Talk:2008 United States Senate election in Mississippi

message: *Thank-you wikipedia for not deleting this article. Iam currently in the process of fixing this and will add more later. If u noticed i added some canidates. please fell free to edit, and leave comments on my talk page.-Politics rule 6:20 pm est 4/16/2007.
:I fully believe that this article has been fixed!!! -Politics rule 11:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you

message: ===Original proposal===
*Agree - The two Wyoming elections are on the same page, and it looks nicer than the two separate pages for the two Mississippi elections. Also it would be easier for potential voters who want to use Wikipedia as a source of information to have both elections on one page. - Comedy240 (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think it is fair to say you have a strong point of view on this subject. - Comedy240 (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I agree with Steelbeard1 that if the elections are held on separate days, there should be two articles, but if they are held on the same day then it should be merged. - Comedy240 (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, we've already established that this shouldn't be merged because of the pending court case. Barbour has set the special election for Nov. 4, 08 already. Whether the court allows that or not, if it even goes to court, is another issue. -- ALLSTARecho 21:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The following comment was never moved from the old discussion since I told most of you that  i made a suggestion I take it you already read it:
*Split into Mississippi's class 1 senate special election, 2008 and United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008 articles with the page United States Senate elections in Mississippi, 2008 as the disambiguation or main framing page (admittedly the end effect of framing would be a page that looked like the merged page). This would be more in keeping with how other special congressional elections are handled in wikipedia. Also I think this discussion should be expanded to apply to United States Senate elections in Wyoming, 2008 (i.e. split that one into Wyoming's class 1 senate special election, 2008 and United States Senate election in Wyoming, 2008 if my suggestion is taken or split it in whatever way this discussion concludes) Even if the Mississippi election dates are on the same day then the pages can still remain seperate becuase that's how it's done with the House special election pages. We need an admin to decide this.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the missipi special electioon page to the class I page since that is keeping with wikipedia precedent/standars for congressional elections. I have kept the Wyoming page merged since there is a precedent for keeping them merged when they are on the same day (see Texas's 22nd congressional district elections, 2006).--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That would be the state's Democratic Secretary who sides with Barbour. It's the AG that's suing him. ;) -- ALLSTARecho 20:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected. The Democratic Secretary of State sides with Barbour... I still stand by my concern about "bias" (funny... I don't remeber writing that as my origianl heading.. hm).--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Already being discussed in Merge 3 section below. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: *Agree - The two Wyoming elections are on the same page, and it looks nicer than the two separate pages for the two Mississippi elections. Also it would be easier for potential voters who want to use Wikipedia as a source of information to have both elections on one page. - Comedy240 (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think it is fair to say you have a strong point of view on this subject. - Comedy240 (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I agree with Steelbeard1 that if the elections are held on separate days, there should be two articles, but if they are held on the same day then it should be merged. - Comedy240 (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, we've already established that this shouldn't be merged because of the pending court case. Barbour has set the special election for Nov. 4, 08 already. Whether the court allows that or not, if it even goes to court, is another issue. -- ALLSTARecho 21:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The following comment was never moved from the old discussion since I told most of you that  i made a suggestion I take it you already read it:
*Split into Mississippi's class 1 senate special election, 2008 and United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008 articles with the page United States Senate elections in Mississippi, 2008 as the disambiguation or main framing page (admittedly the end effect of framing would be a page that looked like the merged page). This would be more in keeping with how other special congressional elections are handled in wikipedia. Also I think this discussion should be expanded to apply to United States Senate elections in Wyoming, 2008 (i.e. split that one into Wyoming's class 1 senate special election, 2008 and United States Senate election in Wyoming, 2008 if my suggestion is taken or split it in whatever way this discussion concludes) Even if the Mississippi election dates are on the same day then the pages can still remain seperate becuase that's how it's done with the House special election pages. We need an admin to decide this.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the missipi special electioon page to the class I page since that is keeping with wikipedia precedent/standars for congressional elections. I have kept the Wyoming page merged since there is a precedent for keeping them merged when they are on the same day (see Texas's 22nd congressional district elections, 2006).--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Original proposal

message: *Agree I think we need to reconsider this proposal these elections are just like the Wyoming and so there is no confusion anyone if they are looking for these elections Gang14 (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Revived proposal

message: I just thought of something... I've read up on this issue and I've heard differing opions about whether Barbor has the right to set the special election in Nov. or not. The fact of the matter is none of us can be sure either way. Even the state's Democratic Attorney General Secretary of State is siding with Barbor on this one. I totally agree that the spirit of the law was meant to have it within 90/100 days but the wording of the law is ambiguous. 
Yes... there is a pending court case but the "official" state of things right now is that the election is scheduled for Nov. I'm not going to merge because it's not worth messing with but my point is this; this is the type of thing that get's wikipedia accussed of being biased towards liberals/democrats. I don't think it sends the right message. I know a couple of wikipedians who would have a fit if I told them about this debate and it's outcome.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be the state's Democratic Secretary who sides with Barbour. It's the AG that's suing him. ;) -- ALLSTARecho 20:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected. The Democratic Secretary of State sides with Barbour... I still stand by my concern about "bias" (funny... I don't remeber writing that as my origianl heading.. hm).--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: The original and revived proposals were shot down because of the possibility that the two elections would be held on different days. We now know they will not be. Now that that argument is out of the way, should they be merged? -Rrius (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Already being discussed in Merge 3 section below. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal III 

message: The list of potential Democratic candidates is, in my opinion, far too inclusive. On no other senate election page are so many potential candidates (currently twenty-two) listed in one party; the two senate pages that come the closest are Massachusetts and Montana, which have seven and eight potential Republican candidates, respectively. It seems as if the list includes the names of any hypothetically viable prominent Democratic politician and automatically assumes that each and every one of them is considering a race against Thad Cochran, who by all reasonable accounts is safe.
Gene Taylor's office has said previously that Taylor was unlikely to run even in an open seat, when there was talk of Cochran retiring. Why is he included on the list now that Cochran has announced that he is running for reelection? Bennie Thompson is the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. What would possess him to leave his safe house seat and committee chairmanship for a seemingly quixotic senate bid against a five-term incumbent? The same goes for Jim Hood, who just won re-election as Mississippi AG and made statements similar to Gene Taylor about his disinterest in either an open Cochran seat, or, I believe, the vacant Lott seat. Since this list speculates without any hesitation or rationale for the inclusion of various Democrats, why not include Mike Espy? Why not include William J. McCoy, the Mississippi Speaker of the House? If we are to follow this same logic for potential Democratic candidates, I also feel that we should be listing potential Republican challengers to Cochran (such as Haley Barbour, Trent Lott, Chip Pickering, Charles W. Pickering, Tate Reeves, Amy Tuck, and so on). If the latter is silly to include in the article, why isn't the former?
Since so much of this page is speculation, I do not see why I should be forced to find a referenced Shermanesque statement for each candidate before removing him or her from the list. If anything, I feel that it would be more proper for a potential candidate to not be listed until there is an included reference stating that said candidate is considering the race. I have removed Ronnie Musgrove and Ronnie Shows, since they have both made statements that they will challenge Roger Wicker. I'm leaving the rest of the list as-is for now; however, I strongly feel that it should be shorter. Bridger (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any candidates, potential or confirmed, should be sourced directly in the article. If there is no source, they do not belong in the article. And I apologize for my reversion. Feel free to remove/add as sourced. -- ALLSTARecho 03:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, yeah, that's what I said... -- ALLSTARecho 03:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the feedback; I am removing the list of potential candidates from the article and placing them below, in case some of those listed are in fact considering the race. Bridger (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential Democratic candidates 

message: It's my understanding that the special election is nonpartisan, and that as such, it's merely the specific circumstances of the race that led to a single Democratic and a single Republican candidate. There could have been zero, or 15, Democrats, and there could have been zero, or 15, Republicans, etc. I don't know how Mississippi ballots look, but it may be that their party registration doesn't even get listed on the ballot. In light of all this, I think the "Democratic" and "Republican" section subheads are misleading. Thoughts? -Pete (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidate headings 

message: Why did we merge this? There was never a discussion made by an admin. I am just curious why we did this. America69 (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think DrWho1975 had something to do with it.  Anyway, I started a new split proposal in the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't merge them. I just facilitated the discussion. Why would you try to make this personal. You know who merged it... you even talk to him on this very page at the time that he merged it.I've warned you about this behavior before Stelelbeard.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Pete made the merge. See article history for May 17-18 (and comments above). He did so at a time that there no consensus for the merge. But he also made a significant improvement to the lead section in clearly distinguishing between the two elections. I assume he merged them because in the course of making those improvements, he saw that the improvements would work better in a merged article. I think the "good" of adding content and improving the encyclopedia trumps the "bad" of making a merge when there is no clear consensus. At the time of Pete's merge, the discussion was five months old and basically evenly split between those in support and those opposed. Pete's edit was bold but not unwarranted, and he commented at the time that editors should feel free to revert. We can now decide to split the article again if we establish consensus that doing so makes the encyclopedia better. But let's keep the discussion looking forward, not backward...Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am wondering how you think it looks better. I really don't see how it does. It looks like a jumbled up mess that needs to be re-done. America69 (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Excellent rewrite, Therefore. This section was badly needing a rewrite, it's much clearer now. -Pete (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks -- I appreciate the feedback. When I came to the article, I read that section and scratched my head asking, "What were the issues? What were the political issues"? Hopefully I helped the next reader understand it better. ∴ Therefore | cogito·sum 15:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date controversy 

message: United States Senate elections in Mississippi, 2008 → United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008 — When the special election was given its own page, this one should have been renamed "election" rather than "elections" as it only lists one election, not 2. There already exists a page at United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008 and United States Senate electionss in Mississippi, 2008, which should be deleted by an administrator as I accidentally created it when trying to move this page Tiller54 (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems this has already been done. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Some old page history that used to be at the title "United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008" can now be found at Talk:United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008/Old history. Graham87 15:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old page history