Talk:Campaign finance

message: I recently reverted the edits made by 71.194.166.77 which appeared to be very biased. If anybody would like to reintroduce some of the information in an impartial manner, it would be greatly appreciated. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have, once again, reverted a bunch of edits by this same user. This is clear POV editing. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I would appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions about my level of intellect, but my goal in this matter is simply to put forth the information that exists in an unbiased fashion. Clearly from your statement above, you are coming at this from a biased viewpoint, and your writing tends to reflect that. I am not saying that your opinion is wrong, since I do agree with it in some sense, but please try to understand the purpose of Wikipedia and try to realize that there is more than one point of view on the subject. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, feel free to edit to make it sound less biased and use less strong language. But its clearly a facet of the discussion that cannot be left out by any reasonable analysis. -K2Dart — Preceding unsigned comment added by K2Dart (talk • contribs) 07:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see what I can do in that way. I have added the "neutrality" tag onto this page so this doesn't turn into an edit war. Furthermore, you should sign your comments with four tildes like this: ~~~~. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "By the Wealthy, For the Wealthy"... 

message: Depsite agreeing with the argument the author appears to present (campaign fiancing corrupts democracy) this article is very poorly written and actually hurts the case about campaign financing. I have currently no interest in the subject, although I have read some books on the subject before.  I am going to add a cleanup tag. Maybe I can add some content later. EDITORS PLEASE DON'T SEE MY CLEAN UP TAG AS A "DIS"--I am only trying to help present the idea of Campaign finance reform, which I support, in a clearer, more encyclopedic, and more convincing way.  Travb 12:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Very poorly written article

message: In this edit I attempted to eliminate much redundant material, add balance, and improve organization. I hope to come back to it and add some more source links later. As many above have noted, this article was poorly written and highly charged with personal POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EABSE (talk • contribs) 16:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Edit 1/15/07

message: * Oppose merger from Campaign finance reform. I don't see a good reason to do so, and putting them together would create a very long article which would be prone to editorial shortening. ~ Rollo44 06:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed subsumption of Campaign finance reform 

message: The article should not state a proposition as fact (amount of time spent fundraising) which is not backed up by any serious information. An anecdotal newspaper article doesn't cut it.  Overacker 01:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time issue 

message: This article should take a worldwide view, and link more prominently to the other political funding articles particular to each country.Look at Category:Political_funding. There are a few specific country articles in there. Maybe this article should merely be a definition of Campaign finance, followed by a link to the articles for each country. That would give it more of a world view.--Lester 21:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Worldwide view 

message: TV Advertising in Britain is free...?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.153.184 (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'such as Britain' 

message: The first reference, to a web.mit.edu hosted article, is no longer available at the specified URL. The statement for which it is cited implies an analytic consensus that donors are not attempting to influence candidates, a proposition that seems dubious. If the contention is indeed unsupported, it should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.40.234 (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Reference 

message: While Political finance may be a larger term, I wonder if at this point it wouldn't be better just to merge it here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Having multiple articles with opposing viewpoints is not allowed, as our core policy is that all articles must have a Neutral point of view. See also wp:POVFORK for some more information about this. The way forward seems to me to merge both articles into a single article titled political finance with a worldwide view in the lead and then country specific (or perhaps continent specific) subsections. We also have Campaign finance in the United States, which is closely related to this article and could be used to merge content. Yoenit (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

text: You are right there is no consensus. Before I withdraw the merge notice, let's ask the community once again, this time through an RFC, which should give this issue some wider visibility. If no consensus will appear in a month or so, then I will withdraw this proposal. PS. I am sorry, I read your argument above (from 2011) but I am not following you. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Most political spending occurs in the run-up to announced elections, whether it is called an election campaign or not. Even in Denmark where they have minimal political ads, the character of media interviews in the run-up to elections is very different and campaign-like than at other times. But in the major English speaking countries US, UK, Australia, Canada, South Africa, and even India and Pakistan, most political spending is centered around election campaigns. EllenCT (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Is ordinary party spending not a long-term campaign for its platform? EllenCT (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I agree there's no consensus to merge; please go ahead and remove it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Political finance]] 

message: Should political finance be merged to campaign finance? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Most political spending occurs in the run-up to announced elections, whether it is called an election campaign or not. Even in Denmark where they have minimal political ads, the character of media interviews in the run-up to elections is very different and campaign-like than at other times. But in the major English speaking countries US, UK, Australia, Canada, South Africa, and even India and Pakistan, most political spending is centered around election campaigns. EllenCT (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Is ordinary party spending not a long-term campaign for its platform? EllenCT (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I agree there's no consensus to merge; please go ahead and remove it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: Because the title of the book is the message, I do not feel that a specific page should be given. If anybody disagrees, I will try and find one. Khnassmacher (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander Heard 

message: I plan to make the introduction shorter, add citations to existing text, and get rid of any subjectivity.
Nmohnatkin (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits I plan to make