![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello contributors of Election promise, I hope I don't step on any toes by adding information, I don't plan on deleting or changing anything you have all written in the short term. I just got done with a nasty edit war, and some of the people suggested that I put these historical facts about lies that presidents made about troop reductions on this page. I would love to add it to another page, but the vicious edit war has hampered this. Travb 07:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello again Simon. Right now there seems to be no risk of the article become "Americanized". I had only a passing interest in the subject of election promises, and after about 6 hours of work on the subject of Nixon's promises, I have lost interest and will probably work on other topics/subjects for a a while.
I guess there is the possiblity of Election promise, or any wikisubject becoming too slanted in one direction because of a heavy focus on one subtopic. But I personally think this is something to optomistically look forward too, not be fearful off. I wish someday that some of my created pages will be overflowing with good encyclopedic content.
If this site does become to Americanized, we/you will cross that bridge when in comes. I just want you to know that I don't see adding much more to the page right now. Travb 09:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The text is as follows:
In the 1968 Presidential elections, Richard Nixon did not use the phrase "secret plan", which originated with a reporter looking for a lead to a story summarizing the Republican candidate's (hazy) promise to end the war without losing. But neither did he disavow the term, and it soon became a part of the campaign. When pressed for details, Nixon retreated to the position that to tip his hand would interfere with the negotiations that had begun in Paris. [1]
According to one historian: "...it became obvious in 1969 that Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war was a campaign gimmick..." [2]
Another historian wrote: "Nixon never had a plan to end the war, but he did have a general strategy--to increase pressure on the communists [and] issue them a November 1, 1969 deadline to be conciliatory or else...The North Vietnamese did not respond to Nixon's ultimatum...and his aides began planning Operation Duck Hook." [3]
Nixon admitted in retirement that no such plan existed before his election. [4]
Although I appreciate edits to this information, all edits must be Wikipedia:Verifiability. If Nixon said he had no plan, in 1968, then find a verifable source which states this, and I will gladly accept this in the article. Otherwise unfortunalty, this is unsubstantiated POV, which does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Verifiability.
I am a little frustrated that I write an entire section and provide 10 verifiable articles and books, with footnotes, and then portions are deleted and my edits are accused of being POV, without any of those alternative edits being substantiated, and with no real added contibutions to the article.
I still see 10 verifiable sources and 10 footnotes, the same amount that was here before this controversy began. In otherwords, thus far, no one but myself has contributed anything to this article.
Signed: Travb 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
This looks like direct lifts from the source... an entire paragraph copied and pasted. Also, why does the Nixon promise get its own section? What makes that THE Election Promise? I think we could do away with the whole Nixon section, its just an example, and its listed as such at the bottom. Add in the copy and pasting and I vote that it goes. I'm going to try to make the top part of the article a little more encyclopedic ("The lying party will thus almost always get elected over the truthful one" does not belong).
Oreo man
18:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The list of broken promises covers all political parties, and can be verified quite easily. For example, the entry about the 1900 Philippine War being finished quickly was a broken promise, the war dragged on for several more years, along with the other entries.
This list has existed since the article was originally created, in 12 June 2004. Since that time several editors have contributed to this list.
As one admin recently said:
Travb ( talk) 02:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, this is hardly neutral considering the anti-W Bush tone. -- Erroneuz1 ( talk) 09:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 02:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Election promise. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://sustainabilityaustralia.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/the-tax-thats-not-a-tax/When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello contributors of Election promise, I hope I don't step on any toes by adding information, I don't plan on deleting or changing anything you have all written in the short term. I just got done with a nasty edit war, and some of the people suggested that I put these historical facts about lies that presidents made about troop reductions on this page. I would love to add it to another page, but the vicious edit war has hampered this. Travb 07:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello again Simon. Right now there seems to be no risk of the article become "Americanized". I had only a passing interest in the subject of election promises, and after about 6 hours of work on the subject of Nixon's promises, I have lost interest and will probably work on other topics/subjects for a a while.
I guess there is the possiblity of Election promise, or any wikisubject becoming too slanted in one direction because of a heavy focus on one subtopic. But I personally think this is something to optomistically look forward too, not be fearful off. I wish someday that some of my created pages will be overflowing with good encyclopedic content.
If this site does become to Americanized, we/you will cross that bridge when in comes. I just want you to know that I don't see adding much more to the page right now. Travb 09:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The text is as follows:
In the 1968 Presidential elections, Richard Nixon did not use the phrase "secret plan", which originated with a reporter looking for a lead to a story summarizing the Republican candidate's (hazy) promise to end the war without losing. But neither did he disavow the term, and it soon became a part of the campaign. When pressed for details, Nixon retreated to the position that to tip his hand would interfere with the negotiations that had begun in Paris. [1]
According to one historian: "...it became obvious in 1969 that Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war was a campaign gimmick..." [2]
Another historian wrote: "Nixon never had a plan to end the war, but he did have a general strategy--to increase pressure on the communists [and] issue them a November 1, 1969 deadline to be conciliatory or else...The North Vietnamese did not respond to Nixon's ultimatum...and his aides began planning Operation Duck Hook." [3]
Nixon admitted in retirement that no such plan existed before his election. [4]
Although I appreciate edits to this information, all edits must be Wikipedia:Verifiability. If Nixon said he had no plan, in 1968, then find a verifable source which states this, and I will gladly accept this in the article. Otherwise unfortunalty, this is unsubstantiated POV, which does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Verifiability.
I am a little frustrated that I write an entire section and provide 10 verifiable articles and books, with footnotes, and then portions are deleted and my edits are accused of being POV, without any of those alternative edits being substantiated, and with no real added contibutions to the article.
I still see 10 verifiable sources and 10 footnotes, the same amount that was here before this controversy began. In otherwords, thus far, no one but myself has contributed anything to this article.
Signed: Travb 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
This looks like direct lifts from the source... an entire paragraph copied and pasted. Also, why does the Nixon promise get its own section? What makes that THE Election Promise? I think we could do away with the whole Nixon section, its just an example, and its listed as such at the bottom. Add in the copy and pasting and I vote that it goes. I'm going to try to make the top part of the article a little more encyclopedic ("The lying party will thus almost always get elected over the truthful one" does not belong).
Oreo man
18:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The list of broken promises covers all political parties, and can be verified quite easily. For example, the entry about the 1900 Philippine War being finished quickly was a broken promise, the war dragged on for several more years, along with the other entries.
This list has existed since the article was originally created, in 12 June 2004. Since that time several editors have contributed to this list.
As one admin recently said:
Travb ( talk) 02:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, this is hardly neutral considering the anti-W Bush tone. -- Erroneuz1 ( talk) 09:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 02:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Election promise. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://sustainabilityaustralia.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/the-tax-thats-not-a-tax/When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)