Talk:2006 New York's 20th congressional district election

What this article is not

This article is NOT:

A place to list things that John Sweeney did, including actions in Congress, which have not become campaign issues. Those belong in the John E. Sweeney article. (Those just added to this article, which I deleted, I will evaluate and add to his article as appropriate.) And if/when they DO become campaign issues, then they should be mentioned BRIEFLY here. Remember that this is a transitory page - after 2006, it's NOT the place that people will come (for example) to read that Sweeney had a 2001 auto accident.

A place to insert campaign text for Gillibrand. Because she has no article of her own, she DOES get more space/text here than does Sweeney, but that doesn't extend to things that aren't verifiable ("leader in women's rights" - is that from a newspaper or campaign literature?). A reasonable description of what she has proposed is okay, but neutral language ("changes" rather than "reform" - who is against "reform"?) is required. I've deleted endorsements from the usual suspects, just as I will if someone puts in that Sweeney was endorsed (say) by George W. Bush. Those endorsements are NOT newsworthy per se - wikipedia isn't the place for laundry lists.

John Broughton 14:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsten Gillibrand Info

Most, if not all, of the information describing Ms. Gillibrand is adopted directly from her campaign website. For this reason, those claims should be in quotes, with citation to the relevant website. superman6193

With all due respect, speaking to someone who doesn't know enough to sign his/her comments, you're wrong. A candidate's website is no less credible than (say) an article from the National Review, when FACTS are being stated. Adding links is fine (I've left them in); quotation marks are unnecessary unless OPINION is involved. In fact, if the material is "adopted" (that is, edited and thus changed), quotation marks are TOTALLY WRONG.

P.S. And you used the wrong format for the links - they should have had ONLY a URL. John Broughton 15:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quotations in those two paragraphs indicated the duplication of material directly from the campaign website. As you stated in a previous comment, this entry is not "A place to insert campaign text for Gillibrand." The inclusion of this material, without quotations, implies factuality. Secondly, you'll notice that I did not include quotations marks in each paragraph of Ms. Gillibrand's description. Those sections that were not copied verbatem Italic textcan' be considered adopted text. However, those two paragraphs that I originally put between quotation marks were copied verbatem. Per MLA format, cited text is acknowledged by both quotation marks, and a footnote of some type (the web link certainly suffices). I am not looking to nit pick here, but including that text without quotations implies factuality - something that cannot be verified at this time (for example, "understands the needs of those who have no voice." Do we know, for sure, that Ms. Gillibrand understands the amorphous needs of these citizens? A hypothetical, yes, but indicative of the issue I raise.) I shall refrain from replacing the quotation marks until a consensus can be reached. superman6193

The inclusion of material, without quotation marks, implies FACTS. There is no need, in wikipedia, to put quotation marks around a sentence or two taken verbatim from a newspaper, for example, unless the authority of the paper is needed for credibility. Normally facts provide their own credibility.

I appreciate (a) your identifying some POV language in the section, and (b) bringing the matter to this page rather than doing a revert. I have taken the liberty of doing further edits to make the section NPOV, including removing the "understands the needs" sentence, which I missed and unquestionably does not belong in the article.

I think at this point there isn't more single sentences, here and there, that a direct quotations, and because they are about facts, not assertions, they don't need quotation marks around them. I hope the revised text addresses your concerns, and if you want to do further wordsmithing [I sometimes think of myself as a copy editor at a newspaper, working on a draft handed to me by a reporter, answerable if I mistakenly add inaccuracy or false nuance], feel free. John Broughton 00:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thank you for signing your last comment. If you use four tildes (~), the system will automagically add a date/time stamp as well as your name, which is useful to others.

I'm glad we are able to resolve this issue. Our debate was in the spirit of Wikipedia, and provided for a better, more comprehensive article. superman6193

I'm glad, too. I appreciate working with someone reasonable like you. John Broughton 21:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online poll?

Are the results of an unscientific online poll relevant here? - RPIRED 16:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's even more problematical is that the URL in the article is a link to a blog (generally NOT acceptable as a source) that in turn provides what is now a dead link to the poll results. So the information is not verifiable, even if it were useful. And I suspect it's not useful either, although it's remotely possible that the online poll was done in a such a way as provide somewhat valid results. (No, I wouldn't want to bet good money on that.) John Broughton 18:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further - where is the evidence that the Zogby poll is "GOP Commissioned?" Couldn't find that information anywhere in the link. If I understand polling correctly, the GOP tends to use Strategic Vision to conduct their polls, not Zogby. - RPIRED 04:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New York's 20th congressional district election, 2006. 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/20110106172937/http://www.elections.state.ny.us/2006ElectionResults.html to http://www.elections.state.ny.us/2006ElectionResults.html

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) 11:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]