Steelbeard1 (talk | contribs) →Potential candidates section: requested arbitration |
John Vandenberg (talk | contribs) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
***I don't Think the negative sites should necessarily go as an External Link on a candidates page itself (which why I haven;t reverted the site's removal from Wicker's page), but I have less of a problem with it going on the election page. There's all kinds of negativity and mud slinging that are a natural part of an election.--[[User:Dr who1975|Dr who1975]] ([[User talk:Dr who1975|talk]]) 22:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC) |
***I don't Think the negative sites should necessarily go as an External Link on a candidates page itself (which why I haven;t reverted the site's removal from Wicker's page), but I have less of a problem with it going on the election page. There's all kinds of negativity and mud slinging that are a natural part of an election.--[[User:Dr who1975|Dr who1975]] ([[User talk:Dr who1975|talk]]) 22:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
****If it's a free standing web site, then I think it should be listed. If it's a blog-based page, I say no. [[User:Steelbeard1|Steelbeard1]] ([[User talk:Steelbeard1|talk]]) 22:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC) |
****If it's a free standing web site, then I think it should be listed. If it's a blog-based page, I say no. [[User:Steelbeard1|Steelbeard1]] ([[User talk:Steelbeard1|talk]]) 22:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
*****The threshold required to include a [[WP:EL|website]] is "Is it useful for the reader to go to the site in order to learn about this topic". WP:EL specifically discourages linking to "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." My guess is that the typical mud-slinging site fits that bill. [[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] ([[User talk:Jayvdb|talk]]) 18:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== dispute resolution == |
|||
There was a request for arbitration, which I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=190003367&oldid=189998349 removed] for the moment. If you can both give me a few minutes I'll review and make a few suggestions here shortly. [[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] ([[User talk:Jayvdb|talk]]) 18:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
This appears to be a content dispute that has become a little heated. This doesnt need [[WP:ARBCOM]] to fix the problem as it hasnt escalated out of control. Firstly, we need more discussion here. If the discussion here doesnt work, we can start a [[WP:RFC|request for comment]]. |
|||
This isnt an topical I spend much time in, so I'll just throw a few idea's in to begin with. These will be my uninformed opinions to kick start some discussion. Everyone, feel free to yell at me; dont yell at each other :-) |
|||
The candidates section should reflect those that are currently candidates. Mentioning "Declined" candidates is historically relevant, and should be removed from the article if they are sourced and were significant. In this case they appear to have been semi-serious contenders, so I think they should be mentioned. However as the race goes on, their importance diminishes. How about we note them in the text further down, or in a separate section below the current candidates section ? [[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] ([[User talk:Jayvdb|talk]]) 18:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:45, 8 February 2008
Potential candidates section
In light of conflict over who to include here, I'm removing the section itself, as it's all unsourced speculation. Comments? Ashdog137 (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- any recent article sources potential candidates. i went ahead and included this. while it's speculation, the two dem potential candidates themselves have indicated they're thinking about it, and the section is worthy of keeping in at this point. Journalist1983 (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- So long as there's a source cited that actually speaks to it, that's good. I deleted it earlier because there wasn't even a source citation, which is required on Wikipedia. I haven't had a chance to review the edits yet, but I trust you've done a good job with it -- thanks for finding a source! Ashdog137 (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I think at this stage that only those considering running or declaring their candidacies should be included in the candidates' list. Speculation, even with citations, at this stage should not be included now that there are declared candidates. Steelbeard1 (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Do me a favor... scroll up to the top of this vey talk page and read the template at the top. This is properly sorted material and it is not speculation to say they declined to file.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- That only applies if a person seriously considered running for office or ran for office, then decided not to run or withdrew from the race. It does not apply to third parties speculating if a person would be running for office or if a person was asked to run for office, briefly pondered, then declined the request or immediately declined the request. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. As an historical document, who the papers specualted might run is still a notable element. Most documentaries I watch about historical events often say things like "it was speculated that so and so would run for the seat"... these are important facts and it's one way wikipedia can bring history to life in better and more interesting ways.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- That only applies if a person seriously considered running for office or ran for office, then decided not to run or withdrew from the race. It does not apply to third parties speculating if a person would be running for office or if a person was asked to run for office, briefly pondered, then declined the request or immediately declined the request. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Submitted arbitration request in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Dr_who1975. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Settled, for now
I've used my "special Admin voodoo" to restore the name of the article. (I.e., I'm an Admin, but it took nothing special.) It will be a special election regardless of when it is held. Even on November's election day, it will be a special election. Other federal elections are named "United States [body] special election in [state], [year]." (Admins are not referees or judges. Wikipedia is run by consensus.) —Markles 20:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
:With Respect... You're wrong.Elections that involve both special and regular elections on the same day have thus far been called "elections" on a merged page. The reason it is hard to tell is because it happens so rarely. I only think of two other times since wikipedia started: United States Senate elections in Wyoming, 2008 and Texas's 22nd congressional district elections, 2006. -User:Dr who1975|Dr who1975]] (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a merged article. This is a separate article.—Markles 20:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- And regardless, a consensus has been reached. Please do not act unilaterally without the wishes of a consensus.—Markles 20:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't and I said I wouldn't... what "voodoo" exactly did you do because as near as I can tell... the page has said "election" for several hours now and wasn't in need of "fixing" along those lines?--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
As per the merge discussion, the reason for not merging the 2 articles was because of the controversy, not because of which days they fall on. People need to keep that in mind. The special election is notable of an article its own and seperate because of the special and notable controversy surrounding it, ie:state law not being followed, it going to court, etc. The Wyoming special election has nothing controversial or spectacular about it.. it's not being challenged. The 2 are certainly distinct. I imagine that after the dust has settled and the court decides, the special election article will take another form surrounding the actual controversy itself rather than the election itself. -- ALLSTARecho 20:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC):Markles, are you talking about me moving United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008 to Mississippi's class 1 senate special election, 2008?--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Shouldn;t this discussion be on Talk:United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008... you're really confusing the hell out of me.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was not to move --Lox (t,c) 10:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I request that this page be moved (back) to Mississippi's class 1 senate special election, 2008 for the folowing reasons. Previously in wikipedia... all special congressional elections were differentiated from the general election by the words "special election" and a more in depth description of the election. Examples: California's 50th congressional district special election, 2006 vs United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2006... this particular special election is new teritory because, since wikipedia's inception, there has yet to be a special Senate election the same year but a different date than the regular election (and actually, for the present, this election is scheduled for the same day as the regular election but we have decided to keep it as two pages due to a pending court case). There is some ambiguity because, while you have multiple regular house elections in one day, you do not have multiple regular Senate elections for a state in one day. It is also unlikely that a state will have multiple Senate special elections in one year, for differnet classes or otherwise. However, despite the unlikelyhood, I'm in favor of setting the standard to differiate the name of the special election as much as possible from the regular election in case that occurs. I initially moved the page without contention but then user:Markles, in good faith, got this renaming action confused with a seperate debate and moved it back so I will now put it up for concensus.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose.
- The proposed name does not include "United States" so it is not clear if it is a US Senator or a state Senator.
- The current name is clear, unambiguous, and consistent.
- The "class 1" in an article name is really uncommonly used and wouldn't be as clear to the reader what is meant.
- There will be two US Senate elections in Mississippi in 2008. One will be a regular election and one special election. Thus: United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008 (Thad Cochran) and United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008 (Trent Lott / Roger Wicker).
—Markles 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- In response to point one... don't most states have state level congressional districts on top of the federal ones. In such a case, isn't there just as much ambiguity within a naming convention such as California's 50th congressional district special election, 2006... also wouldn't stating the class help alleviate this since most states do not have classes of Senators.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- What are "state level congressional districts"?—Markles 18:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- For example, the Florida House of Representatives has districts of it's own. Aren't state legislatures sometimes called congesses (maybe I'm full of it on this one)?--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- State legislature (United States) would seem to say no -- there are no state congresses, according to that article (and my memory). Ashdog137 (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, there's a naming standard which applies and should be used. —Nightstallion 17:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Nightstallion -- ALLSTARecho 17:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Where is the naming standard outlined? Also, my major point is that this election, with the potential of having 2 Senate elections on different days in the same year, has never happend since wikipedia was founded. How can there be a standard for something unprecedented?--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
- It really would've been nice if somebody responded to me last comment even if they disagree with it. It seems like nobody read it.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- The consensus comments seem to speak for themselves. Sorry. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- It really would've been nice if somebody responded to me last comment even if they disagree with it. It seems like nobody read it.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
External links
Dr. Who's unilateral decision of placing external official campaign web sites next to the candidates' names instead of in the external links section does not match the prevailing format of other articles about U.S. senate campaigns having all external links, official campaign and third party web sites about the campaign, in the external links section. Check them out for yourself using the links at United States Senate elections, 2008. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Which 3 sites with my format did you find... there's at least 6.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. Please also cite the wikipedia page that outlines a standard for election pages?--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- United States Senate election in Virginia, 2008, United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008 and United States Senate election in Oregon, 2008. Check out the other campaign articles. There is no set standard I found. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- A) Let's not start bandying about the phrase "unilateral." Not everything can be done ahead of time by committee and consensus. Be bold!—Markles 21:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- B) I agree with Steelbeard that campaign sites belong in External Links at the end.—Markles 21:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- See ... I was being bold by adding it to the elections I added it to, I've already done it to the 5 House special elections pages and I was the one who did it to the other Mississippi page. Since I have now hit some opposition after being bold I think I need to gather concensus.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wrong. We should be bold, and make the edit. THEN if someone disagrees, we try to reach consensus.—Markles 23:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's OK to be bold, but if changes are made to the bold entry which the bold poster objects to, don't revert and start an edit war, talk about it in the talk page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes- good point!—Markles 00:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- See ... I was being bold by adding it to the elections I added it to, I've already done it to the 5 House special elections pages and I was the one who did it to the other Mississippi page. Since I have now hit some opposition after being bold I think I need to gather concensus.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Negative Sites
- While we can discuss official sites, i think we should not turn wikipedia into a campaign mud-slinging site. hence the link about the anti-wicker site should be removed. otherwise we have a free-for-all. let me know if you disagree.Journalist1983 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't Think the negative sites should necessarily go as an External Link on a candidates page itself (which why I haven;t reverted the site's removal from Wicker's page), but I have less of a problem with it going on the election page. There's all kinds of negativity and mud slinging that are a natural part of an election.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- If it's a free standing web site, then I think it should be listed. If it's a blog-based page, I say no. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- The threshold required to include a website is "Is it useful for the reader to go to the site in order to learn about this topic". WP:EL specifically discourages linking to "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." My guess is that the typical mud-slinging site fits that bill. John Vandenberg (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- If it's a free standing web site, then I think it should be listed. If it's a blog-based page, I say no. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't Think the negative sites should necessarily go as an External Link on a candidates page itself (which why I haven;t reverted the site's removal from Wicker's page), but I have less of a problem with it going on the election page. There's all kinds of negativity and mud slinging that are a natural part of an election.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- While we can discuss official sites, i think we should not turn wikipedia into a campaign mud-slinging site. hence the link about the anti-wicker site should be removed. otherwise we have a free-for-all. let me know if you disagree.Journalist1983 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
dispute resolution
There was a request for arbitration, which I've removed for the moment. If you can both give me a few minutes I'll review and make a few suggestions here shortly. John Vandenberg (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This appears to be a content dispute that has become a little heated. This doesnt need WP:ARBCOM to fix the problem as it hasnt escalated out of control. Firstly, we need more discussion here. If the discussion here doesnt work, we can start a request for comment.
This isnt an topical I spend much time in, so I'll just throw a few idea's in to begin with. These will be my uninformed opinions to kick start some discussion. Everyone, feel free to yell at me; dont yell at each other :-)
The candidates section should reflect those that are currently candidates. Mentioning "Declined" candidates is historically relevant, and should be removed from the article if they are sourced and were significant. In this case they appear to have been semi-serious contenders, so I think they should be mentioned. However as the race goes on, their importance diminishes. How about we note them in the text further down, or in a separate section below the current candidates section ? John Vandenberg (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)