Talk:2006 United States Senate election in Vermont

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

Date of Rasmussen poll[edit]

The URL is: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/January%202006/Vermont%20Senate%20January%205.htm [1] The URL implies that the poll was done in January 2006. Is it possible that the date in the article is wrong, and that the poll in fact is from January 2006? John Broughton 16:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that it is supposed to be January 2006, and Rasmussen has a typo on their site. I recall seeing the poll cited elsewhere as being this January. Also, Jeffords didn't announce his retirement until April 2005, and the list of candidates came together thereafter. So unless Rasmussen has truely amazing predictive powers, they didn't even know who the candidates were going to be in January of 2005. I have, therefore, corrected the dates.

Sprotected[edit]

due to spamming of campaing phone numbers.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Push Poll "accusation"[edit]

The accusation of push polls in Seven Days newspaper was reported by Peter Freyne, a long time advocate of Tarrant's opponent. The accusation is unfounded and is typical of Freyne POV 71.241.141.57 22:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for restoration
The accusation was reported by Ken Picard, not Peter Freyne. Additionally, the claim in the article is that seven days reported it, not that it happened. If you have documented evidence to suggest that Ken Picard is biased towards Sanders, I would encourage you to add that to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sailor Titan (talk • contribs) .
The paper itself is biased towards Sanders. Picard, Freyne and Cathy Resmer, who make up the reporting staff of Seven Days are all well on record as supporting Sanders, and Publisher Routly is the domestic partner of Progressive Party Burlington City Councilor Tim Ashe. While Sanders is not officially a member of this party, he is listed as a progressive candidate on their webpage and was a founder of that party. 66.252.253.104 22:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any documentable evidence of that claim? It's fine if you can back this stuff up, but you need to reference it, not just tell me it's true. I did a quick web search and was unable to verify the claim that they are domestic partners. If you have verification of it I would encourage you to post it. Until you have some source though, it's not reasonable to put it up. Otherwise we're going to get very partisan very fast. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.160.169.147 (talk • contribs) .
Both Routly and Ashe reside at the same address, according to Vermont voting records. This can be verified with a call to the Burlington, Vermont City Clerk's office, at (802) 865-7000. 66.252.249.105 02:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The information linking the Publisher of Seven Days to the Sanders' campaign demonstrates bias and POV regarding the allegations of push polling. The information is for clarification purposes, is documented, and has been included as an alternative to removal of the allegation. The edit and removal of clarifying information made by Atlant states that the information is added as a "diversion". Unfortunately, this shows bad faith editing by this user. He does not dispute the accuracy, nor source of the information, merely that it does not support his point of view.
Review of Atlant's user page shows he self describes as "Progressive" and liberal, which further demonstrates the user's bias on this matter. Your input is invited, but it is requested that no further removal of this information be engaged until concensus is achieved.66.252.255.66 03:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is unimportant what my political persuasion is. It is also unimportant exactly why Seven Days printed what they printed (especialy given that it appears to be factual); that would be information that belongs in the article on Seven Days if it belongs anywhere. What you are doing is a common trick of the American Right: caught in an embarrasing fact, you're trying to throw up a smokescreen of other accusations against anyone who's nearby in the hope that people will look at the smoke instead of the fire. I'm sorry, but it won't work here.
Atlant 17:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The material on dispute is original research unless a published source has used the information as an indiciation of bias. In order for this material to be included a source should be cited that points out this connection; otherwise the relevance of the fact to this article is established only by original research. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance is established by the voting records indicating that the publisher of the information has a clear relationship to the Sanders campaign. To include the accusations of push polling, which are verified only by a biased source connected to a campaign in the race, is inappropriate under the NPOV policy. The accusations should either be removed, or the relationship must be pointed out. 66.252.247.14 14:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably if the source is biased then someone has published that claim; what evidence did they use for it? Unless someone has actually suggested that this fact has relevance to the topic, for you to decide that it is relevant is original research. It would be similar to someone adding to the Sanders article, "Sanders' neighborhood contains twelve sex felons" or "Sanders' realtor as voted against him five times." It would probably be easy to dig up many such vaguely negative "facts" from the public record, but unless an actual source suggests that they are relevant we would assume that it is a coincidence not worth mentioning. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All inclusions of information of any kind are made on Wikipedia by individual decisions, and the relevance of all facts are determined in turn, by wiki users. Therefore, it is hardly original research for any wiki user to determine that any point is relevant or not. As to the specific information that demonstrates the bias in this specific instance, the public record shows Routly and Ashe to reside at the same address, not any research on any user's part. Routly is, in fact, the publisher of the accusations against Tarrant, and Ashe is in fact, a former Sanders' paid staffer. The source of any accusaion is of primary importance to it's inclusion on Wikipedia, and therefore, the backgrounds of the source of those allegations is directly relevant to the topic. As this is Wikipedia, and open to edit by any user, any use of "We" in the sense of the collective should be reserved for official Wiki policy only. 66.252.241.196 19:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the original research policy. It is indeed original research for you to decide that a point is relevant when no source claims that it is so. It is a fact that two people live together, but to claim that this has anything to do with biased reporting is a new analysis of published data that serves to advance a position. This is very specifically prohibited by policy. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The policy on no original research actually states that "Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from primary and secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.". The information regarding Timothy Ashe and Paula Routly simply states factual information, that they live at the same address, it draws no conclusion. The choices presented here are either to pull the accusation of push polling entirely as NPOV for potential bias, or to include information which notes the relationship between Seven Days Newspaper and the Sanders Campaign. Which would you prefer? 66.252.242.43 20:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's nonsense to day that it's not drawing a conclusion. It's clearly intended to point to the conclusion that the reporting was biased. If there wasn't such a conclusion to be made, we wouldn't include the information because it would be irrelevant. As for what I would prefer: right now it would appear, based on the sources that have been presented, that nobody has ever actually published the accusation that an improper relationship exists. My assumption would be that if such an accusation has never been published its probably not worth mentioning. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does stating true information, plainly stated by Vermont voting data, point to a conclusion? If the Seven Days Newspaper is shown to be the source of an allegation, and the publisher of the allegation lives with a Sanders' staffer, this is clearly a NPOV violation. The only alternative is to point out the questionablity of the accusation itself. If you don't want the data on Routly, then the whole accusation must go. I accuse no one of anything improper, I simply point out what is. If you accept the truth of the statement, than it it is accurate. If you accept the Vermont voting record, than it is verfied. If you feel it is "probably not worth mentioning", that is your POV. It is not original research to post data from relablie sources. 66.252.243.166 22:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You do not get to post any old thing that you want to post. It must be directly relevant to the topic of the article. Who is sleeping with whom is not relevant. The accusation against your candidate is either true or false, and if it's true, it doesn't matter what motivated Seven Days to print it. Or was all the slander against Clinton irrelevant and should have been suppressed because huge portions of it were being funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, a man who personally despised Clinton?
Atlant 23:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Tarrant is not my candidate. I am not involved with the campaign. We have no evidence that Seven Days is accurate or not, so, given bias, the accusation is NPOV and then, must go. I was hoping that could be avoided. What motivated Seven Days to publish allegtions is centrally important to it's inclusion here. However, I have no idea who funded anything involved with Clinton, nor am I interested in deabting that point here. 66.252.243.166 23:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone outside of Seven Days picked up this story? --Aranae 23:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion based on RfC[edit]

I saw on the Politics RfC noticeboard that there was an open Request for Comment on this article. The question is whether the push polling accusation is appropriate for inclusion based on the single source. There's an ancillary question as to whether the information about the publisher's cohabitation, verified by calling a Vermont state office, is appropriate for inclusion. Let me answer as best as I can.

  • Vermont has a long history of a respected independent press. However, a circulation number of 30,000 in a small state does not necessarily imply reliability per Wikipedia guidelines (which are found in WP:RS. I did a Google search using several terms, looking for accusations of bias. I found one marginal accusation of bias by the Media Research Center, a notoriously unreliable (to be charitable) source. Even the Vermont GOP (based on the summary of the page I was able to read, given that the page was down) seem to use them as a source. However, the only other sources for Seven Days' story seem to be one other alternative newspaper and a whole host of blogs. It's an extraordinary claim, not reported on by sources with a history of and reputation for fact-checking. As such, if this claim is to be reported, it needs to be stressed in the main text that the sole source for the allegations is a few small, alternative newspapers. I think it would be better if the claim were not to be included at all; there's no particular reason why Wikipedia needs to be at the forefront of news reporting on this issue.
  • The cohabitation issue is original research, which is strictly prohibited. Until a reliable source publishes the information and comments on it, it shall remain original research. No attempt should be made to include the information under any circumstance whatsoever, until an impeccable source reports on the information. This especially remains true because of our policy on biographies of living persons; revelation of personally identifying information should only be done when it is of great encyclopedic merit. I want to make this very clear - including the information on the publisher's cohabitation is in violation of Wikipedia policy. Don't do it.
  • As a final note, remember to assume good faith on the part of fellow editors, and do not make personal attacks. Cool down, guys. It's just an encyclopedia. Are you getting paid to edit? Will you be lauded until the end of days for your stellar contributions to human knowledge? If the answer to both of those questions is "no" (which it will be), then calm down, relax, and don't let the discourse on Wikipedia mirror the discourse in our nation's capital. Real feelings could be hurt. Captainktainer * Talk 04:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Captain, I agree that the entire issue of push polling should be removed due to it's diminished relevance in the big picture of the campaign. Much has happened during the campaign that is not noted here, from Richard Tarrant swearing at a local reporter, to Bernie Sanders' pulling a Willie Nelson endorsement following his arrest for marijuana possaesion. Since the push poll issue has been in th article so long, I felt it essential that it be noted that the source is a newspaper published by the common-law spouse of someone on Sanders payroll. The notation is clearly not original research. It has been published in the Burlington Vermont voter list, which is not availible online, unless by request via e-mail. 66.252.246.140 15:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that the push polling is a bit of a non-issue and there's more going on with this campaign that's not being discussed in the article. I think the fact that it was only reported on by a left-leaning free weekly from a small city implies that most other news sources don't think it's important enough to discuss. The statement inclusion seems to be with the intent to take a shot at Tarrant. Following this up with a shot at Sanders may provide balance, but that's a fair reporting thing to do, not an encyclopedic thing to do. I think the statement should be dropped. If we want to discuss issues plaguing Tarrant we should find some better documented ones from less biased sources, or even better more than one source. I agree that the domestic partnership discussion is a violation of policy and should not be allowed. My vote is to drop the statement unless someone can find independent confirmation. --Aranae 16:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I think Aranae has a good point, however, I do think something probably should be mentioned about Tarrant's (alleged?) attack style of campaigning. I do realize this is a controversial issue, but at the same time, right now it stands as an elephant in the room of this article. Rich Tarrant's (admittedly debated) use of attack ads is controversial, but it something which has figured prominently as an issue in the campaign. I may be alone on this, and if so, I suppose there's no helping it; but it feels like neglecting an important issue for it to go completely without mention (even if we decide, understandably, that the Seven Days reference has to go.) --Sailor Titan 20:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Deal with Democrats[edit]

Article says: "but said he would decline the Democratic nomination under an agreement he made with the party in January." The deal is mentioned again below.

Does anyone have any more information on the nature of this deal? Who was it made with? What are the terms? Where has it been reported? (I'm not imagining anything sinister here; it's just not clear, and more information would be interesting.)

Still A Student 21:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find more information in the article on Sanders. (The link there really should be in this article as well.) John Broughton | Talk

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Senate election in Vermont, 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:

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

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) 12:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gain from Republicans[edit]

Hi, all I have changed the results from an Independent hold to a pickup from the Republicans. the reasoning for this is that along Senator Jeffords defected in 2001 he was elected as part of the GOP ticket in 2000 and so the chnage from 2000 was then an Independent had made a pickup from a seat that 6 years prior had elected a Republican candidate for the senate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottish socialist (talk • contribs) 01:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_United_States_Senate_election_in_Vermont&oldid=1196489572"