Talk:2012 United States Senate election in Missouri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Akin election law violation[edit]

I've inserted a new subsection today pertaining to U.S. Congressman Akin voilating Missoui election law. He could possibly face a felony charge if the Mo. Secretry of States office wants to press the issue, which could have a huge bering on the 2012 Senate election. Thus, I felt it was relevant enough to merit placement in this Wiki. Section backed up by two reliable, neutral sources so I don't see how anyone can claim any sort of bias. Sector001 (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I still think this needs cleanup and might qualify as POV. It is extremely highly unlikely that anyone will bring any charges against him (it says so int he article you cite), and unless they do, there will be no impact on the election. I suggest the language be softened here to be more encyclopedic. (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)STLMetsFan5

Declined candidates[edit]

Wikipedian Reywas92 seems to have their heart set on removing the declined candidates from this article. Skier23, myself, and others feel they should remain. Rather than a silly edit war I'm opening this up for discussion so hopefully we can reach a consensus. What say you folks? Sector001 (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said on Sector's page, they are utterly unnecessary. If someone is not listed as running, it should be pretty damn obvious they aren't running. There is no need to point out that these non-candidates said no, just like every other person in the state, in a way. Reywas92Talk 23:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Well evidently many other Wikipedia political editors disagree with you, Reywas92. Here are a few examples created by others that do consider it noteworthy to include them: United States Senate election in Texas, 2012, United States Senate election in California, 2012, United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2012, United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2012. ALL of those list or make mention of the declining candidates. This seems to be a common format & style for all similar articles. But hey, I suppose you're the only one correct and the rest of us are wrong, huh? If this is such a pet peeve of yours I suggest you kick it upstairs to a Wikipedia Admin. or put it before the community as a whole for a vote or something. Sector001 (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
As mentioned I agree with Sector001, I don't pretend to be a wikipedia expert, I simply try to follow the set precedent which in this case is to include a declined section. Several examples of this were given above, many more can be provided if needed. Skier23 (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Precedent can be changed. Do you mind giving a reason why every person who says no or is speculated upon by by some talking-head prognosticator should be listed when they have *absolutely* nothing to do with the race except that they do not having anything to do with the race? The simple fact that other articles have it is not a reason to include it on the rest. And please don't give me your snarky "But hey, I suppose you're the only one correct and the rest of us are wrong, huh?" shit. Surely there are others who simply haven't ever weighed in. And you must know that Admins are not the the ones to go to for something like this. I have my opinion and I'm expressing it. I understand that perhaps things can change until the filing deadline, but usually it's quite clear that those who have said no - or nothing at all! - are not running. Are readers too stupid to figure out that "Hey, it says here that A, B, and C are running, I guess D decided not to" or do they need to be told that?
When you get to specific people it can become even more obvious why they should not be included. On the Texas page the souce for Nick Lampson says utterly nothing about the Senate, simply that he's running for Congress. Do you want to include every House candidate there since that's proof they aren't running for Senate? Reywas92Talk 04:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I hate to get all self-important, but didn't I hit on a nice little compromise? Seeing as nobody's reverted it, I'm going to assume so. Which begs the question, why are you still shouting at each other? – hysteria18 (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Other Candidates[edit]

I believe the requirement that other candidates poll at 5% before inclusion at the top of the article and the info-box is an unnecessary and arbitrary requirement which only serves to continue the false dichotomy narrative. Additionally, the 5% requirement is an effectively impossible threshold given the fact that most of the polls do not include third party candidates. By only highlighting the Republican and Democratic candidates, Wikipedia is unintentionally facilitating those two parties maintaining their dominance, and in fact influencing the election. Shouldn't Wikipedia be non-partisan and include all candidates?

If the community is unwilling to include all the candidates in the info-box, then at the very least could we list every candidate on the ballot in the first paragraph instead of consigning everyone but the big two to the bottom of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


The rape-pregnancy controversy section needs expanding per WP:SUMMARY Cwobeel (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Brunner bio[edit]

There was a suggestion that the Brunner article should be merged into this. I am not so sure but, in the interest of being bold, I've tested it here. My fear is that when we want to expand about Brunner's company, one that had almost half a billion in sales per year, that it will be very out of place in this article.

Let's talk about it. Auchansa (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Remove -- Not sure where exactly it belongs, but I feel Brunner's full bio def. doesn't belong in this article. We don't include full bios for the other candidates. And for that matter, Brunner isn't even a candidate now (unlesss something else strange happens with Akin) since he lost the Repub. primary. I vote remove the Brunner info ASAP. Sector001 (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I edited it down a bit. Not sure where it should go. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
It should go as a separate biography but there are several who want to merge it here and delete the biography article. Huh? Auchansa (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Brunner is either notable himself or only notable for this event. If only for this event then the repetitive material can be removed, leaving the rest. (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)=

Primary election[edit]

I don't know what's going on here. This is an article about the Senate election. Missouri held primary elections for three parties, yet some vandal named something like 'jerzeykydd' deleted all information about the Democratic primary and no one seemed to notice. I don't know if the Libertarian primary was ever included, or if it was also deleted. I added both. Perhaps there is no internet in Missouri and that's why none of the people there noticed. Still, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article documenting the campaigns and elections in their entirety. (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Good of you to notice this oversight. Given the Akin controversies, and polls that have had "other" polling at 5% or more, I would also say Dine belongs in the infobox, although we need to find a picture of him that can be licensed. With only 3 people on the ballot (not sure if write-ins are allowed), "other" would have to mean either support for Dine or an abstention from voting at all.
It might be worthwhile to also add information on the debates between the three candidates, including this one the other day. There is also another debate scheduled for October 18. Akin & McCaskill have accepted invitations to that one, but I'm not sure if Dine has. (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Dine in the infobox[edit]

I posted a few days ago in the section above on why Dine should be listed in the infobox. Seeing no objection, I've gone ahead and added him. For presidential election pages, an objective criteria for including anyone who can win based on ballot access is being used. However, I realize that since senate elections have no electoral college equivalent and are a strictly a matter of the popular vote, some cutoff has to be used to avoid there being too many candidates cluttering the top of the article. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe that cutoff is 5% in polling. This is the same as our post-election criteria, but of course that is a bit different since its based off of the actual results. So I'm not sure if the 5% polling cutoff is determined from an average of polls, or just one relatively recent poll, or what. I am inclined to support Dine's inclusion since there are only 3 candidates in this election (which is not that many, being just one more than two) regardless of polling, but given the recent numbers for Dine and/or "other" I think he's earned a spot either way. He also was invited to the most recent debate.

Assuming it is acceptable for him to be included in the infobox, we should try to find an image that we can use for him. There doesn't seem to be an article for him either- it may not be a bad idea to make one for him since he seems to be a figure (albeit a very small one) in MO, since he also ran in the last Senate election there. While I prefer "speaking" images for candidates during the period of the campaign (like this one), since we're using more formal pictures for the other two, perhaps this one or this would be better. (talk) 06:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, the threshold is 5% in opinion polls. As he's polling at 9% in a PPP poll from 2 days ago, it's perfectly acceptable for him to be included in the infobox. Whether he will actually poll 5% or higher remains to be seen... As for the image, it would have to be one that meets the Wikipedia:Image use policy Tiller54 (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that this is the second time I've had to restore Dine to the infobox, I have added a hidden note to the article to ask editors to come here to discuss their edits there. Granted, I don't know precisely how the 5% cutoff works, if it has to be met in just the latest poll, or any poll in the last month, or what, but Dine continues to hover right around that mark. A DSCC poll that will be published tomorrow (details here) has him at 8%. Even if he was just at 3% like the Rasmussen poll claims, I would still argue for his inclusion given how tight this race is expected to be. Minor party candidate or not, he is likely to be a factor. If his most recent removal is because of the Rasmussen poll, I understand, but the first removal took place before that poll was added, suggesting it's not. I understand that the infobox looks worse with a blank half-image above his name, but rather than remove his name, we ought to find a good image for him. I can't upload any because I am not a registered user. However, I have suggested some above, so perhaps the more seasoned editors around here can start with those. (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

User GageSkidmore has once again (3rd time) removed Dine without any explanation in edit summary.I've reverted it and issued a plea to GageSkidmore on his/her user talk page to discuss their reasons here in hopes of reaching some consensus or compromise rather than continue a silly edit war. Sector001 (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

How much coverage is WP:DUE the Akin "legitimate rape" comments[edit]

Best to start the conversation now; legitimate argument about the extent to which Akin's comments in an interview about "legitimate rape" and biology influenced the Senate election campaign. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 11:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)