Wikipedia talk:Candidates and elections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Comments from Night Stallion (great name)

In principle, I support this, but the naming convention is horribly wrong. Current naming convention for elections is Austrian legislative election, 2006, NOT 2006 Austrian legislative election. —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 13:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I support it except for having legions of articles about nn candidates who get votes from their mother, their wife, and their dog only. Stifle (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what this proposed policy is trying to prevent. Information on such "non-notable" candidates would go in the articles on the election they participated in. -- Mwalcoff 23:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

We also need to specify which elections are notable (Mayor of Chicago likely would be, town councilman for Homestead, Florida would not); I think individual elections for state legislatures are likely to be non-notable, and would prefer to see an article on "Maryland legislative election, 2006", rather then an individual article on each seat contested therein. Also, even in an article on the specific election, the fringe candidate who gets 3 votes simply merits no mention unless they did something independently notable and newsworthy during the campaign. BD2412 T 14:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Homestead City Council elections probably don't merit articles. I would say, though, that individual state-legislative elections might. There seemed to be a lot of interest in articles on individual Canadian parliamentary races, where the districts are about the same size population-wise as Maryland Senate districts. In California, the Senate districts are bigger than (federal) congressional districts. -- Mwalcoff 22:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BD2412's comment regarding the relative notability of different levels of election. Just zis Guy you know? 15:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the article names in accordance with Nightstallion's comment. -- Mwalcoff 01:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! —Nightst a llion (?) 07:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support

This all makes good sense, with the proviso that a while after the election we should be able to revisit the split-out articles and review them, since many have a lot of detail on specific campaign issues which make them too big for a "candidates of" article but the perspective of time shows this to be largely irrelevant (or in any case better covered under the race itself as an Issues section).

Of course it would be best to wait until after the election before creating any article at all, since documenting current events is Wikinews' job... Just zis Guy you know? 15:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pro-incumbent bias

One of my concerns as a challenger (both in 2004 and now) is that all sorts of institutions favor incumbents. If Wikipedia policy is that incumbents are eligible for a page, but challengers have to meet some extra test, then that is a pro-incumbent bias.

I don't think this is that big of a deal coming from Wikipedia, but it is a tremendous problem for challengers when it comes to newspapers and television. An incumbent shows up to a school, shakes a couple hands, and gets a front page article in the local paper. A challenger campaigns for 20 hours a week for a year and yet sees a media blackout. When name recognition is so important, the only way you can get it against this bias is by buying it -- and I don't think most regular people think that's so great a political system.

I could go on a long rant about campaign reform to diminish the incumbency advantage, but this isn't the place for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wredlich (talk • contribs).

Unfortunately, you are right. Wikipedia is not the right place to attempt to redress the incumbency bias. Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, is by definition a tertiary source. We synopsize what others have already verifiably and [{WP:RS|reliably]] written about. Only when challengers have received extensive and independent coverage do we have the sources to synopsize. Attempting to solve the problem in Wikipedia first would be attacking the problem backwards. Thanks for your understanding. Rossami (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, but that's silly. While well intentioned, these guidelines have been used to delete important, notable candidates who have received plenty of press coverage --- see Diane Farrell, who has 125 current Google News stories and was featured on the front page of the New York Times, the leading American newspaper. That's not an institutional problem, that's a Wikipedia problem, and it representes de facto editorializing by WP members.--Francisx 21:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should favour the incumbent because the incumbent is (generally) more notable, having served in public office. The incumbent gets an article because he won the last election, not because he's standing in the next one. --Tango 19:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a fundamental unanswered question about what the purpose of the Wikipedia is. If it is to be a source of relatively unbiased information about topics of interest to people who want that information, then clearly information about major candidates in important elections (like Chris Murphy, Diane Farrell, and Darcy Burner in the 2006 U.S. House of Representatives elections) counts. I expect that those pages get substantially more traffic and interest than pages about, say, some obscure archeological find in northern Uzbekistan. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Furthermore, independent sources abound for such information about those major candidates, since all of those candidates are receiving significant national press coverage.

If providing credible independent verifiable information about issues and persons of interest is not the purpose of the Wikipedia, though... well, then, what is? --Zentalon

I have to concur with Zentalon. Whether you call it pro-incumbent bias this is silly. The main problem with many biographies is getting enough verifiable information. Even candidates who are going to lose have a raft of press and biographical information, and are nearly always significant people in their community. Being known on the national stage should not be a necessary criterion. But then I'm one of those dastardly inclusionists who recognizes that Wikipedia is not paper.--The Cunctator 12:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, then. Let's put first thing's first. The most obvious examples, imho, of silly deletionism has been attempt to delete articles for candidates such as Ellen Simon, Diane Farrell, and Patrick Murphy. (Of of them, IIRC, was successful, although it came back). So, let's get an explicit policy up on the C&E main page and see if we can get support. Something along the lines of: Any major party candidate for the US House who meets any of the following criteria shall be deemed of sufficient notability to warrant an article. OK, off the top of my head, such criteria might be (this needs refinement, but): (a) notable in his/her own right; (b) won a district-wide primary election; (c) involved in a somewhat competitive race (e.g, CQPolitics.com does not rate the race as "Safe Dem/Rep")"; (d) involved in a race that has attracted considerable attention for other reasons. There must be verifiable information on such candidate that comes from sources other than the candidate's own website(s). OK, I realize that criteria (b) might be too large (so might (d)). But we can refine. Thoughts? -- Sholom 19:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

All of that is redundant, and already covered by notability requirements. The problem with Farrell was straightforward: it was resurrected from a valid AfD based on a lack of notability, without a DRV, based on IRC chat, and without going through the steps of establishing notability before she received significant press coverage, due to the race tightening and getting national coverage. Had authors followed procedures, there would have been little problem or controversy, and it wasn't until the time the aricle came to AfD again that notability was established and the election article was written: Farrell was not notable in her own right until the race became tight and she got national press coverage, and the first AfD was valid. Others may spin it differently. Also, I'm not so sure there is an advantage to "incumbent bias", since what happens on Wiki is that POV-pushers use incumbent articles and records to trash incumbent candidates, while non-incumbents typically have little public record for scrutiny, and they aren't trashed as thoroughly by POV pushers on Wikipedia. Having an article isn't necessarily an advantage for an incumbent. Sandy (Talk) 20:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. You've explained the Diane Farell instance, but not Ellen Simon or Patrick Murphy. If it were clearly already covered by notability requirements, then there would not have been pushes (and votes) to delete Simon's or Murphy's pages. But, we quibble. Whether redundant or not, my proposed addition would at least help clarify. -- Sholom 16:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major party nominees.

There is a current batch of AfDs about candidates, and some of these people in question are major party nominees to national legislatures. Some are using this proposal as a justification for a "delete" on these AfDs. Since I personally feel that major party noms to nat'l legislatures are inherently notable, I figured I would bring the discussion over here. I am not saying every candidate out there should be included in Wikipedia. Where is the consensus on this issue? youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 20:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Typically, major party nominees are notable independent of the election? Such as by holding a lower office. —Centrx→talk • 21:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The majority of such nominees already qualify under one of the other criteria of WP:BIO. If they don't meet any of those criteria, then just being a candidate does not qualify by itself. The problem is that some candidate are nominated just so the other party is not running unopposed. Please don't read this as disrespect to the candidate but it's a throw-away nomination. We rarely have anything verifiable to say about such candidates. Rossami (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a question of notability. No one is entitled to an article. If you have enough independent, verifiable information on a candidate to make a full article on a candidate for office, the article should pass muster. But if that information doesn't exist, just write an article about the election as a whole first. -- Mwalcoff 03:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helping with the pro-incumbant bias noted above

At the least, we ought to be able to declare that any major-party candidate running for certain offices are, by definition, notable. These offices would include, at the least: US Senate, US House, and State Governorship. (And, while I agree it it not the place of WP to redress societal problems, this idea here has, as a side benefit, reducing pro-incumbant bias a small amount). -- Sholom 19:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Sticking just to US politics for now, the Senate has 33 seats elected every 2 years. If we assume one of the 2 major parties wins each seat, that's 33 articles every 2 years for people who potentially are notable only because they once lost an election for Senator (and similar numbers for various other political positions across the world, resulting in 100s of articles). Remember, articles last longer than just the length of the election - if they're not going to be notable after the election, then they don't get an article before it either. People that are only notable because of a current event should be discussed on wikinews, or something. Look at it this way - is someone that lost a senate election in 1920, and did nothing else notable in their life, notable enough to get an article? I don't think so, so neither should someone who lost an election in 2006. --Tango 20:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

How on God's green good earth is 33 articles every two years a problem for Wikipedia? At least if you mentioned the House we'd be talking about 400 articles. Even that number is a microscopic drop in the WIkipedia bucket. --The Cunctator 12:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

(Again, just sticking to US politics) I disagree. First of all, I fail to see how, in 2006 (and it was probably true in 1920) how it is even remotely possible that somebody could win a major party nomination to be a US Senator, and not already be notable. Almost always, such a person has held a variety of previous public offices, etc. Additionaly, often the issue of the particular election are a good snapshot of the issues of the day, from which threads one can reconstruct history. Further, you seem to be worried about 100's of articles. What's the problem with that? Do we have a size constraint? Wikipedia is not paper. Anyone doing political research ought to be able to find out who Senator So-and-So beat in an election, and information about that opponent. What better place than an encyclopedia? IMHO. -- Sholom 20:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My knowledge of US politics isn't vast. In the UK, MPs are generally just party activists before they win elections - they might be notable within their parties, but not among the general public. Someone that loses a UK General Election, even for a major party, is rarely notable for anything else - if they are, then they can have an article written about them because of that. The issues an election was fought over should be covered in the election's article, not the candiates. While wikipedia has plenty of room for articles, those articles still need to be written - there are better things for people to do than write articles about non-notable election candidates. We can have articles about each election, detailing who stood, who won, what the issues were, and even a brief biography of the candidates if you want, but individual candidates don't need their own articles if the only thing they're notable for is the election. --Tango 20:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that may explain the difference between us. That is most definately not the case in the US. To become a candidate for Senator, you have to raise millions of dollars, from a broad number of folks and organizations. And you're not going to raise that kind of money, often, unless you have a track record of serving previously as a congressman, or mayor, or serving in the State Senate or House. And even to win a state House position, you often have to be fairly influential in the community. (or a millionaire). -- Sholom 20:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Then such candidates could already have articles written about them, so standing in an election is unimportant. In the UK, the parties pay the election costs (funded by donations from rich backers, generally), and I don't think it costs anywhere near that much... There are strict limits on how much you're allowed to spend. --Tango 21:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There are crucial dfferences between UK elections and US elections. The average US House of Representatives District has a population of approximately 700,000 whereas the average UK constituency is one-tenth that, at about 70,000. US major party congressional candidates are almost by definition notable people, although in some cases, parties may nominate ordinary activists as placeholders in races that otherwise would go uncontested. Certainly, any evidence suggesting that a race is being seriously contested (as evidenced by support from private donors, party organizations [such as the DNC, RNC, DCCC, RNCC], news coverage, notable third party advocacy organizations, etc.) should clearly make the candidates notable. In Senate elections, where the constituencies and sums involved are typically far larger, any major party candidate is de facto notable, by the very act of running. Also, there are crucial differences between the US and the UK in the way these races are contested. In the US, the background and personality of individual congressional candidates are almost always key points in an election. Candidates are responsible for the majority of their own fundraising, for their own electoral planks, etc., with party organizations taking a back seat. In the UK, by contrast, elections typically take the shape more of fights between parties. The point of all this is that, when in doubt, you should conclude that major party candidates for the US House are notable, and major party candidates for US Senate are almost always notable.--Francisx 21:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to beat this to death, but one of the tricky things about US elections is the vast difference in ballot access laws between one state and another. Almost anyone can get on the ballot in Tennessee, for example, where the requirement for signatures to enter a party primary of one of the two major parties or get on the general election ballot as an independent candidate is only 25 signatures, whether the office being contested is governor or constable. Obivously many non-notable people get on the ballot for some races, with some of them apparently having little more intent that to get their name in print. Therefore, just to say that "X. X. Smith ran for governor of Tennessee in 2002" has little relevance, in and of itself, to notability, even if one can produce summaries from the Secretary of State's office verfying his presence on the ballot and perhaps even an odd media reference (quite likely from a featue story about oddball candidates). I would say that a reliable guide for the U.S. would be anyone nominated by a major party (i.e., won the primary or state convention endorsement) for Congress or a statewide office would be notable, as would anyone nominated by a notable statewide party for major offices in that state (the Vermont Progressive Party comes immediately to mind), and that for independent and non-recognized third-party candidates there needs to be evidence of an actual campaign, rather than just a filing to run for office. Again, factors which need to be weighed would include past service (the current or former mayor of a major city would be automatically a credible candidate for a higher office in that state unless this could be easily refuted by a statement that he or she had no real interest in winning the office, for example, as would a floor leader in either house of a state legislature in absence of such a statement), evidence of a funded campaign (which in 2006 requires more than a website, IMO, as inexpensive as hosting now is), and evidence of media/name recognition. Contrary to something stated above, sometimes major-party U.S. candidates for Congress are little-known outside their party's activist base prior to receving the party's nomination. Two examples from Tennessee alone within the last three decades include Don Sundquist, who was almost unknown to the general public prior to 1982 but who had been chairman of the Shelby County (Memphis) Republican Party and went on to win six terms in the U.S. House and two as Governor of Tennessee, and Jim Sasser, who had been State Chairman of the Democratic Party but who was largely unknown outside of the party mechanism prior to winnning its primary for U.S. Senate in 1976; Sasser went on to unseat an incumbent Senator and served three terms, the last as Majority Whip.

I would assume that something similar could be applied to Canada, at least in federal elections; nominees of major parties would be automatically presumed notable but others would need to prove it by showing the existence of at least a credible campaign. I am also aware that party strength is even more regionalized in Canada than it is in the US and that one could probably argue that the New Democrat nominee for a riding in rural Alberta would not necessarily be notable; ditto for a Tory nominee in downtown Montreal. Outside of Anglo-America I am not knowledgable enough to have a credible opinion and therefore do not offer one. Rlquall 14:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of what you say makes sense, but it's tough to make generalizations. Had Joe Lieberman pulled out a win over him, Ned Lamont would probably still be notable as a national political celebrity. I think the best advice to people is not to create stub articles on politicians or articles full of fluff. If that's all you've got, put the content in an article on the election in question. That spares the rest of us from having to make a determination based on the elusive characteristic of notability. -- Mwalcoff 22:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right in that Lamont would have become notable even if he had been unsuccessful in beating Liberman for the Democratic Senate nomination in that he ran a high-profile, credible campaign against an incumbent Senator who had a high national profile, a hard thing to do under most circumstances, especially for someone who does not or has not held high office previously themselves. That just goes to show how tough trying to formulate any sort of guideline for this sort of thing actually is, but there is a huge difference between a Ned Lamont and someone who has gotten 25 friends to sign and put his name on the ballot and then done nothing further. Rlquall 14:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names of articles on elections

I've reverted the changes to the names of articles on U.S. elections pending further discussion on this talk page.

Here are the changes that were made:

Old style: U.S. Senate election, Michigan, 2006; U.S. House of Representatives election, New York 20th district, 2006; Arizona state Senate election, 14th district, 2006.

New style: Michigan United States Senate election, 2006; New York 20th congressional district election, 2006; Arizona state legislature elections, 2006.

I'll deal with the last one first. There may be nothing wrong with having an article about all elections in a state legislature in a given year assuming there is some coherence to the election in general (which isn't usually the case in state-legislative elections). But I don't think such an article can serve as a repository for candidate information. There are simply too many seats in state legislatures for there to be room to include even a paragraph on every major-party candidate. Maryland has 188 seats up for election this year -- that's up to 376 major-party candidates, plus assorted Greens, Libertarians, etc. Even a list of them will be unwieldy. We really need to allow for articles on individual district races.

Regarding US House districts: The style "Ohio 10th congressional district election" may lead to confusion with the Ohio (state) House of Representatives election. I think it's better to use the term "U.S. House of Representatives election" to better clarify we're talking about a federal race.

For consistency's sake, then, we should go back to the old style for U.S. Senate races, too.

Mwalcoff 00:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the one who made the changes. I appreciate your arguments, except for the fact the people who are creating articles about elections are not using the naming conventions you are suggesting. They are using the ones I put in - hence, mine are blue links and yours are red. Yours are also misleading because you are providing examples that don't exist. When people try to follow them logically, they will think the article they are looking for doesn't exist and go start one.

For example, say someone wants to make an article about Leonard Clark, who is running against Jon Kyl for one of the Arizona seats in the U.S. Senate. If they come here and see your example, U.S. Senate election, Michigan, 2006, they are going to logically infer that they should check U.S. Senate election, Arizona, 2006 to see if it exists. It doesn't, of course, because the convention being used is Arizona United States Senate election, 2006. So they'll either CREATE a page out of the red link they got, or they'll just go away, neither one being the desired result. Thoughts? --Aguerriero (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No matter what style/format is decided on, some people will think it is (or should be) another format. It would be helpful to put redirects in place at the same time that articles are created, or when it becomes apparent that people are creating pages using a different format, regardless of the format that is settled on. John Broughton 01:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add my two cents to this discussion, since I started the Arizona state legislature elections, 2006 article. Basically, the criteria I used (which I somehow thought was already universally accepted, but then realized I'd hardly done any checking on it) in bracketing candidates' names were basically this: if the candidate had been a sitting member of the legislature and is/was an officer or party leader in their chamber (ex, President of the Senate, Minority Leader, more-important committee chairman, although I didn't have all of the necessary work done (and still don't)), if someone in the incumbent column was running for a statewide office (State Treasurer, Corporation Commission) or for US Congress, if they held previous elected positions outside the legislature (mostly city councils and mayors-- school board membership consciously excluded), or if there was something else notable about them not related to the office they held. If someone was just a candidate, they were excluded, and if they lost their primary and were not incumbents, they were deleted without being reffered to in the article.

To back up a little bit, the basic idea behind creating a single article with all of the races for the state legislature seemed to be a good remedy in proportion to the notice given by most people to those races, since I doubted there would be much use in an article like "Arizona state House of Representatives election, District 26, 2006" when most of the people in the election would (and my apologies to the incumbents and challengers) likely not have a large-enough profile to even merit their own articles.

I hope that made sense, and I'm glad I finally found this page, I've been looking for it for awhile now. --JMurphy 04:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This Proposed Policy Stinks

I'm not one for hyperbole, but this is the silliest guidline I have yet seen on WP.

1) Despite being simply proposed, it has been used to delete existing articles.

2) As mentioned above, it is inappropriately pro-incumbent. Wiki users are smart enough to determine the difference between vanity candidates and serious contenders -- obviously WP doesn't need a bio of every single person who files to run for every single office, but when this policy is being used to delete useful NPOV background information on leading candidates in some of the most closely contested poltical races in the country, (see, for example, Diane Farrell (deleted) and now Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy (proposed for deletion), it is doing a disservice to users who rely on WP as one of the few sources of NPOV information on elections. All three of those I mentioned are listed by observers as among the 20 strongest Democratic candidates in the nation, all have raised in excess of $1 million (US), all have been featured or profiled on the front page of the New York Times and all three have been elected previously to office.

Use whatever mechanisms you need to do differentiate serious candidates from unserious fluff; and by all means, promote election overviews. But if your (PROPOSED!) guidelines are leading to the deletion of notable politicians, then it is those guidelines that are flawed.--Francisx 21:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, I consider myself to be fairly inclusionistic. This policy should not result in the deletion of a single word from Wikipedia. It simply says that if there is not yet enough quality info for a non-stub article on a candidate, the info should go into an article on the election in question. If there is enough quality info, then an article can be created. If you are upset because a candidate does not have an article under this policy, you should try to dig up enough independent information on him or her to create a quality article. Joe Courtney is a perfecly legitimate subject for an article, IMO, but the current "article" on him is a joke. Move it to U.S. House of Representatives election, Connecticut 2nd district, 2006 for now, and if the section on him develops into something substantial, you can recreate the article on the candidate. -- Mwalcoff 04:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this official yet?

This proposal seems to have gotten a good reception and is being referenced (by others) on AfD. Can we change it from a "proposed" policy to an official one? -- Mwalcoff 23:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Vectro 04:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An Inclusionist's Manifesto

Removed per the request of another user. I am reprinting it on my user talk page.--Utahredrock 17:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As Long as it is factual, and not biased...

I come to this debate because I took it upon myself to make sure the candidates in my local U.S. Senate race were represented on Wikipedia, the incumbent was very well represented, the challenger minimally so, and the third party candidate was non existent here. So, I contributed, in good faith to providing the information for wikipedia.

Someone stuck a "prod" tag on one of them and said it should be deleted.

It is my view that if someone takes the trouble to create a fair and unbiased article about a current candidate for office, which may be of some use to people looking for information on candidates in their local races, it should have a home on Wikipedia.

Certainly after an election, the bio could be shortened, because the person's relevance and notability are minimized, but during an active election, it is a reasonable expectation of a non-wikipedian to be able to search and find information about candidates on Wikipedia.

mitchsensei July 29, 2006

But it is biased, and always will be biased, and editors fight tooth and nail to protect the bias. This is a disservice to the public, and will damage Wikipedia. There is no shortage of political discourse on the web. This is one business that Wikipedia should get out of. Kardreader 05:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Wikipedia is a place people come for information. The educated consumer will not take Wikipedia as the only source, and will compare sources. Information about candidates is a service to democractic principles, the same ones Wikipedia is founded on. The free exchange of ideas and information. Wikipedia is not threatened by the competition, it is enriched by it. mitchsensei Sep 6, 2006

Hi, Mitch. There are organizations, a primary example being the League of Women Voters, which do provide "information about candidates as a service" (in other words, "voter's guides"). They operate under strictly-defined guidelines to present unbiased information. Wikipedia does not. Our articles are free-form, there is no equivalence requested or enforced in the articles for the candidates competing in any particular race, and much of the material contained in our articles is selected in order to try to discredit the candidate. (Personally, I wonder why the IRS lets us get away with that, since that type of behavior is strictly prohibited for a 501(c)3 organization.) And, of course, each article is only as good as the most recent edit; this is true of everything in Wikipedia, of course, but seems to me a bigger concern in relation to current-candidate articles which are, each and every one, subject to the flames of partisan passion. Or, in other words, any editor who is willing to take the time to work on a current-candidate article does have personal feelings in support of or opposed to that candidate. That is not nearly so universal for most other subjects.

As I suggested before, there are lots and lots of places on the web for "free exchange of ideas" regarding politics. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think Wikipedia wants/needs/is supposed to be competing with those. The threat to Wikipedia, as I see it, is that the bias which is present in our current-candidate articles, the obvious need for "educated consumers" to "compare sources", will lead to diminished respect for Wikipedia as a whole. Kardreader 16:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia fills a void: there is no other website that (a) provides the type of articles that wikipedia does on candidates and elections, in the depth that many articles are, AND (b) is unbiased. League of Women voter pamphlets are pretty bland stuff, consisting mostly of candidate statements, if I remember correctly. And not on the web. And without links.

I've edited well over a hundred articles about current politicians and elections. And I certainly have strong preferences about the types of people I want in office. But I follow wikipedia policies about objective information, reliable sources, etc. And if I don't bend over backwards to include every negative thing about someone I like, or every good thing about someone I dislike, I most certainly don't try to remove such stuff when added by someone else. An appropriate balance of positive and negative information comes from accumlating edits over time by a lot of people, I think, and while we'd all like the articles to be really good, right now, it's better than nothing that they do improve, though it takes time.

My personal experience is that articles like anarchy and scientology are where ferocious fights take place. If you look at cases that go to Arbcom, they aren't about American politicians, they're about subjects that people are much more passionate about (did the Turks commit genocide against the Armenians, in the early 1900s, for example). Wikipedia doesn't have any policy that says "really, really controversial articles shouldn't be in this encyclopedia", and I don't think it should. And while I've been in my share of edit wars (see, for example, Thelma Drake), my experience has been that consensus, often uneasy, can in fact be reached in the vast majority of cases, and where it can't, it's because someone is simply unreasonable (bordering on nuts), not that people are partisan. John Broughton 17:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments are very clear and articulate. Nevertheless, I must disagree with your conclusion. The recent Arbcom cases don't cover politics largely because we're between election cycles. If you want some examples of the partisan attacks, biased writing and exceptionally bad behavior, I recommend looking in the history at the articles which were written during the 2004 US election cycle. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of pages were deemed inappropriate for the project and were deleted. Dozens of editors were banned (and those are just the ones I know of - I suspect there were many more.) Even the good-faith edits were made based on "the latest news" but without fact-checking or sources. Many more were made by partisans with no intent or attempt to be neutral. And because the election running was on it's own time-schedule, it was almost impossible to stop.

Wikipedia is a great resource for many, many things. But it is inherently weak at providing NPOV coverage of controversial, rapidly developing events. As you say, quality articles develop through the accumulation and discussion of edits from many people. Biographies of political candidates almost always fail to meet that prerequisite. There just isn't time to get the necessary investigation, discussion and editing accomplished in a way that's at all reliable or helpful to readers. By the time we get to a verified, sourced and neutrally-written article, the election's been over for 6 months, the candidate lost and the article's ready to be nominated for deletion because no one is watching or maintaining it anymore.

The other problem that I think you've underestimated is the implication of the sheer number of potential candidates out there. The statistics have been cited several times already. The numbers are mind-boggling. Reliable, responsible editors are our scarcest resource. We just don't have enough editors like you to make sure that all these biographies meet the appropriate standards. During the election, the responsible editors get overrun by the partisans and the trolls. If you look at our actual experience during the election cycle, we were unable to live up to your assessment (b) above. The smaller political articles we had at that time were often anything but unbiased.

I believe that in the vast majority of cases, Wikipedia is better off without these biographies. Let the election be decided. Let the facts develop. Write about it from verified, independent sources then. Let others who specialize in this area present the information during the election cycle. By the way, the LWV is online and has links to their Candidate Information Voter Guides and links to the candidates' own materials. You described them as bland. I would describe them as fact-based, succinct and much more likely to be immune to vandalism or subtle bias at any given point in time. Let specialists meet the social need during the election. We should aim to write the ideal, neutral, in-depth encyclopedia article after the fact. Rossami (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I take back "bland" (by which I meant to say that the LWV can't say anything that anyone could object to, so they say nothing - but "bland" isn't the right word). Your characterizing the League of Women Voters pamphlets as "fact-based", on the other hand? I suppose it's a fact that the answers that the candidates responded to are the candidates' own words, and the links to the candidates web pages are accurate, but in no way, form, or shape does the information (a) provide biographical details; (b) providing voting and political positions taken in the past; (c) discuss controversies; (d) provide fundraising info; (e) provide perspective. In other words, the LWV information isn't even as good as a comprehensive news article one might find in the Washington Post or NYT.

One thing you don't mention is that there are an ever-increasing number of editors. No, I don't think that most city and county elections should be covered, but there are certainly enough editors out there to cover the 50 to 100 interesting races in the House of Representatives, not to mention 34 or so Senate races every other year. In fact, I've mentioned (elsewhere) that I'd like to try doing a wikiproject, recruiting editors to cover specific races, for the next federal election cycle; obviously that needs to wait until the next one.

As for quality, that's a recognized problem of wikipedia, something that Wales has said must be addressed. My sense is that in 2004, unsourced info was acceptable because there were fewer editors, and certainly fewer ones with a lot of experience; in 2006, a lot more articles have footnotes and, of course, negative unsourced info is defined as unacceptable. But I agree that a lot more needs to be done, for all types of articles, to improve quality. John Broughton 23:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

An excellent discussion, in my humble opinion. (Of course, largely irrelevant to the specifics of the proposed policy to which this page is connected, but nevertheless here we are.) Like Rossami, I appreciate John's well-stated viewpoints (and I am certainly aware of your commitment to quality editing on the candidate pages), but Rossami has articulated very well my own perceptions of the situation. My fear is that, in order to make the current-candidate articles unbiased in the first place, and then keep them that way, you will need two armies of active, vigilant editors, acting in opposition to each other to protect their own turf. That's the function that I'm trying to serve now, though it's really not how I want to be spending my free time, and I resent having to do it. Furthermore, getting back to Mitch's original complaint, where does that leave the third-party candidates who do not have their own army of editors? And, philosophically, I have difficulty reconciling it with Wikipedia's mission, though, at the moment, I am unable to find the right words to clearly explain myself.

I have difficulty with the premise that, in the case of a current electoral campaign, there is one "truth", and that Wikipedia can find it and articulate it. The "truth" is different depending on which side you're on. As John points out, there are numerous other controversial subjects also, but I am swayed to the viewpoint, as Rossami stated well, that current-candidate articles constitute their own uniquely demanding category. Also, the hope that John holds out, the electoral wikiproject, suggests to me a situation in which a group of people who have agreed to commit to neutrality are in control of the articles. This is obviously not the status quo; would that it were.

Perhaps this is an irrelevant personal anecdote, but let me add that, though I have financially supported Project Gutenberg and Groklaw and various other public-service Internet sites, I would not consider donating money to Wikipedia due to my perception that Wikipedia is, to a significant extent, my political opponent. Kardreader 11:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just checking in to see where the discussion went. I still stand by my initial comment. If Wikipedia is going to have information on active incumbent candidates, it needs to have information on all candidates (or at least make space available for those candidates, I am not saying anyone HAS to create an article). Anything short of that is incumbent bias. Now, if Wikipedia wants to eliminate all bios for candidates under a certain threshold, that would be different. No city council candidates for example, or no state representatives? Where would that level be drawn? Certainly Members of Parliament and US Senators and Congressmen would be above that threshold wouldn't they? I would note that the article in question that I created for Wikipedia was for a U.S. Senate candidate. I would be fine to see it deleted after the election, since aside from being a U.S. Senate candidate, he is not an individual of any great importance outside of the local area. mitchsensei Sep 21, 2006

[edit] is vs. was

The project page currently advises:

One concern about articles on elections is that biographical information on candidates may change after the election. If you write, "Smith is a lawyer," the information will become incorrect if Smith changes careers. It's unrealistic to expect future editors to follow the careers of every defeated candidate for office. If you change the sentence after the election to read, "Smith was a lawyer," it may lead readers to believe Smith is no longer a lawyer, even if he still is.

The best way to avoid this situation is to avoid verbs for biographical information that might change in the future. In the above case, you could write, "Fred Smith, a lawyer", when you mention the occupation of Smith, as part of a listing of candidates. (Another example: "Jones is running against Smith, a class action lawyer." After the election, the word "is running" can be changed to "ran" without any concern as to whether Smith remains a lawyer.)

I suggest that another method is to include an as-of link, as "Smith is a lawyer". What think you all?—msh210℠ 06:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to use is and was, actually. —Nightst a llion (?) 13:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Okay, this appears to be a useful concept for a guideline, but there may be some concerns about the wording or the specifics (I suppose I'd have to look over AFD to find out more). As I recall a rule of thumb has generally been that non-elected candidates are not really notable (since there's zillions of them and it's generally not very difficult to become electable).

Also I must say that I find the "note on time issues" overly specific, and more belonging in the manual of style if anywhere. >Radiant< 17:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Argument for inclusivity

I favor retaining external links to the websites of all ballot-qualified candidates for political office as in keeping with the informational mission of Wikipeida. The policy as expressed on the Wikipedia:External links page where it specifically prohibits linking to the sites for candidates who do not hold elected office. In fact, since the webpage for the candidate is a siginificant source of information on the campaign, inclusion of these links is permissible at least under the occassional use language. It does seem as though the policy of exclusionn is biased in favor of incumbents and against "third-party" challengers specifically, as these candidates are less likely to be professional politicians. If the exlusion of campaign liks were carried to its logical conclusion, then there would have been no link for Ralph Nader, Ross Perot (or even Michael Bloomberg) as neither was an officeholder when they first began campaigning. Readers can be trusted not do confuse inclusivity of information with advocacy. DJ Silverfish 15:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything on WP:EL that relates to candidates' web pages. Can you be more specific about the policy you are talking about? Thanks -- Mwalcoff 22:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed on the Rachel Treichler page that the WP:EL policy, and this discussion, were being used as justifications for removing external links to third party web pages. I don't see the justification for such removal in the WP:EL either. The point being that editors will find justification in anything to delete links unless the linking policy is inclusive. DJ Silverfish 14:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

There have clearly been 'issues' over the notability guidelines and how we deal with different levels of political activity in different countries. In the aim of trying to reach some sort of standard I would propose the following. I have only specified details on three countries, but I'd hope that other editors can expand this to their own locale by comparison of the 'power' associated with the level of position the candidate could be elected to.

We are also losing information from Wikipedia at the end of each election cycle due to information about candidates being deleted on the grounds they are supposedly suddenly 'non-notable'. I would propose that "Once notable, always notable" should apply so that (a) we retain the information, and (b) if they become a candidate in an ensueing election we don't have to start from scratch again. This would mean that once an article on a 'political person' became a stand-alone article it would remain so, without risk of deletion.

[edit] USA

Presidential

Incumbent - individual article

Official party nominees - individual article

Other candidates on the ballot in over 50% of states - individual article

Other candidates, including probable write-ins - subsection on page for that election unless notable for some other reason

US Senate

Incumbent - individual article

Official party nominees - individual article post-formal acceptance and during election period, moved to section on page for that state+election if unsuccessful. If notable already retain as individual article

Other candidates - subsection on page for that state in that election unless notable for some other reason

US House of Representatives

Incumbent - individual article

Other candidates - subsection on page for that state in that election unless notable for some other reason

State Senate or House

Incumbents and Official party nominees each have section on page for that State Senate or House; individual articles only if separately notable

State Governer

Incumbent - individual article

Other candidates - subsection on page for that state in that election unless notable for some other reason

City Mayor - for major (top 100?) cities only

Incumbent - individual article

Official party nominees - individual article post-formal acceptance and during election period, moved to section on page for that election if unsuccessful and thought unlikely to restand. If notable already retain as individual article

Other candidates - subsection on page for that state in that election unless notable for some other reason

All other elections

Article about that election where notable, naming either no candidates or all candidates in the aim of balance.

[edit] UK

Westminster Parliament

Incumbent - individual article

Official party nominees (Party PPCs) - individual article post-formal acceptance and during election period, moved to section on constituency page for that election if unsuccessful and thought unlikely to stand again. If notable already retain as individual article

Other announced candidates - subsection on page for that consituency/election unless notable for some other reason; at formal close of nominations to ensure all candidates are listed (PPERA 2000 legal requirement)

Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament, NI Assembly, GLA

Incumbent - individual article

Official party nominees - individual article post-formal acceptance and during election period, moved to section on page for that body+election if unsuccessful. If notable already retain as individual article

Other candidates - subsection on page for that body in that election unless notable for some other reason

Unitary, Metropolitan and District councils

Incumbents - no individual articles unless already notable; section on list of members on page about that body

Official party nominees and other candidates - listing on page about that body

Town, Borough and Parish councils

Article about the body as a whole, not about the incumbents or candidates

Elected Mayor (all eight of them!)

Incumbent - individual article

Other candidates - subsection on page for that state in that election unless notable for some other reason

[edit] Germany

Bundestag

Incumbent - individual article

Official party nominees - individual article post-formal acceptance and during election period. If notable already retain as individual article

Other announced candidates - subsection on page for that election unless notable for some other reason

Bundesrat

Incumbent - individual article

Other candidates - subsection on page for that body in that election unless notable for some other reason

Bundesländer

Incumbent - individual article

Official party nominees - individual article post-formal acceptance and during election period, moved to section on page for that body+election if unsuccessful and thought unlikely to restand. If notable already retain as individual article

Other candidates - subsection on page for that body in that election unless notable for some other reason

Other elections

Article about the body as a whole, not about the incumbents or candidates

Thoughts appreciated! --AlisonW 12:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments about the proposal

I am having a great deal of difficulty with your proposal because I can not accept your starting premise. "Once notable" ≠ "Always notable". Notability is a proxy for our ability to find independent, reliable and verifiable sources for the material in the article. Because Wikipedia never closes articles to editing, we have to retain the standard of requiring reliable, verifiable sources. If a candidate runs, loses and drops out of sight, we may no longer have the necessary sources needed for new readers to verify the contents of the article. Deadend articles like that tend to gather subtle forms of vandalism and changes to facts. Without a continuing critical mass of informed and interested editors, the neglected articles become a discredit to the project. Such unverifiable pages must be deleted even if prior editors claimed that older versions of the page used to be verifiable.

That said, the core of your proposal may be able to survive my objection. I like your approach to tiering.

Since I am most familiar with US elections, I will reserve my remaining comments to that section. I have mixed reactions to the specifics. On the one hand, the threshold of formal acceptance would appear to rule out all primary coverage. Perhaps that's not a bad thing but it's more restrictive than we've been in the past. On the other hand, I oppose the automatic statement that all major party candidates at the Senate and Congress level are automatically deserving of independent articles even at the point of formal acceptance. Some candidates are nominated solely so that the opposing party is not running opposed. Such "throw-away" candidates are sometimes complete unknowns who run once and are never heard from again. Having no chance of success, they do not campaign agressively and may not provide any sources on which to base an independent article. I'm not saying that happens every time, but it happens enough to make me leary of a hard rule.

In my experience, state Senate and House members and candidates are rarely notable even as incumbents. They are mostly good people trying to do a professional job but are not inherently more important or notable than a professional doctor or engineer. In some districts, they can be represent a remarkably small constituency - in my area, there are a few in the 1-2,000 person range. A good doctor can have greater reach and impact than that but we would not consider the doctor automatically notable. There are exceptions but those people already qualify under one of the other criteria of WP:BIO. Consolidating those candidates onto a few pages is better than having tens of thousands of individual pages but even that may be too open a standard. Rossami (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Alison: I appreciate your effort and am glad this policy is once again under discussion. However, I have to agree with Rossami that the key should be the ability to get verifiable, independent information. I don't like the idea of pulling notability criteria out of a hat and saying that someone who meets it is notable and someone who doesn't isn't. For example, you suggest including presidential candidates on the ballot in 25 states. Why 25, and not, say, 20, or 30? As Rossami says, there may be some major-party congressional nominees for whom it would be difficult to find enough independent information to write a whole article. On the other hand, someone like Stephen Laffey hasn't even (as of this afternoon) won a primary, but he has received all kinds of media attention. There may be a desire to say, "You have to draw the line somewhere," but I wouldn't want to base deletion decisions on arbitrary criteria. -- Mwalcoff 22:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think guidelines are useful. For example, for Presidential candidates, any number - 20, 25, 30, whatever, is somewhat arbitrary, but clearly someone on the ballot in 5 states is likely not to be particularly notable, while someone on the ballot in 40 states is likely.

I also disagree with a policy that a major party nominee for a U.S. House seat should automatically get his/her own article, since the reality is that some incumbents are so likely to win that parties simply take whoever will run as their candidate.

The policy above isn't specific about which elections should have an individual page/article. It appears to be saying that every U.S. House race should have a campaign article; if so, that should be stated explicitly, because I think it's a big mistake, and feedback from others is important. My hope is that for the 2008 elections, there can be a campaign article for every competitive or otherwise notable House race (which is probably no more than 120, and maybe as few as 60). But to do that probably requires a wikiproject (which I'm thinking about); to get 435 campaign articles even set up, let alone actually edited on an ongoing basis with content, is somewhere between wasted effort and wishful thinking at this point. Maybe in 2010, if exponential growth of wikipedia editors and wikipedia readers continues, it could happen, but it's worth noting that in 2006 even some U.S. Senate races have articles that are hardly ever updated. John Broughton 16:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps this is starting a tangent, but I can't help but jump in. I think John Broughton's idea of an article for, at the least, every competitive or otherwise notable House race is an excellent one. I encourage John to consider such a project (and I would happily sign up for a bunch).

That said, I lean towards inclusionism, and I think anyone running for Governor, Senator, and, at least in most cases, US House, with a major political endorsement, ought to have an article, because they are most likely notable in their own right (enough to win the nomination). Granted, that's not necessarily true in _every_ House race, but I suspect it's true for most of them. -- Sholom 15:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to modify the proposal with respect to US House races, as per what I wrote above in another section. Viz., that a House candidate is notable enough to warrant its own page when the candidate is: (a) notable in his/her own right; (b) won a district-wide primary election; (c) involved in a somewhat competitive race (e.g, CQPolitics.com does not rate the race as "Safe Dem/Rep")"; (d) involved in a race that has attracted considerable attention for other reasons. There must be verifiable information on such candidate that comes from sources other than the candidate's own website(s). Thoughts? -- Sholom 16:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of campaign websites as sources

Sorry to wade in on this so late in the game, I just had the guideline pointed out to me in a related discussion about making the articles for the losers of an uncompetitive primary redirects now that the primary election is over. But I noticed in the sources section that it says the campaign website can be used as a source. Isn't that against WP:BLP#Using the subject as a source. By their very nature and for the issue describe in the sources section of this article, campaign websites are unduly self serving. We wouldn't want to set up a situation where this guideline contradicts existing policies like WP:BLP and WP:BIO. --Bobblehead 18:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This page predated WP:BLP but the intent was always to interpret it in the same way that is now described more explicitly at WP:BLP#Using the subject as a source. The campaign website may be a source and may be deemed reliable for non-controversial details like the candidate's resume or for statements of his/her belief. But it should never the the only source for an encyclopedia article and it should not be relied upon for controversial points. Rossami (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I missed the predating and thanks for the clarification. --Bobblehead 19:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The same issue arises with Congressional biographies that are on official government websites (House, Senate). They often contain not only factual info but also statements about how much they love kittens and puppy dogs, how strongly they fight for motherhood and apple pie, and so on. I've seen such "information" quoted in wikipedia articles; I try to remove it where egregiously unverifiable, and tone it down otherwise. It's the same issue because the Congressman or Congresswoman essentially controls the page, and can make it say just about anything. John Broughton 20:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

By the same token, shouldn't we be able to use a campaign website as a source, say, for a challenger in an election that does not have a voting record or made public statements on an issue? For example, wouldn't it be fine to note that a challenger in an election is pro-choice if her campaign website says she is and she has no other record of statements on the issue? While campaign websites can be quite biased, surely they are sometimes useful to cite to when a candidate has not otherwise made any statements on a particular issue of importance. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As I was corrected above, WP:BLP says that anything not controversial can be sourced by something that is self-published. So if there isn't anyone questioning their pro-choice creds and it meets all the other criteria, then a campaign site seems to be acceptable as a source. Independent verification is always a good thing, though.--Bobblehead 20:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, ok, thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This policy

With respect to its drafters and supporters, I find this policy to be far too narrow. I was shocked to find that it would be grounds for deleting some articles about U.S. candidates that appear on ballots for statewide or national elected office. If we are to draw the line on notability of political candidates, it should be at the local level. Yes, there are a lot of kooks who run for Senate, even President. But the mere fact that they are going to appear on a ballot for a state-wide or national election makes them notable, though no less kooky. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I posted the above comment after a cursory read-through of the proposed policy. After reading it again, I think that my initial assessment was off a bit. My impression is still that the policy is somewhat too narrow, however, though I am going to think about it more before posting more thorough observations here. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What kind of ballots do you mean, primary and general or just general? :) In some states, like Washington, the threshold to get on the ballot is rather low so it's not exactly a good measure of notability. In Washington, a 1% of the annual salary for the position as a filing fee and one signature for each dollar gets you on the ballot.[1] So in Washington to file for Senate a candidate need only $1,650 and an equal number of signatures from registered voters. However, the filing fee can be waived for those that can't afford it, so in that case it only takes 1650 signatures. In some states it's even easier than that. Also, making an appearance in the local paper when running for office is that hard to do. Any newspaper worth it's salt is at least going to pay lip service to the candidates in a local race. --Bobblehead 21:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

But what makes them notable in my opinion is not the difficulty (or lack thereof) of getting on the ballot. The notability comes from being a candidate in a national or statewide election. Obviously, all articles on political candidates should adhere to WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. But this proposed policy creates a standard for inclusion that some candidates for statewide or national office may not meet, even if there is information available on the candidate's political views (from his/her website, for instance) and confirmation that the candidate is running (filing with state, newspaper article, etc). From the perspective of someone studying elections at some point in the future, articles on these candidates could be particularly (perhaps uniquely) useful. Sometimes it's quite telling when candidates with well-defined views don't get votes. For instance, what if political science professor Joe was doing a study on far right-wing candidates in America the early 21st century? Or one on theocrat candidates? Or communist, anarchist . . . you get my drift. Almost none of these women and men are going to get a lot of votes, but could be interesting to researchers in the future. Finally, it's certainly not going to damage the project to have articles on these candidates, assuming that they are updated after the election. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The hypothetical study by some future political science professor could be a fascinating study. However, such a study would never be based on Wikipedia articles. Any researcher worth his/her salt will go to the primary sources. Encyclopedias are, by definition, tertiary sources. An article here would be no real use to any such researcher.
Your final comment in this section is a fair summary of the core of our problem. If we could be sure that the article were going to be maintained and updated after the election, there would be far less problem with keeping it around. Unfortunately, we know from long experience that articles about non-notable candidates go neglected far more often than not. No one keeps them on their watchlists. No one patrols the page for vandalism. No one updates them with new facts or historical context. The overt vandalism (page-blanking or addition of obscenities) may get fixed but subtle edits (changing a few "facts" in the article in violation of NPOV or just vandalizing by changing only a few "facts") remain undetected and uncorrected. They become very low-quality pages that damage the reputation of the project and discredit the other, better maintained pages that we have. Without a critical mass of informed, committed reader/editors, we can not hope to maintain the article over the long term. Experience shows that we can achieve that critical mass for notable persons but that we are unable to achieve that critical mass for non-notable candidates. The crux of this guideline is an attempt to distill Wikipedia's collective experience into a rule of thumb for sorting topics which are probably maintainable from those which are probably not. Rossami (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you point to some examples of neglected pages on such pols? In any event, I disagree that we should not create any articles on these persons simply because some pages on these candidates have been subject to abuse in the past. Many pages on undoubtedly notable subjects are subject to vandalism that no one fixes for long periods of time. Is there greater concern here simply because of WP:BLP and general jitters about libel (i'm not asking about you specifically, i'm asking if that is perhaps part of the collective resistance to creating these types of articles)? Finally, you're probably right that my hypothetical is flawed in that a professor might not use an encyclopedia as a source for his/her research. Consider, however, that primary sources on such candidates may be no longer available (see my question posted below, I don't think they would be available in such a case). Even if they were, I think my point about the possibility of Wikipedia being used a unique resource for other types of research on third party, independent, or fringe political candidates in the future still stands. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

My last comment made me think of a question I about the proposed policy. If the only things we have about a candidate for statewide or national office are (1) confirmation from the state's official election website that the candidate is running, (2) mention in a local newspaper that the candidate is running and is from the area, and (3) extensive information about the candidate's political views and proposed plans from the candidate's website, would the candidate be deemed notable under the proposed policy? I think the hang up is the "Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information" language in the proposed policy since most of the information in the article about the candidate is going to be coming from the candidate's website. I could make the argument for notability under the policy, but I think the policy should favor inclusion more clearly in such a case. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there may be some misunderstanding here. This policy should not lead to the exclusion of any information. It only deals with the placement of information -- whether it should go on the page on the race or on a page about the candidate himself or herself. In the case above, the candidate would not get his or her own article but would be mentioned on the page about the election. -- Mwalcoff 23:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You're certainly right there. But what if there is a decent amount of information available on such a candidate from the sources mentioned? What if, for instance, David "None of the Above" Gatchell had not been reported on by the Associated Press or Tennessee newspapers but the same amount of information was available from his campaign website, the papers filed with the election commission, and a brief mention in a local newspaper? Including all that information in the Tennessee Senate election article would create undue weight problems. We're left with condensing it into a couple sentences and sticking it into the election article. That's really a shame (not because of the particular candidate, who I don't really care for, but because verifiable, neutral information of potential interest in the present and the future will simply be lost). · j e r s y k o talk · 00:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Jersyko.. Wikipedia is not a campaign website it's an encyclopedia. The creation of a multitude of articles that were basically campaign websites for the subject is why this policy was proposed. If the primary source of the article is the campaign website then that person is not notable enough to warrant an article. No one is going to come to wikipedia and look up a person that received only a small percentage of the vote and got little to no play in the media. Even if they do come and look them up they shouldn't expect a full article on the person. The threshold you're establishing is far too low. As I indicated earlier, it's far too easy to get on the ballot for state and national elections in some states. It's also extremely easy to set up a website and call it a campaign website. Now, if the person made it to the general election as the representative for one of the 'major' parties then they'd warrant inclusion in the article, but any joe shmoe can sign up for a primary election or an independent bid. I'd say a redirect for minor candidates to the election's article and a brief description of the candidate is appropriate, but not a full fledged article--Bobblehead 00:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia is not a campaign website. I'm not trying to write articles to campaign for third party candidates. I, and other editors, are trying to write articles to document their campaigns, such as they are. Doesn't that basically undercut the rationale behind the policy in a lot of cases? Yes, articles that are not neutral and verifiable should be deleted (or at least edited to conform to policy). But what I'm talking about are netural, verifiable articles on third-party candidates for national or statewide elections. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Even if they do come and look them up they shouldn't expect a full article on the person." But why not? :) · j e r s y k o talk · 00:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm an inclusionist, but I'm very comfortable with a brief biography (education, career, any notable accomplishments, and a brief statement of political philosophy, at mininum) for non-notable major party nominees for U.S. House seats. The other stuff (happy family life, love for motherhood and country, positions on a variety of issues as dictated by campaign staff) can be found by anyone interested, by following the link in the wikipedia article. For minor party candidates, I'm comfortable with name, occupation, and a link, even for statewide races, an exception being minor party candidates expected to take (say) 5% or more of the vote, or to be a critical factor in a close race. Ditto for non-notable major party candidates, prior to a primary, even for U.S. Senate seats.

The main problem, as far as I'm concerned, is that editors seem more willing to create and update an article for a non-notable candidate than to create and update a campaign race article. John Broughton 01:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

John--I'm not exactly sure what you mean by most of your comment (are you saying you would only support the creation of articles for minor party candidates who get 5%+ of the vote? or are you saying they shouldn't even be mentioned in election articles?). I think your last sentence is probably correct. However, is it a reason to exclude articles on minor candidates? I would posit that it is not. Inclusionist . . . gosh, I used to call myself that back in the day. I thought I grew out of it, but I guess it was just dormant for a long time :) · j e r s y k o talk · 01:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. I fail to see the harm with properly maintained articles on minor political candidates. If they present special problems, such as a lack of maintenance after the election, then we need only establish special rules for them. (For vandalism, we could require that they be semi-protected; for maintenance, we could require that an "after the election article", with tenses changed, be posted to the talk page before the election takes place, ready to be posted once effortlessly should the articles be ignored after the election). What we need here is creative thinking -- not the easy way out of simply banning an article about a candidate that follows WP:NPOV, WP:OR and verifiability guidelines. On the other hand, of course, if these kinds of articles can present special problems, then by all means, treat them differently and let's creat specially-tailored guidelines for them. --Zantastik talk 01:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that wasn't so clear. The problem with properly maintained articles on minor political candidates is that (a) there simply isn't enough content that meets wikipedia policies (verifiable, reputable sources, notable) to make the articles more than a stub; (b) the only editors likely to be interested in the articles are (a) supporters and (b) opponents; the likely outcome is (i) edit wars or (ii) articles bloated with campaign information and/or attacks; and (iii) AfDs.

If I really thought minor party articles were USEFUL, then I'd be arguing (as Zantastik notes) for some specially-tailored guidelines to minimize problems (leaving out the difficulty of getting general acceptance of such policies). But I think of myself as a pragmatist, and I see such pages as (a) more in the nature of vanity pages than anything else; and (b) unlikely to deliver ANY real value. I believe that wikipedia policies for verifiable and notable information ONLY, from reputable sources ONLY, do MATTER - they keep out junk, maintain a consistently high level of information (when followed), and deliver to the reader what he/she really needs to know. I see no reason to change them here in such a way as to make it easy to flood wikipedia with thousands of low-quality pages. ("Step right up - for $200, we'll get you listed on a local election ballot, which qualifies you for your VERY OWN WIKIPEDIA page! Yes - have you always wanted one, but you've worried about not being notable enough?? Well, there's a way - and for $200, you don't have to do anything but sign a form and then start editing your very own page!!! You can show all your friends that you, too, deserve your fifteen minutes of fame!!)

What I DO support, absolutely, is listing EVERY minor candidate when there is an article about a campaign. If there is no campaign article, I believe the article for the incumbent should mention his/her opposing major party NOMINEES, if any (by "mention", I mean the nominee's name, occupation, current political office if any, and a link to the nominee's website), and also mention EVERY minor party candidate who will be appearing on the general election ballot. And until the general election ballot is finalized, I think the incumbent's article should also have a link to a website (like politics1.com) that lists all candidates. John Broughton 12:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No consensus to be found

It's clear there won't be a consensus on this topic. I've put a historical tag on the project page. -- Mwalcoff 00:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Are you aware that WP:C&E is already being used regularly as part of AfD decisions? As far as a number of us are concerned, it's essentially settled consensus that we were just waiting for someone "important enough" to declare it an "official" guideline! I'm going to revert the tag and ask for some sort of discussion on accepting it as-is. --Aaron
- Whoa...why are proposed guidelines being used to delete articles? Do you have an explanation?--Francisx 01:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  - Since you're asking a Wikilawyerish question, I'll give a similar answer: Any proposed policy can be brought up in any discussion at any time, as long as it isn't referred to as actual guideline/policy/whatever. The editors who are part of that the discussion can then take it into consideration and either use it or not, however consensus works out. (You may also want to read Wikipedia:Wikistalking.) --Aaron 02:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    - Thanks for the treatise on Wikistalking, but if you'd care to look, you'd notice that over the last few months, I've posted several comments on this discussion page and have been watching it pretty closely. As someone who hasn't delved too deeply into Wiki policies, could you tell me what would prevent me from creating my own proposed guidelines -- one that would be 180 degrees opposite from the one listed on this page? I'm asking this in good faith -- I don't know the answer, and since these guidlines haven't been adopted by the community, they seem as valid, or as invalid, as any other criteria someone might wish to apply.--Francisx 03:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
      - Nothing stops you from making a counter-proposal and trying to get support for it. In fact, well written competing proposals can often be a very good way to achieve a consensus policy which is better than either the original proposals. However, since this proposal existed first, the community might consider the creation of a completely separate page to be "forking" and would likely express some frustration over the fragmentation of the discussion. Once a page is started, it's usually best to keep the discussion in one place and make your competing proposals here. See Wikipedia:How to create policy for more. Rossami (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  - The last time I tried to get consensus on making this official, several people objected, saying this policy is too restrictive. We can try again with another RFC listing if you want. -- Mwalcoff 01:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    - Yes, I would very much like to do that, if you don't mind me taking 24 hours (probably less, but a few hours' breathing room is nice, and it's already nearly 11:00 pm where I live) to read up on the discussions and such up to this point; I must admit that the formation of new guidelines on Wikipedia is probably my weakest area. Thanks, --Aaron 02:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed wording about must have campaign article first...

as there is no agreement on this point and it never has been common practice. If there is enough information to write an article about an interesting person there is no reason not to do so. --FloNight 03:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Since that's the crux of this proposed policy, I've reverted pending further discussion here. -- Mwalcoff 03:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Policy and guidelines on Wikipedia are descriptions of what editors are doing. This guideline has never been common practice on Wikipedia. Most editors have never heard of this policy and would be shocked to know that they can not write an article about an interesting person that has verifiable content from reliable sources. The claim of non-notability about a person that most people that read national magazines and newpapers are familar with is very odd. FloNight 05:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you have it backwards. Policy and guidelines describe what editors should do, not necessarily what they already do. I also think you are mischaracterizing, or misunderstanding, this policy. If a person is mentioned in national media, there should be enough information to write an article on him or her under this policy. -- Mwalcoff 10:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mwalcoff I removed part of the proposal that conflicts with current offical policy and guidelines and you reverted me. This is the part of the proposal that conflicts with official core policies and guidelines "this guideline states that articles on elections should be written before articles on individual candidates."

IMO, this part of C&E guideline is being used to justify the deletion of articles that meet Wikipedia's official core policies, Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research. Other important policies such as WP:BITE, which embraces the idea that newbies should be bold, Biographies of living persons, a recently written policy that describe the way that Wikipedia deals with content about living people, and Wikipedia:Notability (people), that says "persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" seem directly in conflict with this proposal. --FloNight 12:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are assuming you can change thinking and behaviour by changing words on a page and tagging it "guideline." The page in the form you wish it would not follow obviously from NPOV, V or NOR, and puts a procedural matter before its actual purpose; as such, it is an ill-constructed guideline. The purpose is to keep political spam out, and if there's already plenty of third-party verification of notability for someone then this guideline needn't apply. As such, I've added the text: "This should not be used as a reason to delete candidate articles with plenty of third-party verifiability of notability if the only problem is that the election article has yet to be written."

Any robust guideline has to flow pretty obviously from NPOV, NOR and V. If it doesn't, it's not robust - David Gerard 11:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- that would be a good addition. -- Mwalcoff 16:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "this part of C&E guideline is being used to justify the deletion of articles that meet Wikipedia's official core policies," I want to clarify: the Diane Farrell article was not speedy deleted because the election article wasn't created first. It was speedy deleted because it was an almost identical recreation of material previously AfD'd. Diane Farrell was AfD'd as non-notable in July per C&E, and then re-created (with material only from her own website, and no notability established) without a WP:DRV, following a chat with an admin on IRC. I'll readily admit the IRC aspect of the whole thing got my knickers in a twist, as I saw it as an affront to community consensus established via AfD, handled backchannel. Water under the bridge now, but had a DRV been initiated long ago, the problem would have been avoided. And, the editors who were so anxious to have a Farrell article never did write the election article, so I pulled an all-nighter, read up on both candidates, referenced the candidate articles the best I could without knowing the issues, and wrote the election article myself (which the Farrell editors are ignoring).

Now the same editors who so badly wanted the Farrell article have moved on to deleting well-sourced, referenced content which isn't favorable to their candidate. The article will probably be abandoned if she doesn't prevail in the election, as it being edited by single-topic accounts.

The problems here with enforcement of guidelines seem clear to me: it's not that the guideline is poorly written, but that it was circumvented via a chat on IRC, without a DRV to establish notability following an AfD. The editors who so badly wanted a Farrell article should have been encouraged to write the election article, and establish notability via DRV. Helping them learn and respect policy might have helped avoid some of the problems that are already beginning on the article, with deletions of sourced text. Sandy 21:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My problem is that this C&E proposal should not have been used to justify the deletion of that article back in July. I agree that the recreation was handled badly, but I believe it will ultimately fix the mistake that led to the deletion in the first place. Also, why expect other editors to follow a proposed policy (by creating the election article first) when many think it's a bad idea? - Lex 01:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not use this as policy/guideline in content disputes or deletion discussions

Please do not use this as policy/guideline in content disputes or deletion discussions because it is not. :-) --FloNight 05:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Also, the fact that people are saying this guideline would mandate the deletion of Diane Farrell suggests that it is a pretty crappy and unreasonable guideline. (Although people may be misreading the guideline in their application of it to that article.) Christopher Parham (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it's a nice idea as a useful editorial content creation guideline to help ensure verifiability. But it needs to be much shorter. And it only works as a useful tool to make sure you're writing good articles - not as a stick to bludgeon articles out of existence - David Gerard 11:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with the spirit of the proposal. But the reality of it seems to be that articles which need to be merged under this standard will instead be deleted instead, perhaps because that is easier. I would encourage the style guide aspect of it to be preserved while dropping of the notability-criteria aspect. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I posted a longer explanation above, but again, there's a chicken-egg, cart-horse problem here wrt Diane Farrell. The problem was not (only) that the election article needed to be created first: the problem was that an article was recreated after an AfD (based on C&E) without a DRV. Cart-horse. Had the DRV happened, notability might have been established. Sandy 21:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the AfD should not have been based on C&E since it is just a proposed policy. - Lex 01:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- The AfD was a community consensus then based on non-notability; again, DRV, not an IRC chat, is the process for revisiting an AfD and re-establishing notability, regardless of C&E. Sandy 02:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  - Sandy, I see now where you are mistaken about policy, I think. Unless the article is protected from recreation for a specific reason, it is quite proper to create an article about a notable subject using new content from verifiable reliable sources. DRV is not applicable.
  - Wikipedia is a wiki that anyone can edit. This means IPs, newbies, experienced users, IRC chatters, or Jimbo himself can start an article as long as it has verifiable reliable sources and is about an encyclopedic subject. The fact that an article existed before is not too relavent so long as the one you are writing now meets our core policy. The IRC chat is a red herring because no discussion is needed to start an article based on verifiable relable sources. --FloNight 04:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    - But it wasn't recreated with new or notable content; it was the same old article, without establishing notability, and entirely referenced to Farrell's own website. I know I'm beating a dead horse, but notability was the issue, and it was never established until it went to AfD again. OK, I don't mean to go in circles, since it's basically resolved for now, and now I, we, someone has got to deal with the deletion of sourced and insertion of unsourced (Letters to the Editor of a local paper as a reliable source?) material that is going on over there, as well as connecting the dots from Letters to the Editor in original research, but I hope we'll revisit this guideline after these elections, when we have to clean up a whole lot of messy, abandoned articles. Sheesh, Joe Lieberman's article was destroyed by election POV-pushing, and all of that content really should have gone to the election article, to leave his article intact, as it will have to endure. Further, election info is now repeated in at least 3 places (two candidates, one election article); we need to encourage use of election, rather than personal articles. Perhaps hindsight will give us all a better view of what to do with this guideline? Thanks for sticking with me as I tried to make my concern over this whole matter heard, probably not very clearly. Sandy 04:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It was notability using the C&E proposed guidelines that had it deleted in the first place, not by WP:Bio or any meaningful guidelines. Sorry, your argument is tautological. We understand that you are attached to the Diane Farrell article, but come on!--Francisx 05:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

People continue to cite this proposal in AfDs. I find it extremely frustrating since this proposal seems to be their main reason for nominating those articles. - Lex 20:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

People cite all kinds of proposals and such as grounds for deletion. Often, they'll appeal to general "notability" in addition to more detailed "notability standards" like this one. I think this causes problems. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's put this into the guideline. I have an idea as to phrase it. Septentrionalis 23:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that moves it in the right direction. Good change. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ballot Test

WP seems particularly ill-adept at determining candidates' notability, witness many recent fights on that same question. In the United States and other countries, governments have notability tests of their own to decide access to the ballot. Could we just assume that any ballot-qualified person is de facto notable? After the election, when they are no longer ballot qualified, they could be removed assuming they are not otherwise notable. I'd rather err on the side of over-inclusion than under-inclusion, especially given the numbers of people who turn to WP for NPOV biographies and information.Francisx 22:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we have a great deal of difficulty determining a candidate's notability but no, we can not just use ballot-qualification either. See several of the discussions above where people have laid out specific examples of just how trivially easy it is to get on the ballot in some situations. A simplistic rule like ballot-qualification would encourage the addition of hundreds of thousands of poorly written, poorly sourced, partisan stubs which would hang around for far too long before getting cleaned up. You are correct that large numbers of people come to Wikipedia for NPOV biographies and information. We have to ensure that that is what they find - not some regurgitation of the campaign literature slapped up by a member of the candidate's staff. 14:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Realistically, this is not likely to be a concern, especially if we were to limit the policy to major party candidates (with a slightly tougher test for independents and minor party candidates). Most people who run to Congress are clearly notable, and the potential addition of a few "poorly witten, poorly sourced, partisan stubs" is certainly not something that WP should have any trouble dealing with. Again, this is in response to efforts by some posters to remove well-sourced articles using WP:C&E to try to remove information about challengers in closely fought races. That's clearly not appropriate and I think the potential to effect the outcome of a close race clearly is more significant than the minor extra work involved in policing a small number of stub bios.--Francisx 19:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we lose very little if we have much tougher criteria for candidates than for major party nominees (those who have won their primary or are have no opponents within their party). Unfortunately, I have to disagree with the statement that Most people who run to Congress are clearly notable. Well over 80% of House races are totally non-competitive; the opposing party often considers itself fortunate to get anyone to run (and suffer a major defeat). I think there are something like 80 House races this year where the incumbent doesn't face ANY major party opponent. John Broughton | Talk 18:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One-third of the vote?

First, let me repeat a suggestion I made some time back:

I propose that the inclusion standard should be: any candidate reasonably expected to receive, or who DID receive, one-third of the votes (or, in a multicandidate race, at least half as many votes as the winner) in a primary or general election for U.S. Congress, or for any statewide elected office.

I think that would encompass all the important candidates, and exclude the meaningless ones.

Second, I'm opposed to any kind of automatic deletion of otherwise valid articles about losing candidates, post-election. Major candidates for the U.S. Congress are per se notable, not just momentarily, but permanently. Political people are always talking about history and past elections in order to get their minds around the imponderables of future elections. Political history is inherently of long-term interest. Kestenbaum 02:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That would encompass hardly any of the important candidates as you're only talking about the US. There are other democracies in the world, you know. That aside, "reasonably expected" is far too vague. --Tango 10:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I admittedly know little of other democracies in the world; someone else should speak up for them, and perhaps the rules should be different for Canada or India or Argentina. But as the policy already suggests, in parliamentary systems, party identification is far more important, and individual candidates are typically LESS notable, so I'm surprised you would think the one-third threshold is too high.

If you mean the party leaders (in effect, candidates for prime minister in a parliamentary system), those are already important national figures and per se notable, even if their parties get 5% in a multiparty election. They are not the issue. What I'm discussing here is the notability of candidates in individual districts or ridings.

In the U.S., the one-third rule for Congressional candidates would encompass all the important candidates. The "reasonably expected" rule would apply only before the election; once the election takes place, the actual votes would be available, and adjustments could be made if necessary. My guess (based on more than three decades of political experience) is that few such adjustments would be needed. Even though there may be doubt about the outcome, there is rarely much doubt over whether a specific candidate will get at least half as many votes as the winner.

Plus, candidates who are very close to the 1/3 line (so that there might not be full consensus in advance whether they will reach the threshold) are generally not seen as contenders, and are unlikely to generate more than vanity articles anyway. Kestenbaum 14:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

While leaning somewhat toward a fairly narrow interpretation of "notability", the above is far, far too narrow IMO. I can cite, again, a Tennessee example. The Reverend Ed Sanders, a Nashville pastor, an African American, and a former member of the Tennessee Republican State Executive Committee, made an independent run for governor in 2002, not because he really expected to be elected governor, but because he wanted to make a point about what he perceived to be the general non-inclusion of African Americans in politics at the state level in Tennessee. He had an official headquarters, campaign literature, a web site, and all of the trappings of a credible campaign, and received considerable press notice and was, I think, actually included in at least one debate. Many thousdands of dollars were spent on behalf of his campaign – obviously only a small fraction of that spent by the two major-party nominees, but enough to get him some notice. He is, in my mind at least, notable, and had I been involved in Wikipedia four years ago when there was lots of credible information about him widely available from reliable sources, I might have created an article on him if no one else did. He didn't get anywhere close to 10% of the vote, let alone ⅓, but I think that he would have merited inclusion, and still would if someone cared to do the research (harder now in that the perteinent media articles are mostly available archivally). On the other hand is someone like Basil Moreaux (I think it is), who gets 25 signatures (all that you need in Tennessee) to appear on the ballot every four years, and then disappears again. This person is totally non-notable IMO, even though he has appeared on statewide ballots in Tennessee on several occasions. The whole thing is admittedly, hard to define with regard fairness and consistency. Candidate credibilty is to me much like pornography to Justice Potter Stewart, hard to define but I know it when I see it. And like Stewart, I realize that it is hard to make law, or policy, on such a basis. Rlquall 14:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

This article should also talk about municipal (city, town, etc.) politics, since municipal candidate bios also often show up on Wikipedia during a city election period, but aren't specifically addressed here at present. A few suggestions for this, based on existing precedents:

Although there may be exceptions in some circumstances, generally local press coverage is not sufficient to meet the Wikipedia criterion of "significant press coverage", nor is local notability necessarily sufficient to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In determining whether a politician at the municipal level deserves an article, a major criterion needs to be whether the person, for either good or bad reasons, has a public profile that extends significantly beyond the bounds of their own municipality.
Although it isn't officially stated in Wikipedia policy, AFD precedent has generally favoured articles on mayors.
Wikipedia precedent has favoured city councillors of major metropolitan cities, but has generally gone against city councillors in smaller communities. City councillors in Toronto, Montreal, Chicago, San Francisco or London, England may have articles if they can be written verifiably and with a reasonable level of detail, but city councillors in Sudbury, Ontario, London, Ontario, Lewistown, Montana, Burlington, Vermont or Great Bradley do not generally meet WP criteria. The only notable exception to this is, of course, if a councillor from a small community becomes notable for other reasons.
Wikipedia precedent has clearly determined that unelected candidates for municipal office are generally not notable; the main exception is if the person is already notable for other reasons besides their candidacy alone. Consensus has been mixed on the notability of the second-place finisher in a mayoral race; generally, to merit an article these people should be (a) already notable for other reasons, (b) running in a political-party based municipal system where they're the nominee of a major party (e.g. Montreal, Vancouver, New York City), and/or (c) running in a high-profile (i.e. major city) race that has attracted significant press coverage beyond the city's own local media.
School board trustees and other municipal-level board representatives are notable only if they've attracted national press coverage, for example by taking a controversial political stand or facing criminal allegations.

I offer this as a start, at any rate. Bearcat 22:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming US State elections pages

In most US states, there are several offices that are elected by voters statewide, usually to administer state functions, such as Attorneys General, Secretaries of State, State Treasurers, etc, as well as the much more notable Governors of a state. However, some states also elect boards or commissions statewide, such as in Arizona, Kansas, and others, where public-utility regulatory bodies known as Corporation Commissions have several members who are elected by voters statewide, while other states, such as Kansas and Colorado, elect Education boards, which fill the role of what would otherwise be the job of a Superintendent of Public Instruction under some election systems in US states.

This presents a problem, then, for wikipedia editors. First off, let me make clear that, yes, these are notable elections, with candidates and incumbents deserving of some mention on an encyclopedia supposedly dedicated to all knowledge. If elected, these candidates have the responsibility of prosecuting complex crime, managing large public treasuries, and coordinating elections and business licenses, among other things, depending on which office they fill. Aside from that, during elections, their names appear before many voters, and they need to contact many more voters than many candidates for the United States Congress.

There may be some parallels to this state of affairs in other countries, but I wouldn't know where to begin, even if I understood all the languages used by governments in the world. Hopefully, though, whatever consensus is reached would be mimicked by editors knowledgeable about elections in other countries, if this sort of structure even exists in them.

So basically, there are two options I can think of off the top of my head. The first--and the one I've already used-- is Arizona statewide elections, 2006, because it was the most descriptive of the content of the article; all the elections described in the article are elected by all of the voters statewide. However, this sort of naming scheme would fall apart for Colorado, because only one member of the education board is elected by voters statewide, and the others from wards coterminous with Colorado's US House districts. The compromise in this case would be naming the article something like Colorado state executive elections, 2006, even though the board as a whole exercises executive responsibility and not each individual member. This naming scheme, however, would not work to encompass the statewide elections in Arizona and Kansas, because the Corporation Commissions of those states are more like legislative bodies.

Any suggestions? --JMurphy 21:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Michigan, too, elects the State Board of Education, University of Michigan Board of Regents, Michigan State University Board of Trustees, and the Wayne State University Board of Governors, statewide in partisan races (the boards each consist of eight members with eight year terms, so that two seats are up for each board in each election; appointments to vacancies run to the end of the original term). I believe Illinois also elects a university board statewide.

The only "executive" statewide positions which appear on the Michigan ballot are Governor (and Lieutenant Governor on a team basis), Secretary of State, and Attorney General.

Maybe a catchall stete/election/year article like "Michigan elections, 2006", with pointers to specific articles for Governor, U.S. Senator, etc., leaving the miscellaneous races in the "main" article. Kestenbaum 03:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So I this is what I'll adopt: starting using the name "(Name of state) state elections, xxxx," which would, right off the bat, immediately exclude elections for US Senators. On that page, I'll include sections for each branch of government, but only have more fleshed-out entries for the executive or statewide non-judicial candidates, and have small entries directing the reader to standalone articles for elections for state legislatures and state-level judges. Make sense? --JMurphy 18:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, makes sense, but for even-numbered years, a "See also" section, with one or two entries, pointing readers to a U.S. Senate election that year if there was one, and to the global page for House races that year, would be nice. (And also to any article on a special House or Senate election that year, of course.)

[edit] Bill Sali Alert

Please watch the article on Bill Sali (new Congressman from Idaho). 66.233.250.90 has now twice edited in his personal bias. This user has made some decent edits to the Idaho First Congressional race page itself, but his edits to the Congressman-elect's page are out of line. I wouldn't care, but it's been repeated twice - same edits. Here's the post I just made on the Sali page: I have reverted 66.233.250.90's most recent edits. This is the second time he has vandalized the page with his views. I'll admit that most of the FACTS I put in the article do not reflect well on Sali; I have put in few facts that do make him look good because I myself don't know those facts. But one thing I have not done is to try and charactize the information myself with unflattering adjectives and commentary, something 66.233.250.90 does often. Some of his edits - particularly to "religion" in the info box - were good ones, and I redid them. Most were not. For instance, he likes to change the line "The third place finisher, moderate Sheila Sorensen, said of Sali," to "said moderately." Her quote has nothing to do with liberal, conservative, or moderate. It's character-based, not issue-based. And it's wrong to use Wikipedia to mock her political stances. He also changed the line "Many of these papers, such as the Spokesman Review, typically endorse Republicans, giving their anti-Sali endorsments of Grant added weight." to "Many of these papers, such as the Idaho Statesman, rarely endorse conservative Republicans, giving their anti-Sali endorsments of Grant dubious credibility." First of all, "weight" is different than "credibility." How much credibility an endorsement has is not the same as its weight and its importance; credibility is an opinion issue, and does NOT belong in a Wikipedia ENCYCLOPEDIA article. It is also silly to delete the line about the Spokesman. Finall, 66.233.250.90 changed "anti-gay marriage" to "affirms the heterosexual definition of marriage" - another opinion. Unfortunately, I don't think 66.233.250.90 reads the discussion page, as suggested by his anonymity, so please keep an eye out for him. I'm unfamiliar with some of Wiki's editorial policies, so if you know an editor or whatever they're called, let him know. I'm certainly not against putting in facts that make Sali look good, such as a list of his legislative accomplishments, but personal opinion is a whole different story. --texasmusician 7:14 PM, 16 November 2006 (Pacific)

Indeed. Please watch the article on Bill Sali. It appears to be not much more than texasmusician's lopsided collection of the most negative quotes he could find against Bill Sali. The article content has less to do with Bill Sali and more to do with what his political opponents think of him. It reads like a Democratic op-ed piece. Rather than simply remove the quote by Sheila Sorensen (as the irrelevant opinion that it is), I decided to leave it in as a sample of the shameless bias of the entire article. Adding the adjective "moderate" next to Sheila's quote contrasts beautifully with the content of her statement, which is anything but moderate. If there were a list of RINO politicians for the state of Idaho, Sheila would be at the top of it. As for the newspaper endorsements, there is no citation which supports the claim that any of them "typically endorse Republicans". The Idaho Statesman, in particular, is quite out of step with the political views of the state. If they ever endorse a Republican candidate, it is either because there is no Democrat running on the ballot, or because the endorsement of a RINO is better than endorsing a real conservative. But rather than remove the irrelevant topic from the article, I simply inverted the erroneous statement to correctly indicate the fact that these papers rarely endorse conservative Republicans. I left the remaining (and also irrelevant) description of their coverage unchanged, as evidence of this fact. Sadly, it seems texasmusician is intent on hovering over this article to make sure that it continues to reflect his openly admitted bias. --66.233.250.90 17:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Her quote is not moderate, nor is it liberal or conservative - a description of someone's personal character has nothing to do with any of those labels. And if you think moderates are RINOs, fine, but she was a close third in the primary, so her comments do reflect a split within the state party on Sali, as do Vasquez's, the close second. And intra-party splits like that matter in election coverage. As to the Idaho Statesman, if you want to point out that it usually endorses Democrats, fine, but don't say it has no credibility - that's a matter of opinion. But cite a source when you point out who it usually endorses (for instance, dig up an older endorsement of a liberal and link to it). And I have known the Spokesman Review to endorse conservative Republicans numerous times - it's my local paper. But you're right, I should cite it. Mea culpa, I'll dig something up. So don't delete the line about the Spokesman when you add the line about the Statesman, as you did. Finally, you're right, there's not much more the article right now than the well-publicized quotes about Mr. Sali, but if you'd like to add info about his legislative record, go for it! The article needs it! I would add it if I knew it, but I don't. The article could certainly use more info on his stances (as long as it's not biased language like "affirms the same-sex definiton of marriage" - we could say he supports a Constitutional amendment defining marriage that way), what bills he's sponsored, and his committee work. I'd add it if I knew it - the article is biased only because of what I know, but at least it's not biased in how it words those facts. I'm happy to include facts that make him look good: I do have a bias, yes, but the article shouldn't reflect my bias. Find facts to cover up the bias. Your info is fine, the problem is how you word it. You should also set up an actual account (or log into one you already have) rather than remaining and anonymous IP address. Thanks for doing what you think is right as far as thje article goes. Maybe if we work together rather than wacking away at one another's edits, we can work something positive out. --texasmusician 21:28 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the talk page for a proposed Wikipedia guideline, not a discussion board for article content. This type of discussion should be at Talk:Bill Sali, not here. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

-You're right, it should. It started as a request (and reasons for the request) for folks interested in this subject to watch the Sali article, as you can see, and devolved from there. I don't plan on reposting on the subject here, but felt I had to make the last one since I'm not sure where else an anonymous user would find my reply (I'm suprised, though not displeased, that he even found my post on this page). Sorry it went as far as it did. --texasmusician 23:53 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/n/Wikipedia_talk%7ECandidates_and_elections_29d9.html"

Wikipedia talk:Candidates and elections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Comments from Night Stallion (great name)

[edit] Support

[edit] pro-incumbent bias

[edit] Major party nominees.

[edit] Helping with the pro-incumbant bias noted above

[edit] Names of articles on elections

[edit] This Proposed Policy Stinks

[edit] Is this official yet?

[edit] An Inclusionist's Manifesto

[edit] As Long as it is factual, and not biased...

[edit] is vs. was

[edit] Comment

[edit] Argument for inclusivity

[edit] Proposal

[edit] USA

[edit] UK

[edit] Germany

[edit] Comments about the proposal

[edit] Use of campaign websites as sources

[edit] This policy

[edit] No consensus to be found

[edit] Removed wording about must have campaign article first...

[edit] Please do not use this as policy/guideline in content disputes or deletion discussions

[edit] Ballot Test

[edit] One-third of the vote?

[edit] Suggestion

[edit] Naming US State elections pages

[edit] Bill Sali Alert

Views

Navigation

Search