Talk:2014 United States Senate election in Louisiana

References section has error

One of the references for the article has a print and retrieve date of May 4, which is clearly wrong since Easter/April Fools' Day/Earth Day haven't even gotten here yet.

--184.6.222.14 (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Changes

Brandon McMorris lacks a reliable third party news source confirming his candidacy. Until and unless one is found that mentions his candidacy, he should not be included. Also, third parties are not included in the infobox until they're polling at 5%. Furthermore, comments like "Note that these polls were conducted using only select candidates from the Democratic Party and Republican Party. Other eligible candidates were omitted from the polling questions." are not encyclopedic. People can tell for themselves which parties are included and which aren't. Finally, the polling errors. PPP did not poll Landieu/Cassidy/Maness twice, they polled Landieu/Cassidy/Maness and Landieu/Cassidy/Guillory/Maness; and separating the polls for the jungle primary is not helpful. Thank you, Tiller54 (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Include all candidates in infobox

To select some candidates and exclude others from the prominent infobox is POV. To try to select candidates to include in the infobox based on perceived popularity or notoriety is unfair and contentious, and manifests a bias toward establishment candidates. I edited the page to include all candidates in the infobox and the edit was reverted. I will put all the candidates back in unless there is a good reason not to based on WP principles. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It's our general standard practice to only go with "serious" candidates, with that usually being defined as polling at ≥5%. None of those candidates you added to the infobox have their own Wikipedia articles, and further suggests they lack sufficient notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Notability is only required for new articles, not inclusion within an article. What WP guideline are you citing? Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It might be more neutral to not put any GOP candidate in the infobox, and instead say "pending primary," or "undetermined." Otherwise, it looks like Wikipedia has decided who will win, when in fact it's unknown at this point. FYI, Maness is polling at 8% and Hollis at 5%, according to this [1]. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hollis has withdrawn, hence his non-inclusion in the infobox. None of the other candidates have even been polled and Muboshgu is correct, we only include candidates in the infobox if they're polling at or over 5%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiller54 (talk • contribs)

I scanned through the WP guidelines and there doesn't appear to be a precedent or guideline for this case. WP:LISTN says,

"Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."

Nine names cannot be regarded as a large list so there is no reason to try to pare it down, especially in this context of an election which can be very contentious. I think the problem here is that the infobox in not formatted properly, which makes it look bulky. I'll try to work with it to see if there is a way to make it more aesthetic. Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I reformatted the infobox. The template was configured for a presidential election instead of a legislative election. I also got rid of the distracting placeholder images and removed the redlinks. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no WP guideline, but it's my understanding that it's a WP:Elections and/or WP:Politics guideline. Anyway, I wholly oppose the infobox inclusion of Wayne Ables, Raymond Brown, Thomas Clements, Brannon Lee McMorris, Vallian Senegal, and William P. Waymire Jr. To put them on equal footing of Landrieu, Cassidy, and Maness is intellectual dishonesty. Besides, LISTN has no place here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus for listing every single candidate with ballot access to the infobox, either here or in the project as a whole. Tiller54 (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Tiller, if there is no consensus, then please don't say that there is in your edit summaries. Mubo, WP:Elections has nothing to do with this, it's a guideline for administrating Wikipedia, not a content guideline, and there is no "Politics guideline". To say that you favor including or excluding a particular candidate is not a valid reason. If there is some reason other than your opinion, then please let us know, otherwise, WP precedent and established guidelines, or objective reasons derivative of those should be followed.

Also, if you look at the examples at Template:Infobox election you'll see that it should be formatted as I had it. Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, it should stay as it is until consensus changes. It is absolutely consensus not to add every Tom, Dick and Harry to the infobox, on this page and every other. The inclusion of people like this or this is silly. It violates common sense. As a compromise, I'd be okay with including nobody, since we won't know who the final two candidates are until the jungle primary. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

All the candidates are listed in the article anyway, and it's a short article, so the infobox really only serves as a visual element here, so I'm okay with removing it. There's a navbox under it that can serve as a visual element on the page. (And really, the navbox should be up near the top anyway for UI reasons.) So you can remove the infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 21:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No-one's proposing "removing the infobox", which will absolutely not happen. I don't know what you mean by "UI reasons", but the "Elections in Louisiana" template beneath it is in the appropriate place. And to correct Muboshgu, there might not be two "final candidates". If someone clears 50% of the vote in November, there won't be a runoff in December. Tiller54 (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Tiller, we just had a proposal from Mubo to "including nobody" as a compromise. I agreed. So what is your proposal to reach a consensus? How can we fix it so that it doesn't favor any particular candidate or candidates? Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The infobox as it is does not favour any particular candidates. In the latest poll of the jungle primary, Landrieu and Cassidy are in the 30s and Maness is at 10%. Clements and McMorris are at 2% and 1%, respectively, and Ables, Brown, Senegal and Waymire weren't even included in the poll. You mentioned WP:POV, which states that "significant" views are represented "fairly [and] proportionately". Thus, including candidates in the infobox who are at 1% or 2% or not even included in polling questions would violate that policy. Furthermore, WP:WEIGHT states that "avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Thus, including Clements, McMorris, Ables, Brown, Senegal and Waymire in the infobox would give them "prominence of placement" which they do not deserve. Tiller54 (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I understand your point about giving proportional weight to the various viewpoints. Widely held viewpoints should have more prominence in an article. The question here is, "What is a viewpoint?" There is no doubt that the reason that some of the lower polling candidates are so unpopular is because of their views, and those views should be given less prominence in the article. However, the list of candidates is a statement about who is running for office, not their views or popularity. If there is disagreement among sources as to who is running and who is not, and most reliable sources say that the only candidates are A, B and C, while a small minority of less reliable sources say that the candidates are A, B, and D; then due weight should be given to the majority of reliable sources. But in this case, I don't think there is any disagreement about who is running for office and the most reliable source for the list of candidates is the published list from the State of Louisiana. If there are a majority of reliable sources that say that a certain candidate is not, in fact, running for office, then they that candidate could be given less prominence in a list of candidates, otherwise, a list that says, "These are the candidates that are running for office," should list all the candidates running for the office. Other facts about the candidates, such as their viewpoints and popularity, can be given due weight within the sections of the article that present those aspects of the election. Sparkie82 (t•c) 14:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood. There is no disagreement about who's running for office. Every candidate who is on the ballot is listed in the article. What they don't all get is prominence of placement in the infobox, because they do not all have equal notability or viability and to give them such placement would violate WP:WEIGHT. Tiller54 (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:Notability is a guideline to determine whether a person should have an article about them, not a guideline for content within an article, so it does not apply here. WP:WEIGHT does not apply either because it is a guideline on how to handle different viewpoints in an article. A candidate is a person, and person is not viewpoint. In this respect, a list of persons is no different than a list of items in any other list -- if there is a reliable and verifiable source that says the item is indeed a member of the set of things described by the list, then it is listed.

In all this discussion here, and in a similar discussion at Talk:Rhode Island gubernatorial election, 2014, I have not heard a single, policy-based reason not to include all the candidates in the list-of-candidates infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said on this page, the issue is not WP:NOTABILITY but WP:WEIGHT. You are mischaracterizing WP:WEIGHT and the article as well. A list of every candidate who is currently running, was running but withdrew, and who declined to run is included in the article. What we don't do is attempt to give equal validity to all candidates running because to do so would violate WP:WEIGHT. People who not only don't have a wikipedia article on them, but don't turn up any results when you search for them, and aren't even included in opinion polls are clearly are not having the impact on the race that would justify their inclusion in the infobox. Tiller54 (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is all about viewpoints. Candidates are not viewpoints. WP:WEIGHT does not apply to what we are discussing. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Weight is about determining what information to include and to what length. As such, it most definitely applies. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Besides, candidates have viewpoints. And if the Supreme Court can rule that corporations are people, we can rule that viewpoints are candidates. Like this guy. Tiller54 (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is clear. It does not encompass facts, only views. The list of candidates on the ballot is a fact. There is no reason not to state that fact correctly. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The article includes the full list of candidates. Tiller54 (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"It does not encompass facts, only views." Howso? --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

That was wrong. What I meant to say was that WP:WEIGHT does not apply to candidates because candidates are not viewspoints. A candidate is a person, simply a noun; like a rock or a or tree. A view has to have a verb: e.g., "The tree is deciduous." or "Copper is an element." A list of the elements would include copper because there are verifiable sources that say that copper is an element. The list would also include rhenium, even though rhenium is very rare and relatively unknown (unpopular) compared to copper, and there are much fewer sources about rhenium. But there is no disagreement that rhenium is an element and should be included in the list of elements. However, a discussion about the elements, how they are used, etc., might give more weight to copper because there is more to say about it, but a list of the elements would not leave some elements off the list simply because there was less to say about them or because they are less well known. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I have been searching for previous discussions about this issue and finally found a discussion about a previous U.S. presidential race here here. Most of the various arguments made there were not very closely tied to WP policy or guidelines, however, they did determine that using an arbitrary criterion for inclusion in the list, like popularity, was inappropriate. The consensus was to include candidates who had any mathematical possibility of winning, irrespective of their popularity. Probability was not the issue, but possibility was. The only question was whether or not a candidate was on the ballot. In the case of a presidential election, it comes down to whether or not they are on the ballot in enough states so as to have a mathematical possibility of being elected. In the case of a senatorial election, a candidate would need to be on the ballot in enough counties to have a mathematical possibility to get elected. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

(There was an earlier mediation on the issue during the 2008 campaign, however it was less productive.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that discussion. Basing the inclusion criteria based upon county ballots might work when those ballots are available. Are they available? --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"On the ballot" is not a literal phrase. It doesn't mean that a name is physically printed on a paper ballot. It means that a candidate has qualified to appear on whatever device is used to present the choice of candidates to the electorate. The criterion here is: is there a mathematical possibility of being elected? If a reliable, verifiable source or sources say that someone is a candidate qualified candidate, and there is a mathematical possibility of being elected, then the candidate is listed in the infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 21:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have been more clear. Is the information easily available to us? When are they available? --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

In this specific election, the Louisiana election division declares the qualified candidates for all the counties in the state. I just checked their website and the qualified candidates are listed there. They were officially qualified by the state at the close of the qualifying period, which was Friday, August 22, 2014.

Now that this is worked out, how do we get this into a WP guideline so editors don't have to go through similar discussions over and over again at other election articles? Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It's too specific for a guideline, though the relevant wikiprojects might adopt it. Bring it up on the talk pages of all relevant wikiprojects, where it can be found easily even if nothing further comes of it. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of including it or a generalized version of it in an existing guideline, not as a guideline itself, since we could not find anything that covered this case in the exiting guidelines. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to make the actual edit to the article. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit done. Sparkie82 (t•c) 06:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there is still no consensus here to include all these trivial candidates in the infobox. Tiller54 (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Candidates in infobox, revisited

Tiller54, I reverted you edit again. We already figured this out a long time ago based on discussions involving scores of editors and existing WP policy. See here and mediation and Talk:United States Senate election in Louisiana, 2014#Include all candidates in infobox for the compromise that was worked out.

You chose to step aside from those final discussions almost two months ago and you choose to let us work it out. We did, and applied the changes. If you had something to add to the discussion you could have chimed in. Please read all of those previous discusions and if you have something new you've thought of that was missed in those discussions that might affect how the infobox is presented, please feel free to add those comments here. But don't just change things without discussion first. Sparkie82 (t•c) 01:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? First you claim that "a compromise was reached on September 26", when the only thing that happened on that day was another editor asking about county ballot release dates. Secondly, I did not "step aside two months ago", nor did User:Muboshgu or I "cho[o]se to let you work it out". This discussion didn't happen in July for goodness sake, it happened at the end of last month and then you carried on an off-topic conversation about county ballots. But, none of that changes the fact that there was no agreement and that the community consensus still exists. We both disagreed with you. You can't then suddenly declare that you're right and we somehow agreed with you, because we didn't.

Furthermore, we have actual polling data about these trivial candidates now thanks to this poll. In it, Ables and Senegal are polling at ZERO percent, Clements and Waymire are at ONE percent each and McMorris is at 3%, which is still below the 5% threshold. Until and unless any of them reaches 5%, they won't be included in the infobox. Tiller54 (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This again? There is no consensus to add every single listed candidate in the infobox. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Muboshgu, yes the compromise we reached was to only include candidates that are on the ballot, not all of the candidates. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There was no such compromise reached and to claim so is completely disingenuous. Tiller54 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tiller, The fact is that you abandoned the discussion long ago and we continued to worked on the issue; and based on WP policy and on the work done in other previous discussions mentioned above, a compromise was reached. Also, if you read those discussions completely, you know that polls have nothing to do with this and the use of polls as a criterion was rejected for multiple reasons. If you are not willing to even read the discussions, let alone participate in them, then please stop interferring with the process. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sparkie82, the fact that after people disagree with you, you carry on some irrelevant conversation about county ballot release dates does not negate those people's contributions. You cannot then go "oh they haven't replied in a while, I guess I'll declare myself right and make the changes I want anyway." Doing so ignores the consensus, not just here but across the whole community and as discussed on numerous other pages involving a larger number of contributors, and is considered disruptive editing and can lead to you being blocked. Tiller54 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent other people's comments. (see: WP:TPNO). If you don't have anything further to say about the issue itself, then the compromise stands. If you have anything NEW to add based on WP policy, your comments are welcome. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

As a token of good faith, I will unilaterally stand down on this edit war for a bit and encourage you (and others) to please discuss the issue itself. I would genuinely like to hear your comments. I understand that you thought that polls could be a criterion for inclusion in the infobox. Reading through your edit history, I see that polls are a particular interest of yours. However, in previous discussions about that, it was determined that the use of polls as a selection criterion will not work on Wikipedia for multiple reasons.

I originally wanted all of the candidates in the infobox, but that was also rejected. After examining previous discussions about the issue and discussing it here on this page, it was determined that, based on WP policy, it is best to only include candidates that are on the ballot. (See this discussion and mediation and Talk:United States Senate election in Louisiana, 2014#Include all candidates in infobox) If after reading those discussions you feel that there is something that was missed, let us know. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have misrepresented nothing. Here and here you claimed that "a compromise was reached on September 26, 2014" when the only thing that happened on that date was another editor asking when county ballots are released. Your further claims such as "We already figured this out a long time ago", "You step[ped] aside from those final discussions almost two months ago" and "you [chose] to let us work it out" are all also completely untrue. There was no consensus to add these non-notable, polling-at-0% candidates to the infobox and you cannot claim that there is just because we didn't reply any more when you carried on talking about something not related to the issue.

As for your pointing to the discussions about presidential election infoboxes, that's not relevant here because those discussions are specifically and only about presidential elections. Senate, gubernatorial and House elections are completely different kettles of fish. The effort involved in a candidate getting their name on the ballot for a Senate election is significantly less than a candidate for President getting their name on the ballot in enough states such that they could win 270 electoral votes, not to mention the obvious and inherent gulf in notability between someone like William Waymire in this election (who doesn't even have a campaign website) and Gary Johnson in the 2012 presidential election. (As an aside, your assertion that "it was determined that the use of polls as a selection criterion will not work on Wikipedia for multiple reasons" is also untrue as the mediator proposal in 2008, which was accepted, stated that "The party candidate must exceed 12% of the nationwide popular vote".) As such, through community consensus there are different requirements for inclusion in the infobox on Senate, House gubernatorial elections: that the candidate poll at at least 5%. It's that simple. As none of these minor candidates are polling anywhere close to 5%, they won't be included in the infobox until and unless they do so. Tiller54 (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that presidential elections are far different than what we have here (and probably anywhere else for that matter), so the consensus for how we treat presidential elections probably doesn't apply elsewhere. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Well Ronz, if you've changed your mind, then I guess there definitely is no consensus. The criterion that we use here for the list of candidates in the infobox or with any other election article should be consistent and it should be derivative of WP policy. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus anywhere on Wikipedia to use polls as a selection criterion for candidate lists. Tiller, as noted in the previous discussions, according to WP guidelines, notability is not a criterion for inclusion in lists (but it is a criterion for having a separate article about a subject.) Again, polls are not applicable to the issue. If there is a WP policy somewhere that says that polls should be used as a criterion for inclusion in lists like this, please let us know. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. The infobox is not a "candidate list" and never has been or will be. All candidates are listed in the article, but the infobox does not automatically include all of the candidates in any given election. As the manual of style for infoboxes clearly states, "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Thus, trivial candidates who are polling at 0% and don't even have campaign websites are clearly not going to meet any criteria for inclusion in an infobox! I've answered your other questions multiple times. Now, will you please stop making disruptive edits to this article. Thank you. Tiller54 (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The consensus was to include the candidates that are on the ballot. Now you disagree with that so there is no longer a consensus and we are discussing it. Polls are irrelevant as a selection criterion. The list of candidates is one of the "key facts" in the infobox. An incomplete list is factually incorrect. The infobox is not even close to being too long with only eight items in the list. Notability is not a criterion for inclusion in the list. Per WP:LISTN notability in not a criterion for inclusion in a list for people who are notable for a single event like an election. It says, "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" Sparkie82 (t•c) 21:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

1. That was never the consensus and 2. Infoboxes are not lists! WP:LISTN is about the notability guidelines for stand-alone list articles, which are "articles composed of one or more embedded lists", which is not what this page is! Tiller54 (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

"LV" and "RV" acronyms

I noticed the acronyms "RV" and "LV" used with polling sample sizes; but it was not until I went to the source that I learned their meanings of "registered voters" and "likely voters." This potential deficiency is not only present on this page, but on other election pages as well. Do we need to make it clearer what these acronyms mean? TSBonnie2010 (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)