Talk:2006 Virginia's 2nd congressional district election

Was there a primary?

I checked out http://sbe.virginiainteractive.org/index.htm, and I didn't see any primary information for the district. So it got me wondering if there was a primary at all. (I have no idea -- I live in Virginia's 11th congressional district one of the two districts that actually did have a primary. -- Sholom 21:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No - there wasn't a primary (or, if you will, there wasn't a vote because there was no need for one). I tried to make that clearer in the article. John Broughton 22:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Information from User:Mosquito pest

The following was deleted from the Thelma Drake article because it belongs in this article. However, since it is unsourced, I am posting it here rather than adding it to the main page. John Broughton 15:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Drum Major Institute for Public Policy awarded Thelma Drake an F for her voting record. The latest polls state that this incumbent's is at high risk for losing her seat due to her challenger Phil Kellam. Kellam is currenlty at 45% and Drake is at 42%. The polling for voter satisfactions shows that 53% ov her constituents are dissatisfied with Drake's performance with only 36% of her constituents are satisfied with her record.

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths to which you Kellamites will work to corrupt these Wikipedia articles with your ridiculous campaign material. Your posting of selectively edited sections of articles, selective polls, and unsourced "polls" and other unsourced rumors and innuendo reveal just how desperate and pathetic you people are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.180.8 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 2 August 2006

Anonymous user, do you even believe the stuff your posting? This is the TALK PAGE, and John Broughton is putting the material here because it is unsourced, beyond "The Drum Major Institute for Public Policy", which I believe is a liberal online blog or some such. IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN ANY ARTICLE. You're attacking John Broughton, calling him "pathetic" because he REMOVED a piece of liberal criticism from the article. The other material you have been removing is very clearly sourced to the Washington Post and CQPolitics. Are you just trolling for fun at this point? Lucky Adrastus 01:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Simplifications

This article's oversimplistic characterization of the candidate's positions on the issues leaves readers with inaccurate impressions. To wit, there is no credible source for the proposition that Drake favors privatizing Social Security. She favored a plan that would allow TWO PERCENT of payroll reduction to be invested in government-selected private investments, while the large majority of remaining funds would remain in the current program. Additionally, Drake has never said that she favors all offshore drilling unconditionally. What she faovrs is a specific plan to allow exploration with the potential for later drilling in an area 100 miles off of the Virginia coast if it can be done in an environmentally safe manner. Until a more accurate statement of Drake's positions is posted without reversion back to this anti-Drake spin, I will continue to warn readers of the Kellam campaign's use of this page for propaganda purposes.

Rather than continue to warn readers about the inaccurate and misleading information that has been presented here for the past several weeks, I have gone ahead and provided more detailed descriptions of the candidates' positions on the issues as well as a block quote from the local Virginian-Pilot that counterbalances the very biased block quote already posted from the non-local Washington Post. These additions are immensely fair and accurate, and their removal would only prove that this page is being abused by Kellam supporters who are unwilling to allow readers a balanced perspective on the race. 20:41, 17 August 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.188.183.5 (talk • contribs)

Why did you cite from what appeared to be a newspaper article on the Thelma Drake campaign website, rather than using what was on the newspaper's website? Is it because if you had, readers would have seen that you were citing at length from an editorial? Do you know the difference in credibility between an editorial in a small newspaper and a news article in a large newspaper, like the Washington Post?

I reverted all your changes because I couldn't figure out how to disentangle potentially useful stuff (it's okay to quote an editorial, A LITTLE BIT, if you identify the text as such, for example) from your attacks on others who don't agree with you -- for example, changing a section heading to "Spin by Kellam's supporters".

May I suggest that you post each proposed change HERE, in individual sections (so, if seven changes, then seven sections), for separate discussions? And please sign your posts on talk pages like this one. John Broughton 22:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you reverted all of my changes shows categorically that you people refuse to post fair and balanced material here and insist on using this page as a propaganda site to support Phil Kellam. Your unmitigated arrogance and absolute refusal to engage fairly in the arena of ideas is truly pathetic. I tried to be fair, and you refuse to be reasonable. So be it...

I realize you leftiest wingnuts have nothing better to do with your time than to discredit services like Wikipedia in your corrupt drive to obtain power. I've been fighting to make this article fair and balanced, and you insist on using this article as a campaign site. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." I will not go away. 23:22, 17 August 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.180.8 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for confirming that you and 155.188.183.5 are the same person. Thus the 3RR rule applies to the combined usage of the two accounts - if, between you and any/all 155.x accounts, you do more than 3 reverts in 24 hours to any given article, the 3RR rule applies and all accounts get an automatic 24 hour block. John Broughton 12:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, the other day, my rabbi was telling me, "You leftist wingnut, your corrupt drive to obtain power is discrediting Wikipedia." I asked him to give me a break since it's Shabbat, but he pointed out that "All that is necesarry for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." He just takes Virginia Congressional elections that seriously. Lucky Adrastus 05:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Resolving differences

The phrase "good men" is interesting. Do "good men" refuse to explore alternatives when they reach an impasse? Do "good men" say that those who don't agree about how a wikipedia article reads are "evil". (You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Good faith.) Do good men repeatedly refuse to participate in neutral processes designed to resolve differences? Exactly what is the difference between a "good man" and a man who stubbornly refuses to negotiate, refuses to admit mistakes (for example, citing an EDITORIAL as if it were a news article), and continues to insult those who ask him to behave reasonably?

I posted an offer about negotiating on the Thelma Drake talk page; I'm repeating the link here so it's prefectly clear that YOU are the problem, and that EVERYONE ELSE is willing to follow the processes in wikipedia to resolve this. This isn't the first time this has been offered, and it probably won't be the last. And if you don't trust wikipedia processes to be neutral, then apparently your definition of evil includes those who designed and run the wikipedia project as well as the half-dozen or so people who are reverting your changes. John Broughton 12:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

How am I supposed to negotiate with people who remove detailed issue positions in favor of oversimplistic misrepresentations of candidates' positions. I won't and should not be expected to compromise on an issue as fundamental as factual accuracy. And by the way, yes, I did quote an editorial page and presented it as "analysis," not objective fact. The "analysis" posted as a block quote from the Washington Post is so blatantly POV that it could have come from the Kellam campaign itself. The fact of the matter is that I posted fair, detailed, balanced information regarding the candidates' positions on issues, and that information was deleted in favor of factually inaccurate simplistic one-word characterizations. You want me to compromise on this subject? How? By agreeing to allow you guys to post only somewhat inaccurate issue positions? Give me a break! It is obvious that you people are using this page to promote your left-wing agenda and candidate, and I will not sit back and let you get away with it. 16:30, 18 August 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.188.183.6 (talk • contribs)

How are you supposed to negotiate? First, you could do what I suggested above, and will repeat here: ... post each proposed change [to the article] HERE, in individual sections (so, if seven changes, then seven sections), for separate discussions. (If you object to a section heading, say that, and why. If you want text deleted, specify it, and say why. If you want to add something, list it, and say why, etc.) I promise to respond to each. For example, I don't have any problem with including some information (but less than you added) to the article that is from the opinion/editorial in the local paper, as long as it is clear that the statements are from an editorial and not a regular article - so that section could negotiate on the exact language to go into the article.

Second, alternatively, you can select one of several possible wikipedia dispute resolution processes, which will bring other editors - people NOT involved so far - into this discussion to help. John Broughton 13:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Virginia's 2nd 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sbe.vipnet.org/june2006/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/06/va_2_kellam_complicating_drake.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20070610192831/http://elections.us.reuters.com/top/news/usnN31248778.html to http://elections.us.reuters.com/top/news/usnN31248778.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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)