Talk:2006 United States Senate election in Maryland

Edit wars and such

Since Daniel Vovak doesn't seem to read edit summaries, I thought I would make some things clear here, instead.

• Indicating that Michael Steele is the foremost Republican candidate is not biased, but accurate and fully informational.

• Michael Steele is all but unchallenged for the Republican nomination, which if anything is why no polls have been run, or else there would be completely material to suppport this statement, in addition to many, many professional analyses. Steele is receiving a great sum of GOP funding, and received personal calls from both Rove and Cheney asking for his entry into the race[1]. Also, virtually every article commenting upon the race specifically notes the lack of competition for the Republican nomination (and I pull these citations from your own cite): [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Wikipedia is a tertiary source, meaning it provides the results of an apparent consensus (or lack thereof) among other sources, not original content and analysis. If you'd like to editorialize, go to Everything2.
• You are a candidate in this race, and should not be making substantial edits to this article or any other that relates to the race or its candidates. I would venture to say that you shouldn't even be editing the article on yourself, in accordance with Wikipedia standards. OFearwig 14:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not Daniel Vovak, I am a New Hampshire resident observing the race. There are absolutely NO polls of the GOP Primary race, so asserting that Steele is the front runner is a claim without factual foundation. If Steele is unchallenged, why have nearly a hundred articles been written about Vovak? Why has he received over 80,000 hits on his website? He has personally met and handed out his campaign cards to over 25,000 voters in his grassroots campaigning, easily ten times the number of people Steele has met.24.50.44.154 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a primary or secondary source, but a tertiary source. It is not our job to validate facts, but reports of facts--we compile, we do not author. At least when we're doing it right. See citations in the article if you want an explanation for the indication of Steele as probable frontrunner. Read up on the race and you will probably come to the same conclusion as the journalists who have been quoted here. And one nitpick: what 100+ articles on Vovak are you referring to? Pre-2006 material? Or the "articles" he or his friends author for his website? I am not arguing that he is not worthy of Wikipedia mention to some degree or another (if perhaps only because of the visibility earned him by his wig gimmick), but you will be hard-pressed to indicate that Vovak or any other Republican is a viable contender in the Republican primary. Really hard-pressed. And the media know it. Finally: haven't you wondered yet why no polls have been conducted on that question? Wouldn't you imagine pollsters have better things to do with their money? Fearwig 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Everybody knows that your are pushing a catch-22: if someone writes something in their own voice with references to major media articles, you claim "original research", but if they quote media articles, its "copyright infringement". You can't have it both ways. Everything written here is factual and backed up with references. This is not a historical essay, it is a campaign in progress. Read the notice at the top of the page.24.50.44.154 02:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Everything you're saying indicates to me that you haven't been here long, at least not in an editing context. Check out the documentation. Quoting articles isn't copyright infringement, and sourcing to them definitely isn't. It's how wikipedia is supposed to work. What you're doing here isn't just original research--it's PR dumping. Thanks but no thanks. Fearwig 03:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I am disappointed Fearwig claimed I wrote an article, which I just read today. Hence, I have added my own bit about the Republican Primary, carefully written with my own style and leaning on sourcing each reference with major (and recent) media outlets: Washington Post, Associated Press (WJLA NBC 7), and Baltimore Examiner. DanielVovak
            • Judging from your most recent edit, I'd say you're catching on to what WP is looking for. I didn't claim you wrote that article or other major articles, but when the above user said "100+", I was forced to assume he was referring in some part to the news-styled press releases on your site, which are not in fact news articles. As for your edit, I was forced to remove the last line because it speculated that your media attention might reduce the margin by which Steele wins the primary, because this was not (so far as I could tell) something which could be gleaned from the articles. Otherwise, it seems a little slanted to your favor, but generally less biased than whatever you would replace it with were I to revert. I suppose that will have to do until someone else does the job for me. Fearwig 20:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Why Suppressing Coverage of the Republican Primary?

Wikipedia is also not supposed to be about suppressing facts, which Steele supporters have been caught red handed doing. I'm open to making my edits less POV, but I won't stand for your blatant suppression of the facts.24.50.44.154 02:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Zeese

Okay, ignore what I said in the edit notes--apparently the deletion verdict on the Zeese article was a redirect, didn't mention whether a merge was worthwhile, but in the context of the race I have to say notability is absolutely not a problem, and it was general notability that sealed the original article's fate. If the material needs cleaning up, I'm all for it, but we should keep whatever candidate information we can. No reason to be exclusionary. And yes, this is coming from a staunch Mfume supporter. Fearwig 15:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How much text for lesser candidates?

Again, I'd prefer we discuss this rather than edit back and forth (Tomf688). "Undue weight" is given to a candidate when additional information is provided, but it is equally possible for all candidates to have information included about them in the article, should someone who knows about them see it fit to add that information. That's how this sort of article has to work. Now, since these people aren't all significant enough for individual articles, it's only appropriate that additional information be included here instead.Fearwig 21:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this merit inclusion?

Hello, I have not been following the progression of this page but this article on CNN caught my eye "GOP group's campaign ad says Democrats started KKK"-in particular the part at the end where it notes "Race is a prominent theme in the Maryland race for the seat held by retiring Democrat Paul Sarbanes. Steele, the first black candidate elected statewide in Maryland, faces a white Democrat in a heavily Democratic state with the highest percentage of black residents -- 29 percent -- of any state outside the South." In reading the article, I don't neccessarily see that listed as a "prominent theme". Obviously it needs to be delicately treated for NPOV concerns but I'm curious what this pages editors think? Agne 23:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Full Disclosure

In the interests of full disclosure, I should mention that my wife is a prominent staffer on the Kevin Zeese campaign. I will keep my edits to minor changes like linking, grammar, and formatting. If there is something substantial to be changed, I'll make sure to bring it up here first for discussion.

Ardvaark 00:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Debate Subsection?

Since the first three-way debate was held last night at the Baltimore Urban League, I propose adding a section for the debates describing the attendees, format, and topics discussed.

Thoughts?

Ardvaark 14:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Change Column

What's the +/- change column for?

Ardvaark 23:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Anybody know the answer? I'm curious too. Glendoremus 20:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally on Wikipedia that column represents the change since the last election. In this case I'm not sure if it's comparing against the last MD Senate race (i.e. when Mikulski was re-elected in '04) or the last time this seat was up (i.e. when Sarbanes was re-elected in '00). --Jfruh (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Flier images

I found these images of the misleading fliers and believe they should be included. As political campaign material, can they be copyrighted? Common sense tells me no, but I don't see any place for such a license on the Upload File page.

As for the source, it is questionable, but the Washington Post posted a lower resolution copy of the cover here, and the other pages match the text descriptions printed here and elsewhere.

--Matt 03:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to link to the images. If you use footnotes (ref tags) rather than just an embedded links, you can add "(low resolution)" and "(high resolution)" to the footnote information, so that readers can confirm that the high resolution image (again, not hosted on Wikipedia) is authentic. -- John Broughton ^(♫♫) 19:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Stem-cell/Michael J. Fox Controversy

Why is there no sub-section in the "Controversies" section on the controversy that opened up over an advert that Michael J. Fox made in support of Ben Cardin and against Steele's stance on stem cell research? This was one of the biggest controversies of this election and the only one that made national headlines (or at least the largest one).

One of the Ben Cardin's biggest constituencies is the medical-research industry in Baltimore and so it was natural for him to support stem cell research as it makes that industry more competitive and so more able to bring more jobs and greater prosperity to Baltimore and MD as a whole. While Michael Steele's religious views, and the religious views of most of his supporters, made him make statements against stem cell research. The Cardin campaign responded with an advertisement featuring Michael J. Fox endorsing stem cell research. The advert was criticized by conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh for "faking it" and being overly emotive.

Please advise, if I do not hear from any one about this in due time I will update it myself. Thanks and regards, --Discott (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Seems reasonable to me. Ardvaark (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine; please note that I've improved your citations (a naked URL doesn't comply with WP:CITE). Also, the link to youtube is unnecessary; the second Washington Post citation includes a link to the ad, and that's a much better way to get to it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Senate election in Maryland, 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070224182734/http://elections.us.reuters.com:80/top/news/usnN01194336.html to http://elections.us.reuters.com/top/news/usnN01194336.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 11:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Senate election in Maryland, 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.joewerner.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060622224926/http://progressivemaryland.org/files/public/images/SteeleHuggingBush051130.jpg to http://progressivemaryland.org/files/public/images/SteeleHuggingBush051130.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 20:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)