Jump to content

Talk:2006 United States Senate election in Washington/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

This is an archive of Talk:Washington United States Senate election, 2006

"News Articles"

What purpose is the "News Articles" section (created by User:Chadlupkes[1]) supposed to serve? I haven't noticed this in an election article before and it looks like something that could easily get out of hand. By its title, it sounds like any article that mentions any candidate should be included, but that wouldn't be encyclopedic and could easily dwarf the real content. No doubt endorsements will be listed on each candidate website. --Ajdz 06:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If I remember this correctly, it was in the Maria Cantwell article, and I moved it to the article on the race. A reason to keep the section would be to list sources for the information on the page, but I agree that it could get out of control. Should we change the title of the section to 'Article Sources'? Chadlupkes 19:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
That might be good. Or "References" unless there's some other relevant standard for such articles. Should endorsements end up listed in this article? Right now it doesn't look like the one link is a source for anything and I would expect the candidates to keep pretty comprehensive endorsement lists on their websites. --Ajdz 20:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think we need to track endorsements here. Too much work, and not our responsibility. Chadlupkes 14:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Elway poll

I've added back the second source for the February Elway poll. Unfortunately, Elway polls aren't available to the public. The first source I cite (newspaper) is authoritative but just a summary; the second is a blog but has a lot more detail. (If people really, really think that it compromises the integrity of the table by having two sources, then go ahead and delete the second.) John Broughton 14:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If the detail is that important, it's probably fine. It removed it originally because it seemed strange to have two sources--especially when one is a blog with a questionable name. --Ajdz 23:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
You'll get some people defending David Goldstein's blog. It's one of the most popular blogs from the left in Washington State, and he's a real professional with a funny domain name. Chadlupkes 02:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


Strategic Vision

I've removed the material (pro and con) about the objectivity of Strategic Vision. As pointed out, their polling results don't differ for others in the article, so any lack of objectivity appears to be irrelevant to this article.

IF and WHEN the company reports a poll pertaining to this race that is considered biased, AND, if someone actually posts the poll to this article, THEN comments about its objectivity would be relevant and appropriate for the article. John Broughton 00:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I probably should have simply removed the material myself when it showed up. There is a similar discussion with 8bitJake here. --Ajdz 02:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
If these polling agencies have articles, would a link to those articles be appropriate? Chadlupkes 03:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. John Broughton 12:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Polls

From the edit log: (Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think third parties are included in these kind of election polls. Until you have a poll including them, I don't see the point in having blank columns.) Ajdz (Talk | contribs)

Agreed. Chadlupkes 19:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Eliminating voice for anti-war

Since there seems to be a concerted effort by 24.19.93.112 to mention that anti-war advocates had their voice silenced in the primary by Wilson joining the Cantwell campaign, despite the presence of Hong Tran and Wilson saying he will continue to advocate for a withdrawl of troops from Iraq from inside the Cantwell campaign, I figured I'd start a discussion here.--Bobblehead 18:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. Are there any reliable sources saying the anti-war voice has been silenced?
    I haven't seen any reliable sources saying their voice was silenced, just the appearance that Cantwell's campaign paid Wilson to get off the ballot.--Bobblehead 18:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. How many times do we have to have it mentioned in the article and where? It is currently in the 2nd and 4th paragraph of the Challenge from the Left section.
    It really should only be mention once. The 2nd paragraph seems most appropriate. --Bobblehead 18:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

from the first reference Bobblehead deleted: "Clearly the hope is that without Wilson in the race, the anti-war and liberal criticism will subside." [2] Without going into more word-for-word excerpts, both deleted articles are about a division in the party over the war.

Here are some additonal articles supporting this: [[3]] [[4]]. [[5]]. [[6]] The dominant interpretation of Cantwell's actions is clear and unmistakable. Emcee 00:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Also note the current wording for this statement: "By having Wilson join her campaign and then soliciting Tran, Cantwell attempted to eliminate any options anti-war Democrats had to voice their opinion on the war in the upcoming primary." Emcee 00:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

From the Washington Times article cited above: "Antiwar critics running against Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., lost one of their candidates this month when the Washington Democrat hired him to work in her campaign for $8,000 a month.

In a contest that was always one of the Republicans' better opportunities to beat an incumbent, the big story of the summer was Cantwell's decision to hire (and silence) anti-Iraq War candidate Mark Wilson, one of several war critics whose candidacies threatened her bid for a second term."

The article also mentions the solicitation of Hong Tran, in several places mentions the war issue in terms like Cantwell's "albatross," and talks specifically about the gymnastics of her campaign strategists to deal with it. Adding this as the citation to the article.Emcee 05:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I had thought this was settled... I've listed not just the Washington Times article here, but several other sources (both opinion pieces and news articles) that support this interpretation of events. You haven't listed any counterexamples that show that there was any significant controversy over what happened here in the media (Cantwell's campaign just saying it isn't so doesn't count). There should be discussion here BEFORE any changes on this issue, so we don't have to do this edit-revert-edit-revert game. Emcee 16:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
According to WP:NPOV#Attributing and substantiating biased statements, in addition to the citation, potentially biased opinions should be attributed or substantiated in the sentence. In this case substantiation wouldn't work because even if Hong Tran had dropped her bid there are several other Dems in the race that are anti-war. That leaves attribution. Basically a way to make a biased statement NPOV. --Bobblehead 17:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
There are no other democrats who could be considered earnest candidates who are anti-war options. Goodspaceguy is a space cadet, Nelson is a joker, and neither of them even have campaign websites. Mohammed Said sort of has a website (not much on it) but all three of these candidates have no campaign, no press coverage, no endorsements. None of the three have any FEC-reported fundraising either. Therefore, no VOICE for anti-war. You might consider those biased, opinionated statements, but in the realm of political analysis, these candidates are the run-of-the-mill random noise that exist in any election and for whom a vote expresses nothing other than total disillusionment.
Moreover, I find it odd that we had settled the wording here in early August, then these edits are popping up the day before the primary. Emcee 23:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
And Hong Tran and Mark Wilson has/had a campaign? :) And technically it was done 2 days before the primary, but even then one should always assume good faith and attributing them does not alter anything the sentence has to say, just makes it more NPOV. Now, if the sentence was completely deleted, then there might be an issue. --Bobblehead 00:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes they did; Tran and Wilson both gave speeches at the Democratic convention (the other 3 did not); Tran has 4 legislative district endorsements, ~$40k in contributions, a real website which lists campaign events and appearances, multiple radio interviews and news features where she discusses her positions on issues.
If the actual facts of the primary aren't enough, here's a citation -- multiple other articles cite Tran as the only serious challenger in the Democratic primary: "On the Democratic side, only challenger Hong Tran is mounting a significant campaign against U.S. Maria Cantwell; three other challengers include Mike the Mover of King County, Michael Goodspace Nelson of Seattle and Mohammad H. Said of Ephrata."[7]
assume the assumption of good faith Regardless of your motivations, re-opening this on the day before/of the primary, with no external initiation (like another user coming along and jumping in) and without discussing further on the talk page, alters the article at a critical time when both reporters and voters are viewing it for good information. Emcee 06:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
And how does attributing the claim change what it says? The only thing it does is change a POV statement to one the complies with WP:NPOV. --Bobblehead 19:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The attribution was already in the footnote; it's also not a NPOV question if, after two months now, you can't find a single reputable source that espouses an alternative (hence, "uncontroverted," which you deleted without supplying even one controverting reference). Right now, it has nothing to do with POV. Yet, you and MikeSmash continue to make these edits that imply that there is some kind of debate, without establishing through facts and citations that there actually is one -- "some" political commentators "wondered if". At least in your case, you're discussing it here; MikeSmash has made the edit or reversion several times without so much as a word of explanation. It was his recent edit that you've been following up on. In my opinion, these edits are biased and have the effect of changing the narrative of the primary election in way that does not match reality. Emcee 21:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference between citing a source and attributing a statement. Citing source means you can include the statement in the article, but you still have to attribute it to someone. As an example including "[Bush] is an idiot"[8] is includable as it is cited, but it is still a POV statement and has the appearance that it is Wikipedia that is selling Bush is an idiot, but if I include "Linda Ronstadt said '[Bush] is an idiot'"[9] then it's okay to include it because it's now been attributed to Linda Ronstadt and has a reliable source to support that statement. As for uncontroverted, read the sources you provided. The Jamieson article notes that "Cantwell's latest effort is all about co-opting liberal enemies ..." followed by "By now importing two anti-war progressives, Cantwell can let her actions speak the words she refuses to say about Iraq. She can symbolically speak to her liberal base, while avoiding saying anything about Iraq that GOP challenger Mike McGavick could claim as a flip-flop." That source is more about her incorporating the anti-war liberal voice into her campaign while not overtly changing her position than it is about eliminating options for anti-war Dems. It's great that you're a Hong Tran supporter, but the article has to be encyclopedic and present the information in a NPOV manner. --Bobblehead 23:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The difference between "Bush is an idiot" and saying Cantwell attempted "to eliminate any viable options for anti-war Democrats to voice their opinion in the upcoming primary" is that the first is clearly opinion/POV, whereas the second is an analysis of a specific action that was taken by Cantwell. A general statement of opinion like calling Bush an idiot (especially when over 50% of the country voted for him) is clearly POV; an obvious and uncontroverted analysis of events is not POV, and doesn't require an explicit in-sentence attribution. Your citation in the Jamieson article is not mutually exclusive with the statement that is in the WP article about Cantwell attempting to eliminate options to vote anti-war; thus it does not contravene it. She could be symbolically (and silently) "speaking" to her liberal base, while at the same time, eliminating anti-war voters' viable choices. But even more unfortunately for you, nobody (other than the Cantwell campaign itself) has said that she is in fact symbolically speaking to her liberal base, and Jamieson is desconstructing the campaign's official line in this article. If you read the entire article rather than clip a sentence to use as a red herring, you will see what his analysis is: "It's an understanding forged by paying folks off -- in cash or lofty posts -- to play along. . . Up next Cantwell pays Aaron Dixon's back-child-support payments and traffic fines in order to make the Green Party challenger go poof?"
If 100% of political commentators said "Bush is an idiot" and the White House issued a statement saying "Bush is not an idiot," I would not consider the first statement controverted for the purposes of an encyclopedia article.
But at least you're attempting to make an argument and citation of your unique POV defending the Cantwell campaign, which is an improvement.Emcee 02:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidates

I thought 67.185.114.32 had the most neutral method for the order of listing candidates -- in the same order as the secretary of state's ballot order. I don't see any other way to arrange them that is not biased; additionally, MikeSmash's adding "frontrunner for the nomination," is redundant with the first paragraph of the article, and unneccessary. Reverting those changes for now. Emcee 04:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Note, I also deleted Greene from the Republican candidates, as he no longer seems to be listed on the sec state's page. Emcee 05:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


The SoS filing page now has "Insufficient filing fee petition, filing disqualified." for Greene.
67.185.114.32 20:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Tran Endorsement

Deleted MikeSmash's uncited addition that Tran would endorse or vote for Cantwell. She has said in several places that she would vote for the winner of the Democratic primary, including Maria Cantwell if she wins, because she doesn't want to waste her vote and doesn't want McGavick to win. MikeSmash tries to draw a contradiction with Tran's criticism of Wilson's sudden defection to a paid position in the Cantwell camp (despite the considerable attention and shock this generated from the press and progressive faction of the party), but Wilson's change is clearly out of the norm, whereas Tran's is a very common and standard position for a candidate to take, should she lose the primary. She has never said that she would take a paid position on Cantwell's campaign, and in fact has said that she refused such an offer.

Second addition by MikeSmash:

"This leaves the Green Party's Dixon as the lone progressive anti-war candidate guaranteed to be on the November ballot."

This is basically an out-of-place advertisement for Dixon (whose page MikeSmash has spent considerable time editing); Dixon is not the only anti-war candidate guaranteed on the general ballot (Guthrie), he is not the only progressive candidate (Tran, or some could consider other 3rd party candidates progressive -- Wilson himself was a Libertarian and Green before running as a Democrat, and was considered a progressive), and not necessarily the only progressive anti-war candidate on the general ballot (Tran if she wins, or Guthrie if you consider him progressive). He is the only 1.) progressive 2.) anti-war candidate 3.) guaranteed to be on the general ballot 4.) if you don't count Libertarians and Independents... who cares. You with enough qualifiers, you could create unique conditions about any candidate to use their name more often, such as: "Cantwell is the only female candidate from Montlake Terrace guaranteed to be on the general ballot."

Emcee 00:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, he does say "should this be the case" (that she loses the primary). That said, yeah, so what? We could list a bunch of qualifications for lots of candidates. I don't think it's unreasonable to include Tran's statement that she would endorse Cantwell, though, as long as it is cited. Pudge 15:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Except that she didn't say that she would endorse Cantwell, certainly not in the NPR interview. She said that she would vote for her, but not that she would endorse her. MikeSmash tried to add this same wording on the Hong Tran page first, which I revised to the following:
"Hong Tran gave a full-hour interview to local NPR station KUOW on July 11. KUOW reported that Cantwell has refused several invitations to discuss her views on the show, citing scheduling difficulties. In the interview, Tran noted Cantwell's avoidance of debates, and challenged Cantwell to debate with her. Despite harsh criticism of Senator Cantwell and Wilson in the interview, Tran said that if she loses, she will vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election because she would want to her "vote to count", even though she said that many progressive Democrats would refuse to vote for Cantwell under any circumstances. Tran has said that Cantwell is not the most electable Democratic candidate for exactly this reason -- because she has divided the party and alienated the progressive faction to the extent that many will either stay home or vote for a third party candidate during the general election."
We can repeat all that on the general election page if you want, but it seemed more appropriate on the Hong Tran page. MikeSmash's addition as is seemed to paint Tran as a hypocritical Wilson-style sellout rather than a loyal Democrat, so that he can say the only true progressive is Aaron Dixon, which is why I removed it.
Emcee 17:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman effect

Just to respond to Emcee's edit summary:

  • The anti-war Liberals article mentions both McKinney's and Schwarz's loss, just not by name. I added the names since refering to them as a Georgian Dem and Michigan Rep isn't overly informative.
  • I missed the last paragraph in the same article. My bad.
  • As for using Lieberman's opponent instead of Lamont. It's called the Lieberman effect, not the Lamont effect and switching from referring to Lieberman to Lamont broke the continuity IMHO, but I'm cool either way.

--Bobblehead 17:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

dates

In general, I think it's distracting to make every single date a link (e.g., August 12, August 14 instead of August 12, August 14). Clicking on that date provides no info that is relevant to the article, just all the random things that have to do with that date throughout history. Except for astrologers and numerologists, I think this practice is distracting to reading an article. Unless there is opposition, I'm going to remove most of this from this article. Emcee 05:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:DATE#Dates containing a month and a day. Wikipedia has a manual of style and whenever month and day are used in articles they should normally be linked. Not sure why Wikipedia went with using the links to allow date preferences to work, but they did, so we're stuck with it. Sorry.--Bobblehead 06:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Counterpunch

Rather than just outright delete it again. I'd like y'all to please explain how a publication that advocates some of the nuttier explanations for 9/11 is reliable? Especially in regards to a situation that was covered in the local media fairly heavily when it happened and for which Aaron Dixon gave several comments, yet mentioned nothing of a buy out offer. It's even more questionable when the only source for the article is Aaron Dixon. A single source for such a claim isn't even good journalism. Hong Tran got an entire article in the PI about her job offer, there's no reason to expect a complete media silence on a similar offer to Aaron Dixon. I'm classifying the Aaron Dixon offer as a WP:RS#Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence and counterpunch is not exceptional evidence and I doubt it is even a reliable source that should be cited in any wikipedia article. Heck reviewing WP:RS#Evaluating sources should lead one to come to the conclusion that they are not a reliable source. --Bobblehead 16:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, here is a blog entry from David Postman which confirms the counterpunch article as being single sourced from the Dixon campaign. Just this time there's a denial from the Cantwell campaign that such an offer was authorized and Postman questioning why Dixon's campaign sat on the offer until just now and why they are refusing to provide the 'other' from the Cantwell campaign that contacted them. All in all, not the most reliable or information for inclusion. Although, does appear that reliable journalists are investigating the claim. --Bobblehead 16:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The Counterpunch article is not reporting the instance as fact, with multiple anonymous sources confirming; it is reporting just the opposite, using the words "Allegedly" and "As Dixon tells it." It is attributing the source. It is reporting on what Dixon told them in an interview, not what facts have been confirmed by second sources and other evidence. The Postman link shows that the Dixon campaign is in fact confirming that they are making these allegations. If anybody gets sued for slander/libel, it would be Dixon, not Counterpunch. I will alter the article a bit to highlight that this is the case. You could add a similar part about the Cantwell campaign's response. Note that Cantwell's camp saying that they "do not hire felons" is nonresponsive to the allegation, which is not that they were trying to hire Dixon, but that they were offering a fundraiser to his nonprofit in return for his dropping out. I wouldn't expect that they would want to admit this, any more than they wanted to disclose Wilson's salary when they hired him. I also do not think that this is at all an "exceptional claim", given the previous actions of the Cantwell campaign with respect to LaMagna, Wilson, and Tran. It also notes that confirming via the other half of the conversation (Wilson) is impossible right now because the campaign seems to not be letting him talk to the media. Wilson's shunning of the media was confirmed in another article that I referenced recently on the Tran page (where they called it "the political equivalent of a farm subsidy", paying Wilson to shut up).
Could you substantiate that Counterpunch is advancing nuttier theories of 9/11? This article seems to be doing just the opposite. I think they're actually trying to debunk them, because it hurts the left's credibility. Emcee 18:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear. That's what I get for trusting Wikipedia. *sigh* I meandered over to one of the articles for the 9/11 conspiracists awhile back and found a multitude of Counterpunch articles used to support 'em. A google search )9/11 conspiracy site:counterpunch.org) returns more references to 9/11 conspiracy nuts than articles supporting them. In that case, feel free to ignore me! --Bobblehead 18:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Making primary challengers' articles redirects

Following the primary, editors for other Senate races have been WP:AFDing or redirecting the articles for non-notable primary challengers to the main senate race page. Just a note, running and losing in a Senate primary isn't notable unless they were competitive and since neither the Rep or Dem races were competitive, the person would have done something notable outside of the election to keep their article. At this time the following candidates have articles:

Brad Klippert
C. Mark Greene
Hong Tran

Personally, I'm in favor of making them redirects like Mark Wilson (politician) as that retains the history in case they run again. Note, there is an initiative out there to go through and AFD the articles of people that didn't win. So, thoughts on redirecting, or should we send 'em all through AFD? --Bobblehead 15:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think what matters here is the quality of the article, and whether there was enough of a campaign and media coverage, to justify keeping their page. "In the past, election seasons have resulted in floods of articles on candidates for office. Some of them have contained little more than brief biographies of the candidates, sometimes taken directly from campaign websites. Articles for Deletion has been clogged with such articles."[10] Greene, Klippert, and Wilson all had stub articles that never got expanded; Tran's is a complete page with bio and issues, along with external links to three hour-length radio interviews and over a dozen print articles. I disagree that notable Iff competitive; Ralph Nader never even got 5% of the vote, but he has been notable as a presidential candidate for a number of different reasons, whether it was being excluded from presidential debates and disallowed entry even though he had a ticket (compare to Tran's attempts to attend coordinated campaign events), or whether it was affecting the outcome of the race itself (which is debated, but some people think that he did suck enough votes from Gore to change the results). Hong Tran remains as the only Vietnamese-American I am aware of who has ever run for federal office; her campaign was also noted in several places as the only serious challenge to Maria Cantwell in the primary, and many "political commentators" believe that she succeeded in keeping the pressure on Cantwell to address the left/anti-war vote. Beyond that, all along, people have been asking who she would vote for if she lost, and who she would endorse -- her actions in the post-primary may still be notable in the election. Her page will not be redirected or deleted. You can redirect or AFD the others if you like, though redirection is probably more appropriate since this isn't the first race for Greene, Klippert, or Wilson. Emcee 17:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Aha, that's the proposed guideline. The proposal is more than just the quality of the article, but also about the sources of the article. A dedicated supporter could build a 'quality' article using the person's campaign website. In addition to the lack of notability outside her primary candidacy, the problem with Tran's article is that it seems to meet the very problem you quoted. The only sources provided in the article to support its claims are lifts from her campaign website and a couple of links regarding Mark Wilson (which is already on this article and should not be on hers). Additionally, her stances on issues are not encyclopedic because a year from now, the only issue of any real interest about her campaign, if any, is that she was in favor of immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and Cantwell was not and that is the only aspect of her campaign that I've seen that local newspapers have focused on. I also question whether the use of campaign websites as sources meets the WP:RS requirements of WP:BLP since they are by their very nature, unduly self-serving. That being said, if Tran's article can be rewritten to meet the criteria of WP:BIO and WP:BLP I'm not opposed in the least to it being kept as a stand alone article. --Bobblehead 18:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Re. WP:BIO: She already passes the Google test, and is a statewide political figure who has received significant press not only in the state, but also multiple mentions and even a feature focused solely on her candidacy in the Washington Times (as in Washington D.C.).[11] Biographical information from a campaign website is not unduly self-serving by definition, and there is nothing I've seen in WP:RS or WP:BLP that says that it can't be used as a source. In fact, WP:BLP says just the opposite: "In some cases the subject may become involved in an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email. Or, they may provide information through press releases, a personal website or blog, or an autobiography." A lot of biographical info tends to come from the living person in some form or another anyhow, whether it be from a personal or campaign website or a personal interview.
Nonetheless, multiple print articles I have seen have used large parts of the bio that appears to be almost identical to the campaign website. So the proper approach would be to improve the page if you are dissatisfied with these aspects, rather than propose deletion. You can go through some of these in the external links and update citations if you like, or deal with specific NPOV issues if you find any, but you can't discount something as NPOV just because information is used from a person's website. Also, re. the Mark Wilson episode, there is no reason why it should not be mentioned on Tran's page as well as the election page. This doesn't have any basis in WP policy, nor do your other complaints. Let it go.Emcee 19:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Technically the proper approach would be to delete the information that isn't properly sourced on the article per WP:BLP, but you have a good point. You should also continue reading WP:BLP instead of stopping with the paragraph you agree with. The quote you provided is for removing information that is not sourced by a reliable source and is contradicted by the subject. The inclusion of information based solely on the subject has to meet the following criteria:
It's hard to consider information provided on a campaign website anything but unduly self-serving and much of the content is not relevant to her notability since her notability is due solely to her being an anti-Iraq War candidate running against Cantwell. But that's neither here nor there. :) I'll head on over later and begin the improving process and we'll see what is left. --Bobblehead 20:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you're misreading WP:BLP#Reliable_sources. The full paragraph 1 says: "In some cases the subject may become involved in an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email. Or, they may provide information through press releases, a personal website or blog, or an autobiography. When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed." The last sentence does not mean the first three are only concerning information that is unsourced and contradicted by the subject; the first three instead establish that information from sources like a personal website or press release is in fact usable as long as it meets the criteria listed in WP:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_source.
I already addressed your wayward contention that a campaign website is, by definition, unduly self-serving. Are all press releases unduly self-serving too, just because they are provided by the subject and used for public relations? Clearly not, according to WP:BLP#Reliable_sources.
As for immediately undeleting any unsourced statements, you are incorrect again on WP policy. According WP:Cite_sources#How_to_ask_for_citations, it is only unsourced or poorly sourced negative material that should be immediately removed; others you can ask for a citation. But since the Tran article is properly sourced anyway, it's a moot point. I won't protest if you want to add or replace citations with those from various print or radio media; but I will revert any deletions based on the reasoning that a campaign website is not a valid source.
Furthermore, do you even know the nature of the information you're talking about? Most of what was sourced from the campaign website was either A.) Factual biographical info such as where she went to school, how she left Vietnam, where she worked, etc., completely devoid of any possible POV; or B.) Issues -- which are her statements of which side she would take on various issues and why. Whether she's listing them on a website, or telling them to a reporter, it's the same thing. If you want to augment these with information from times she's discussed these issues in the press, feel free.
If you want to see what is meant by the citation I gave before: "In the past, election seasons have resulted in floods of articles on candidates for office. Some of them have contained little more than brief biographies of the candidates, sometimes taken directly from campaign websites. Articles for Deletion has been clogged with such articles."[12] then take a look at the tiny, low-quality articles on Klippert, Greene, and Wilson. Compare. Get it?
As for her notability, I've provided enough support for that already; and by your standards, no information added to the article could possibly be relevant to her notability because she has none (by your analysis) in the first place. That's absurd.
We've gotten pretty far from your original request to delete or redirect based on the election results, and the justifications here are getting more and more contorted. How hard are you going to work for this?Emcee 23:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_United_States_Senate_election_in_Washington/Archive_1&oldid=922284493"