Talk:Chris Dodd 2008 presidential campaign

Chris Dodd 2008 presidential campaign has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 14, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
January 20, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 26, 2007.

Current status: Good article

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).

Rigors of Campaign

Even though I disagree with Senator Dodd on almost every issue I wrote this article for a reason much more important than Dodd. I wrote this article to demonstrate the rigors of the campaign schedule that all candidates face. I wanted to show what it was like to be on the campaign trail.--S TX 06:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester IA vs NH

You might want to double check your info for Sept. 3rd. There's a Waterloo NH and IA too. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the source and it is correct. I got mixed up on the June 3 Debate but everything else should be right.--S TX 22:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I removed the tags; but the WaPo source has him in both IA and NH at noon and then in NH at 3:30 and in IA at 6:30 on Sept. 3rd. So this looks a little flaky, but we're only as good as our sources. Kendrick7^talk 22:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think this is a duplication error on the part of WaPo, as Sept 4th for Iowa is a duplicate of Sept 3rd. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is, I'll try to find another source.--S TX 23:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is duplicated [1] Thanks for pointing that out.--S TX 23:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was suspicious, but wrong about the city confusion. Having grown up in San Antonio, my brain had originally allocated a total of about 15 cells to keep track of city names. Been in Boston for a decade now, and there are still cities in New England, even relatively nearby, that I hear about for the first time on at least a weekly basis. So forgive me, as a former South Texan, for presuming a cultural bias here. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions

Political positions should be at the top. There'd be no point in a campaign if he didn't have any positions, and it's what a lot of readers are going to be looking for first off. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I see what you're saying but I think it flows better the other way.--S TX 20:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I moved it again before I saw your addendum. I think his positions are more important that where he was on such and such a day. I imagine most of the other campaign articles have the candidate's positions at or near the top as well, though I haven't checked. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Bbcnews24 bhuttokilled.jpg

Image:Bbcnews24 bhuttokilled.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of other candidates

I'm wondering why there are so many photos of Dodd's political opponents on this page. I know that he has ended his bid, but it seems unfair to put photos (essentially advertising) of these folks on his article. This practice doesn't seem to be followed in Hillary or Obama's articles. I just wanted to check in before I remove these photos.--RedShiftPA (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photos are not advertisments. As was previously said this article is encompassing the whole election and its just strictly from Dodd's perspective but not about Dodd entirely. This is a unique and innovative take that has never been tried before. All images illustrate the election by the month relating to Dodd but in the end you get a sense of the whole election. It is much like a list showing the rigors of the campaign trail; the images illustrate the rigors. Think about it from the perspective of 10 years from now, all facets of Dodd's campaign are covered but the whole sense of the election is also felt. --S TX 02:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the idea of giving a broader view of the race, and I shouldn't have referred to these photos as advertising. To refine my point, I don't think putting stock images in this article add anything to the article, or anything to the sense of the campaign. In 10 years people will say "Oh, there's Hillary's stock photo." Now, if there are any photos of Dodd arguing with Hillary, that would be very good.

For example, the Paul_Simon_2007 photo wasn't from a Dodd rally. It was him playing with Thomas Dolby.
Image:Firefighter_with_axe photo is just some guy in a fireman outfit.
Image:Steve_Martin.jpg is Steve Martin in 1982 promoting "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedShiftPA (talk • contribs) 02:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These images are the best that we have. If you could find a free-use image of Dodd campaigning with Paul Simon or Dodd arguing with Hillary Clinton then those would be better replacements. However the images that are there still serve to illustrate the point intentioned. Much like on a list, you have the images that illustrate what the list consists of regardless of what they may be showing in reality, this is how this article works. In 10 years everybody may forget about John Edwards especially someone too young to remember him, but when they read about his advertisment war with Dodd and then they look up at the image of Edwards they will have a face to place with the name. That's just one small aspect that makes this article special.--S TX 02:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the photos that are not Chris Dodd-related. User User:Southern Texas seems to be experimenting with a new format for this article. I don';t think that is appropriate for this article. I returned it to the standard wikipedia format.--RedShiftPA (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with the use of photos here. I think STX has done a good job finding images which could be used here. Anyway, I already revert you. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for you to write an article and then fit in all the possible fotos that could remotely be connected with the subject matter. You can do that on your own website. Next thing you know we have an article with hundreds of pictures. Re-adding the removed pictures is considered vandalism. You have been warned. --Datang (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the aim of clarity, let's use the active voice, Datang. You consider that re-adding the removed pictures is vandalism. You have warned Southern Texas or Kendrick7 or somebody.

Well, I've re-added the photographs. You may wish to consider this re-addition vandalism. But before doing so, you'd be well advised to read up on what vandalism means hereabouts.

There may indeed be too many photos. I'm open to arguments that there are. However, your edit summary Nice try sneaking back all the unnecessary pictures in. If you want to advertise your candidate, go make your own website. seems to imply that Dodd is somebody's candidate. This seems unlikely, as right now Dodd is, I believe, nobody's candidate. Further, declaring this without very good reason may contravene "WP:AGF". -- Hoary (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, looking over the photos, ~half seem to be worthwhile, while some are really not helpful. I don't see why it's all or nothing, I'm going to restore some. Wily D 15:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a start. Better, since there seems to be some disagreement, discuss which photos are better cut, and then cut them. -- Hoary (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WilyD. In particular, unrelated images of celebrities and other candidates do not seem helpful or necessary. Pictures of Dodd on the campaign trail, however, are perfectly acceptable. — Satori Son 16:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored all the ones I thought were relevant (except the one restored by User:Satori Son, but I agree with their assessment that the image they restored is appropriate. Wily D 16:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the removal of all the images again. Not sure why this keeps occurring. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably carelessness - someone keeps inserting a stack of irrelevant images, someone purging the junk may not notice the baby in the bathwater. Wily D 22:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The images aren't just random. They serve a purpose by providing information in captions and linking to different articles. That is the function of a list. I will restore them. --S TX 00:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the maps and the other candidates are fine. I can take or leave the fireman, as their union was one of Dodd's more notable supporters in the campaign. I know the style STX is going for is a little more World Book than Britannica but I don't really have a problem with it unless you can point to something in our own WP:STYLE guidelines supporting their exclusion. Besides, you're removing captions with info relevant to the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Request for this article

I tagged this article for peer review to see what some other editors thought about the format and focus of this article. Click here for the results.--RedShiftPA (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Hello. I found this to be a very interesting article that is within reach of becoming GA. Please consider taking the following guidelines into account:

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

# Is it well written?

I find the article to be an interesting read, but the prose is neither engaging nor really "hooking" at all. The bulk of the articles seems to focus on what Dodd did and where, how he campaigned and why, and there are too many quotes from Dodd himself. Also, I would make use of pronouns and stop consistently reffering to Dodd as "Dodd" in every sentence. The tables in every section chronicling campaign events are odd, but I suppose informative. The little blurbs at the bottoms of the tables need to be expanded to not only encompass Dodd himself during the campaign and his quotes, but I would even include monetary numbers (if available), staffing information, etc. Bu they are very good in giving specifics for the months.

With the MOS, I would keep to one date format. There is one usage of 22 May but later December 26. I would go for the month, day style as it is the United States preference.

# Is it factually accurate?

Citations are a biggie in this article. There are many uncited statements and every quote needs a cite. The entire "political positions" section needs to be cited, as well as the sections "February 2007", "May 2007", "June 2007", "July 2007", "September 2007", last paragraph in "October 2007", "November 2007" and "December 2007". Without citations, the information is unverifiable. I appologize for not getting into specifics, but there are too many to specify.

References 3 and 4 are dead links, and reference 15 is cited to a blog.

# Is it broad in its coverage?

To a good extent, yes. It covers the Dodd campaign. I would have it focus less on what Mr. Dodd is saying, however, and go into the actual workings of the campaign.

# Is it NPOV?

To a great extent, this article follows the NPOV policy. However, the criticism section only contains two sentences with one criticism from commentator Bill O'Reilly. I'm sure more people criticised Dodd and his campaign; see if there were any about the running/ function of the campaign or be sure to include criticisms from the other candidates (or eleborate on them in that section).

# Is it stable?

Yes.

# Are there images?

Yes. The only thing I would say is to move the first image of Dodd (which I presume is the Senatorial portrait) to the right and that is per the MOS. It would be best to place it in the infobox and I think you might be able to have two in there.

Anyway, I think these problems can be solved within a week. I will check back then and feel free to notify me in the meantime. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I addressed most of the problems above. Tomorrow or later tonight I will add more information about the campaign workings itself and I will expand the "criticism" section. Thank you for your suggestions if there is anything else that needs to be cleared up or that I forgot to complete please let me know.--S TX 23:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to incorporate the criticism section into the campaign developments section since there was some other criticism already there. I added all the fundraising totals, strategies and some inner workings of the campaign. Is it ready? --S TX 05:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it a lot better! Just a few more minor specifics:

The head-to-head figures are a year old and it woulds help if the numbers are updated (if they can be) Not done, No other head-to-head matchups exist
In political positions, "Dodd has proposed mandatory community service for all high school students, and fought to improve child care and health care. He has worked to stop predatory lending by credit card companies" needs cited. Done

Once these minors are fixed, I'll promote. Happyme22 (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help.--S TX 18:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passed! Great work! Happyme22 (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise version

A compromise version that satisfies everybody's concerns can be found at User:Southern Texas/Sandbox.--S TX 00:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow revert war

Over the past few weeks[2] there has been some back and forth reverting to long versions of this article and shorter versions. The long version goes into far greater detail, but is it too much detail for a general encyclopedia? We should really discuss this before going back and forth any more. It's currently in a short version. If it's decided we want the long version, we can always go back. So what do you think? Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It should be noted that User:Southern Texas, who added the unrelated images in the first place, is a sockfarmer and has been blocked indefinitely. --Wiendietry (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading different campaign articles on wikipedia for about a year and this article is very good and indepth. Deleting half the article makes no sense so I would ask the individual who keeps doing this to please stop.--William Saturn (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The long version is fine, per WP:PRESERVE. Most of the long parts of the long version is hidden from the reader via the collapsed templates, so it's not a readability issue. Length is not an issue because WP:Wikipedia is not paper, nor would it be prudent to split the material off into another article per WP:SS and WP:UNDUE, as this is clearly the article where the material would belong, and there's little point in having multiple sub-articles. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and does not elaborate too deeply into a topic. This has been discussed over and over again with people adding unnecessary information to Pokémon articles, TV series episodes, video games, books. The campaign article does not have to mention every single city that the candidate visited, what he talked about, what he ate for lunch, what toothpaste brand is his favorite, etc. --Wiendietry (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a pokeman article and what the candidate ate for lunch or what toothpaste he used is not being discussed. Please stop being disruptive.--William Saturn (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to stop, people. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think several admins should take a look at both versions and reach a consensus whether we need the month-to-month campaign detail or not. It should be admin(s) since they are the only ones who could protect/unprotect a page. If this page is unprotected and non-admins are edit warring again, there could be no end. It should be more than one admin so it's not one-sided. --Nat Miller (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Admins are not more special than the rest of us. They are not granted editorial content control power. I think a little more talk from everyone here can work this out just fine. Once we show a consensus for what we want, then we can tell an admin, and they can unprotect the page so we can implement it. The stratification of editors is not good, and we don't need to give admins more power. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, being an admin isn't relevent, this is an editing dispute. Wikipedia:Article size is not the kind of thing that admins need to rouge-ly enforce. We can just us our powers of "editors familiar with the purpose and methods of Wikipedia" to work this out. At 76K, a split into a second "Timeline of the Chris Dodd presidential campaign, 2008", might be viable. Wily D 13:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure a split would be the best idea at this point (76K isn't too horrendous). Before we split, how about everyone go through and try and identify any material that would be too detailed for a general reference work? I'm sure even the people that want the longer article can find things that could be trimmed without harming the encyclopedic quality of the article. I'll try and go through the long version today and make notes of things I think could be trimmed, and post them here. If others could do the same, I'm sure we could eliminate some of the "bloat". A split might not be necessary. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why WP:LENGTH is an issue here. Even at 40K editors won't be able to read the whole page on a 4 year old cell phone, so deleting half the article really makes little difference to whatever handful of editors would have that problem. Readability concerns were addressed months ago by putting the tables in the hide/show boxes, and yet the battle continues into a fifth month. WP:PRESERVE is a policy upon which I will not compromise on this article. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is horrible, it doesn't even make any sense when you try to read it. Why was this version protected instead of the GA version? --William Saturn (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Chris Dodd presidential campaign, 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 to let others know.

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris Dodd presidential campaign, 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060601010128/http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/2954 to http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/2954

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris Dodd presidential campaign, 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080507104456/http://www.allamericanpatriots.com:80/48722990_2008_presidential_election_chris_dodd_dodd_touts_energy_plan_biodiesel_plant_kitchen_tables to http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48722990_2008_presidential_election_chris_dodd_dodd_touts_energy_plan_biodiesel_plant_kitchen_tables

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Chris Dodd presidential campaign, 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]