Talk:2014 Alaska gubernatorial election

Untitled

I can only accomplish so much from my phone, so it would be too much trouble right now to make this any easier. You may just have to do a little legwork yourself. Based upon sporadic checks of the websites of APOC and the Division of Elections, their lists of gubernatorial candidates aren't exactly in agreement with the one which has developed in this article. The sourcing here has focused nearly exclusively on news stories. Meanwhile, other candidates are out there who are actually recognized by the state as candidates, either for fundraising purposes or who have been certified for the ballot. This information will have to be included eventually, so why give the appearance that the purpose of these election articles is to parrot the press releases of the monied candidates? After all, that's what a lot of the news coverage boils down to. Since the process of being a candidate involves filing paperwork with two separate entities for two different purposes, not having that straight further clouds whether the list of candidates is just another WP invention. Yet, I see this same approach in one election article after another. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 10:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Filing to run doesn't make a candidate notable. Only candidates with coverage from a reliable news source are included. If the only source available is someone's personal website or blog saying "I'm running", they're not included. Tiller54 (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Original research

The problem isn't limited strictly to this article. It appears to be the result of a certain few editors who actively edit election articles, all the while not taking the time to figure out that certain facts related to elections in this state aren't going to be the same as in other states, which appears to be their objective.

Specifically, there is no Constitution Party primary. For that matter, there is no Democratic primary. The Alaska Division of Elections lists the political parties recognized in Alaska right here. These are the parties who will appear on the primary ballot. Any others must file a nominating petition to appear on the general election ballot; media coverage of Bill Walker's campaign indicates that about 3,000 signatures apiece are required for gubernatorial and lieutenant gubernatorial candidates. The primary election system in Alaska consists of one ballot in which Republican candidates are listed, and another ballot which lists the candidates of the other three recognized parties (the Democrats, Libertarians and the Alaskan Independence Party). It's been this way for approximately a decade.

Along similar lines, the active editors appear to be cherry-picking sources in order to only mention the Democratic and Republican parties, in spite of their being two other recognized parties in Alaska, and to only mention monied candidates, despite the existence of other candidates who have actually filed paperwork and are not strictly speculative candidates such as Ethan Berkowitz. The coverage found in these cherry-picked sources amounts to a parroting of the candidates' press releases and press conferences. Only including certain information about certain candidates backed by certain sources means that Wikipedia has become one more website where the candidates have "bought" themselves exposure.

It just so happens that right now that the only known candidates are Democratic or Republican. Based on past history, if any other candidates appear on the primary ballot, the regular editors will find a way to ignore them. Don Wright has run for governor consecutively in every election from 1974 to 2010. Common sense tells me that unless a source appears which expressly states that he's not running, that Wright can once again be considered a candidate. As he's 84 years old and has been running for office more or less constantly since the late 1960s, I would figure that it would take death or near-death to change that. We can't mention him because he's not as savvy at playing the media as the other candidates are? That's the take I've developed from seeing the evolution of the article thus far.

There are tons of other issues with this article, but I'm on my way to perform paying work right now. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not "original research" if someone gets something wrong, it's probably just a simple mistake. As for the Constitution Party on this article, the candidacy of J. R. Myers was added by the user "John R.Myers" and the only source is an email sent to a website so I will remove it. It would be odd if Mr. Meyers, the Chairman of the Party, added the information on here and didn't know that his party didn't have a primary election. I don't think it would be "original research" though. On the other hand, it IS original research to add in Don Wright as a candidate on the basis "he's always run before so he's going to run again now". We need a reliable news source saying he's running. Tiller54 (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

These concerns have been addressed and with no reply, I'm removing the tag. Tiller54 (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I replied right away, then my phone choked on it. Rather than try again, I stepped back and began to wonder aloud if driving my car into a concrete abutment at 70 miles per hour would constitute a better use of my time than continuing to indulge this silly bullshit. Furthermore, this most recent reply suggests that it's okay to be selective about whether this applies. It sure seems to apply whenever it suits the purposes of those invoking it, and only in those instances. Oh yeah, that's right, "it's only an essay and not policy" or whatever, huh?

Back to the point about original research. Pay careful notice how I bring up Don Wright only in this talk page and not in the article. Yet, I still see references in the article to a "Democratic primary". Alaska has held a true party primary only once in recent history, in 2002. Before that, the last time there was anything close to a true party primary in Alaska was in 1966 (see this document). Yet, there are a slew of Alaska election articles which continue to refer to a "Democratic primary" and a "Republican primary" when a blanket primary was actually held in that election, or (as is the case with this election) a "Democratic primary" when referring to the current scheme of the Democrats sharing the ballot with the AIP and the Libertarians, which has been in place for approximately a decade. This is still the case with next year's elections, as I don't see any "coverage from a reliable news source" which states that the legislature changed election law or granted the lieutenant governor the authority to change it through regulation, much less evidence that such occurred and went unreported by the media. Based on what you're telling me, if you find a contrary POV contained in some corporate media hack job, written by some kid fresh out of college who doesn't know shit about shit, who is only looking for some experience so they can move on to the next employer, that such would carry more weight than the actual election law? This is why places like Wikipedia Review "do such great business", as that stretches the boundaries of credibility like little else.

Addressing this:

Filing to run doesn't make a candidate notable. Only candidates with coverage from a reliable news source are included. If the only source available is someone's personal website or blog saying "I'm running", they're not included.

This reveals a slew of contradictions. The APOC website and the Division of Elections website aren't "someone's personal website or blog". Moreover, they list the candidates who have actually filed paperwork for the office. Unless I'm misreading notability guidelines, they state that something which is notable within the context of an article's subject can still be mentioned in that article. A person who has been certified for a spot on the ballot in this election by the Division of Elections is most certainly notable within the context of the subject. "Notability", as you're selectively applying it here, means spending money, or receiving press coverage not so much in response to notable happenings but to the campaign's own efforts to attract attention (e.g. press releases and/or press conferences). The lists on the aforementioned two websites don't include Ethan Berkowitz, who hasn't filed any paperwork whatsoever and whose website refers strictly to his 2010 campaign. If the Democratic central committee endorsed Byron Mallott ten months before the election, that means that Berkowitz simply isn't running, as Harry Crawford's primary challenge to Bettye Davis last year proved that the Democratic establishment takes a dim view towards members who rock the boat. That may also qualify as original research, however, as I don't expect some dumbshit cub reporter to be willing or able to arrive at that conclusion, even if anyone who is actually following this race has already figured it out. Still, in spite of all that, there is a concerted effort to include Berkowitz's name in the article based upon some (no doubt friendly) journalist's farting in the wind. Re-read the above quoted text, then understand there's a reason why I bring up comparisons to Levi Johnston and his "mayoral candidacy". All Johnston did was hire a high-powered lawyer and issue a few press releases through said lawyer. He filed the bare minimum of paperwork with APOC. That, of course, was a necessity: if he were to have made public statements to the effect that he was running for office without having filed that paperwork first, he risked being in violation of state statutes. Yet, that APOC paperwork is entirely separate from filing a declaration of candidacy with the Wasilla city clerk. The Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman ran two stories in less than a week about that very item. In the first story, Johnston offered no comment about whether he was actually going to file a declaration of candidacy prior to the deadline. In the second story, the deadline had passed and there was no word whatsoever from Johnston, either physically or verbally. Funny how this was completely ignored in favor of "sources" from such august authorities on Alaska elections as Us Weekly, Entertainment Tonight and Radar Online. Even worse, the Palinistas chose to rather disingenuously portray the difference between filing financial disclosure paperwork and filing a declaration of candidacy as being little more than a "first round" and a "second round" in the election. In other words, the same illogic based upon cherry-picking that I see here, not to mention countless other election articles. Something tells me that discussing this with WP:WPE&R is the next step, as this crap has obviously been going on for years.

I'm not quite finished. I didn't bring my roll of duct tape, so I'm under pressure to move on before my head explodes. I'll finish this when I feel like it, not according to when and how you feel or don't feel you've been satisfied, okay? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't suggest there was a deadline but it had been a fortnight since I replied to you and I had acted on the concerns that you had raised. So, I removed the tag. I don't know why you're calling this article "silly bullshit" but whatever. Anyway, yes I know there's a combined primary but I hadn't gotten round to changing it yet. I thought you said there wasn't a deadline? Seriously though, you could have just changed it yourself? Never mind, I've changed it now.

As for your final paragraph, it's mostly an angry rant that bizarrely claims Wikipedia editors include news articles because they are "friendly" with journalists. Tiller54 (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You and an IP editor from various 75.* IPs (which may be one and the same person, judging from similarities in editing activity, but that's really unimportant) are extremely active on current election articles. Both editors are aggressively refactoring the contributions of other editors (in the case of this article, including myself) to the point of resembling WP:OWN. The end result: pushing a POV that only candidates who are spending a lot of money can be mentioned, backed only by sources from corporate media outlets friendly TO THEM. I don't know where you got the idea of "friendly to you" or any other editors. If corporate media gives undue weight in its coverage, there's a specific reason: they have to be concerned with how their coverage affects their ad revenues. What you're doing is parroting that agenda on here, an expressly non-commercial, ad-free website with an entirely different philosophy regarding undue weight. All I can say is that it comes across as a deliberate disinformation psy-op. I hope you're getting a cut of the action from the political parties and candidates you're promoting; if you're doing it for free, that make you out to be a real schmuck. I grew out of doing politicians' dirty work for them for free 20+ years ago. For me to correct these issues, only for you to further aggressively refactor those contributions, that's called edit warring, which I don't have time for. For you to cherry-pick portions of my comments in your responses just like you're cherry-picking sources, I may have to decide that I don't have time for this, either. Like I said before, it will all balance out in the end. In the meantime, it still stands that the present lack of mention of various candidates who have filed for the office, combined with a concerted effort to mention non-candidates, amounts to monied candidates buying exposure on a website which supposedly is not for sale. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 10:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"pushing a POV that only candidates who are spending a lot of money can be mentioned" Where on earth did I saw that?!? Likewise, "[candidates] backed only by sources from corporate media outlets friendly TO THEM." Then why was the last declared candidate I added to an elections page a perennial candidate with no money or hope of winning the election? I did so because I follow policy: WP:V, WP:RS. As for your other accusations, "I hope you're getting a cut of the action from the political parties and candidates you're promoting... monied candidates buying exposure on a website which supposedly is not for sale", have you never heard of WP:AGF? You make the leap from me only adding information if it's properly sourced to accusing me of being paid to make edits? No, I just don't add something unless there's a reliable third-party source. The only "POV" I'm "pushing" is that we follow the policies mentioned and not violate others like WP:OR, which you initially claimed was an issue on this article and then suggested be ignored!: "Common sense tells me that unless a source appears which expressly states that he's not running, that Wright can once again be considered a candidate." Feel free to make further baseless allegations and contradict yourself. Tiller54 (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to go back to the real world for a while, so this will be short. There is a local legislator who encouraged people to visit his Wikipedia article in his constituent newsletters. Once the article evolved beyond a hagiography written by his legislative aide, he quit mentioning it. That's a microcosm of how politicians view Wikipedia. I have no reason whatsoever to play along with that. You're promoting the same "there are only a finite number of reliable sources in existence" crap that others follow to create content which anyone with enough brain cells to rub together to start a fire can drive a Mack truck through. It's not just you and this article. Just like two years ago, when certain editors used the fact that someone's mental masturbation about Joe Miller challenging Don Young was published by Roll Call. Meanwhile, anyone actually living in Alaska who follows reliable sources here rather than D.C. fanboy sources (shades of the Gravina Island Bridge fiasco, which occupied more space on here than this disucssion ever will) knew it was all bullshit. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, you're lucky that interest from the real world in contributing to Wikipedia has fallen so far, even Jimmy Wales was forced to admit it. You're promoting an approach which begs for people to create phony candidates in the hopes that a media outlet will pick up on the story. If this were 2006, it could have very well happened. Then again, if this were 2006, it wouldn't be just me pointing all of this out. Don't expect any phony candidates from me, though. Even though I haven't been politically active in over 15 years, it would still be pretty easy for someone to out me. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're here to contribute constructively, then do so. Otherwise, don't bother. No-one's interested in your ranting and bizarre conspiracy theories. Tiller54 (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again

I suppose it's easy to brush off legitimate concerns about WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL if you have all the time in the world to do so. I don't. However, this is just too glaring to let go. No naming names, but a prominent Democrat once said to me "You know, it's a shame that we really don't have any candidates and that Parnell is going to breeze to another term". That was over two years ago. This week, the lemmings who rely upon the corporate media for what to think and believe are finally catching up to that reality. So the Alaska Democratic Party central committee has abandoned the ticket that 40,000-some-odd voters selected in order for the AFL-CIO to endorse someone in this race. That much is fact. Today, the headline in the Alaska Dispatch News reads "Mallott, Walker discuss joining forces". The headline in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reads "Walker and Mallott may team up". However, I look at my watchlist and see a series of edits which portray this ticket as an absolute done deal and on the ballot, via cherry-picking some other story. Here's a pertinent quote from that story:

"But the unity ticket is still a ways from being settled. Tuesday is the deadline for changes to the Nov. 4 ballot, and there’s nothing in law that provides for succession when a candidate for lieutenant governor resigns from a ticket put on the ballot by petition.

In 2006, when then-independent Andrew Halcro lost his running mate, it took a special emergency order by Lt. Gov. Loren Leman to authorize Halcro to name a replacement. Leman’s order expired in 2007, but supporters of the Walker-Mallott ticket say they expect Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell to follow the precedent. If not, a court battle will likely follow.

(To back this up, all I could find under state law is as follows: AS 15.25.140 states "Candidates not representing a political party are nominated by petition", while AS 15.25.200 states "If a candidate nominated by petition dies or withdraws after the petition has been filed and 48 days or more before the general election, the director may not place the name of the candidate on the general election ballot".)

That story confirms what I just stated earlier: the only fact we have to go on is that the ADP central committee first anointed, then abandoned, Byron Mallott pretty much by fiat; screw what the voters think. Little wonder I see Disco Ray front and center in the photo accompanying that story, as his contempt for the primary election process has been well-stated. A large part of why the "Republican Moderate" (*cough, cough*) Party doesn't exist anymore is because no one in their right mind is going to run for office with that party label under the prevailing laws and be threatened with a lawsuit because they did not seek the party chair's permission (Metcalfe's own statement, in a 2004 panel discussion at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. No doubt he said the same to plenty of other people in other public forums.). That sort of mentality also plays a large role in explaining why the AIP doesn't have a ticket in this election, aside from the obvious non-availability of Don Wright to run yet again. Speaking of Wright, this story states: "Wright unsuccessfully ran for governor numerous times under various party affiliations. Years ago, he said he would continue to seek office until he won or died." Are you really expecting anyone to believe that either a) this was the first time that such a statement appeared in a reliable source or b) that such a statement didn't constitute a potential candidacy for this election? He died after the filing deadline, and no indication of illness or incapacity appeared in a reliable source prior to the announcement of his death. We're talking about someone who had been making headlines since the 1960s, regardless of whether Google will reveal that to you.

Anyway, back to the core issue: this page on the Division of Elections website still lists a Walker/Fleener ticket as of the time I write this, while the article currently attempts to portray a Walker/Mallott ticket as fact strictly based upon cherry-picking sources, rather than a pending merger of their respective campaigns. Which really gets down to the heart of why I've bothered with all of this: instead of a balanced, neutral and (most importantly) FACTUALLY ACCURATE article, all I've seen so far is one monstrous corporate media/pollster/political party POV fest. Never mind that I can very well just go to THEIR WEBSITES (Something logically follows that statement, but it would be too easy for people to throw up the WP:NPA flag were I to say it. For the nicey-nice version, think of Bill Engvall and "Here's Your Sign".) instead of seeing that same POV mirrored on here. But such is tantamount to gaming the system, I suppose; there's no other reasonable explanation. Of course, two can play that game. You'll have to keep throwing up that placeholder image to prop up your candidate, because you can't have any of the numerous photos I've taken of Walker and Mallott this summer. I may donate them to Ballotpedia, as they seem willing to provide balanced, neutral and factually accurate coverage. If I do such a thing, they'll be licensed in such a manner where you can't touch them. Have a nice day. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I really wasn't going to respond to this rambling nonsense, but then I reasoned that an unsuspecting reader might take you seriously and think that you've got a point.

First of all, if you think that other editors have missed something, why don't you go ahead and add it in yourself? It would have taken you half a minute to add in a sentence saying that the Walker/Mallott ticket is awaiting certification and may be challenged in the courts. But instead, you posted a page-long, rambling and conspiratorial post on here that no-one took seriously enough to respond to, or probably even read.

Secondly, you go on and on about WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL and then you come out with things like "a prominent Democrat told me", "someone once said at a University debate" and then you insist that someone who died in July and who didn't file to run, should be listed as a potential candidate based on something he said years ago. Sorry, no. You go on and on about WP:POV and insist that everyone who isn't you who edits any Alaska elections article is being paid to do so whilst completely ignoring WP:RS. If there's no source supporting something, it won't be included. It's that simple.

Thirdly, your claim that the Alaska Division of Elections page didn't list a Walker/Mallott ticket. Well, it does now. And it did a few days after you posted this nonsense. So it took a little time to be updated, does that mean that every reliable source should be ignored because you might have another tantrum? No. In fact, the Walker/Mallott ticket did end up in court. And despite your assertions that said ticket was unlikely to stand because it was based on "cherry-picking" sources and that Lt. Gov. Loren Leman might not certify the ticket, what happened? Leman certified the ticket and the court challenged was dismissed based on "three decades of precedent, including a Supreme Court ruling, attorney general opinions, similar decisions by past lieutenant governors, and numerous Legislatures."

Finally, as for your comment that "you can't have any of the numerous photos I've taken of Walker and Mallott this summer. I may donate them to Ballotpedia. If I do such a thing, they'll be licensed in such a manner where you can't touch them", just how petty are you? Not only that but you constantly violate so many of the behavioral guidelines I wouldn't even know where to begin. Tiller54 (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia should report only official results, not when the news media "calls" races. Yesterday, they called Wyoming even though only 2% of the precincts were counted. They were guessing, albeit educated guesses. Well, I can also guess. WP is not for guessing but hard facts. EatingGlassIsBad (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Tiller54 (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)