# Talk:Evan Bayh 2008 presidential campaign

[copied from user talk page] 
You intervened regarding Tom Vilsack so I'd like to ask you about this one without encountering personal attacks again. The original quote from http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/28/sr.fri/ is "When the history of our time is written, I believe it will judge as one of this president's greatest failings that he sought our highest office pledging to be a uniter not a divider, but instead divided America more profoundly then anytime since the Vietnam war." Evan Bayh presidential campaign, 2008, however, says "At the event he criticized President Bush for 'dividing' the nation..." Not only are the quotation marks around a single word, potentially causing misinterpretation, the word "dividing" is not even in the original quote. I removed them saying that it is not a quote and that it would be best rephrased, but William S. Saturn claimed it was a derivate of the word. I believe that is clearly a paraphrase using a different form of the word and cannot be used in quotation marks. Your thoughts? Thanks, Reywas92Talk 19:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would leave the quotes off "dividing".  It's a statement about what Bayh said, and there's no question he accused Bush of dividing the nation, so it's accurate as a paraphrase.  But see next section to come ... Wasted Time R (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Without the quotes the article is saying that George Bush divided the nation, which is a POV. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I think people will realize that it's Bayh saying that, but to be safe, you can say: "At the event he accused President Bush of dividing the nation..."   Wasted Time R (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I really question the merit of this article existing.  It's questionable whether Bayh even had a presidential campaign; if you go back through the archives of Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008 you'll see that it was much debated in 2007 and 2008.  Whatever he did have was so short and so insignificant that it would be readily described in a paragraph or two in the Evan Bayh main article.  
The effort that went into this article would have been much better spent on improving the Evan Bayh main article.  Here we have 20 paragraphs on at most a momentary campaign, while Bayh's eight years as Governor of Indiana have only two paragraphs in the main article.  That's crazy!  Bayh's time as senator also needs improvement in the main article, as too much of it is listified, disjointed positions rather than real descriptions of his characteristics in the Senate.  
This isn't an attack on the creator of this article, as he's also created Eugene McCarthy presidential campaign, 1968 recently, which is very, very, very worthy of its own article.  And so are many others that could be created.  In particular, if you look at Category:Republican Party (United States) campaigns, you'll see there's a shocking lack of articles on Republican presidential campaigns before 2008.  Important non-nominee ones like Reagan 1976 and Pat Robertson 1988 are missing, not to mention famous nominee campaigns such as Reagan 1984, Goldwater 1964, and all three Nixon ones.  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I was expecting for this to come up, given the question of whether he was a candidate or not. The buildup is particularly notable demonstrated by the references, and it would be out of place in the main article. My intention in creating this article was to show how early the process has started in recent years with close attention to the so-called "pre-campaign" events. The main article definitely needs to be expanded but this article is more about the process than the candidate. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
You're certainly right that the process starts early; Palin, Romney, Huckabee and some others are all in the pre-campaign process right now for 2012, and have been ever since the day after the election last November.  And I could tell that's what you were trying to illustrate here (was it you that wrote that very long Chris Dodd campaign article that tried to illustrate the drudgery of extended Iowa campaigning?).  But still, it's a classic example of WP going overboard in one area while doing a weak job in another area right next door.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The question we should be asking is what is more important: the candidate or the process. I tend to believe the process should be a higher priority, but there are exceptions. Articles such as this are showing how candidates, however meaningless they may be, are eliminated from the race, and what worked or didn't work in their run. Bayh's governorship is notable and it should be expanded but national politics always should take precedence over state level politics. I did write the Dodd article, and I am proud of it, not because of my opinion of the Senator but because it demonstrates the rigors of the campaign, something far bigger than Dodd. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
There is probably a need for an article that explores the presidential nomination campaign process in general, and how it has evolved over the years.  Maybe there is one and I haven't seen it?  Something like Bayh's over-before-it-started campaign could be used as an example of how the pre-campaign phase weeds out candidates.  I disagree with you, however, about "national politics always should take precedence over state level politics".  Bayh affected far more many lives and made much more impact on the world with what he did as governor than what he did via his momentary campaign.  Indeed, when WP articles do a really good job on covering governors, it often requires a subarticle, e.g. Governorship of Mitt Romney.   Wasted Time R (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Evan Bayh presidential campaign, 2008/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
The staff from his All America PAC worked as his campaign team. PAC needs spelling out as well as wikilinking.  This article should be aimed at a general readership throughout the world, not just to the US.
Employees: Do we really need a table of all of his employees? What encyclopaedic purpose does this serve?
The employees are the campaign, of course its necessary. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
It would appear that most of them are not particularly notable. The lead two sentences are basically, OK, but we really don't need the rest. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The whole article is written in political jargon-ridden manner that is not necessarily accessible to those not familiar with US political reporting. It could be improved considerably by being rewritten in clear, plain English.
Remember that this is not Simple English Wikipedia. Please be more specific. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You confuse Simple English with Plain English. Speciifc examples below:
Two weeks prior to his withdrawal, Bayh filed with the Federal Elections Commission as an exploratory committee, under the header Friends of Evan Bayh. "He filed .... as an exploratory committee". That is not good English. How can an individual file as a committee, and what is an exploratory committee?
As word increased of Bayh's intentions, political scientists opined on the detractions of a run. Citing the fact that his eight years as governor may be nullified by its distance in time and that his visibility in the Senate was low, critics pondered whether moderate voters may be more inclined to line with possible candidate Mark Warner of Virginia. "Opined on the detractions."?  "his eight years as governor may be nullified by its distance in time"? "whether moderate voters may be more inclined to line with possible candidate Mark Warner of Virginia" maybe "line up with or even plainer "vote for"?
Throughout the month, he visited Iowa, delivering a speech in Black Hawk County in front of 60 people, reflecting similar rhetoric from the 2004 Kerry campaign, including energy independence, fair trade, the federal deficit and the handling of the war in Iraq. "Reflecting similar rhetoric"?
At the event he accused President Bush of dividing the nation and stated that he believed Democrats could win in red states if they stood up for "American values."  Need to explain the significance of "red states" and "blue states".
A large portion of his time in the first month was spent positioning himself. "positioning himself"?
Late in January, Bayh gained the position as speaker at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in North Carolina for the upcoming April. The gain came as a loss for North Carolinian John Edwards, who also was considered a potential candidate for the Democratic nomination. "gained" "gain"  Not really the right word here. "was invited to speak at" might be better? Need to explain the significance of this dinner - I see further down that there is another such dinner in Michigan.
On a larger scale, Bayh commented on the rebuilding of the area, conveying that it "is a test of America."  "On a larger scale"?
He returned to Iowa in mid-August, with a packed schedule that included fundraisers and a news conference for the "Wake Up Wal-Mart" organization. During the event, Bayh tried to appeal to populist voters stating that "Wal-Mart has become emblematic of the anxiety around the country, and the middle-class squeeze." What is the "Wake Up Wal-Mart" organization?
Later in the month, he made a stop in Nevada to discuss senior issues with Nevada's gubernatorial candidate Dina Titus. "senior issues"?
The Democratic takeover of Congress during the 2006 Mid-term elections was a victory for Bayh, who had helped three Iowan congressional candidates win their races during campaigning, and whose efforts culminated in a Democratic majority in the state's legislature. Confused sentence starts with Congressional elections, ends with state legislature elections.
In regards to the election, he stated that "we (the Democrats) won by turning the red states of the heartland blue." "In regards to"?
On December 3, 2006, Bayh announced that he would form an exploratory committee in order for him to travel and raise funds more effectively for a presidential run. How does this committe help achieve this?
Upon this revelation, the candidate appeared on This Week, articulating that Americans "need someone who can deal with the dysfunction here in this city (Washington D.C.) so that our government begins to empower our people to fulfill their potential...if I can be that individual, so be it."  "Upon this revelation"?
The followed weekend, Bayh visited New Hampshire to discuss energy independence, global warming and the war in Iraq, however this trip did not gain much media attention, whose focus primarily shifted to Senator Barack Obama, and his two sold out appearances in the state. Obama's name had just recently been mentioned as a potential candidate, in steep contrast to Bayh.  "The followed weekend"? "however this trip did not gain much media attention, whose focus primarily shifted "? "Obama's name had just recently been mentioned as a potential candidate, in steep contrast to Bayh."?
Two weeks following his announcement, Bayh withdrew from the race, citing that "the odds were longer than I felt I could responsibly pursue." How about just using the word "after" rather than "following"?
Nine months following his withdrawal, Bayh endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton, stating that he believed she would "run a campaign that is both tough and smart when it comes to protecting our nation's security." Again "after" is better and clearer.
Consider studying User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. This and the other essays on this user page give good sound advice on writing articles.
I laugh at, and am offended by your suggestions. If people want to learn more, they can click on the links, this article is not supposed to explain every single term used, for the small minority that probably should be using Simple English Wikipedia. You have a lot of nerve holding up this nomination for your personal style preferences. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
References #1. 2, 3, 4 are all hosted at George Washington University, but are part of someone's personal site in their webspace, not WP:RS
Please explain further. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Who is (are) Eric M. Appleman/Democracy in Action? What makes them a WP:RS? Is this website cited in major newspapers or journals?
It is used by George Washington University. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Other references appear reliable.
Reference # 60 [1] is a dead link, not stored at the Internet archive  Done
This has been fixed. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Throughout the month, he visited Iowa, delivering a speech in Black Hawk County in front of 60 people,  is this significant information? 60 people? hardly a major event.  WP:SUMMARY style could be usefully employed I think. In fact I wonder whether this article is really necessary.  It is hardly very engaging, I am afraid.
That's simply your opinion. I strongly disagree. Any visit to Iowa by a presidential candidate is notable, it shows that he is testing the waters. Remember that the first caucus occurs in Iowa. Please be more specific when you make claims. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know the minutiae of US politics. Neither do many Wikipedia readers. The significance of speaking to 60 people needs to be explained. You say, "Remember that the first caucus occurs in Iowa." This means little to me and assuming that your reader knows this is significant is not a good idea.
Did you even read the article? It is stated in the first paragraph. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
On hold for seven  days for above issues to be considered. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, we have reached an impasse here. My interest is in measuring this artcile against the Good Article criteria. I shall ask for a second opinion. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I largely agree with your assessment. Many of the political terms need to be better defined within the article. Otherwise it is generally well-wrote and meets all the other criteria. Terms like "blue state and red state" could be replaced with "states where electorates favor democrats or republicans". I also concur that the "Eric M. Appleman/Democracy in Action website" appears blog like and therefore unreliable unless Appleman can be established as a published author or notable commentator or professor in the fields of politics. Everything else appears in order. :) Keep up the good work, and remember our goal is improve content. The criticisms raised during review processes like this should be taken as helpful comments, not attacks on the article. Check out WP:Jargon and WP:RS. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
My major issue with this article isn't how it places things in context (I have the requisite familiarity with the American political scene, so I'm probably not a good judge of that), but rather the prose.  I think Jezhotwells was actually being, if anything, lenient on the prose here; I suspect that William has confused complex writing with good writing.  Given his unwillingness to address concerns, I'd suggest failing this. Steve Smith (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I will listen to Charles Edward's suggestions. However, I feel that the usual Steve Smith style is extremely lacking and leaves an article more dry and less engaging.  For example, I believe Tom Vilsack presidential campaign, 2008 was a better article in many respects before Steve Smith's review of it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
As for the Appleman source, please look at this. I believe it demonstrates its reliability. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
That just says that he graduated from GWU, and that they host his blog, not that they condone or support it. Can you provide evidence that this is cited by reliable sources as a reliable source? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Lastly, I don't really understand what terms you all believe need to be clarified. I tried to clarify the red state example. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I made myself clear about this. Th ered states bit has been improved. As you do not appear willing to improve the rest of this article, I shall not be listing it at this time. If you disagree with this decision, please take it to WP:GAR for a community re-assessment. If improvements are made to the article please re-nominate it at WP:GAN. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I asked what terms needed to be clarified, and you just decided to close the nomination. What a jerk. This was the worst review ever. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Evan Bayh presidential campaign, 2008/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gary King (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"the latter began thinking about a possible run for president in 2008" – perhaps something like "the latter considered the possibility of running for president in 2008" instead. More descriptive, as "began thinking" isn't as evocative.  Done
I don't think "homestate" is ever used as one word?  Done
For the first image of Bayh, please provide a more descriptive caption, such as "Official Senate portrait of Bayh" (if that's accurate).  Done
In quotations, the punctuation at the end of the quote goes outside the quotation if the quote is a sentence fragment (per WP:PUNC, I believe).  Done
Gary King (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. It is appreciated. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay I think that's everything. Passing. Gary King (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Evan Bayh presidential campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090626102213/http://www.sacbar.org:80/members/saclawyer/may_june04/marshall.html to http://www.sacbar.org/members/saclawyer/may_june04/marshall.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

His withdrawal was tied to his public image, which characterized the candidate as "dependable" but "dull"., I'm considering deleting this phrase. A reliable source that directly credits this as the contributing factor for his withdrawal from the race should be cited. SecretName101 (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Evan Bayh presidential campaign, 2008. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fnews-6%2F1151131178226690.xml&coll=1
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007112834/http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/19/103159.shtml to http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/19/103159.shtml
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.news-tribune.net/floydcounty/local_story_279173515.html?keyword=secondarystory
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081018224553/http://media.www.harbus.org/media/storage/paper343/news/2006/04/10/Viewpoints/Potential.2008.Presidential.Candidate.Senator.Evan.Bayh.To.Visit.Hbs-1803649.shtml to http://media.www.harbus.org/media/storage/paper343/news/2006/04/10/Viewpoints/Potential.2008.Presidential.Candidate.Senator.Evan.Bayh.To.Visit.Hbs-1803649.shtml
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 11:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)