257:, still missing from Knowledge but not conveyed by this link. It would be along the lines of: "Bush came to office having finished second in the popular vote, and promised to be a uniter not a divider. Nevertheless, he governed from his base. He played heavily to his bases on the Christian right (abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, channeling government money to religious institutions, etc.) and among the wealthy (huge tax cuts for the rich, reduced regulatory oversight of business). He led the nation into a divisive war and impugned the patriotism of anyone who disagreed with him. The Civil Rights Commission denounced his regressive policies. The Sierra Club called him the worst environmental president in history. As a result, when he sought re-election he had little opportunity to win support from people who opposed him. Instead, his campaign aimed to mobilize his base and to attract a few swing voters who felt nervous about replacing a 'war President' at time of conflict (which the American electorate has never done)." Obvously, that would need a
221:
We can simply report it in the article. As I stated above, I think it's covered adequately now. If it weren't, the solution would be to add something like, "After the unusually bitter campaign and the close finish, many of the people who had voted against Bush were very unhappy." Is that the information that the link is supposed to convey? I also don't understand Zen Master's comment, "rv, sigh. If that link is unacceptable 90% of links on wikipedia are unacceptable." Just in this section of links, we see links that report self-selected poll results from non-Americans. That gives information that's relevant to the article but isn't important enough to be covered in the article with as much detail as the external link has. Those links seem fine to me. When you get to the point of linking to convey the information that the
Cornell Womens Study Department backed Kerry, though (
318:(there are many other counter sites). Can the link be added back if we balance the POV by adding a link to the counter/alternative POV website(s)? Should I go about removing links to all op-ed articles and message boards on this and other articles to fully and fairly implement your logic? (just scratching the surface of the implications of your logic) What is encyclopedic about having a link to "Over 3000 Links..." on the page? The link you removed would additionally be acceptable in an "Election Discussion" link sub-section. Again, the information requirement you are looking for is the people themselves, it's a visual discussion website. In that sense it
262:
president since FDR -- that is, a lower percentage of support among
Democrats than his father or even Reagan had, and lower also than Clinton's or Carter's percentage of support among Republicans. I think that whole constellation of facts is a large part of why SorryEverybody exists -- because Bush was so divisive. Linking to the site, though, doesn't add to the statements in the article that the campaign was intense and Bush's margin slim.
31:
297:. What is wrong with a site that has images of people that claim to have voted against bush? This is an election article, that link by definition is election relevant. The information is who the individual people themselves are that do not support Bush. You are ignoring the spirit of wikipedia, that link is to a community oriented visual discussion website between America and the world. By your logic links to all
458:"Using final vote percentages from electoral-vote.com, I made a map showing the percentage of āredā voters in each state along with the percentage of āblueā voters. The color on top of each state shows the party that won that stateās electoral votes. (Note: this is not perfectly scientific, as my approximations were made by eye, but I tried to be as accurate as possible for the purpose of this exercise.)
220:
I don't understand on what basis "therapy is acceptable". In the real world, of course it is, but it's not a valid purpose of a
Knowledge article. The standard here is information. That there was widespread dissatisfaction is certainly information, but we don't need a "demonstration" of that fact.
353:
I'm surprised that you claim I'm "stuck on 'therapy'" -- I merely responded to your use of that word. The "information" about what some Bush opponents (or their dogs or children) look like, or the names of some of the 56 million of us, just doesn't add to the article. I haven't checked every other
675:
It seems a mite ridiculous to edit the electoral vote table to include the mythical "John L. Kerry". It was an obvious error, and I'm betting that when
Congress certifies the electoral vote totals on January 6 they'll give New York's votes to Kerry. When that happens, hopefully we can eliminate the
393:
originally as an attempt at humor, not as a link defense argument. It's a completely valid post-election discussion website. It should be added just because of the "humor" factor, there are countless links on wikipedia just like that. In fact, I could argue the sorryeverybody.com site is popular
313:
POV it means a balance of all points of view. All the links in that section are exactly the same as the one you removed, some are to message boards, why did you single out that link? Ironically, the top message board post on the "theworldspeaks.net" site currently is a link to the counter site of
461:
Here we see a slightly better representation of the feelings of the
American populace. Those red states have a lot of blue in them. The reverse also holds true for the blue states, with the notable exception of Washington, D.C., where an overwhelming 90% of citizens voted for Kerry. D.C. is only 6
261:
of work to be properly NPOV'd and sourced. There are commentators who could be cited for the point that Bush governed, and campaigned, from his base, and did not make significant efforts to be a uniter. IIRC, there are also poll results showing Bush with the least "crossover" appeal of any
129:
There are a gazillion worse links on wikipedia. A link in and of itself is not encycolpedic. Perhaps it should be moved to a link section titled "Post-election reaction and commentary". That website is not really an anti anything site, it's merely therapy for those with post election
112:
It's "lame" in the sense that it has no useful content for an encyclopedia reader. There are a gazillion anti-Bush and anti-Kerry sites out there, but most of our external links seem to include useful information such as raw data and solid analysis. The Sorry link contains none.
476:
There should be some specialist geographical projections in existence which show the States in terms of "area proportional to population". Otherwise in order to represent voter numbers accurately, why not supplement the map with a simple 2 line bar chart something like this:
103:
as "lame", but I don't see the point of including it in external links. It illustrates that Bush had substantial opposition and that there was more intensity on both sides than in the average U.S. presidential election. Both those facts are already noted in the article.
466:
That's a great idea...possibly easier to read than a "purple" map. However, on your website you mentioned it wasn't done scientifically. Couldn't there be a program to fill states accordingly to remove any possibility of bias either way?
394:
enough to warrant it's own wikipedia article, which would make it even more relevant for inclusion here. But if I am the only non-anon user defending that link then I defer to the group/you, but we remain in disagreement.
497:
are we going to use my map, which has the same colours as the previous 40 or so elections, and which looks professional, or are we using this amatuer map which is currently posted, but which is in the "proper colours"
145:
I agree that it's therapy. That's why I've visited it several times. But in saying that it's therapy, you confirm my point that it doesn't belong here. The purpose of this article isn't therapy, it's information.
599:. Unfortunately, I didn't see any place on the site that indicates the source of the numbers. It would be helpful if people would list on this talk page the sources they're using for vote totals.
596:
At this point there is no "official" source, as far as I know. Several states are still counting. In a quick web search, I found our current number for Bush's vote total (61,194,773) at this site:
577:
Yeah, it indeed needs to be on one of the two pages and clearly linked to and/or easy to find. I had trouble finding it, and it's information that needs to be readily available on
Knowledge. --
165:
I believe therapy is acceptable in the context of "post-election reaction and commentary" as I mentioned above, but if I am the only one defending it then I defer to the will of the people.
528:
The results table doesn't seem to be working - none of the cell borders are showing up, making it look very ugly - and it doesn't match the tables on the other presidential election pages.
86:
81:
69:
64:
59:
541:
It looks fine to me. I was actually planning to go back and change the tables for the other electionsāI think this version looks a lot less crowded and is easier to look at. --
515:
It does look odd going through every election in history and seeing
Republican as blue and Democrat as red, and then coming to this map and seeing them switched.
47:
17:
620:
but they won't have all the certificates of votes in until Dec 22. 34 States are in at NARA so someone can compare or change the totals once they all get in.
567:
719:
I tried to find a somewhat authoritative source for the record turnout edit (highest since '68, in the
Overview), but could only come up with this
639:
Did NY cast its electoral votes for John L. Kerry (and not John F. Kerry)? Can someone explain this or do we have to have two listings of EVs for
707:
358:(photos of Bush supporters or their SUVs or their guns) and found it equally worthless in terms of adding any information to this article.
634:
354:
link in the article. Maybe some others should go (though not 90%). It's not a question of balancing POV. I took a quick look at
563:
38:
592:
Some of the numbers (vote totals) here seem a bit off; what do
Wikipedians use as the "official" tally source?
616:
686:
479:
660:
425:
My name is Chaz and I think the link should stay. How is that anonymous? I can be blocked just like you.
667:
621:
608:
502:
720:
666:
Looks like he's down to 220 electoral votes. I guess it doesn't matter if he overturns ohio now. Ā :)
117:
578:
468:
682:
681:
I'll refrain from commenting on the fact that
Democratic electors seem awfully error-proneĀ :)
447:
656:
485:
Do we need to show numbers of voters, in an article on the question of "election fairness"?
600:
597:
555:
395:
359:
323:
263:
166:
147:
131:
114:
105:
607:
I was using that same site. I don't know any other sites that update the vote totals.
254:
189:
728:
696:
648:
644:
640:
516:
509:
566:. Presumably the contents of that page will eventually be divided between this and
542:
453:
706:
New York submitted an amended page 3 that corrects this mistake. Take a look at
655:
I guess we'll find out on January 6 when Congress counts the votes.... *shrug* --
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
501:
if you REALLY want I can do a professional looking map with the proper colours
222:
193:
Keep it, it's a good demonstration of the disatisfaction of half of America.
486:
462:
pixels high on this map, but to be fair I gave the bottom row to red."
100:
723:. As of 12:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC), the official website for the
554:
What happened to the per state results table? It's missing.
253:
There is some related information for this article and/or for
25:
695:
At least the NY certificate didn't say "Patrick Buchanan"Ā :)
322:
should be allowed on wikipedia because it's groundbreaking.
724:
448:
http://www.pascal.com/diary/images/2004-11-05/redvsblue.gif
355:
293:
Your position is untenable, you are stuck thinking it is
188:
No Zen-master, you are not the only person defending it.
99:
I emphatically don't agree with VV's characterization of
446:
This map should be included with the rest of the maps:
727:
looks like it hasn't been updated in a few years. -
442:Map showing percent of blue and red in each state.
725:Committee on the Study of the American Electorate
562:I don't think it was ever on this page. It's on
454:http://www.pascal.com/diary/archives/000232.php
18:Talk:2004 United States presidential election
8:
305:should be disallowed? NPOV does not mean
568:U.S. presidential election, 2004 (detail)
478:
224:), I think the granularity is excessive.
629:New York votes for "John L. Kerry"Ā ???
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
24:
130:depressed-democrat disorder.Ā :-)
534:The current revision looks good.
481:File:Example USA voter graph.PNG
29:
564:2004 U.S. election in progress
1:
676:extraneous row in the table.
550:State by State Results Table
745:
651:00:39, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
731:12:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
699:07:24, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
611:02:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
558:18:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
505:02:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
489:01:54, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
108:06:33, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
670:16:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
663:00:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
624:00:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
603:12:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
545:02:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
519:18:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
398:18:31, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
362:18:15, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
356:http://werenotsorry.com/
326:17:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
316:notsorrynoteverybody.com
266:16:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
169:06:53, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
150:06:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
134:06:44, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
122:06:35, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
721:Washington Post article
581:23:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
471:23:15, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
452:It's on this webpage:
314:the link you removed,
615:The official site is
42:of past discussions.
508:edit- sorry, its me
95:Sorryeverybody link
92:
91:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
736:
588:Official source?
484:
482:
120:
78:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
744:
743:
739:
738:
737:
735:
734:
733:
717:
633:Take a look at
631:
590:
552:
526:
495:
480:
444:
118:
97:
74:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
742:
740:
716:
715:Record turnout
713:
712:
711:
703:
702:
701:
700:
690:
689:
678:
677:
672:
671:
664:
630:
627:
626:
625:
618:
605:
604:
589:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
579:Doctorcherokee
572:
571:
551:
548:
547:
546:
538:
537:
536:
535:
525:
522:
521:
520:
494:
491:
475:
473:
472:
469:Doctorcherokee
443:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
303:message boards
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
255:George W. Bush
238:
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
229:
228:
227:
226:
225:
205:
204:
203:
202:
201:
200:
199:
198:
197:
196:
195:
194:
177:
176:
175:
174:
173:
172:
171:
170:
156:
155:
154:
153:
152:
151:
138:
137:
136:
135:
124:
123:
96:
93:
90:
89:
84:
79:
72:
67:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
741:
732:
730:
726:
722:
714:
709:
705:
704:
698:
694:
693:
692:
691:
688:
684:
683:VoiceOfReason
680:
679:
674:
673:
669:
665:
662:
658:
654:
653:
652:
650:
646:
645:John L. Kerry
642:
641:John F. Kerry
637:
636:
628:
623:
619:
617:
614:
613:
612:
610:
602:
598:
595:
594:
593:
587:
580:
576:
575:
574:
573:
569:
565:
561:
560:
559:
557:
549:
544:
540:
539:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
524:Results table
523:
518:
514:
513:
512:
511:
506:
504:
499:
492:
490:
488:
483:
470:
465:
464:
463:
459:
456:
455:
450:
449:
441:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
397:
392:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
361:
357:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
325:
321:
317:
312:
308:
304:
301:articles and
300:
296:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
265:
260:
256:
252:
251:
250:
249:
248:
247:
246:
245:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
239:
223:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
206:
192:
191:
190:
187:
186:
185:
184:
183:
182:
181:
180:
179:
178:
168:
164:
163:
162:
161:
160:
159:
158:
157:
149:
144:
143:
142:
141:
140:
139:
133:
128:
127:
126:
125:
121:
116:
111:
110:
109:
107:
102:
94:
88:
85:
83:
80:
77:
73:
71:
68:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
718:
710:Dec 29, 2004
668:24.0.239.252
643:and one for
638:
632:
622:24.0.239.252
609:24.0.239.252
606:
591:
553:
527:
507:
503:24.222.31.82
500:
496:
474:
460:
457:
451:
445:
390:
319:
315:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
258:
98:
75:
43:
37:
657:Goobergunch
493:Map colours
36:This is an
601:JamesMLane
556:Zen Master
396:Zen Master
360:JamesMLane
324:Zen Master
320:definitely
264:JamesMLane
167:Zen Master
148:JamesMLane
132:Zen Master
106:JamesMLane
87:ArchiveĀ 6
82:ArchiveĀ 5
76:ArchiveĀ 4
70:ArchiveĀ 3
65:ArchiveĀ 2
60:ArchiveĀ 1
729:Walkiped
697:Jewbacca
649:Jewbacca
517:Juppiter
510:Pellaken
101:the site
543:bdesham
391:therapy
389:I used
309:POV or
295:therapy
39:archive
119:Verily
311:bland
299:op-ed
16:<
708:NARA
635:NARA
115:Very
487:FT2
259:lot
647:?
467:--
307:no
687:?
685:|
661:?
659:|
570:.
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
