Wikipedia talk:Candidates and elections

message: 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. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 13:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 07:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from Night Stallion (great name)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Support 

message: 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.  —Preceding unsigned comment 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  pro-incumbent bias  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: This Proposed Policy Stinks

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is this official yet? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I'd prefer not to use is and was, actually. —Nightstallion (?) 13:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  is vs. was 

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Argument for inclusivity 

message: 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.
===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
::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
: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
::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
: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.
===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
::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
===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
::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 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)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: :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
::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 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)
thread_title: Germany

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Of course, ok, thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of campaign websites as sources

message: 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)
thread_title:  No consensus to be found 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Let's put this into the guideline. I have an idea as to phrase it. Septentrionalis 23:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Please do not use this as policy/guideline in content disputes or deletion discussions

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Ballot Test

message: 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)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bill Sali Alert 

message: This is an alternative proposal that's coming off the top of my head. My thinking is this: while an argument can be made that, given the nature of Wikipedia, it is improper to explicitly avoid inclusion of candidate articles as political material, an equally (perhaps more) valid argument can be made that such articles are inherently NPOV or at least pose a significant risk of damaging the encyclopedia's credibility, not to mention the briefly discussed legal issues above. My proposal is this:
:All elections at a state, provincial or national level shall be deemed inherently notable and eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. Articles on such elections may consist of a brief, neutral summary of the position/s at stake and major issues surrounding them, followed by a summary of the candidates contesting said position/s. To ensure candidate notability and NPOV, candidate summaries must contain an equal number of citations from voter pamphlets as they do from media or other sources. Candidate summaries with fewer than two citations will be considered unverifiable and deleted as original research or POV. Candidate summaries must also give equal weight to the candidate and their opposition. Wikipedia will neither endorse nor condemn an individual candidate for any reason.
:Each candidate's summary may include one <ref> link to an outside pro-candidate source, but if they include the same, they must also include one link to an outside anti-candidate source, or one link to an outside source supporting each of the candidate's opponents.
:In the case of referendums, initiatives, etc., pro- and con- positions will be considered equivalent to candidates for the purposes of this policy.
:This proposal(/policy) shall not be used as justification for the deletion of articles pertaining to candidates or elections which are notable but are not encompassed by the terms of this proposal(/policy). Neither shall this proposal be used as justification for the creation of articles pertaining to individual candidates, referendums or elections below the state level. Such articles shall be subject to their own notability requirements. This article shall not be interpreted to prohibit the inclusion of articles on elections below the state or provincial level.
:Furthermore, it shall be preferable under this policy that a single article, following the format outlined above, be created to include all positions and referendums on a single ballot where possible. Example: US Representative Elections, Washington State, 2006 might include summaries of all candidates for a Washington-based position in the US House of Representatives in the 2006 election, or Nevada Elections, November, 2006 might include a summary of all candidates for state and national positions who appeared on the 2006 ballot in Nevada, as well as any referendums which were decided in that election (such as the medicinal marijuana initiative, which did not pass).
This way, articles are kept as brief and consolidated as possible. Of course, this does not address the issue of local elections and their notability. I believe that the inclusion of such articles should be decided on a case-by-case basis, considering the overall effect that the results of the election will have on the area and the overall media attention that the election receives, if any. --Moralis 22:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the reasoning behind this proposal is the general lack of individual candidate articles that it provides. The current debate seems to stem largely from the question of whether individual candidates are inherently notable, sometimes notable, or generally not notable. My answer to this question is, "no." This policy does not offer the opportunity for one candidate in an individual election to be more notable than another, unless they are notable for reasons not pertaining to the election itself, in which case their own article would be much more successful in the face of an RfD, I think. --Moralis 22:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal C 

message: Still 2 years left to be election, All the sources that have been added to this article are not all Reliable sources. And anyway the election commission will announce official in 2 years. there is no such possibility right now. Again what is the meaning of keeping such article on wikipedia right now that it doesn't even have reliable source.
*Next Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly election 
*Next Odisha Legislative Assembly election 
*Next Maharashtra Legislative Assembly election
*Next Maharashtra Legislative Assembly election
*Next Sikkim Legislative Assembly election
*Next Haryana Legislative Assembly election
*Next Bihar Legislative Assembly election
*Next Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly election Cinzia007 (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election 2024 

message: There is a tendency to summarise election results in a way that only includes 2 candidates, without even saying that some candidates have been omitted. See for instance 2020 Eden-Monaro by-election, where the infobox implies that only Labor and Liberal were candidates.
As noted earlier by User:Wredlich, election coverage has a massive bias towards incumbents, and I feel that any incomplete summary is an egregious example of how an article can break Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view policy. Parties spend serious money putting up their posters with little more than "here's a picture of Bob. He's the candidate for the red party". When the next election comes around, if the article for the previous election gives a summary that only includes 2 of the 5 candidates, then those two have a non-neglible advantage.
I'd like to propose the following additions to the guidelines:
* Never include a subset of parties / candidates, even for an infobox. The infobox might specify the winner and the previous incumbent, but should only include a score for the winner, so as not to go down the path of summarising results.
* Whenever parties / candidates are listed with accompanying imagery, the imagery should be present for all candidates / parties.
We see in war articles, like Korean War, all belligerents are listed, even Luxembourg and Ethiopia. This is contrary to an anglophone summarisation that it was the US vs North Korea. - Owen214 (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in summaries and infoboxes 

message: * Wikipedia:Political endorsements
* Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics
 
Added this to the page. blackbird (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: See also