Talk:2006 Ohio gubernatorial election

Intro section NPOV
While the subsections seem to include all candidates, the overview at the beginning only mentions Republicans and Democrats - half of the candidates on the ballot. - Marknoble 13:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the article, if anything, is pro-minor-party POV. Who cares about the news release announcing that the minor candidates qualified for the ballot?  And there's some ridiculous language in the version I'm reading right now (minor parties were "carefully" omitted from the debates?).  I'll probably have a go at it soon.--Inonit 16:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's extremely newsworthy for two politicians are afraid to debate an accredited economist, so yeah people seem to care when the truth is told --Ohio Accountability 17:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you sure they're "afraid?" Or is it that Peirce et al. weren't invited to the debates?  (Hint:  Check Peirce's own campaign web site for the answer.)  This might, or might not, be a better world if Bill Peirce's campaign were doing better, or getting better coverage, or whatever.  But Wikipedia is about this world.  There are plenty of other places on the web to campaign.  Note that the person who started this thread just happens to share a name with Peirce's running mate.--Inonit 19:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's entirely objective to say that the election will be between Candidates A, B, C, and D, all of whom are on the ballot. To marginalize candidates C and D is to presuppose (and perhaps even influence) the outcome. 69.88.37.161 05:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and it's objective to choose to focus on the two candidates who have literally dozens of times as much support as the others. (This support has been objectively measured, despite blatant pro-Peirce editors' efforts to say stuff like "Peirce has 2%, but given the margin of error in the polls, it's hard to say how much support there really is.")  The main question is not one of objectivity, but one of Neutral point of view, and whether it makes sense to treat all the candidates equally when there is plenty of evidence that two of them have more (not just more, much more) support than any of the others, and that the others have no chance of winning.  The article currently is approximately a couple of thousand words about a vast campaign, and wasting two sentences talking about how one of the candidates showed up to a debate and held a press conference to protest his exclusion is, in my view, giving that particular of aspect of the election Undue weight.  I'm not arguing that the two minor candidates shouldn't be mentioned.  I'm just arguing that insignificant facts (like that one about the debate) only would belong in a book-length treatment of the subject.  As for "presupposing" the outcome, there's plenty of objective evidence to support the presupposition.  As for "influencing" the outcome, this is an encyclopedia, not a referee of the campaign.--Inonit 13:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Who are you to make the judgement call as to what's "insignificant" or not. I thought the point of Wikipedia was to be objective and simply report the facts. Here's some facts that are not reported here: 1) Peirce has attended every Strickland/Blackwell joint event in protest of his exclusion; 2) At the Sept 20th debate in Cleveland, Peirce had two supporters in chicken costumes show up and mock the two major party candidates for not having Peirce prt of the debate, and those those supporters were arrested . I think we're being a bit cavalier when we talk about what's significant and what's not when we should instead be updating this page in an objective manner that emcompasses all parties's participation in the race.


 * That is not "the point of Wikipedia." See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  See also Undue weight as for arguments for why the article should not be one-quarter about Bill Peirce, despite the fact that he is one-quarter of the candidates on the ballot.  Stunts like people dressing in chicken costumes to support a candidate with 2% in the polls do not rise to the threshold of inclusion in a 2,000-word article about the Ohio gubernatorial election, in my opinion.  As for "who am I," I'm just an editor trying to make Wikipedia better.  If anything is "the point of Wikipedia," that is.--Inonit 10:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Because like... Wikipedia has a limit on article lengths, right? Come on, lame excuse. If anything, this deserves mention if only as a debate controversy. Bloggers have pointed it out and it's made news several times now, so it *is* a valid issue for inclusion.


 * If we included everything that had made as much news as this "controversy," this article would be book-length. (And I can't help but observe that the only subjects you want to treat with that level of detail have to do with Bill Peirce.)  And if we included everything "bloggers have pointed out" ... [shudder].  The Internet is a big place.  Searching Google for "bill peirce" ohio governor debate gives 601 results.  Searching Google for "ted strickland" ohio governor debate gives 71,300.  "ken blackwell" ohio governor debate gives 96,900.  I don't think that's a "lame excuse" to treat Peirce as a minor candidate.  If we use those ratios, Bill Peirce deserves about 0.5% of the article, so in a 2,000-word article, he gets 10 words.  I'm just trying to keep the article NPOV.  Overemphasizing your favored minor-party candidate -- giving him more weight than his campaign's notability justifies -- is POV.--Inonit 01:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"Smear"
I've seen references to this "smear" appear in several articles now ... in a still-very-short article about an election campaign in which not a single issue position of either candidate is mentioned, this sort of ephemera is unencyclopedic unless it becomes the defining issue of the campaign, which I imagine it will not be. Blackwell's quote about how homosexuality is curable is much more notable; at least it came from the candidate. Thus I am removing this reference for now.--Inonit 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Race
In the introduction, it mentions that Ken Blackwell is an "African-American Republican". I think this reference is irrevelant at best, if not somewhat suspect. When we see the picture of him in the article we can determine his ethnicity anyway. Thus I'm removing this language. Bcirker 16:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Gotta say I disagree pretty strongly here. African-American outreach is a big emphasis with the GOPers these days, and African-American Republicans are still pretty unusual. I'd say it's on a par with mentioning that Mitt Romney is a Mormon, or that Ronald Reagan is a movie star.  In all cases one of the interesting things about the candidate is some aspect of his identity; I don't think it's suspect to mention it just because it happens to be race here.  Clearly it's relevant to voters -- at least black voters -- or Blackwell wouldn't get more black votes than other Republicans do (30-40% in previous races).  But not reverting yet; let's see what you (or others) think.--Inonit 18:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me clairify why I removed it. I agree that race could be a factor in the election, and the fact that Blackwell is African-American and Republican is unusual. However, the way it was described previously comes off as Tokenism. It did not also say "Ted Strickland is a White Democrat", which sounds kind of silly when you look at it from the other side. Certainly I think the article can and should discuss the effect that ethnicity may play, but perhaps it can be done in the polling section in terms of how various groups are leaning towards one candidate or another, rather than just including the token remark. Bcirker 19:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, in my view, calling Strickland a "white Democrat" would indeed be silly, because white Democrats are not rare. But maybe if Strickland were Asian it would make sense to mention his race as well (because a high-level Asian office-seeker is still relatively rare).  Or if he were Muslim (for example) it would also be highly notable.  I think I can agree with removing it from the first sentence where we are very formally describing the candidates.  But I think if we have any discussion of the candidates themselves that the fact that Blackwell is African-American would go in the first sentence, along with some attempt at neutrally wording "very conservative" or "socially conservative" or "socially and fiscally very conservative" or something.  With Strickland, the appropriate interesting facts would probably be "pro-gun-rights" or "anti-gun-control."  But there would be less about Strickland, I think.  I have long advocated that Blackwell be the protagonist in this article, as he is better-known nationally and more notable overall (his race being an important part of that notability, in my view).  But as you will see from the remainder of the Talk page my main task recently has been keeping less than half the article about minor party candidates. :) --Inonit 19:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Subtle fairness issue
I notice that when I scroll down, the first thing I see besides the flag of Ohio is Ken Blackwell. To see Ted Strickland, I have to scroll down quite a bit more past Bob Taft. While the effect Taft has on the election is important, shouldn't we at least present the candidates that are actually running first? And also perhaps put the pictures side by side? Or am I just nitpicking here? Bcirker 01:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Oh yeah and Tom Noe is there too...Bcirker 01:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, for the reasons I stated above in the "Race" discussion, I agree with making the article somewhat Blackwell-centric (and treating Strickland somewhat as a foil). And Taft is surely very significant here.  We could do the pictures differently, though -- I think the approach for which I'm arguing has more to do with words than images, and I can appreciate the convention of describing an election with dueling pictures of the candidates side-by-side.  But I am wary of how exactly to discuss this sort of change for fear that the minor party fans who inhabit this page will be back demanding a picture of Bill Pearce right beside the two of them.  I don't think "fairness" (using the term the way you are using it, and the way that the Pearce/Fitrakis people surely will if they read this) is necessary in an encyclopedia.  At this point, this election is still more about Blackwell than Strickland.  If Strickland becomes president some day, we may have to come back and write this article more as history about his rise, but he's not as notable as Blackwell at the moment.  As for your other point, I think the Noe pic is going a bit far.  I'd probably remove it.  There may have been a time at which it made sense but I haven't been hearing the word Noe as the campaign unfolds (all the shenanigans with Noe have probably been folded into general unhappiness with Taft).  So I guess I could argue with having the Taft pic first also, as we talk about Taft first when we talk about how he can't run for re-election.--Inonit 10:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Peirce and Fitrakis should both have their photos at the top considering they are both on the ballot. And it's not about fairness, it's about accurate reporting. Wikipedia omitting them or downplaying their candidacy just propagates the issue they are raising in not being able to get media coverge in the first place. We should be a shining example of full and complete coverage that the media follows, not just parroting the same excuses for omissions.


 * There are a lot of facts that are accurate that are not encyclopedic (because they are less important than other facts). After this election is over it will have made absolutely no difference who those candidates were.  I suppose you think United States presidential election, 2004 should give equal weight to George W. Bush, John Kerry and Michael Badnarik (the Libertarian nominee, for those people who shockingly fail to remember him).  After all, Badnarik was "on the ballot."  In all 50 states.  Anyway, the persistence of pushing the minors, and particularly Peirce (I notice there's a chicken photo now) has worn me out.  I'll check back after the election, when Peirce polls 2% or whatever, and see whether people will allow me to treat him as less important then.--Inonit 17:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * During the election or any on-going event, all sides should be considered equal from a NPOV. After the elections, it should shake out that the coverage is based on who polled the highest. When talking about a NPOV in current events, the code of ethics for journalism dictates that *all* sides should be presented without bias. Our news media may have completely gone off the deep end on ethics in unbiased campaign coverage, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia has to follow that shoddy standard.

Please sign your comments with four tildas  Thank you. Bcirker 23:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ohio's Electoral Votes
I'm new to this whole Wikipedia thing, but I noticed in this article the following statement under the Historical Background: National Attention page, which I do not think is true:

"Further illustrating the role of Ohio in 2008 is the fact that, throughout the history of the United States, there has never been an elected president who did not first win the electoral votes of Ohio."

I've heard this sort of thing before, but I think the truth is more like, all but two Presidents since World War II have won Ohio's electoral votes. Besides, there were several presidential elections before Ohio became a state in 1803. --Inexorability 03:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that this is incorrect -- Kennedy in 1960 did not win Ohio. But it might be true that no Republican has won without winning Ohio (this has the advantage of only taking us back to 1860, for one thing).--Inonit 12:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Polling Dates
I request everyone here date the new polls they add to the survey section by the last day the instruments were administered in the field, not the first date on which the polls made headlines. This gives the consumer of this page a better sense of the chronology of the "public opinion" documented by them. Earthliberator 17:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I haven't the time for this, but would someone go back, inspect all of the poll results heretofore obtained, and redate/order them if necessary according to the above criterion--the last date the poll was administered in the field? If we do not do this, we could end up giving an improper and distorted impression of public opinion.Earthliberator 17:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Post-election revisions
I'm back (for better or worse, depending on your perspective), now that the election is over -- not to settle old scores, but to proceed with encyclopedia-izing this article. I know there was some contentious discussion on this page about whether we were being "fair" to Fitrakis and Peirce during the campaign, etc. I personally think of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, not a news outlet, and hence I disagreed with the journalism-style arguments, etc. That discussion is over, and I conceded it during the campaign. Now, I've started a good-faith effort to clean up the article to make it more encyclopedic both by de-emphasizing the candidates who turned out not to matter much (not a slap, just an observation of the results) and starting the process of contextualizing what happened. Much more work to do, to which I hope many will contribute. I just wanted to leave some sort of message since I'm making some bold edits already.--Inonit 14:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Blackwell and 2004
Made a first attempt at fleshing that out a little bit, while not making it too long (there's another whole article on it). I haven't yet made an effort to harmonize it with the main article, so that's on my to-do list unless someone gets to it first. I think some better scrutiny of exit polls would give us more information about the degree to which it impacted Blackwell on Election Day.--Inonit 17:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Thomas W Noe.jpg
The image Image:Thomas W Noe.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --12:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Ohio gubernatorial 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110512013056/http://www.middletownjournal.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2006/11/08/ddn110806gov.html to http://www.middletownjournal.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2006/11/08/ddn110806gov.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060526052529/http://rasmussenreports.com:80/2006/State%20Polls/May%202006/Ohio%20Senate%20May.htm to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/May%202006/Ohio%20Senate%20May.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=306903&Category=13
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060710070131/http://www.newarkadvocate.com:80/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060525/NEWS01/60525004/100Z to http://www.newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060525/NEWS01/60525004/100Z

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)