Talk:2006 Michigan gubernatorial election

Notable endorsements

I started a "Notable endorsements" section with Kwame Kilpatrick's endorsement of Granholm. As more notable endorsements are announced, it can be added. The section can be split between Granholm endorsements and DeVos endorsements. Steelbeard1 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What is notable about Kwame supporting Granholm??? He's a prominent Dem Mayor of Detroit, I don't see it's any more noteworthy than pointing out that GOP officials in Oakland county support Devos?

Kilpatrick, while he is a Democrat, is a non-partisan mayor. Daily newspaper endorsements would be added as the endorsements are announced. Partisan politicians who endorse their party's candidates are a given and not worthy of this article. Partisan politicians who endorse the other party's candidates (i.e. Republicans for Granholm) are noteworthy and could be inserted. Steelbeard1 15:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Googling "Republicans for Granholm", there is a real URL with that name republicansforgranholm.com There is a dormant democratsfordevos.com URL parked by GoDaddy. Steelbeard1 19:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoever you are 71.227.4.22 I like what you did. Detroit will make a difference in this race. That kills the notable endorsements section for now, but that can be revived I believe as "Newspaper endorsements" whenever the daily newspapers give their endorsements. Steelbeard1 23:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Polling

For the sake of consistency, the poll data should stick with the date that the poll was released. The links usually give when the polls were conducted. Steelbeard1 17:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for limited access from 2, October

Today will be my state's 1st of three debates on 'the issues' and I humbly request that access to this page be limited to those of us with accounts so we can update this article with factual info siphoned from the debates. After the fact, the article is likely to get even more traffic, and purhaps the best thing for the article is to remain limited until November. Steelbeard1 12:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"No clear winner" in first debate

I don't think the cited article actually bears this statement out, but regardless, it's subjectively editorial. We shouldn't be declaring winners either way in the debate unless there is a compelling concordance of opinion that is factually-based and newsworthy. And probably not even then. lesmana 12:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

From cited article: "Neither side delivered a knockout punch. I guess I'd give the governor a 'B' for the debate and Mr. DeVos at 'C,' " said Detroit News pollster Ed Sarpolus. "Both sides will be happy. Republicans will be happy he got through the debate without any major gaffes. The governor had better command of the facts and issues."

But that's what I'm talking about. Ed Sarpolus isn't a concordance of documented opinion. Even if he's a non-partisan commentator, he's still editorializing. He's not a notable individual and his perspective on the debate shouldn't represent the objective outcome. lesmana 13:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I just thought I'd add to this. I captured about half the debate transcript of the first debate. you can find it here I don't know whether this would be valuable to the article or not, but I wanted to keep it :-) If anyone else has other parts the to the transcript, I'd be happy to add them to the page. Phydiux 21:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Second debate comments

"... but not enough to counter Granholm's debating skills." I didn't see any statement to that effect in the article cited; regardless, it's also subjective opinion. It's not a concensus of experts or a public poll. lesmana 02:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Should we be counting the editorial staff of the State News to determine encyclopedic content? I don't think it's notable that a group of college students thought that Granholm won the debate. And I say this as a MSU alum and a fan of the State News. lesmana 02:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Exit polls showing Granholm winning

Here's a link. http://woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5641990Superway25 02:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

DeVos for Governor campaign web site now dead link

The DeVos for Governor web site at [1] is now a dead link. I mentioned it as such in the external link but thought I'd ask here first if the dead link should be deleted. Steelbeard1 15:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was Not to merge into Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006. -- Redandready (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Douglas Campbell

There is a template on the Douglas Campbell (Michigan politician) article suggesting that it be merged with the Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006 article. There is absolutely no rational or further discussion given on this topic leading me to wonder why the template is there.

I disagree with a merger. Douglas Campbell is a notable figure, and should have a separate article as do other candidates in the same election. --Redandready (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep the article "Douglas Campbell (Michigan politician)" as a separate entity. While this stub requires further development to become a worthwhile article, the contributions of Douglas Campbell to Michigan's political landscape are significant. His political activities predate 2006. In 2002 he received significant media attention when he was arrested for attempting to debate his opposition. This discussion appears to be non-controversial, and template removal would be in order; this discussion shows no consensus in favor of merging these articles. --Libertyguy (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep the article "Douglas Campbell (Michigan politician)" as a separate entity. I have come across Doug Campbell numerous times over the past decade while working on progressive and civil libertarian issues in Michigan. He will no doubt continue to run for office and work on these causes in the future. His page may need a little cleaning up, but he certainly deserves a page. Gstempfle (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep the article "Douglas Campbell (Michigan politician)". Campbell was a important figure in the Green Party and in numerous issue activism organizations in Michigan. There has been no rational given as to why the article should merged and know one seems to agree that it should be merged. Due to the consensus I am removing the tag. Highground79 (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006. -- Redandready (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Bhagwan Dashairya

There is a template on the Bhagwan Dashairya article suggesting that it be merged with the Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006 article. There is absolutely no rational or further discussion given on this topic leading me to wonder why the template is there.

I disagree with a merger. Bhagwan Dashairya, and should have a separate article as do other candidates in the same election. NPOV.

--Redandready (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep the article "Bhagwan Dashairya" as a separate entity. While this stub requires further development to become a worthwhile article, this article about Michigan's first Asian candidate for its highest office should remain. This is a large article already, and still in need of work. It is consistent to keep individual articles on the candidates. While there is less content on Bhagwan Dashairya than Douglas Campbell, the article also includes the only content in Wikipedia on his running mate, Carl Oehling. As with the article on Campbell, this discussion appears to be non-controversial, and template removal would be in order. --Libertyguy (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this voting is about, but my rationale for adding that template to this article is my contention that the subject of the article I proposed to merge does not meet the notability requirements of WP:POLITICIAN. Qqqqqq (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

comment It looks like there has been considerable improvement on this stub recently. However, it is not clear that this article (in its current state) would survive an AfD debate. If the choice is between a merger and nomination for deletion, I would favor a Full-content text merger[2], preserving a complete section for Bhagwan Dashairya and a subsection for Carl Oehling That way, no content would be lost, and the title would remain available, if notability could later be unambiguously established. This would address some of the concerns expressed in this discussion by other editors.--Redandready (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly endorse that plan. Qqqqqq (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bhagwan Dashairya Talk page

Anyone interested in the discussion that came before the merger can read the talk page: Talk:Bhagwan_Dashairya —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redandready (talk • contribs) 18:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Noting here for reference that the history of that talk page was moved to this talk page's Archive 1 in April 2009. All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 09:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of most candidate images

In looking at the history, I have noticed a repeated removal of the three of the candidate photos. This was not an issue prior to the use of an info box that included the photographs.

In the most recent inclusive revision, the two top vote getters were in the top level of the info box and the remaining three were at the bottom. This placement sufficiently addressed the need to place the top vote getters in a more prominent position, while being accurate and balanced in the recognition that the vote was split between five candidates.

I see no valid reason to completely purge the info box of three candidates as has been done in the later exclusive revision. --Libertyguy (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC) This should be a new topic. --Libertyguy (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason for excluding some candidate images while including others. There does appear to be a standard applied to the infobox that could exclude low vote getters, but nothing like this for simply including images. The images should be restored to the article.--208.39.169.124 (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

As proven yet again in this election, the minor party candidates did not get sufficient votes to earn inclusion in the infobox. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the only reasons given for excluding pictures of all candidates (other than the top two) has been in relation to the info box. A look at the history reveals no such issue prior to the info box. So restoring the other candidate images to the article is non-controversial, while putting them in the info box is controversial.--Pgapunk (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bhagwan Dashairya, redux

I can't see the justification for a multi-paragraph biography for someone who received 7,087 votes in a statewide election and is not otherwise notable. Compare Michigan_gubernatorial_election,_2010#Other_parties. Merge discussions are not binding for all time, particularly not one so sparsely attended. Mackensen (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I hardly see how a brief section (a few paragraphs) in an article as extensive as this one is undue weight. Pardon my typos in the edit summary. Would a further abbreviated version meet your acceptance (one or two paragraphs?), or would anything beyond the subjects name be regarded as undue? It should be noted that this subject originally was the topic of an entire article. While I must concede that this was "undue" and that he did not meet the notability requirements, it seems no less lopsided to omit him completely from the article on this election. Each candidate candidate for Michigan's highest office plays a roll in the public dialog, and this section clarifies his roll in it. The fact that he is also the first Asian-American to seek this office is noteworthy and worth a mention in this article.

The arguments in the original discussion (while not binding) also indicate the consensus from some editors, that this content was worth preserving even if it was not going to be a stand-alone article.--Libertyguy (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Dashairya once had a stand-alone article isn't really relevant; that article would never have survived a deletion discussion (which is why it was merged). The merge itself was problematic; articles such as these do not contain full biographies of election participants. "Bhagwan Dashairya" gets 1,350 hits on Google. I think it's pushing a bit to suggest that Dashairya, or any of the third-party candidates, played a significant role in the 2006 election. I'll try my hand at writing a third-party section. Best, Mackensen (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. I must admit that your restructuring has resulted in an article that is easier on the eyes, and the layout of the minor parties section is well done. I accept this structure as a reasonable resolution to this discussion. It remains to be seen if other editors think there needs to be more information on any of those candidates in this new context. While most of the other content you removed appears to be trivia, I may choose to restore some bits and pieces, but I won't "undo" any of your edits. I revised one sentence as a factual matter, but I don't think that change amounts to undue attention since it simply addresses the existence of other candidates without itemizing them.--Libertyguy (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to that change; I was following the format of other articles which generally omit the third-party candidates from the lede unless they had significant impact. The current wording is fine. Mackensen (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)