Talk:2021 Boston mayoral election

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Dana Depelteau for Boston mayor logo.png (discussion)
• Michelle Wu for Mayor logo.svg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kim-janey-headshot.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Endorsements

Hi SecretName101, we seem to have some disagreement over WP:ENDORSE so I’m pasting the text in here for discussion (bolding and links copied from the original). Two main points:

• The notability requirement: "Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements by notable people" and "Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements by notable organizations". As noted in ENDORSE, one can be notable without yet having had a page written, but the person or org still must have notability as Wikipedia defines it, WP:N, i.e. if a page were written, it would survive AfD. There are very few union locals or organization chapters that rise to the level of meriting an entry separate from the national or regional organization. Local officials of small municipalities (e.g. city councilor of Everett, population roughly 40k) also are commonly not wikinotable. In cases where you believe there is a true exception, the best way to prove it is gather sources for a stub that shows notability.

• Referencing for individual endorsements: "Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources. This means endorsements should not be sourced solely to a Tweet or Instagram post, for example”. This is unambiguous: endorsements cannot be sourced to anyone’s tweets and must be covered by independent RS.

These two points were the basis of my edits yesterday. Can you let me know where you feel I’ve misread? Thanks, Innisfree987 (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: Tweets can constitute reliable sources, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which clearly states that you can use them as a reliable source in certain instances if the tweets are "written or published by the subject of the biographical material". Thus, a tweet such as this by Mike Moran's verified Twitter account can constitute a verifiable formal endorsement, just as much as a formal press release by him would be considered a verifiable formal endorsement. And I see the question of notability as being whether the individual's is contextually notable. An United States presidential endorsement from a city's transit agency head is contextually non-notable. But a mayoral endorsement from said transit executive can be notable, particularly if covered by news media. Local politicians and local leaders can be considered notable endorsers in the context of local elections. SecretName101 (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, I have seen Wikipedia ALWAYS consider local union chapters to be notable endorsements in mayoral elections. It's bizarre that you seem to think they would not be. SecretName101 (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

SecretName101, the tweet isn’t independent coverage and in any case the policy explicitly states that social media isn’t acceptable: it’s right there in plain language. You can also go read the RfC if any doubt lingers that community consensus was to exclude social media. Additionally the policy links to Wikipedia’s notability definition, so it’s clearly not the colloquial definition: it’s whether an entry would meet the notability standard. As for union chapters again, I am following consensus the RfC established. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Poll dispute

@Stroopwafels: The question that is relevant is "If the mayoral election were held today, who would you vote for?" not "Which candidate are you leaning towards at this time?". The numbers that Emmerson is reporting as the poll results are the first question. SecretName101 (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@SecretName101: Copying edit summary: please look at the page carefully, you're wrong and I'm not misreading this – the second image specifically says "WITH UNDECIDEDS ALLOCATED", and in the full results, https://cdn.filestackcontent.com/wn58QqsS0erfqV6y0kHw, these are on lines 50-61, not 37-48. The numbers for the undecideds only & after allocating undecideds are extremely similar, so I understand the confusion here. Stroopwafels (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Stroopwafels: No, read the summary page. They report the first question as their full results. The question these polls are supposed to answer is who you WILL vote for if the election is today, not who you are leaning towards. You are wrong SecretName101 (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Stroopwafels: Now, please, immediately revert it to my previous edit. SecretName101 (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

If someone self-reported as undecided, who they then, in a follow-up question, admit they lean towards is not a relevant datapoint. The relevant datapoint is that they answered the first question as undecided SecretName101 (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Removing the undecided option skews the numbers. You can post both questions as two separate polls, if you’d really like. But I object to not reporting the first question as a poll result. SecretName101 (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

But if you use two poll questions, I recommend the “leaning” question, not “undecideds allocated” as the second poll result SecretName101 (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Added both poll questions we have been discussing SecretName101 (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Turnout

After final totals are in for preliminary, we can calculate the turnout. There are 437,647 voters in Boston. The turnout will be calculated using that number. https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/file/2021/09/2021%20-%2009-14-21%20-%20Preliminary%20Municipal%20Election%20-%20Registration%20Numbers.pdf SecretName101 (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Primary election vote count reporting delay

When the picture gets clearer of how long the delay lasts, and what it is, we should note it.

Seems eerily like the 2020 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses. Was that “Shadow” company at play here too?? (Just kidding, at least I hope) SecretName101 (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Annissa Essaibi George 2018 07.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)