Talk:2008 United States Senate special election in Mississippi

message: In light of conflict over who to include here, I'm removing the section itself, as it's all unsourced speculation.  Comments? Ashdog137 (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: any recent article sources potential candidates.  i went ahead and included this. while it's speculation, the two dem potential candidates themselves have indicated they're thinking about it, and the section is worthy of keeping in at this point.  Journalist1983 (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as there's a source cited that actually speaks to it, that's good.  I deleted it earlier because there wasn't even a source citation, which is required on Wikipedia.  I haven't had a chance to review the edits yet, but I trust you've done a good job with it -- thanks for finding a source! Ashdog137 (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: With Respect... You're wrong.Elections that involve both special and regular elections on the same day have thus far been called "elections" on a merged page. The reason it is hard to tell is because it happens so rarely. I only think of two other times since wikipedia started: United States Senate elections in Wyoming, 2008 and Texas's 22nd congressional district elections, 2006. -User:Dr who1975|Dr who1975]] (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a merged article.  This is a separate article.—Markles 20:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And regardless, a consensus has been reached.  Please do not act unilaterally without the wishes of a consensus.—Markles 20:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't and I said I wouldn't... what "voodoo" exactly did you do because as near as I can tell... the page has said "election" for several hours now and wasn't in need of "fixing" along those lines?--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Shouldn;t this discussion be on Talk:United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008... you're really confusing the hell out of me.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential candidates section 

message: I've used my "special Admin voodoo" to restore the name of the article. (I.e., I'm an Admin, but it took nothing special.)  It will be a special election regardless of when it is held.  Even on November's election day, it will be a special election.  Other federal elections are named "United States [body] special election in [state], [year]."  (Admins are not referees or judges.  Wikipedia is run by consensus.)  —Markles 20:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With Respect... You're wrong.Elections that involve both special and regular elections on the same day have thus far been called "elections" on a merged page. The reason it is hard to tell is because it happens so rarely. I only think of two other times since wikipedia started: United States Senate elections in Wyoming, 2008 and Texas's 22nd congressional district elections, 2006. -User:Dr who1975|Dr who1975]] (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a merged article.  This is a separate article.—Markles 20:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And regardless, a consensus has been reached.  Please do not act unilaterally without the wishes of a consensus.—Markles 20:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't and I said I wouldn't... what "voodoo" exactly did you do because as near as I can tell... the page has said "election" for several hours now and wasn't in need of "fixing" along those lines?--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Shouldn;t this discussion be on Talk:United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008... you're really confusing the hell out of me.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Settled, for now

message: Dr. Who's unilateral decision of placing external official campaign web sites next to the candidates' names instead of in the external links section does not match the prevailing format of other articles about U.S. senate campaigns having all external links, official campaign and third party web sites about the campaign, in the external links section.  Check them out for yourself using the links at United States Senate elections, 2008. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which 3 sites with my format did you find... there's at least 6.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: P.S. Please also cite the wikipedia page that outlines a standard for election pages?--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: United States Senate election in Virginia, 2008, United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008 and United States Senate election in Oregon, 2008.  Check out the other campaign articles.  There is no set standard I found. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: See ... I was being bold by adding it to the elections I added it to, I've already done it to the 5 House special elections pages and I was the one who did it to the other Mississippi page. Since I have now hit some opposition after being bold I think I need to gather concensus.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *Wrong.  We should be bold, and make the edit.  THEN if someone disagrees, we try to reach consensus.—Markles 23:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Markles... that's exactly what I said in the line you responded to. I must have a problem makingmyself clear,--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It's OK to be bold, but if changes are made to the bold entry which the bold poster objects to, don't revert and start an edit war, talk about it in the talk page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * Yes- good point!—Markles 00:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree too... in fact it's pretty much what I did.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: ** While we can discuss official sites, i think we should not turn wikipedia into a campaign mud-slinging site.  hence the link about the anti-wicker site should be removed.  otherwise we have a free-for-all.  let me know if you disagree.Journalist1983 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Negative Sites

message: insists on including purely speculative material in the article United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008.  The passage is as follows:
Declined
* Mike EspyThe Clarion-Ledger, January 1, 2008
* Harvey Johnson, Jr.
*Ray Mabus 
These are people who the Jackson (MS) Clarion-Ledger speculated would be running for the 2008 Mississippi special election.  These people never declared they are a candidate or were asked to run and declined the request. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure. I'd be curious to see what Stealbeard thinks of your suggestion... if he has any specific ideas for the page beyond simply removing the information.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the persons involved never considered themselves candidates, they should be removed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's worth having, as it often gives some useful context in the choice of a particular nominee. Rebecca (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * I have added the points from the arbitration page to the top of this section... I give a nice 4 point summary of my position in response to Steelbeard's dispute.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with Jayvdb. If these persons had announced that they were running and then withdrew, that would be worth noting. That some pundits speculated that these persons might run is largely irrelevant, unless there happens to be some documented story about behind the scenes deal-making/arm-twisting/etc. older ≠ wiser 11:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say "they declined", did they actually actively decline - did they file some paper work to say that they decline running? John Vandenberg (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No... I just mean declined as in they didn't do it. For the 10th time... I'm open to using different terminology. Any suggestions?--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the only source is some random speculation that the persons might have been considering a candidacy, that is not worth noting, even under the heading of "declined". If there is some reliable source saying that the persons themselves were actively interested in running and then later declined to run, then perhaps it is worth mentioning. older ≠ wiser 03:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Clarion Ledger is a respected newspaper... in any event... this topic is settled.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that the newspaper writers and editors speculated about who may be running without consulting with the persons the speculation is about.  That alone is the reason it rates only a minor mention and must not be given prominance and equal footing with the actual candidates. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely. The writer(s) of a single newspaper article speculating about who might run in not noteworthy. If there were some statements from the individuals themselves, that would be a different matter. older ≠ wiser 21:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't just the clarion ledger speculating, I'mpretty sure there's a New York times and AP article out there. You seem to want to keep discussing this... here's another clarion ledger article that says "Former Gov. Ray Mabus, also a Democrat, has reportedly told several people he is not running." . Should I add Mabus back ro the "declined" category now or can we drop this?--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.. no NY TImes or AP... here's a yahoo news story  that mentions Espy, Mabus, and Mike Moore (US politician). I also disagree that multiple sources are necessary but in any event.. there you go.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's from the Congressional Quarterly whose CQ Politics web site gives national political news and commentaries. Mike Moore said no and it was pure speculation about Mike Espy and Ray Mabus.  Again, not really worthy of prominance in the article at this stage. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean Mike Moore declined? (you don't have to answer that) In any event, thank you for leaving Jayvdb's compromise suggestion on the page... I know you still do not agree with it.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: But the additional source that you give is still only some speculative punditry about who might run. It says nothing about whether the persons were seriously considering becoming candidates. older ≠ wiser 01:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I mostly agree with Steelbeard's points above (and I'm OK with how Jayvdb presented the material as background). The problem I have with adding persons based on third party speculative comments to a list of Declined candidates is that the person becomes a member of the list through no action of their own. Some talking heads speculate that so and so might run or they might be a good candidate, and if the person does absolutely nothing, then they go onto the declined list?!?! Seems that such speculative characterizations would fail WP:BLP for most cases unless directly attributed to whomever is doing the speculating. older ≠ wiser 01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The list of "declined" candidates has been condensed into one, less prominent, sentence, it's actually been like that for 3 days. The word "declined" is also not used in this sentence.--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um right. Which is why I said I'm OK with how Jayvdb presented the material as background. My comments were more in regards to the edits at the root of this dispute such as  and your statements above which use a passive definition of "declined" such that persons can be added to that list (of Declined candidates) through no action of their own simply by pundits making speculative statements about them as possible candidates. I don't think that is warranted in this or any article. older ≠ wiser 13:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  dispute resolution 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5iQHtoDdq to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000002646810
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: You are showing two pics of the Dem candidate but not one picture from the Republican victor. And you wonder about the term left-wing bias? I dont.
62.226.87.126 (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased picture choice