Talk:Election promise

Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Social and political philosophy

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New to Election promise, hope to add some information

Hello contributors of Election promise, I hope I don't step on any toes by adding information, I don't plan on deleting or changing anything you have all written in the short term. I just got done with a nasty edit war, and some of the people suggested that I put these historical facts about lies that presidents made about troop reductions on this page. I would love to add it to another page, but the vicious edit war has hampered this.Travb 07:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The additions are good, but I worry about this page becoming too focused on the United States. - SimonP 13:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment, I would have loved to have built my own page, but that was unfortunatly stopped. Any suggestions? If the focus issue is a big concern, maybe you can move this section to another page with an appropriate title? Any suggestions are wonderful, as I mentioned, someone else suggested that I post here. Suggestions are always welcome!Travb 14:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe split the article in two? US and canada, with a short blurb about both here at Election promise? Just an idea...tell me what you think.Travb 14:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Simon. Right now there seems to be no risk of the article become "Americanized". I had only a passing interest in the subject of election promises, and after about 6 hours of work on the subject of Nixon's promises, I have lost interest and will probably work on other topics/subjects for a a while.

I guess there is the possiblity of Election promise, or any wikisubject becoming too slanted in one direction because of a heavy focus on one subtopic. But I personally think this is something to optomistically look forward too, not be fearful off. I wish someday that some of my created pages will be overflowing with good encyclopedic content.

If this site does become to Americanized, we/you will cross that bridge when in comes. I just want you to know that I don't see adding much more to the page right now. Travb 09:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Election promise

The text is as follows:

In the 1968 Presidential elections, Richard Nixon did not use the phrase "secret plan", which originated with a reporter looking for a lead to a story summarizing the Republican candidate's (hazy) promise to end the war without losing. But neither did he disavow the term, and it soon became a part of the campaign. When pressed for details, Nixon retreated to the position that to tip his hand would interfere with the negotiations that had begun in Paris. ^[1]

According to one historian: "...it became obvious in 1969 that Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war was a campaign gimmick..."^[2]

Another historian wrote: "Nixon never had a plan to end the war, but he did have a general strategy--to increase pressure on the communists [and] issue them a November 1, 1969 deadline to be conciliatory or else...The North Vietnamese did not respond to Nixon's ultimatum...and his aides began planning Operation Duck Hook." ^[3]

Nixon admitted in retirement that no such plan existed before his election.^[4]

Although I appreciate edits to this information, all edits must be Wikipedia:Verifiability. If Nixon said he had no plan, in 1968, then find a verifable source which states this, and I will gladly accept this in the article. Otherwise unfortunalty, this is unsubstantiated POV, which does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Verifiability.

I am a little frustrated that I write an entire section and provide 10 verifiable articles and books, with footnotes, and then portions are deleted and my edits are accused of being POV, without any of those alternative edits being substantiated, and with no real added contibutions to the article.

I still see 10 verifiable sources and 10 footnotes, the same amount that was here before this controversy began. In otherwords, thus far, no one but myself has contributed anything to this article.

Signed:Travb 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I put in a source on Nixon disavowing having claimed to have a plan: Nixon, Richard. RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon. p. 198 Ellsworth 21:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I have added the source back into the article. Ellsworth 16:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like direct lifts from the source... an entire paragraph copied and pasted. Also, why does the Nixon promise get its own section? What makes that THE Election Promise? I think we could do away with the whole Nixon section, its just an example, and its listed as such at the bottom. Add in the copy and pasting and I vote that it goes. I'm going to try to make the top part of the article a little more encyclopedic ("The lying party will thus almost always get elected over the truthful one" does not belong). Oreo man 18:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes that THE Election Promise? It doesn't it is one example which has expanded. Feel free to expand the election promises of other presidents. Please read the reason why the nixon section ended up here in the first place above Travb

"Nixon told Michigan Republican congressman Donald Riegle that the war would be over within six months of his assumption of office." - No source cited —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.230.48.9 (talk • contribs)

Check the footnotes:

"Small, p. 166; Riegle, Don (1972). O Congress. Doubleday. p. 20; Kalb, Marvin and Bernard (1974). Kissinger. Hutchison. ISBN. p. 120; Hersh, Seymour M. (1983). The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House. Summit Books. ISBN 0671447602. p. 119" Struggle 14:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

List

The list of broken promises covers all political parties, and can be verified quite easily. For example, the entry about the 1900 Philippine War being finished quickly was a broken promise, the war dragged on for several more years, along with the other entries.

This list has existed since the article was originally created, in 12 June 2004. Since that time several editors have contributed to this list.

As one admin recently said:

While it is generally preferable that articles be written in a NPOV, it is not justification to delete a well sourced section. If you feel that the section is NPOV, you should try to rewrite the section using more neutral manner and/or providing additions from POV to counter the POV present within the article.

Travb (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I think the list is POV now and can be made NPOV later. I'm saying that having a "list of broken promises" is inherently biased and POV. First of all, there are no established criteria for what constitutes a "broken promise." Such things are difficult to define, and supporters of a leader will find some way to justify or explain away the supposed broken promise, and opponents will manage to frame it as a broken promise. For example, George W. Bush said during the 2000 campaign that he opposes the use of American troops for "nation-building" and yet that's exactly what his presidency has involved. Is that a broken promise or is that the consequence of 9/11 and other such events? We would have to interject our own analysis and our own POV in deciding if that's a broken promise worthy of being put on this page or not.

A list like this has no hope of being comprehensive (due to the sheer volume of broken promises that exist) and thus must be selective. In being selective, the list will inevitably introduce the biases of the selectors.

If we choose to keep this list, we're going to have to tread very carefully to avoid violating NPOV. For example, we'll have to rename the list something to the effect of "List of alleged broken promises" and will have to be very delicate in how each alleged broken promise is dealt with.

If you ask me, though, I'd say that the list is a magnet for partisanship and POV and is best left out of the article. The term "broken promise" itself is loaded because it implies dishonesty and deceit, implications that violate NPOV. I think it's best to leave the list out of the article altogether.

But that's just me. --Hnsampat 02:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the name to "List of alleged broken promises" even though the word "alledged" is a weasel word, which I usually avoid, I want to avoid an edit war. Travb (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I have no intention of starting an edit war here. (I'd like to think that I'm in the business of ending edit wars, not starting them.) I agree that "alleged" is a bit of a weasel word. That's partly why I was advocating removing the list altogether. Maybe we should get some other opinions on this. --Hnsampat 04:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-W

Wow, this is hardly neutral considering the anti-W Bush tone. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Election promise. 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}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 01:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]