This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Source 62 is no longer available —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.39.221 ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 4 June 2008
What about Hillary Clinton. There is still a chance for her. Anything can happen at the convention. Moreno Valley User ( talk) 23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Under Barak Obama's section on immigration stance, right after increase border security it says increase illegal immigration. I think that this is plain vandalism and I am correcting it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.113.139 ( talk) 01:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there should be coverage of more candidate than just Obama and McCain. *However*, one has to admit that these are the two most prominent candidates: on all of the tables, they should be placed next to each other so that people who are reading about them can do so easily.
Failing that, then the order of the columns should at least be made consistent. Some go Baldwin, Barr, McCain, McKinney, Nader, Obama; others, Baldwin, Barr, McCain, Obama, Nader, McKinney. The last one on the page is Baldwin, Barr, McCain, McKinney, Obama, Nader. Why are they all jumbled about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.233.192.226 ( talk) 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, these columns are too narrow and it is very hard to read. I am all for including all the canidates, but there are practical limitations on this. In this table format it really isn't possible to compare more than 2-3 canidates and keep the page readable. As I said below, 90% of the people coming here will want to compare Obama and McCain and this page makes it very difficult to accomplish this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.18.128.6 ( talk) 02:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The section stated nothing but the opinions of the NRA and The Gun Owner's of America regarding the canidates positions on Gun Rights. There was no information about the actual positions of the candidates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.59.218 ( talk) 12:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
There are so many more Presidential candidates that McCain and Obama. The news has done enough of a job cutting out the other delegates. It is bias to not include the others. This either needs a complete revamp, or it should be taken out. -- Olmecs Revenge ( talk) 15:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This is ridiculous.
Ralph Nader is polling at 8 percent in a McCain-Obama-Nader race; to have him not included is tantamount to ignoring millions of votes. Not to mention the
Libertarian Party,
Green Party, etc.
Uwmad (
talk)
17:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we must work to provide information on all candidates. No, it must not be on this page. Only 2 candidates will be in the national debates, only 2 candidates will be on every state ballot and even though I probably won’t be voting for either one of them only 2 candidates stand a shot at winning. We cannot put everyone on here – there are already 10 people “running” and it isn’t even July. This page will become to crowded to effectively deliver any information. We must segregate the 2 major candidates from the third party candidates. - Schrandit ( talk) 17:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't find this table particularly hard to read, and no one else has mentioned any problem with it. I think a few of the candidate position items are a little wordy and could be tightened up, and also that some items could be broken up more granularly. For example, the position statements for most candidates under "Energy" and "Envirnment" are very broad, perhaps a reflection of the breadth of the topic. Compare that to the other sections, particularly foreign policy, where each issue is dealt with separately (Iran, North Korea, Armenian Genocide, etc.). So, for example, perhaps the "Environment" section could be broken up to include topics like Endangered Species Act, Global Warming, Carbon Emissions, Natural Disasters, Land Preservation, Public Land Use, etc. This allows for shorter, more to the point position statements, and enables an easier comparison. Cmadler ( talk) 13:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I think counting votes for and against on the talk page is bad way to decide what's best for an article. But for what it's worth, I think that a two (or more) tiered page would greatly increase its usefulness and readability. My preference would be a page with info on McCain and Obama and a page with everyone else (unless they break some magic threshold like 10% probable votes). Yes, it reduces the visibility of 3rd party candidates but anyone with any interest on them could easily click on an obvious link at the top of McCain-Obama page, and such a setup provides the most utility to the greatest number of readers. Jespley ( talk) 15:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
On a page like this, in which the page will be mostly relevant for only a couple of months, I think it's very important that everything be well cited right from the start. New information should certainly have a corresponding citation or risk deletion. I've gone through and added citation tags to sections and sentences that were already poorly sourced, hopefully those who added the info can grab the source and put it in. Uwmad ( talk) 17:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed some instances in which the Obama entries are rather nonspecific. For example, under environment, the entry is: "Obama takes global warming very seriously and he has said that it must be addressed." If he takes it very seriously, people should be able to understand that from his proposals -- unless of course, he actually said "I take global warming very seriously" in which case it should be in quotes and sourced. There is also the line "Obama has spoken out numerous times against the influence of lobbying in the United States" accompanied by two sources. One of the sources talks about how Obama actually pandered to lobbyists. Again, general statements are tricky because they can be debunked by any statement to the contrary. I guess I'm saying that we should keep the entries as specific and succinct as possible. Uwmad ( talk) 17:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Plus, the scales of the comparison charts seem to tip way over Obama-side. Try and keep a little neutrality; it's subtle but if anyone actually reads it and pays attention, especially reading McCain's position and then Obama's position on the same topic (or vice-versa), half the time it's like Obama himself is on Wikipedia, jazzin' himself up. - Anon.
It says he is worth 0$...I imagine thats a mistake? BCapp 02:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 00:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Other than the "Biographical data" section, I noted that Bob Barr was present in all tables but didn't have a single position listed. I hope no one minds, I filled in some of them with information from his issue page: http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/ -- creativename ( talk) 19:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one who feels that for some of the candidates listing their former party is misleading? Lizmarie ( talk) 05:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the old table about candidates. The new one in the article text includes running mates to VP and sorting capability --Nukeless 06:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
As such, it should not be considered a graduate program akin to what the other candidates have gone through. The column title for graduate education or John McCain's entry therein should be changed to reflect this. I prefer the later and will edit accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.222.134 ( talk) 23:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Should it be said that McCain has 59 lobbyists [1] raising money for his campaign? I think it is important to note not only if a candidate is denying lobbyist donations but if the candidate is actively working with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.132.181 ( talk) 20:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Fairness first. Let's be clear about that profession row...
that's either a "Profession" row or a "Every Professional They've Had" row, which is it?
There seems a fundamental unfairness in this very prominent row at the top to promote McCain's ex-job as a naval pilot without mentioning Barack Obama's ex-job teaching Constitutional Law for 12 years, President of the Harvard Law Review, and Member of the Illinois Senate for 8 years.
Even by the own standards of the campaign site of John McCain himself ( see here), he resigned from the navy in 1981.
He served honorably as a Naval aviator, and it's great that he did it, but Naval aviator is not his current profession.
Let's be honest. John is a US Senator, Obama is a US Senator. They both are. They have the same profession and the same job.
So, wikipedians, which is it? Shall we change that row to be "Current Profession" and be clear or "Former Professions" row and be clear?
Let's be clear and either:
...and either way, label it clearly on the main page so that we don't have to rehash this again later.
Which should it be?
Garkbit ( talk) 04:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
As people have pointed out above, the current tables with their long, narrow columns aren't particularly readable, especially on non-widescreen monitors. This has nothing to do with whether third party candidates should be included, but everything to do with the simple facts of readability in HTML. I'd like to propose this format instead:
Trade | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
John McCain | Barack Obama | ||||
McCain is a strong proponent of free trade. He supports the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the existing General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and U.S. participation in the World Trade Organization (WTO). He opposes including labor and environmental conditions to trade agreements. | Obama supports expanding trade only if the United States' trade partners place labor and environmental standards on their industries to "level the playing field" for American interests. If elected President, Obama plans to renegotiate NAFTA to include stricter labor and environmental standards for Canada and Mexico. He has criticized the current agreement for not including such standards, and he also voted against and criticized the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) for similar reasons. | ||||
Chuck Baldwin | Bob Barr | Cynthia McKinney | Ralph Nader | ||
Baldwin would lead the US out of the North American and the Central America Free Trade Agreements and impose a revenue tariff. | Barr's campaign site states that America "should encourage private involvement around the world, particularly through free trade. The most effective way to preserve peace is through an expanding free market, backed by a full range of cultural and other private relationships." | McKinney stresses enacting laws on US corporations to keep labor standards high at home and raise them abroad. She would repeal NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), CAFTA, the Caribbean FTA, and US-Peru FTA. She opposes the guest-worker program as riddled with abuses; supports justice for immigrant workers, and immigrant reform that includes amnesty and a path to legalization for undocumented people who have been living and working in the US for years. | Nader views the NAFTA and the WTO as subverting national regulatory agencies. He blames them for diminishing standards of living (i.e. race to the bottom). Nader supports a constitutional amendment asserting the "sovereignty of people over the power of corporations." |
Each issue would have its own table, which would mean less wasted space from gaps required by having to conform to the spacings used on other issues.
Also, if nothing else, Ralph Nader shouldn't be the first of the third party candidates listed. I assume we're going in alphabetical order, so shouldn't he be the last of the minor candidates listed? Baldwin and Barr should be swapped as well. Unless the ordering is being done based on polling or something? (Conveniently enough, the alphabetical ordering of both minor and major candidates has the "conservative" third parties beneath McCain and the "liberal" ones beneath Obama.) SnowFire ( talk) 01:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Really an appropriate section title? - Schrandit ( talk) 19:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC) (also, what are scare quotes?)
As everyone knows, Wikipedia is a site allowing outside editing of articles and depends on public input for various pieces of information. When adressing sesitive issues such as elections keeping bias from the article should be of the highest importance. Having read through the majority of the columns I noticed that there wasn't a whole lot of bias in the written comments. However, I was a bit uncomfortable with the blank spaces under a significant number of the stance columns for candidates, including 3rd party and primary party officials. My biggest concern is for the number of boxes left blank under the Obama column. Not to raise any personal bias I may or may not have but, as a primary candidate - with so many areas left blank the reader is made more informed of McCain's and other's stances on issues by the sheer lack of information in those columns - the same applies to the immense number of blank columns for 3rd party candidates. By preparing a comparison sheet such as this on such an influential site and neglecting to balance the presented information has either intentionally or inadvertantly made the reader more informed to one party's opinions which is a form of bias. My personal belief is that this should be corrected and provide what information is available for the blank columns or at the very least these columns that are currently blank should be marked- i.e. a statement such as "no formal opinion has been released" or " no information available".
Finally in regards to my title statement on the neglect of a massive topic I would like to adress the ignoring of Afghanistan. I've spent a fair amount of time reviewing various articles and comparision websites as well as watching news reports on the candidates and their discussion of critical issues. This is not a dig on wikipedia because a MULTITUDE of news and information presenting systems have neglected this topic. For the amount of debate that has gone into the War on Terror specifically in Afghanistan, the media seems quite satisfied to ignore this conflict. If I could take a moment to remind everyone that Afghanistan serves host to over 33,000 American fighting men and women today. Yes, some might consider the 152,000+ in Iraq of more importance. Let me pose this topic to you: Afghanistan is 3 times the size of Iraq, has less paved roads and is much more innavigable. Furthermore, there are places in Afghanistan where regular duty soldiers fufill mentor roles for the Afghan Police and Army with single digit numbers of personell on their teams - ISOLATED, from a supporting team by dozens of kilometers (as you may recall a base was overrun this year, that wasn't in range of any support, with severe casualties). I in no mean make these statements to undercut the efforts made by our servicemembers in Iraq, my intent is to shine light on the lack of support OEF servicemembers have. If I'm not hitting home with anyone yet, I might ask the reader to consider the fact that Afghanistan has on several occasions been neglected by the media - albiet a good fight goes off or theres casualties, I'll put money a reporter from every station is there in 24 hours. This year was the worst in conflict and casualties in Afghanistan since the initial invasion, and only that could drum up support and a rally on Capital Hill for bolstered troop strength and the deployment of additional Brigade Combat Teams. Let me ask you to consider, is Afghanistan and the deployed service members we have there not worthy of media attention? Just like in Iraq, men and women are fighting and giving their lives for our country, should this issue not be adressed on a level that reflects the seriousness and legitimacy of this issue?
Both primary candidtates have taken serious amounts of time discussing the issue of Afghanistan, and the risidual conlficts in Pakistan. I'd like to ask: When did a war we and the nations of NATO have been sustained in for over 7 years become a subtext for the political arena in Pakistan. Like so many other forums covering this political race, this article COMPLETELY neglects Afghanistan apart from chatter on the topic in the Pakistan column. I think its time that we remember where all our fighting men and women are, again not to discourage the support of troops in Iraq, but merely to suggest that maybe America is neglecting Afghanistan as an issue, as well as the servicemembers we have stationed there. Can we treat this as the real political issue it is, or will we keep letting it be a subtext for political issues in another country? Pakistan and the turmoil they face with terrorist cells is a real threat and effects the US based on our alliance with them and the war we fight globally against terror - but I believe the significance of these two events merits the seperation of them in all forms of discussion, especially politics. Please do not let my opinion on this matter offend you, as I would only like to see that Americans are informed on the struggle and sacrafice in Afghanistan as equally as those in Iraq, and not as an introduction paragraph for an artical on Pakistan. Treating a war as a media backdrop for foreign politics in a seperate country is disrespectful to those who have served.
TF 72.80.24.200 ( talk) 21:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Why the hell is the war on drugs barely even mentioned? This is a major, major, major issue. Bigger than many of the issues mentioned. Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClintJCL ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 2 November 2008
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Source 62 is no longer available —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.39.221 ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 4 June 2008
What about Hillary Clinton. There is still a chance for her. Anything can happen at the convention. Moreno Valley User ( talk) 23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Under Barak Obama's section on immigration stance, right after increase border security it says increase illegal immigration. I think that this is plain vandalism and I am correcting it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.113.139 ( talk) 01:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there should be coverage of more candidate than just Obama and McCain. *However*, one has to admit that these are the two most prominent candidates: on all of the tables, they should be placed next to each other so that people who are reading about them can do so easily.
Failing that, then the order of the columns should at least be made consistent. Some go Baldwin, Barr, McCain, McKinney, Nader, Obama; others, Baldwin, Barr, McCain, Obama, Nader, McKinney. The last one on the page is Baldwin, Barr, McCain, McKinney, Obama, Nader. Why are they all jumbled about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.233.192.226 ( talk) 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, these columns are too narrow and it is very hard to read. I am all for including all the canidates, but there are practical limitations on this. In this table format it really isn't possible to compare more than 2-3 canidates and keep the page readable. As I said below, 90% of the people coming here will want to compare Obama and McCain and this page makes it very difficult to accomplish this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.18.128.6 ( talk) 02:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The section stated nothing but the opinions of the NRA and The Gun Owner's of America regarding the canidates positions on Gun Rights. There was no information about the actual positions of the candidates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.59.218 ( talk) 12:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
There are so many more Presidential candidates that McCain and Obama. The news has done enough of a job cutting out the other delegates. It is bias to not include the others. This either needs a complete revamp, or it should be taken out. -- Olmecs Revenge ( talk) 15:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This is ridiculous.
Ralph Nader is polling at 8 percent in a McCain-Obama-Nader race; to have him not included is tantamount to ignoring millions of votes. Not to mention the
Libertarian Party,
Green Party, etc.
Uwmad (
talk)
17:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we must work to provide information on all candidates. No, it must not be on this page. Only 2 candidates will be in the national debates, only 2 candidates will be on every state ballot and even though I probably won’t be voting for either one of them only 2 candidates stand a shot at winning. We cannot put everyone on here – there are already 10 people “running” and it isn’t even July. This page will become to crowded to effectively deliver any information. We must segregate the 2 major candidates from the third party candidates. - Schrandit ( talk) 17:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't find this table particularly hard to read, and no one else has mentioned any problem with it. I think a few of the candidate position items are a little wordy and could be tightened up, and also that some items could be broken up more granularly. For example, the position statements for most candidates under "Energy" and "Envirnment" are very broad, perhaps a reflection of the breadth of the topic. Compare that to the other sections, particularly foreign policy, where each issue is dealt with separately (Iran, North Korea, Armenian Genocide, etc.). So, for example, perhaps the "Environment" section could be broken up to include topics like Endangered Species Act, Global Warming, Carbon Emissions, Natural Disasters, Land Preservation, Public Land Use, etc. This allows for shorter, more to the point position statements, and enables an easier comparison. Cmadler ( talk) 13:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I think counting votes for and against on the talk page is bad way to decide what's best for an article. But for what it's worth, I think that a two (or more) tiered page would greatly increase its usefulness and readability. My preference would be a page with info on McCain and Obama and a page with everyone else (unless they break some magic threshold like 10% probable votes). Yes, it reduces the visibility of 3rd party candidates but anyone with any interest on them could easily click on an obvious link at the top of McCain-Obama page, and such a setup provides the most utility to the greatest number of readers. Jespley ( talk) 15:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
On a page like this, in which the page will be mostly relevant for only a couple of months, I think it's very important that everything be well cited right from the start. New information should certainly have a corresponding citation or risk deletion. I've gone through and added citation tags to sections and sentences that were already poorly sourced, hopefully those who added the info can grab the source and put it in. Uwmad ( talk) 17:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed some instances in which the Obama entries are rather nonspecific. For example, under environment, the entry is: "Obama takes global warming very seriously and he has said that it must be addressed." If he takes it very seriously, people should be able to understand that from his proposals -- unless of course, he actually said "I take global warming very seriously" in which case it should be in quotes and sourced. There is also the line "Obama has spoken out numerous times against the influence of lobbying in the United States" accompanied by two sources. One of the sources talks about how Obama actually pandered to lobbyists. Again, general statements are tricky because they can be debunked by any statement to the contrary. I guess I'm saying that we should keep the entries as specific and succinct as possible. Uwmad ( talk) 17:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Plus, the scales of the comparison charts seem to tip way over Obama-side. Try and keep a little neutrality; it's subtle but if anyone actually reads it and pays attention, especially reading McCain's position and then Obama's position on the same topic (or vice-versa), half the time it's like Obama himself is on Wikipedia, jazzin' himself up. - Anon.
It says he is worth 0$...I imagine thats a mistake? BCapp 02:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 00:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Other than the "Biographical data" section, I noted that Bob Barr was present in all tables but didn't have a single position listed. I hope no one minds, I filled in some of them with information from his issue page: http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/ -- creativename ( talk) 19:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one who feels that for some of the candidates listing their former party is misleading? Lizmarie ( talk) 05:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the old table about candidates. The new one in the article text includes running mates to VP and sorting capability --Nukeless 06:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
As such, it should not be considered a graduate program akin to what the other candidates have gone through. The column title for graduate education or John McCain's entry therein should be changed to reflect this. I prefer the later and will edit accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.222.134 ( talk) 23:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Should it be said that McCain has 59 lobbyists [1] raising money for his campaign? I think it is important to note not only if a candidate is denying lobbyist donations but if the candidate is actively working with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.132.181 ( talk) 20:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Fairness first. Let's be clear about that profession row...
that's either a "Profession" row or a "Every Professional They've Had" row, which is it?
There seems a fundamental unfairness in this very prominent row at the top to promote McCain's ex-job as a naval pilot without mentioning Barack Obama's ex-job teaching Constitutional Law for 12 years, President of the Harvard Law Review, and Member of the Illinois Senate for 8 years.
Even by the own standards of the campaign site of John McCain himself ( see here), he resigned from the navy in 1981.
He served honorably as a Naval aviator, and it's great that he did it, but Naval aviator is not his current profession.
Let's be honest. John is a US Senator, Obama is a US Senator. They both are. They have the same profession and the same job.
So, wikipedians, which is it? Shall we change that row to be "Current Profession" and be clear or "Former Professions" row and be clear?
Let's be clear and either:
...and either way, label it clearly on the main page so that we don't have to rehash this again later.
Which should it be?
Garkbit ( talk) 04:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
As people have pointed out above, the current tables with their long, narrow columns aren't particularly readable, especially on non-widescreen monitors. This has nothing to do with whether third party candidates should be included, but everything to do with the simple facts of readability in HTML. I'd like to propose this format instead:
Trade | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
John McCain | Barack Obama | ||||
McCain is a strong proponent of free trade. He supports the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the existing General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and U.S. participation in the World Trade Organization (WTO). He opposes including labor and environmental conditions to trade agreements. | Obama supports expanding trade only if the United States' trade partners place labor and environmental standards on their industries to "level the playing field" for American interests. If elected President, Obama plans to renegotiate NAFTA to include stricter labor and environmental standards for Canada and Mexico. He has criticized the current agreement for not including such standards, and he also voted against and criticized the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) for similar reasons. | ||||
Chuck Baldwin | Bob Barr | Cynthia McKinney | Ralph Nader | ||
Baldwin would lead the US out of the North American and the Central America Free Trade Agreements and impose a revenue tariff. | Barr's campaign site states that America "should encourage private involvement around the world, particularly through free trade. The most effective way to preserve peace is through an expanding free market, backed by a full range of cultural and other private relationships." | McKinney stresses enacting laws on US corporations to keep labor standards high at home and raise them abroad. She would repeal NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), CAFTA, the Caribbean FTA, and US-Peru FTA. She opposes the guest-worker program as riddled with abuses; supports justice for immigrant workers, and immigrant reform that includes amnesty and a path to legalization for undocumented people who have been living and working in the US for years. | Nader views the NAFTA and the WTO as subverting national regulatory agencies. He blames them for diminishing standards of living (i.e. race to the bottom). Nader supports a constitutional amendment asserting the "sovereignty of people over the power of corporations." |
Each issue would have its own table, which would mean less wasted space from gaps required by having to conform to the spacings used on other issues.
Also, if nothing else, Ralph Nader shouldn't be the first of the third party candidates listed. I assume we're going in alphabetical order, so shouldn't he be the last of the minor candidates listed? Baldwin and Barr should be swapped as well. Unless the ordering is being done based on polling or something? (Conveniently enough, the alphabetical ordering of both minor and major candidates has the "conservative" third parties beneath McCain and the "liberal" ones beneath Obama.) SnowFire ( talk) 01:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Really an appropriate section title? - Schrandit ( talk) 19:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC) (also, what are scare quotes?)
As everyone knows, Wikipedia is a site allowing outside editing of articles and depends on public input for various pieces of information. When adressing sesitive issues such as elections keeping bias from the article should be of the highest importance. Having read through the majority of the columns I noticed that there wasn't a whole lot of bias in the written comments. However, I was a bit uncomfortable with the blank spaces under a significant number of the stance columns for candidates, including 3rd party and primary party officials. My biggest concern is for the number of boxes left blank under the Obama column. Not to raise any personal bias I may or may not have but, as a primary candidate - with so many areas left blank the reader is made more informed of McCain's and other's stances on issues by the sheer lack of information in those columns - the same applies to the immense number of blank columns for 3rd party candidates. By preparing a comparison sheet such as this on such an influential site and neglecting to balance the presented information has either intentionally or inadvertantly made the reader more informed to one party's opinions which is a form of bias. My personal belief is that this should be corrected and provide what information is available for the blank columns or at the very least these columns that are currently blank should be marked- i.e. a statement such as "no formal opinion has been released" or " no information available".
Finally in regards to my title statement on the neglect of a massive topic I would like to adress the ignoring of Afghanistan. I've spent a fair amount of time reviewing various articles and comparision websites as well as watching news reports on the candidates and their discussion of critical issues. This is not a dig on wikipedia because a MULTITUDE of news and information presenting systems have neglected this topic. For the amount of debate that has gone into the War on Terror specifically in Afghanistan, the media seems quite satisfied to ignore this conflict. If I could take a moment to remind everyone that Afghanistan serves host to over 33,000 American fighting men and women today. Yes, some might consider the 152,000+ in Iraq of more importance. Let me pose this topic to you: Afghanistan is 3 times the size of Iraq, has less paved roads and is much more innavigable. Furthermore, there are places in Afghanistan where regular duty soldiers fufill mentor roles for the Afghan Police and Army with single digit numbers of personell on their teams - ISOLATED, from a supporting team by dozens of kilometers (as you may recall a base was overrun this year, that wasn't in range of any support, with severe casualties). I in no mean make these statements to undercut the efforts made by our servicemembers in Iraq, my intent is to shine light on the lack of support OEF servicemembers have. If I'm not hitting home with anyone yet, I might ask the reader to consider the fact that Afghanistan has on several occasions been neglected by the media - albiet a good fight goes off or theres casualties, I'll put money a reporter from every station is there in 24 hours. This year was the worst in conflict and casualties in Afghanistan since the initial invasion, and only that could drum up support and a rally on Capital Hill for bolstered troop strength and the deployment of additional Brigade Combat Teams. Let me ask you to consider, is Afghanistan and the deployed service members we have there not worthy of media attention? Just like in Iraq, men and women are fighting and giving their lives for our country, should this issue not be adressed on a level that reflects the seriousness and legitimacy of this issue?
Both primary candidtates have taken serious amounts of time discussing the issue of Afghanistan, and the risidual conlficts in Pakistan. I'd like to ask: When did a war we and the nations of NATO have been sustained in for over 7 years become a subtext for the political arena in Pakistan. Like so many other forums covering this political race, this article COMPLETELY neglects Afghanistan apart from chatter on the topic in the Pakistan column. I think its time that we remember where all our fighting men and women are, again not to discourage the support of troops in Iraq, but merely to suggest that maybe America is neglecting Afghanistan as an issue, as well as the servicemembers we have stationed there. Can we treat this as the real political issue it is, or will we keep letting it be a subtext for political issues in another country? Pakistan and the turmoil they face with terrorist cells is a real threat and effects the US based on our alliance with them and the war we fight globally against terror - but I believe the significance of these two events merits the seperation of them in all forms of discussion, especially politics. Please do not let my opinion on this matter offend you, as I would only like to see that Americans are informed on the struggle and sacrafice in Afghanistan as equally as those in Iraq, and not as an introduction paragraph for an artical on Pakistan. Treating a war as a media backdrop for foreign politics in a seperate country is disrespectful to those who have served.
TF 72.80.24.200 ( talk) 21:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Why the hell is the war on drugs barely even mentioned? This is a major, major, major issue. Bigger than many of the issues mentioned. Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClintJCL ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 2 November 2008