed 15 different news organizations that made state by state predictions. http://vote2008.thetakeaway.org/2008/09/20/track-the-electoral-college-vote-predictions/ Obama carried every county by more than 60 percent of the vote with the exception of Essex County, which he won with 56 percent. citation needed"
What does a poll, and the takeaway radio have to do with elections? They are not run by the state. They are just media, attempting to do what all media do, which is to draw attention to themselves. So what if there were 50,000 polls or no polls? So what? A poll is just a small segment of the population. Polls are not elections. If you want to start an article "Polls in Vermont" and cover all polls done down through the ages, I'm sure you would have interested readers.
The comment seems to confuse the poll and the actual election. Did Obama win each poll with 60% of the vote?
Why can't vote count be given once? Why does it have to be given over and over? What is the point? He had a 37% margin of victory. Does the vote count not reflect this? He won by more than 60% of the vote. Does the vote count not reflect this?
The point seems to be, "How many times and in how many ways can we say that Obama won the election in Vermont?
The article borders on boring to start with. 11 people read it a day. Mostly editors, I would guess.
Some of the stuff in the bottom seems useful. Fundraising. Student7 ( talk) 19:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Referenced material says that Obama performed better than Kerry. This would mean, at the same time, that "McCain performed worse than Bush." To me, this is not encyclopedic. It is the type of thing a researcher might write after reading material in verious places. It seems WP:OR even though it quotes somebody as saying this. It does not seem scholarly to me because it begs the opposite question about McCain. Anyway, the elections were held at different times.
For example, in 1972, Nixon beat the daylights out of 1968 Nixon. So what? The observation is unhelpful. If someone else (the reader, for example) chooses to make it, fine. But it is silly and we should not quote it IMO.
Anyway, it has absolutely nothing to do with the 2008 election per se. Student7 ( talk) 02:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Editors have tried to extend the scope of the article well beyond what the article is supposed to comprise. There is a reason for confining the scope to what the article is named. For starters, please see WP:TOPIC. If expanded scope was allowed for all articles, all articles would require extended maintenance. Restricting the scope to the title allows editors to focus on the topic of the article instead of being concerned with giving extended compass to all articles. It does not make sense to talk about all other elections here. Confining the issue to one topic should be sufficient for each article. Focusing on that one topic should allow us to be quite accurate for each instead of trying to squeeze all topics into every article. Student7 ( talk) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
United States presidential election in Vermont, 2008. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on United States presidential election in Vermont, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)