This 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. |
Archive 1 |
Good Lord. This doesn't lack a NPOV at all..... Katagelophobia 10 Sep 2003
Can some one fill me in on what AIPAC is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith03 ( talk • contribs) 00:28, 14 October 2003 (UTC)
Gee I guess I am the vandal that change choice which is a position to abortion which is the issue. Smith03 22:40, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
That quote is clearly speaking about abortion not about sex education condom unless or until that quote is expanded call it it what is Smith03 22:47, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)~
I think that it is a bit irreverant to call his wife and kids "Jews"--maybe we could revise the terminology to "adherents of the Jewish faith," or something less heavy-handed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.199.187.60 ( talk) 22:23, 11 December 2003 (UTC)
So, how about a discussion on his infamous "I Have a Scream" speech? Media circus or no, it deserves mention. Kent Wang 06:53, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Since Dean is out, wouldn't it be appropriate to modify the appropriate sections re: his campaign and delete the sections regarding issues and quotes, since they're no longer relevant information? Wally 20:23, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I'm not sure if this is interesting to anyone, but I have not been able to find ANY news articles regarding a "transgender" in Dean's life. Can someone add a reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.68.123 ( talk) 16:11, 20 February 2004 (UTC)
I am removing the quote for "I have a scream," because it is stupid. A quote is susposed to mean something, and I see no meaning for this one. -Daniel Nagy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Nagy ( talk • contribs) 05:31, 21 February 2004 (UTC)
If the "scream" speech moment was politically significant (apropos the current edit war), and had a wider reaching implication than just his stump speech (endless runnings of sound clips, intenet song remixes, and debates about media's involvement in politics), perhaps a whole new section of the article should address it. Ronabop 00:06, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Dean conceded that the speech did not project the best image, jokingly referring to it as a "crazy, red-faced rant" on The Late Show with David Letterman. In an interview later that week with Diane Sawyer, he said he was "a little sheepish, ... but I'm not apologetic". [3] Sawyer and many others in the national broadcast news media later expressed some regret about overplaying the story, especially after comparing the broadcast feed of the speech to other recordings that better captured the roar of the crowd. [4]"Not only are we going to New Hampshire, Tom Harkin, we're going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York...And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House! Yeeeaah!!!"
This also needs to be worked into the article. Various media outlets have apologized for overplaying the scream, and the version they played was unrealistic because Dean used a noise-cancelling microphone, whereas in reality he had to make himself heard over a roaring crowd. —Eloquence 01:57, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
It should probably be mention that howard dean was second in terms of numbers of delegates when he quit on Feb 18. (Kerry: 613, Dean: 202, Edwards: 192, Clark: 57, Sharpton: 16, Kucinich: 2) Jrincayc 14:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Take away the quote. It is not a quote. It is a rant. A quote has to contain something that means something, something that inspires others. Saying that we are going to various states and then yelling is not what should be quoted. I bet you that you wouldn't see this on the Oxford Encyclopedia.
Secondly, the links about a politician should not be about remixes from MTV. I'm sure Howard Dean would not appreciate that.
-Daniel Nagy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Nagy ( talk • contribs) 16:00, 24 February 2004 (UTC)
I think it's meaningless, if you actually THINK about it.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Nagy ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 24 February 2004 (UTC)
But why do we have to make it a quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Nagy ( talk • contribs) 02:09, 26 February 2004 (UTC)
"cathartic"? maybe more like defribulating to the party.-- The lorax 01:16, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I included statement from SF speech found in SF cronical "In S.F., Dean calls GOP 'a white Christian party"
Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer
Tuesday, June 7, 2005 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.57.5.189 (
talk)
04:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Could we get more information on Howard Dean's views on healthcare in the Views section? This capital political subject is practically and curiously ommitted in the article. Thank you. -- Liberlogos 13:28, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Expansion, or a reference, please? Would I rather have the party fixed, or be able to vote for Dean again? The latter, clearly. Baylink 05:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
With the prospect of Dean as chair of the DNC looking increasingly likely, I thought it might be nice to get this up to featured article standard. So far, I've re-done the lead, personal background, and political career sections. The latter could still use some serious expansion; it'd be especially good to include controversies, criticism from the left (which I understand was substantial), and a critical evaluation of his policy record (particularly on health care and the budget, which were the subject of much mythologizing during the campaign).
Next up is the campaign section, which currently lacks any real organizational structure. I'm not sure what to do with the campaign timeline. Should it be scrapped, with the important dates integrated into the text? After that comes the "Views" section, which I'm inclined to think should be condensed considerably, especially on topics which weren't a major feature of his campaign.
Comments and/or assitance would be welcome.
RadicalSubversiv E 13:06, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Now that the dust has cleared on the scream speech, can we admit that it was a mistake? The linked article to justify it does not provide anything else but unsubstantiated claims. They fail to provide any of the recordings which they claim to possess. Further, contrary to the articles statement, the available recording of the speech indicates that he did not screem "yearg" along with the crowd, as the article assess. This article is not convincing. At the very least, its affirmations should not be stated as facts. [posted by 24.232.70.180] — Preceding undated comment added 03:36, 13 February 2005 (UTC)
I attended a few Howard Dean speechs prior to the Iowa "Scream". In June of the prior year Dean was at most 20 feet from me and the crowd got up and started chanting "We want Dean", "We want Dean" in the middle of his speech. He had to yell into the Microphone to overpower the noise from the crowd.
The microphones used block out background noise. That is way you can't hear the crowd.
I have seen videos from people in the crowd on the day of the "Scream" I can say that not only could you not hear the scream, but he didn't have the redish tint to him that was on the made-for-TV version.
(Disclaimer: I ran www.chatforamerica.com and was a regular blogger, attending the Bloggers Breakfast in Iowa. The above is therefore subject to bias; however I think I can give a good first-person account at what happened) Michael McNett 12:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_links concerning http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2004/02/03/exiting_deanspace.php.
Please tell me how this is relevent with 2 posts from a corante that is a "news source". Explain to me how this is a cult examination and by who? How are they more relevent than the thousand of other bloggers - conservatives and liberals? I'm removing this link unless you can explain to me how this link is relevent from the thousand of other links from sites that are devoted to howard dean. -- dis- 00:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please spend some more time poking around Wikipedia -- you'll find that most articles include external links to a variety of perspectives on the subject. In fact, this very article includes links to a half dozen other pointed commentaries on Dean, so I'm not at all clear why you're picking on this one. There's not a lot in the way of firm policy on external links, and there's definitely no requirement that material being linked to is NPOV. If you'd like to propose some sort of change in policy, the appropriate venue to start a discussion is probably Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). RadicalSubversiv E 01:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Also, if Andrew Sullivan wrote a detailed postmortem on the Dean campaign, please do add a link -- that would be valuable. RadicalSubversiv E 01:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wikimedia Meta is primarily a place for discussion of "meta" issues, not a repository for official policy. The governing policy here is Wikipedia:External links. You have offered no justification of your removal under that policy, and your actions runs counter to well-established community practice. The link was posted with a clear reason -- to refer readers to a specific resource offering a unique perspective on the Dean campaign, just the same as the half-dozen links included just above it. You came to this article and decided to remove this speific link for some reason you still have yet to explain. RadicalSubversiv E 02:28, 25 Feb 2005
I can't speak for the anonymous user who added the article, but as someone who's presently writing a thesis in large part about the Dean campaign, I found the article to be a very useful resource, covering quite a lot of ground in discussing the gap between the aura of invincibility the campaign built on the internet, and the very different reality that emerged when it came time to cast votes. If a well-cited article with 4,000+ words and dozens of comments attached isn't "high content", I have no what is. When I find the time to rewrite the campaign section of the article, I fully intend to use it as a reference. The date that it was added is completely irrelevant.
On another note -- as a new user, you are making a very bad impression by picking a pointless fight over an external link for no discernible reason. Wikipedia works as a community governed by coooperation and consensus-building, and you will quickly find yourself running afoul of many editors (not just me) if you continue to behave like this.
RadicalSubversiv E 02:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
For the millionth time, the "clear external links rules" you claim to be enforcing exist only in your head. We have very little in the way of official policy in the way of external links, which is exactly why a new policy is being developed.
I'm particularly confused at your suggestion that I should add a link to a commentary I've written on the Dean campaign. That would be self-promotion, which is explicitly prohibited, and I haven't written anything nearly as significant as Shirky's piece (I'd give my right arm for public accolades from the likes of Jay Rosen).
You clearly have no interest in participating in a reasonable discussion (your sarcasm and personal attacks are particularly unproductive), so I'm going to stop responding and restore the link (removing it again would be a violation of the three revert rule. I will rejoin discussion if someone besides you argues that the link should be removed. RadicalSubversiv E 03:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dis, you're being a crank. Radical is explaining to you in quite polite informative terms why he, a person who did *not* post the link believes that the link is pertinent and conformative to the rules. I agree with him: I think it's entirely on point to post a link to a writeup which attempts to explain how a frontrunning presidential candidate flamed out. So, we're two. How many more will come to the aid of this poor, defenseless link. I am verting it back in. Since, clearly, there is dispute, and the link in question does not violate law or copyright, let us err on the side of inclusion and informativeness, and if necessary, have the dispute arbitrated, before pulling the link, back out. Might we? Baylink 04:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh Good Lord. I posted the link, and if it violates policy, then remove it, and if it doesn't, leave it in situ. I'm not a Dean supporter, I'm not the author of the article, I'm not even in the same political party as either of them - I just thought that it was a fascinating and informative article that cogently makes logical and rational suggestions about how a campaign that looked unstoppable in December 2003 collpased within a matter of weeks. The only reason it's posted anonymously was that my user account is snookered. Simon Dodd 14:20, 25 Feb 2005
I question the intent of the last paragraph of the article in its current form. One alderman from Annapolis switching parties doesn't seem like a big enough deal to write it into the article. As well, the last two sentences ("Other politicians who have left the Democratic Party over the past decade. During the Clinton presidency more than 450 Democrat elected officials, very few of them at the national level, changed their party affiliation to Republican.") do not fit into the article at all. If it's even at all factually based, shouldn't it go into the page about Bill Clinton? Giantsquid 10:10, 14 Mar 2005
This image MUST be restored. Stop censoring the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enduring FREEDOM ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 18 March 2005 (UTC)
what's the deal with "The Crazy One" in the caption of the second image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronoso ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 1 April 2005 (UTC)
Calling Howard Dean an angry firebrand and referring to his supporters as Deaniacs seems very partisan and harsh. This is just not encyclopedic. Lagavulin 01:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is it the trend in Wikipedia for the enemies of the subject of an article if a political biography to queue up to describe the subject in the most pejorative possible terms? This can't be justified as good encyclopedia practice. Needs a rewrite, the tone is entirely negative, attempting to paint Dean as something he clearly isn't an angry extremist. Just because his enemies claim it does not make it so. Lagavulin 21:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
An article that paints Dean as an angry firebrand and then an "insurgent" is just not worthy of Wikipedia. Dean's enemies seem to have taken over the article just as Oliver North's have with that article. Why is this tolerated? Lagavulin 21:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I will give up on this I think while Radicalsubversive's attacks on Howard Dean continue. In one edit he accused Dean of being a pot-head, an insurgent and many more. Not much more I can do other than leave the tag and hope others can remedy it. Lagavulin 00:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We've had probably a hundred or more edits, most of which are simply vandalism or the reverts of that valndalism. The current version (as of this moment and created by User:Radicalsubversiv, I think) is about where the article stood before all the shenanigans began.
Atlant 12:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I would suggest that a new article be created (by someone other than me; that's one thing I don't do well) that focuses entirely on the Iowa caucus speech. In turn, discussion of the speech on the Dean article would be limited (with, of course, a link to the other article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.159.5.251 ( talk) 22:49, 21 April 2005 (UTC)
I'm putting my edits back into the article because they are not at all "thinly-veiled POV criticism of Dean", but instead simple facts. That part of the article is about the controversy over Dr. Dean's recent remarks about Republicans and therefore it should have as much information as possible. The only line that is truly POV criticism is that line that Reps "have attacked Dean and have painted him as a liberal extremist." As an independent Conservative-leaning Libertarian I personally don't really care what effect Howard Dean has on the future of the two major parties, but this is an encyclopedia. That means it needs more info. Radicalsubversiv if you don't think the section is balanced enough then add more information to counter what I've added, don't just delete usefull content. -- Judson — Preceding undated comment added 04:04, 19 June 2005 (UTC)
The extensive Obama quote is unnecessary, but I left his main point using “ religion to divide.” The whole McCain thing however really is not needed in the encyclopedia profile of Howard Dean. --JHen — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHen ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 24 June 2005 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 1 |
Good Lord. This doesn't lack a NPOV at all..... Katagelophobia 10 Sep 2003
Can some one fill me in on what AIPAC is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith03 ( talk • contribs) 00:28, 14 October 2003 (UTC)
Gee I guess I am the vandal that change choice which is a position to abortion which is the issue. Smith03 22:40, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
That quote is clearly speaking about abortion not about sex education condom unless or until that quote is expanded call it it what is Smith03 22:47, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)~
I think that it is a bit irreverant to call his wife and kids "Jews"--maybe we could revise the terminology to "adherents of the Jewish faith," or something less heavy-handed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.199.187.60 ( talk) 22:23, 11 December 2003 (UTC)
So, how about a discussion on his infamous "I Have a Scream" speech? Media circus or no, it deserves mention. Kent Wang 06:53, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Since Dean is out, wouldn't it be appropriate to modify the appropriate sections re: his campaign and delete the sections regarding issues and quotes, since they're no longer relevant information? Wally 20:23, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I'm not sure if this is interesting to anyone, but I have not been able to find ANY news articles regarding a "transgender" in Dean's life. Can someone add a reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.68.123 ( talk) 16:11, 20 February 2004 (UTC)
I am removing the quote for "I have a scream," because it is stupid. A quote is susposed to mean something, and I see no meaning for this one. -Daniel Nagy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Nagy ( talk • contribs) 05:31, 21 February 2004 (UTC)
If the "scream" speech moment was politically significant (apropos the current edit war), and had a wider reaching implication than just his stump speech (endless runnings of sound clips, intenet song remixes, and debates about media's involvement in politics), perhaps a whole new section of the article should address it. Ronabop 00:06, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Dean conceded that the speech did not project the best image, jokingly referring to it as a "crazy, red-faced rant" on The Late Show with David Letterman. In an interview later that week with Diane Sawyer, he said he was "a little sheepish, ... but I'm not apologetic". [3] Sawyer and many others in the national broadcast news media later expressed some regret about overplaying the story, especially after comparing the broadcast feed of the speech to other recordings that better captured the roar of the crowd. [4]"Not only are we going to New Hampshire, Tom Harkin, we're going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York...And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House! Yeeeaah!!!"
This also needs to be worked into the article. Various media outlets have apologized for overplaying the scream, and the version they played was unrealistic because Dean used a noise-cancelling microphone, whereas in reality he had to make himself heard over a roaring crowd. —Eloquence 01:57, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
It should probably be mention that howard dean was second in terms of numbers of delegates when he quit on Feb 18. (Kerry: 613, Dean: 202, Edwards: 192, Clark: 57, Sharpton: 16, Kucinich: 2) Jrincayc 14:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Take away the quote. It is not a quote. It is a rant. A quote has to contain something that means something, something that inspires others. Saying that we are going to various states and then yelling is not what should be quoted. I bet you that you wouldn't see this on the Oxford Encyclopedia.
Secondly, the links about a politician should not be about remixes from MTV. I'm sure Howard Dean would not appreciate that.
-Daniel Nagy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Nagy ( talk • contribs) 16:00, 24 February 2004 (UTC)
I think it's meaningless, if you actually THINK about it.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Nagy ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 24 February 2004 (UTC)
But why do we have to make it a quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Nagy ( talk • contribs) 02:09, 26 February 2004 (UTC)
"cathartic"? maybe more like defribulating to the party.-- The lorax 01:16, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I included statement from SF speech found in SF cronical "In S.F., Dean calls GOP 'a white Christian party"
Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer
Tuesday, June 7, 2005 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.57.5.189 (
talk)
04:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Could we get more information on Howard Dean's views on healthcare in the Views section? This capital political subject is practically and curiously ommitted in the article. Thank you. -- Liberlogos 13:28, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Expansion, or a reference, please? Would I rather have the party fixed, or be able to vote for Dean again? The latter, clearly. Baylink 05:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
With the prospect of Dean as chair of the DNC looking increasingly likely, I thought it might be nice to get this up to featured article standard. So far, I've re-done the lead, personal background, and political career sections. The latter could still use some serious expansion; it'd be especially good to include controversies, criticism from the left (which I understand was substantial), and a critical evaluation of his policy record (particularly on health care and the budget, which were the subject of much mythologizing during the campaign).
Next up is the campaign section, which currently lacks any real organizational structure. I'm not sure what to do with the campaign timeline. Should it be scrapped, with the important dates integrated into the text? After that comes the "Views" section, which I'm inclined to think should be condensed considerably, especially on topics which weren't a major feature of his campaign.
Comments and/or assitance would be welcome.
RadicalSubversiv E 13:06, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Now that the dust has cleared on the scream speech, can we admit that it was a mistake? The linked article to justify it does not provide anything else but unsubstantiated claims. They fail to provide any of the recordings which they claim to possess. Further, contrary to the articles statement, the available recording of the speech indicates that he did not screem "yearg" along with the crowd, as the article assess. This article is not convincing. At the very least, its affirmations should not be stated as facts. [posted by 24.232.70.180] — Preceding undated comment added 03:36, 13 February 2005 (UTC)
I attended a few Howard Dean speechs prior to the Iowa "Scream". In June of the prior year Dean was at most 20 feet from me and the crowd got up and started chanting "We want Dean", "We want Dean" in the middle of his speech. He had to yell into the Microphone to overpower the noise from the crowd.
The microphones used block out background noise. That is way you can't hear the crowd.
I have seen videos from people in the crowd on the day of the "Scream" I can say that not only could you not hear the scream, but he didn't have the redish tint to him that was on the made-for-TV version.
(Disclaimer: I ran www.chatforamerica.com and was a regular blogger, attending the Bloggers Breakfast in Iowa. The above is therefore subject to bias; however I think I can give a good first-person account at what happened) Michael McNett 12:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_links concerning http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2004/02/03/exiting_deanspace.php.
Please tell me how this is relevent with 2 posts from a corante that is a "news source". Explain to me how this is a cult examination and by who? How are they more relevent than the thousand of other bloggers - conservatives and liberals? I'm removing this link unless you can explain to me how this link is relevent from the thousand of other links from sites that are devoted to howard dean. -- dis- 00:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please spend some more time poking around Wikipedia -- you'll find that most articles include external links to a variety of perspectives on the subject. In fact, this very article includes links to a half dozen other pointed commentaries on Dean, so I'm not at all clear why you're picking on this one. There's not a lot in the way of firm policy on external links, and there's definitely no requirement that material being linked to is NPOV. If you'd like to propose some sort of change in policy, the appropriate venue to start a discussion is probably Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). RadicalSubversiv E 01:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Also, if Andrew Sullivan wrote a detailed postmortem on the Dean campaign, please do add a link -- that would be valuable. RadicalSubversiv E 01:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wikimedia Meta is primarily a place for discussion of "meta" issues, not a repository for official policy. The governing policy here is Wikipedia:External links. You have offered no justification of your removal under that policy, and your actions runs counter to well-established community practice. The link was posted with a clear reason -- to refer readers to a specific resource offering a unique perspective on the Dean campaign, just the same as the half-dozen links included just above it. You came to this article and decided to remove this speific link for some reason you still have yet to explain. RadicalSubversiv E 02:28, 25 Feb 2005
I can't speak for the anonymous user who added the article, but as someone who's presently writing a thesis in large part about the Dean campaign, I found the article to be a very useful resource, covering quite a lot of ground in discussing the gap between the aura of invincibility the campaign built on the internet, and the very different reality that emerged when it came time to cast votes. If a well-cited article with 4,000+ words and dozens of comments attached isn't "high content", I have no what is. When I find the time to rewrite the campaign section of the article, I fully intend to use it as a reference. The date that it was added is completely irrelevant.
On another note -- as a new user, you are making a very bad impression by picking a pointless fight over an external link for no discernible reason. Wikipedia works as a community governed by coooperation and consensus-building, and you will quickly find yourself running afoul of many editors (not just me) if you continue to behave like this.
RadicalSubversiv E 02:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
For the millionth time, the "clear external links rules" you claim to be enforcing exist only in your head. We have very little in the way of official policy in the way of external links, which is exactly why a new policy is being developed.
I'm particularly confused at your suggestion that I should add a link to a commentary I've written on the Dean campaign. That would be self-promotion, which is explicitly prohibited, and I haven't written anything nearly as significant as Shirky's piece (I'd give my right arm for public accolades from the likes of Jay Rosen).
You clearly have no interest in participating in a reasonable discussion (your sarcasm and personal attacks are particularly unproductive), so I'm going to stop responding and restore the link (removing it again would be a violation of the three revert rule. I will rejoin discussion if someone besides you argues that the link should be removed. RadicalSubversiv E 03:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dis, you're being a crank. Radical is explaining to you in quite polite informative terms why he, a person who did *not* post the link believes that the link is pertinent and conformative to the rules. I agree with him: I think it's entirely on point to post a link to a writeup which attempts to explain how a frontrunning presidential candidate flamed out. So, we're two. How many more will come to the aid of this poor, defenseless link. I am verting it back in. Since, clearly, there is dispute, and the link in question does not violate law or copyright, let us err on the side of inclusion and informativeness, and if necessary, have the dispute arbitrated, before pulling the link, back out. Might we? Baylink 04:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh Good Lord. I posted the link, and if it violates policy, then remove it, and if it doesn't, leave it in situ. I'm not a Dean supporter, I'm not the author of the article, I'm not even in the same political party as either of them - I just thought that it was a fascinating and informative article that cogently makes logical and rational suggestions about how a campaign that looked unstoppable in December 2003 collpased within a matter of weeks. The only reason it's posted anonymously was that my user account is snookered. Simon Dodd 14:20, 25 Feb 2005
I question the intent of the last paragraph of the article in its current form. One alderman from Annapolis switching parties doesn't seem like a big enough deal to write it into the article. As well, the last two sentences ("Other politicians who have left the Democratic Party over the past decade. During the Clinton presidency more than 450 Democrat elected officials, very few of them at the national level, changed their party affiliation to Republican.") do not fit into the article at all. If it's even at all factually based, shouldn't it go into the page about Bill Clinton? Giantsquid 10:10, 14 Mar 2005
This image MUST be restored. Stop censoring the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enduring FREEDOM ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 18 March 2005 (UTC)
what's the deal with "The Crazy One" in the caption of the second image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronoso ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 1 April 2005 (UTC)
Calling Howard Dean an angry firebrand and referring to his supporters as Deaniacs seems very partisan and harsh. This is just not encyclopedic. Lagavulin 01:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is it the trend in Wikipedia for the enemies of the subject of an article if a political biography to queue up to describe the subject in the most pejorative possible terms? This can't be justified as good encyclopedia practice. Needs a rewrite, the tone is entirely negative, attempting to paint Dean as something he clearly isn't an angry extremist. Just because his enemies claim it does not make it so. Lagavulin 21:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
An article that paints Dean as an angry firebrand and then an "insurgent" is just not worthy of Wikipedia. Dean's enemies seem to have taken over the article just as Oliver North's have with that article. Why is this tolerated? Lagavulin 21:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I will give up on this I think while Radicalsubversive's attacks on Howard Dean continue. In one edit he accused Dean of being a pot-head, an insurgent and many more. Not much more I can do other than leave the tag and hope others can remedy it. Lagavulin 00:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We've had probably a hundred or more edits, most of which are simply vandalism or the reverts of that valndalism. The current version (as of this moment and created by User:Radicalsubversiv, I think) is about where the article stood before all the shenanigans began.
Atlant 12:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I would suggest that a new article be created (by someone other than me; that's one thing I don't do well) that focuses entirely on the Iowa caucus speech. In turn, discussion of the speech on the Dean article would be limited (with, of course, a link to the other article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.159.5.251 ( talk) 22:49, 21 April 2005 (UTC)
I'm putting my edits back into the article because they are not at all "thinly-veiled POV criticism of Dean", but instead simple facts. That part of the article is about the controversy over Dr. Dean's recent remarks about Republicans and therefore it should have as much information as possible. The only line that is truly POV criticism is that line that Reps "have attacked Dean and have painted him as a liberal extremist." As an independent Conservative-leaning Libertarian I personally don't really care what effect Howard Dean has on the future of the two major parties, but this is an encyclopedia. That means it needs more info. Radicalsubversiv if you don't think the section is balanced enough then add more information to counter what I've added, don't just delete usefull content. -- Judson — Preceding undated comment added 04:04, 19 June 2005 (UTC)
The extensive Obama quote is unnecessary, but I left his main point using “ religion to divide.” The whole McCain thing however really is not needed in the encyclopedia profile of Howard Dean. --JHen — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHen ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 24 June 2005 (UTC)