Talk:2014 Texas gubernatorial election

We don't need clutter in the infobox

Parties that haven't won even 3% in over 20 years are not important in the election. Putting them in the infobox is clutter and gives readers a false idea of these parties' importance. They are in the article in the correct place.

One of the many IP's (likely all sock puppets of one person) trying to put them here requested I discuss this on the talk page. They should have started it, since they're the one trying to add a change to the article. Ratemonth (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi ratemonth are you this articles master? I hope you don't have any bias against Ann Richards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.222.209 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing against Ann Richards. Why are you trying to add her to an article she has nothing to do with? Ratemonth (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

that is your opinion she has nothing to do with it. But you didn't answer the question ... lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.222.209 (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

She won an open election 24 years ago, there's another open election now. The outcome of that election is not important to any discussion of the current election. Ratemonth (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is it important to have all the withdrawn and declined candidates on here? I feel we should remove this. Apparently it's okay for users to remove info where ever they feel necessary ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.222.209 (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Because this is an article about the entire election, not just the X vs Y general election. Tiller54 (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay I left those there, you could have at least tried to make some edits and not just revert to your last revision. idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.222.209 (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say that the Republican/Democrat duopoly extends to Wikipedia? Is this article supposed to be a source of information or just another promotional ad for the “major” parties. If we have a candidate's picture, it should appear here for the sake of completeness. Xenophore 02:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

user ratemonth cut it out

what? let you delete 11,405 characters without even offering an explanation? i have no reason to think you're anything but a vandal. Ratemonth (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

yes cut it out. is there something there you wanted to keep? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasgov14 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

you could offer a logical and coherent argument for all the changes you want. otherwise you could also "cut it out." Ratemonth (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

i could — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasgov14 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

sounds great! give it a try and i'll not revert unless it's a really silly argument. otherwise we can keep going till one of us falls asleep. Ratemonth (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a good time for this administrator to remind everybody about WP:3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the reminder. i will avoid that.Ratemonth (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Admins

I did try to notify an administrator through email when this war began. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasgov14 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that Texasgov14 is blocked for 31 hours for violating 3RR right after leaving this message. —C.Fred (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

small change

Proceeding this, I will immediately (going off of WP:BRD) rearrange the title paragraph to make more sense. And move withdrew to follow declined. Changing 15 to 20., this should reflect four full years. And removing useless citation which requires account to access. Texasgov14 (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@Tiller54: you changed to order of the text in the title paragraph why was that? Where are you getting the 15 from? And I'd like declined to be before withdrew. Texasgov14 (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The article should say who the Governor is and that he's not running for re-election before it talks about the last time the seat was open. The information is provided in the source given. Wikipedia isn't run according to what you "want". Tiller54 (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@Tiller54: thats great, first of all I dont know what your trying to say with that last statement so there. as for the issue as hand I have the following to say: the office is only open because he is not running again.Texasgov14 (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Links

>> Ted Nugent, Wendy Davis and CNN: The politics of inflammatory speech(Lihaas (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)).

Exclusionism

Why is there an insistence that we limit information choices and visibility? And before I get pegged as such, no I am no one's sock puppet. I would log in, but it's stuff like this that is why I basically stopped participating in Wikipedia for the most part. -- 96.226.106.170 (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It isn't exclusionism to exclude a candidate who has displayed marginal support. If Glass was consistently polling at least 5%, we would include her - however, her most recent poll has her at 3% and she hasn't gotten to 5% in nearly a year. Toa Nidhiki05 03:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This is probably the worst page for information. It's sad that Wikipedia is supposed to be "The Free Encyclopedia" when there are people that try to censor everything. If it's a true source of information, then all the parties candidates should be displayed. That means the Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and the Greens. Get real. The people that keep trying to make this just a R and D page are just loyal to their parties, not the free flow of information. They just like to hide behind rules that they make up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.60.252 (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

 Removed

Wikipedia is not a place to stump for your candidate. And articles are thankfully not under the exclusive purview of those closest to the topic. Infoboxes are supposed to summarize the key facts of a subject. For election infoboxes that is deemed to exclude candidates with marginal support. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

IP, I am interested in politics and read many articles. If I see a glaring issue, I correct it. Go see North Carolina's 2014 senate race infobox if you think I am suppressing libertarians. If Glass polls 5% or more again, by all means add her back. Until then she is a marginal candidate. Toa Nidhiki05 04:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Two observations about that NC senate race:

1. The most recent poll listed, from the Civitas Institute, has the Libertarian polling at 7%. Public Policy Polling's May and June polls have him at 11%; both polls are less than three months old.
2. Said Civitas Institute poll asked two questions: D or R? D, R, or L? The predicted winner changed when the Libertarian candidate was included in the question instead of a binary choice. I don't think it's synthesis to say that his inclusion on the ballot could have a clear influence on the race.

Looking at the polling numbers here, Glass has only polled at 3% recently. Yes, she polled at 5% last October, but that was before nominations were finalized. If she were to poll at 5% in a more recent poll, then I would support including her in the infobox. If she polled such that her presence on the ballot would change the predicted outcome, then I would also give some support to including her in the infobox. Until that happens, while she does warrant coverage in the body of the article, her role in the election doesn't justify presence in the infobox that gives a bird's-eye summary of the election. —C.Fred (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

C.Fred Looks like Kathie Glass is getting 6% in most recent polls, above the threshold that would allow her to be present in the infobox. I plan on re-adding her information. Joncmaxwell (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

References

"Wendy Davis was, by any measure, a massive disappointment"

By the measure that she was a pro-abortion Democrat running in Texas against the former AG, maybe she did as well as could be expected? What does a Connecticut-born writer working for a Washington DC newspaper know about Texas politics? Why does this quote take such a prominent place in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.75.17 (talk) 03:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)