Talk:Howard Dean/Archive 1

Archive 1

Older material

Good Lord. This doesn't lack a NPOV at all..... Katagelophobia 10 Sep 2003

AIPAC's position on Israel

Can some one fill me in on what AIPAC is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith03 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 14 October 2003 (UTC)

Abortion position

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)~

Wife's faith

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)

It's also ironic that this Howard Dean article mentions his wife's faith but not the faith of the subject of the article himself. Note that Wikipedia articles on 2004 Presidential candidates George_W._Bush, Joe_Lieberman and John_Kerry all emphasize the faith of the candidate, not his family (though the Wikipedia article on the first [Catholic] U.S. President, John_F._Kennedy, does not mention his religion either).

Nix the reference to his wife's religion -- it's not relevant to the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.226.48.129 (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2004 (UTC)

It's worth noting. There was a smear-by-email campaign going around that Dean was anti-Israel or even anti-semitic. For what it's worth, some people seem comforted with the knowledge that his wife is Jewish and has raised Jewish children. --cprompt 06:15, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Now it mentions both. I think it's worth keeping, as the faith of his wife and children affect a candidate (in some cases even more than the faith of the candidate himself). Anthony DiPierro 06:41, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The faith of the candidate and his family is one of the most important aspects of a candidate for a large number of Americans, because their religious position hugely effects their other positions (abortion, war etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.179.112.45 (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2004 (UTC)

The Scream

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)

I don't think so, and I think any attempt to write it will swerve sickeningly to one POV or another.

--cprompt 14:06, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Updates to sections

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)

Wally, I thought so too. But then I realized that he might run again! So this page will actually serve as an important record to see if he flip-flops on any of the issues!! (Anonymous) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.31.145.55 (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we should just save or archive the relevant sections, in that case. However, the case could be made either that it's not really our job to report such things (the certainty that others probably would notwithstanding) but, more importantly, one must likely acknowledge that unless Kerry appoints him to a [prospective] government, his political career is over (and when people like myself, who have been tacit Dean supporters since 2002, are acknowledging this, the certainty is nigh-deniable). However, I think it's still a good idea to keep everything, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to leave it in the article - it can give readers a false impression of importance where none exists. Wally 20:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wally, I agree to some extent, especially with "give readers a false impression of importance where none exists". This is a problem for Wikipedia in general, because people are over-reporting on a lot of current events and throwing ANYTHING that makes the headlines, including anything trivial or of a tabloid nature, into the Wikipedia. But regarding Dean, I would suggest waiting until at least the end of the Democratic convention, or perhaps even the end of the 2004 Presidential election, to decide what to do. When Dean's 15 minutes of fame have expired, then yeah, I would absolutely vote in favor of editing out the section on his professed views and opinions, since all of the original material is already archived. (Anonymous) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.31.143.109 (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2004 (UTC)

Add a reference?

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)

There are no articles to support that claim because it was patently false. Fuzheado's already fixed the vandalism (thanks Fuzheado). - Jim Redmond 16:30, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Scream, continued

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)

It's not about the substance of the quote. A quote is listed because it is significant, not because it is particularly logical or meaningful. This quote gained so much media attention (and partly because of its lack of "meaning") that it is appropriate to list it.--Jiang 06:02, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yeah but how can you justify quoting "YYYYYEEEEEAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!" Did he spell that out for you? What are your sources on this quote? How can you quote a scream? If I was writing down a quote of someone who made a grunting noise halfway through his sentence, I wouldn't write "So there I was grappling with Mister T, *HRRRHHRHHRHR*, and that was when I decided to quite professional wrestling." I'd write [grunting noise] or [makes struggling noise] or similar. Even beyond just the transliteration of a gutteral noise, the puncuation and word letter repetition are rather overkill. Can you argue that four exclamation marks are needed to convey what was said? What if I think it should be five? Or ten, it was rather loud. Right now it seems rather anti-Dean to keep it in as is. One could easily argue that the scream was hardly long enough to require so many repeated letters; it really was rather more of a yelp. I think to make it more... unbiased you could just drop the "YYYEEAARGH~~!~" and simply follow the quote by noting that he made a coarse, somewhat high-pitched scream which was a corruption of the word "yeah." --AA 07:26, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, maybe ours is overdoing it. A quick search and samplng of news articles online produces the following variations: Yeeeeeeah!, Yeah, Yeahhhhhhh, Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!!!!, YEAHHHH!!! --Jiang 07:43, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dean has since repeated the speech for reporters, with much less emotion, he ends with a calm "Yee hah".Ronabop 09:26, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have no issues with the current use of the quote ("Yeehah!") However, maybe an informational disclaimer could be added below it so anyone *just* reading the quotes isn't confused why this is considered quotable. Also, I agree with Jiang: Please stop the edit war Nagy and discuss why it shouln't be included, because if you delete it again and again, Jiang can and will just revert it. Given the ammount of times the issue of the "I have a scream" speech was brought up, and the general consensus that this was quite harmful to his campaign, it certainly seems relevant to the entry. --AA 22:59, 21 Feb 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)

I think it would be useful to consolidate all of the "I have a scream" stuff into one place. I can understand the desire not to have that in the "quotations" section, since there's a certain implied gravitas to that section, and having something like that is a mockery.

Proposed verbage:

At a post-caucus rally in Iowa, Dean gave an animated speech intended to cheer up those in attendance. However, many in the television audience criticized the speech as loud, peculiar, and unpresidential. [1] [2] In particular, this quote from the speech was aired repeatedly in the days following the caucus:

"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!!!"

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]

The speech was clearly important, but it's unfair to Dean and his legacy to spread the moment out over the whole article. Consolidating it in one place seems like a reasonable compromise. -- RobLa 01:43, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with RobLa--the Scream probably doesn't belong in the Quotations section, as the above addition should be sufficient to address the issue. -- 160.39.193.101 01:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Concur, and I like the write up. If we think we can keep it from getting revert-warred all over hell, put it in. Baylink 23:44, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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)

Number of delegates

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)

The Quote & Remix

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)

It's not about the substance of the quote, but the fact that it occurred and received widespread media attention. What do you think of the current wording, which describes its significance?

We don't care what Howard Dean thinks. We are not here to please him.--Jiang — Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 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)

Yes it is, but the media didn't think so and made an issue over it. That's why we included it. We are not to judge. --Jiang — Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 25 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)

To piss you off. -- 160.39.193.218 10:33, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Now Now. Lets remain civil -- Quinwound 07:00, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

"cathartic"? maybe more like defribulating to the party.--The lorax 01:16, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually the Dean camp grew quite fond of the remixed versions of his speech... and www.deangoesnuts.com was run by a Dean supporter. --Alexwcovington 23:58, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

IMO (full disclosure: I'm a Dean supporter) the quote should be in there as it illustrates that the news people had something to be apologetic *about*; I suggest we put it back in, but I'm not going to do it myself just now to avoid a revert war: let's tag our edits properly though, and log in, shall we? Baylink 23:40, 6 Nov 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)

Healthcare views

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)

"would almost certainly preclude"

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)

I don't entirely understand what you mean. DNC chairs are typically intended to serve for four years, and to preside over the next presidential nomination process, so Dean wouldn't be able to run again. (As an irrelavant-to-wikipedia aside, don't pin your hopes on fixing the party on the position of the DNC chair, which has no real authority or impact on the Democrats in Congress.) RadicalSubversiv E 06:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Improving the article

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)

Scream speech

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)

In a word, no. I'm not sure which of the several articles linked to that you're pointing to, but it's been fairly well established that the crowd was incredibly loud and Dean was using a noise-canceling microphone. Also, please use a new section at the bottom of the page when starting a discussion, and always sign your comments -- see Wikipedia:Talk pages RadicalSubversiv E 04:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for not respecting wikipedia conventions, I was talking about this article (the only one): http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_2004vote_012904dean.html Could you point to some more credible source than this article? Otherwise I would suggest changing the way this is handled. [posted by 24.232.70.180]

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)

I was there (I was staff photographer for the campaign) - I think it's a little unfair to blame the directional mic. Directional mics are standard practice for this kind of event. In the end Dean said what he said and gave the TV a sound bite that encapsulated what the media already thought; that he wasn't ready for prime time. It's hard to really convey that the sentiment amoung the media had been building for weeks unless you rode on the press bus and heard what the press had to say to each other.

Trapper 20:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

At the end of the sleepless summer tour Dean held up a bat. I remember seeing the footage of Trippi coaching Dean on how and how not to hold it up so that the media wouldn't run with the "angry" Dean sentiment they already were trying to portray.

Should the campaign have been on top of the "directional mic problem? yes. Were they? I don't know. But I have home video from early in the campaign when he spoke to a crowd of only a few hundred. We were loud. And if I would have had a directional mic I'm sure he wouldn't appear to be ready for prime time.

Michael McNett 00:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The issue of the directional Mic is a red herring. If you just read the transcript of the Iowa speech it doesn't make sense as his first introduction to many voters even without the scream, the words are wrong for the audience. It wasn't the mic that caused the problem - it was his choice of words and tone. Any political event ceases to be about the people in the room the second a TV camera is present. The staff knew this and said this many times but the candidate didn't listen.

Trapper 19:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

it was a speech to his campaign workers, how does it not make sense? i'd like to read more about this though, where can i find the thing about his staff telling him not to address his volunteers? Derex 20:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Read Joe Trippi's book - it was a speech to campaign workers but it was also the first time much of America had seen him as it was being carried live on national TV. When an event is on TV the people in the room don't matter much compared to the millions watching at home. If you read the text it's all about firing up the faithful in the room however if you have no clue who Howard Dean was it doesn't exactly make you want to vote for him. Nobody said don't talk to the campaign workers - but it was suggested that he keep in mind the home audience and concentrate on getting his message across to them. Trapper 22:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

External Links

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)

The link (which wasn't added by me) is to a lengthy piece by Clay Shirky, a fairly well-known commentator on social software. The article is an articulate, nuanced, and sympathetic argument for why the Dean campaign ultimately failed. So I think it pretty much qualifies as "high content", which is all Wikipedia:External links suggests -- it says nothing about being "authoritative". Also, please lose the self-righteous tone; acting outraged doesn't help your arguments. Finally, take note of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. RadicalSubversiv E 00:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this still doesn't fall under http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/When_should_I_link_externally. 2 posts concerning the fall of dean campaign is not "high content". How is this different from other commentators? Andrew sullivan made a nice commentary as well. Should I add that as a link? In the end this is just assumptions. There's no real proof. Also if this link is allowed.. how do you govern the similar links? There are litterally dozens. So the fact remains to me that it has to be authoritative. If howard dean himself posts how he believes the dean campaign failed then alright but until he does... these links fail to fall under external links rules. --dis- 01:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Incorect. I did not revert the last edit and I'm not being self-righteous. External links are not to be added just because you think they should be added. An external link on a commentary on the fall of the dean campaign to me fails to even be relevant to an NPOV article about Howard Dean - The man. --dis- 01:13, 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)

Sir. We are talking about this article and it's external links. If I was a machine I would go thru all the articles and delete all unncessary links. since I came to this article with existing links than by virtue I should leave it alone as I should assume noone objected. The external links policy is clear to me that you shouldn't be posting links without a reason. Links should be posted RARELY as it clearly states... so I'm actually not quite sure why you are arguing with me. I havn't heard a reason why this link should be an exception other than the fact that wikipedia seems to have an excessive amount of external links <- which has been clearly stated that it's a problem at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/When_should_I_link_externally. --dis- 02:04, 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

Inaccurate and Wrong. The link was added at 2/21/2005 with no reason. There was no justification for the adding of the link. it may be a unique perspective but fails under "high content". commentary is not necessary information and is not a reference so does not past the restrictions on external links. You are all telling me what the rules are but I have yet to hear the justification for the link in the beginning as since you two have not admitted to adding the link... exactly what standards are you talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dismao (talk • contribs) 02:34, 25 February 2005 (UTC)

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)

I'm not picking a pointless fight. You are trying to fight me on clear external links rules. You should be aware there are rules against picking on "new users". Whether the link has help you with your issues is one thing but the content of a commentary is argumentative and is no "reference'. When you make a statement you should provide proof or evidence of your position. Commentary/Editorials do not ahere necessarily to facts. if you make an article about the dean campaign and post your link there, then it would be appropriate. Otherwise, I doubt you succesfully argue the "high content" link you refer to on a Howard Dean article as following the external links rule.

I'm not exactly sure your reference of a pointless fight is advantagous to such an avid editor you imply to be and the community that consists exclusively of you. --dis- 03:08, 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)

Dear sir. The policy states exactly: Pages that are linked to in an external links section should be high content, with information that is not found in the Wikipedia article. This restriction does not apply to sites used as references. Commentary does not contain information that is not available in the article. Commentary consists of opinions and viewpoints. If you want to add any specific information from that commetnary into the howard dean article. OK. However the policy is CRYSTAL CLEAR. Also I won't be reverting the link. I will be clearly removing that link since it fails to follow external links policy. --dis- 03:27, 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)

There's no policy against linking to an opinion piece. There's no policy against linking to material that, by itself, would be inappropriate for direct inclusion because of its bias. I've looked at this particular article in response to the RfC. We shouldn't try to link to every published article about Dean, but this one is worth including. It provides the reader with more detail about one specific aspect of Dean's career (how did he go from front-runner to the back of the pack so quickly). It's not a subject that's worth going into at such length in the Wikipedia article, but it is a subject about which some readers would want more information; that's an appropriate circumstance for an external link. This particular link is not a rant, not a partisan apologia for Dean, not a hit piece criticizing him, but presents a thoughtful analysis that's worth calling to the reader's attention, whether or not you agree with it. I think an alternative view is that Dean's campaign tanked because people looked more closely at him and discovered him to be from the extreme far left of the Democratic Party. I don't think he was from the extreme far left -- if he were, I might have voted for him! -- but I'd guess plenty of people hold that view. If that view is presented in something we can link to that's of similar quality to the Shirky piece, let's include that, too.

If someone has time and energy, though, the ext links section could be improved by the addition of better descriptions of each link. For example, I'd present the Shirky link this way:

• "Exiting Deanspace" - a supporter's analysis of why the campaign failed, Feb. 3, 2004

That makes it easier for the reader to decide whether to click through to it. JamesMLane 06:10, 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

Democrats switching to Republicans text

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

Bias

This image MUST be restored. Stop censoring the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enduring FREEDOM (talk • contribs) 20:53, 18 March 2005 (UTC)

The image is a fake. Obviously. If you can't see that, I feel sorry for you. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Crazy" vandalism

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)

You know how it goes. Someone comes along and thinks they're being exceedingly witty and/or striking some kind of a blow for Real Americans by vandalizing progressive articles. And it lasts until someone reverts it.

Atlant 18:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Totally Disputed and why

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)

1. I don't think there's anything wrong with describing Dean as a firebrand, but I'll go ahead and remove it.
2. Actually, Deaniac is how they refer to themselves. (Also see [5]) So use of the term Deaniac is NPOV. --CVaneg 02:33, 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)

I would hardly count The Nation among Dean's enemies, besides which, I got that link from the Democracy for America site [6] which was founded by Dean. So really, what's the problem with the term Deaniac? --CVaneg 21:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do not remove TotallyDisputed tag

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)

Attacks on Dean

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)

That an obvious troll and likely sockpuppet continues to get away with this kind of bullshit is a sad comment on Wikipedia's continued lack of adequate enforcement mechanisms. On the substantial issues -- "insurgent" is not an insult, Dean's candidacy fits the dictionary definition rather exactly, and Google demonstrates it's a very common label. The claim that Dean spent a year skiing and smoking pot is well-sourced and apparently accurate. RadicalSubversiv E 00:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's time to protect this article for a while

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)

Proposed compromise on the "scream speech"

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)

"More Info" edits

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)

Dozens of politicians and pundits have commented on Dean's remarks. You've arbitrarily selected one who was critical, and quoted it at length without making even a cursory effort to explain its relevance or significance. Then you've got the article stating "Dean's comments will alienate many voters" as if it were objective fact, and supplied a silly snide remark from John McCain to that effect. None of that qualifies as useful content. If you want to add an NPOV summary of the reaction to Dean's remarks, feel free -- but this isn't it. RadicalSubversiv E 04:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've change the "seeing that Howard Dean's" to "believing that Howard Dean's" to make it more fair. And once again if you want to make it more balanced simply add more quotes from the opposing point of view. -- Judson 05:46, 19 Jun 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)