Talk:Prohibition Party

Just wanted to note that the Prohibition Party would appear to be split between supporters and opponents of Earl Dodge - the anti-Dodge people's "history" section consists largely of a lengthy screed against Dodge, who apparently sold the longtime party headquarters and pocketed the money...I have no idea which group is to be considered the proper Prohibition Party - both seem to be running presidential slates this year... john k 22:41, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comment. The faction of the party that sponsored Amondson in '04 represents roughly 80% of the earlier national committee. This faction has gained ballot status in Florida for 2008 and has re-organized a state committee in Pennsylvania. This faction has the only elected official in the nation and most of the party's energy. Chronicler3 23:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3[reply]

2004 Election Information

I do not agree with the latest change on this page. Amondson appeared on the ballot in Louisiana as the Prohibition Party nominee and received 1,566 votes [[1]]. Amondson and Dodge both appeared on the ballot in Colorado, where only 518 votes were cast for both of them [[2]]. Overall, Amondson received 1,944 votes. These numbers should not be separated out from the other totals. Chronicler3 03:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick -- Zanimum 19:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

misleading quote

I removed the Earl Dodge quote about the politics1.com article, since the quote dates back to 2000, and therefore cannot be a reference to the description of the 2003 schism.

Caldodge (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caldodge- Although you have a conflict of interest as defined by Wikipedia, I operate under the assumption of your good faith. Therefore, I have simply deleted without negative comment the material you inserted into the quote. It cannot remain because it is unacceptable practice to introduce material into a quote if it could mislead readers into thinking that it appeared in the original.

I have also re-inserted the following statement which is necessary to explain minor non-substantive changes I made in the quote: “Note: Tense changed in quotation from present to past because of Earl Dodge’s death.”

Incidentally, I don’t believe your father’s quote regarding the accuracy of Politics1.com is misleading. By letting his comments stand, he is reasonably presumed to have acknowledged the accuracy of the material in question. Thanks. David Justin (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]