Talk:2011 New York's 9th congressional district special election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do we need separate sections for each party line?[edit]

If the Independence, Conservative and Working Families' Party are simply endorsing one of the major party candidates, do they really need their own one line section? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bobturner.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Bobturner.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hoeppner in infobox?[edit]

Shouldnt Chris Hoeppner be in the infobox, since he's on the ballot? Not being a major party candidate should'nt mean not being in the infobox of an article as long as your on the ballot, considering there's only three candidates on the ballot in this race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.148.1 (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus I'm aware of here requires a candidate to receive 5% of the vote to be included on the infobox. So far, Hoeppner has received 278 of the nearly 64,000 votes counted, or about 4 thousandths of one percent. He's not even close to the 5% threshold. Thistheman (talk to me) 20:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's only half of the consensus, the other half is that candidates of parties with automatic ballot access should be in the infobox independent of the number of votes. But, since Hoeppner was a minor party candidate, on the ballot by petition, you're absolutely correct in saying that he should not be in the infobox. Kraxler (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robertturner.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Robertturner.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image removal[edit]

This rationale given to remove the Weprin image is not reasonable: On Wikipedia we don't remove freely licensed images of candidates because other candidates have no image. To do that would lessen the educational value of the article. It is not bias to add a Weprin image when no Turner image is available yet - the reason it's not available is that none is sufficiently licensed yet, not political motives. Besides, we know one is coming since Turner is a member of federal government now. I suggest asking people who may have an image to make it available instead of removing valuable information. Hekerui (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree. Thank you for restoring the image. Keep vigilant too : the image deletion people are reckless.--Screwball23 talk 17:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What nonsense, it just doesn't make sense to put the picture of the candidat who wasn't elected when there is no picture of the candidat who was (yet), but it's a purely aesthetical and logical issue, and none of the above, Ajnem (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please remain WP:Civil, Ajnem. Anyway, you're wrong. In an encyclopedia there should be as much info as possible, and images are part of the infobox. Any free image of any candidate who appears in the box should be added, regardless of anything else. Please do your political fighting in the appropriate place. We encyclopedians are a bit tired of it already. Kraxler (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, an appropriate photo will be taken of Turner eventually, in the form of his official Congressional photo, and when that is released, it can be freely uploaded. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop discussing a non-issue. My removing the picture was guided by purely aesthetical and logical reasons, as I have explained, it has nothing to do with politics. And yes, please remain WP:Civil. Thanks Ajnem (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up?[edit]

I just saw an edit by Ajnem labelled "clean-up" that inserted several sections. If an edit adds +1,960 letters/symbols it's not cleanup. Please don't use misleading edit summaries. Hekerui (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much of that edit was helpful. Many of the items changed in that edit seem to be better off the way they were. I might undo the whole edit. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everybody. "Clean up" was the right "label", the election is over. I cannot understand why most of what is found under "Campaign" is now repeated under "Impact" either correctly or incorrectly. It is not the first time that there are mix-ups where Jewish/Israel-issues in the 9th New York district (elections) are concerned. The problem was the same in the David Weprin-article. The number of orthodox Jews - 'orthodox' in this context means something like 'strictly religious' - in the district is grossly overstated. It is estimated at one third of the Jewish population, which comprise between about one forth and one third (depending on the sources) of the total population in the district, which means that orthodox Jews make up for about 10% of the registered voters. In addition to it, there are basically two types of orthodox Jews, those usually called "modern orthodox", and those usually called "ultra orthodox", and the two groups don't necessarily vote in the same way. E.g., one of the (modern) orthodox Jewish newspapers very strongly endorsed Weprin, even going out of its way quoting the New York Times! ([1]) The ultra orthodox, on the other hand, tend to vote en bloc, if they vote, and following their rabbis. So it is possible that they went to vote for Turner, and in great numbers, not just 20% of them, like the rest of the population, but there seems to be no data about it. No doubt, the same-sex marriage question was an issue in the race, although not officially, but sources are not sure how important it was, that is why I relegated it to the bottom in my clean-up. I don't understand why it shows up in the former erroneous form under "impact" a second time. It has, as far as I can see, no impact: same-sex marriage is law in New York and will remain so, regardless of who represents the 9th district in Washington, or do you have sources to the contrary? So I'm going to clean that up once more, and at the same time, I'm going to reclean up the rest too, by removing the repetitions, which at the same time will remove the error about Obama's stance on Israel. For those who are interested in understanding what Ed Koch's grievances in that respect are, this article should be helpful. The "impact"-section is a bit of a problem, as we don't know, or rather sources don't know, what it is/will be. Obama got the message, that's for sure, but to my knowlege he didn't do anything about it - so far. One possible impact is the one on the redistricting (two NY-districts will be eliminated, the Dems and Reps have agreed that it will be one each). Turner said in an interview, that he expects 'his' district not to be eliminated, but sources don't agree. If it is eliminated, it will be eliminated as the Republican district to be eliminated, not the Democratic, as planned, which means that a(nother) Democratic district will be eliminated etc. So, naturally there are speculations, including some about a "super Jewish district" ([2], [3]), and I'm going to add some of this. Ajnem (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ajnem, "clean up" on Wikipedia refers to grammar fixes, wording changes, reference fixing, etc., not to major deletions and additions. Your edits were constructive, but they constitute WP:SYNTH and removed a large amount of information without discussion. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue about the meaning of the word clean-up, but I did not “remove a large amount of information”. I replaced the former heading “impact” with the heading “campaign” and then added a new section “impact” after the election was over. But I did correct erroneous statements about Jewish and Israel issues, as explained above. You will therefore find under “campaign” what you think was removed. As I've said before, the election is over. I'm going to clean up once more, hopefully for the last time, Ajnem (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Results[edit]

By the way, does anybody know where to find the updated results, the article is still on only 472/512 precincts reporting? Ajnem (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The state board of elections website does not have final numbers so they must not be certified yet. Hekerui (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on New York's 9th congressional district special election, 2011. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_New_York%27s_9th_congressional_district_special_election&oldid=1212496141"