Jump to content

Talk:2010 Massachusetts gubernatorial election

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

Request for Comment: Sources

[edit]

If you take a look at WP:GRAPEVINE, it indicates that unsourced information in such articles should be removed on sight. Right now none of the Republicans have a relevant source. Mitt Romney has a source that says he may run for office, but says nothing about him running for Governor in 2010, so I don't know if we can keep him. Any thoughts? - Rockyobody (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE THIS ARTICLE - its UNENCYCLOPEDIC because it's NEWS!

[edit]

Yeah, like I said. This is a rapidly changing NEWS STORY. It's not an encyclopedia-like article because, well because it's NEWS!. Please get control over yourselves people!

108.7.7.163 (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Stein (Green-Rainbow)

[edit]

I will be the first to want to have her up there as a major candidate, but can we be sure she is? Only Suffolk has been polling her and only at 8%. I would wait for two polls to show her above 5 or 10% before putting her up on the side.--Metallurgist (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • She IS included in this article which makes no distinction between "major" and "non-major" candidates. Is there a problem with the current layout?—Markles 12:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • She has been involved in multiple debates, including a debate on disability issues at the Perkins school, and the forthcoming "Gubernatorial Forum on Energy and the Environment" in Boston. Her campaign is actively collecting signatures to be on the ballot. Her campaign manager has recently appeared on the Callie Crossley show on WBUR. There have been several articles on Boston.com and several other newspapers (the Boston Herlald, the Waltham Daily Tribune, the Lowell Sun) about her candidacy. Her Facebook page has over 2,000 fans. Clearly others take her as a serious candidate, what's the problem? —Thingscouldbebetter 29:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna be bold and pull her from the infobox. She polled above 5% once (five months ago), isn't being polled consistently, and the media covers this as a three candidate race. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I was bold in reverting your edits. Jill Stein has been in the debates and been covered by a great deal of local media sources.--TM 17:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with keeping her in. This is an article about the history of this election. She's on the ballot as a part of history, so let her stay in the infobox. She'll certainly lose this election, but so will everyone but the winners. —Markles 18:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I had no intention of removing her from the article, as she's a party nominee, but I've seen some of these infoboxes get cluttered with way too many candidates. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu, I hate infoboxes, because they oversimplify and clutter. But alas, that train's left the station and I'm never going to win that argument now. So I've gotta agree with the standards that apply.—Markles 22:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2x2 layout in the Infobox

[edit]

The layout for the box is very confusing. glancing at it, it appears the independent party people are the running mates. It looks like the bottom 2 pics are of Tim Murray and Richard R. Tisei. something needs to be done to seperate them more..maybe put the running mate under nominee.. then party? -Tracer9999 (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would only be possible by changing the template itself, rather than just its application in this article. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Loscocco as Cahill's Lt. Gov

[edit]
  • I put Paul Loscocco Back in the Infobox as Cahill's Lt Gov. That is because despite 'dropping out' and 'endorsing' Baker- He will appear on the November Ballot as Cahill's Lt Gov. So it seems proper to leave him in the infobox as such, with the Ref notation there for explanation of the 'drop out' 24.147.97.180 (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)SirWence[reply]

Include all candidates in the Infobox?

[edit]

I thought this had been settled, but there has arisen new disagreement. The question is: Should Jill Stein, or for that matter Tim Cahill, be included in the Infobox? I say they should both be included because they were nominated and on the ballot.—Markles 19:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with Cahill, as he pulled more votes than the margin between Patrick and Baker, but Stein was a non-factor. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support including Stein and Cahill for similar reasons as Markles. The infobox should display the most important information (the ballot-listed and active campaign candidates) quickly, not just in the results at the bottom.--TM 19:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose adding the Rainbow-Green nominee; we have this nice little consensus that states you must reach 5% of the vote to be added to the template. Under this, the Democrat, Republican, and Independent qualify, but the RG nominee does no even come close. Toa Nidhiki05 20:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is this consensus of which you write?—Markles
:Toa and Jerzeykydd have gone to great lengths to establish a false "consensus" on various election articles. When users challenge them on it, they point to the discussions where they pushed through their ideas, but never to the multiple articles where they failed. Until some type true consensus is established, we are working on an election-by-election article basis.--TM 20:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This might not be a good forum for accusations, even if true. (Maybe WP:DRR would be better.) Let's let them speak for themselves here.—Markles 20:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I struck through my comment.--TM 21:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Namiba: As per what you say, on an election-by-election basis, Jill Stein fails to be major in any way, shape, or form; 1% of the vote does not influence the election at all.
Regarding your absurd opinion that any ballot-qualified candidate should be added to the infobox, did you know there are seven ballot-qualified parties in California, not even counting numerous independent/write-in candidates? Imagine the nightmare that the template would look like, with various obscure candidates that received 1% of the vote or less? The 5% rule, which is consensus that was determined during the 2008 election, provides that a candidate must reach 5% of the vote in just a single, pre-election poll to be added to the infobox. Post-election, all candidates receiving 5% of the vote or more are added (as well as other candidates in close elections that may have only gotten 2-4% but drew away enough votes from one candidate to swing the election, example United States Senate election in Illinois, 2010). It is fairly lax, and allows for candidates that actually played a significant role in the election to be added.
Regarding your opinions on me, if you look at my edits, you realize I have been proactive and helpful in adding third-party candidates that met said criteria, and have been unbiased by party in doing so. For example, I added Socialist Party of America candidate Eugene V. Debs to the United States presidential election, 1912, who received 6% of the vote; I also added Constitution Party candidate Scott Bradley to the United States Senate election in Utah, 2010 article (in fact, I tried to add Ken Block to the Rhode Island gubernatorial election, 2010 article, but could not because the Moderate Party lacks a code there, and I am no coding genius. Any help adding them would be much obliged). My most heated argument, the United States Senate election in South Carolina, 2010 article, was only because Clements had never polled anything. When he polled over 5%, I did not object to adding him, and I helped improve the page after that.
With my little spiel over, my point here is this; the 5% rule is not overbearing, it is helpful, and it does make sense. It is flexible, and allows most major candidates addition, while leaving off obscure minor ones that played no major role in the election whatsoever. Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Toa, but I don't find your argument convincing. There was no discussion at a broad-based project to determine this issue. A consensus at some other article does not influence me here. I don't know what 2008 election you mean, because this article succeeds that last Mass. Governor's race, which was in 2006. This is the first time you've edited this article, and and you will notice that editors of this article have reached a conensus that we should include Stein. Perhaps in another race with eight balloted candidates who were more on the fringe, we would have reached a different consensus. But I am not convinced. —Markles 22:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Markles, but I don't find your arguments convincing. You have failed to name a single reason other than the ballot access argument (which is like arguing every Survivor contestant that makes it past the merge is notable). Has she gained notable endorsements (Newspaper, magazine, politician, etc.)? Did she draw a significant number of votes away from another candidate? No. She is every bit an unimportant, minor candidate, and her vote total proves that, even in liberal Massachusetts. And to your point, I was talking about the 2008 elections; national and statewide. Jerseykidd can attest to that, and I know another user that can as well.
Also, to your ridiculous claim of consensus; there is none. I am going to start an RfC or ask for mediation within the next day. Toa Nidhiki05 00:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I don't know Survivor. If you look at this talk page, you'll see the consensus that we developed on this page for this article. I'm glad you achieved consensus in other articles, because that helps Wikipedia with its goal of avoiding original research. You might, in the future, consider avoiding demeaning language (e.g., "your ridiculous claim") on Wikipedia, because it's unlikely to get people to agree with you. Perhaps you'll have greater success in the RFC.—Markles 01:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am rather pro leaving Jill Stein in the info box , there was no problem with it before , I see no problem with it now. I Do see a problem however with removing her from the box with no visible consensus on much of anything, aside from the fact that we disagree. 24.147.97.180 (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)SirWencey[reply]
  • Stein was not a major candidate at all. She had no impact on the election whatsoever. Cahill was clearly a major candidate in this race, not just because he reached over 5%, but because he was included in every debate and every pre-election poll.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another attempt is being made here to establish some type of uniform guideline for infobox inclusion. I suggest you comment on the ongoing discussion and lets see if we can come to a sensible conclusion. One thing which does not apply in this case but which I think is a solid idea is to automatically include all candidates who fell within the vote differential between the top two vote receivers.--TM 14:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stein was in fact involved in all major debates. 24.147.97.180 (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)SirWence[reply]
And clearly the residents of Massachusetts viewed her as a fringe or minor candidate, as she got very few votes. She was not notable at all; also, to those of you claiming consensus based on the earlier debate, circumstances change. Stein was polling around 4-5% in some polls, so adding her was justified. Post-election, however, she got next to no votes, eliminating the previous argument for addition. Once again, ballot access does not make you major; support and polling does, and Jill Stein had next to none of the latter. Toa Nidhiki05 16:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't a "major" candidate have a running mate? Cahill did not. Shouldn't a "major" candidate have a party? Cahill did not. Let us remember that we are deiscussing inclusion in an Infobox, which is a sneak peak for the casual reader to know who the candidates were. This is not an opportunity for Wikipedia to start taking sides on the importance or unimportance of a candidate. Consensus in one election does not automatically convey conensus elsewhere. This issue has been discussed here already and there was a consensus to include Stein in the Infobox. After the election, one editor then started assailing others for being "cute" for having denied a consensus elsewhere to which we had not been privy. We've done what Wikipedia rightly requires, we developed a consensus. It took time and it worked. In this case, furthermore, there is no harm adding a fourth person to a 2-by-2 grid-style infobox. What is wrong with keeping Stein in this Infobox?—Markles 16:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely with Markles in his above statement 24.147.97.180 (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)SirWence[reply]
@Markles -Cahill won a respectable 8% of the vote; his running mate withdrew before the election, but still appeared on the ballot, to my knowledge. Also, Cahill drew votes from both parties; as Patrick's margin of victory was only 6%, it is feasible the result would have been much closer if Cahill never ran. Taking off marginal, minor candidates is not 'taking sides'; it is practical, given the limitations of infoboxes. Also, you acquired consensus before the election; the circumstances are much different afterwards. To your last point, we can switch it to a 3x1 grid, like we use in almost every other election, such as Utah's, Florida's, Georgia's, etc.
@IP - Seeing as you agree with everything Markles says, and the whole of your edits involve this one subject, I would not be the least bit surprised if you are an IP sock. Toa Nidhiki05 20:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@New Comer to this page Toa, I have been here editing off and on and watching for a fair bit of time, I just happen to agree with Markles and disagree with you, heck I dont even know who you are. I simply didnt create a new account because my old one was lost. Now I have SirWence10 (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)SirWence[reply]

RfC - Jill Stein

[edit]

I'm holding an RfC to determine whether to include Green-Rainbow candidate Jill Stein on the infobox. I personally oppose, seeing as she failed to make any impact on the election whatsoever. Toa Nidhiki05 21:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • RfC comment. I have no previous history of editing this page. I would support including her in the box. There is a separate question of whether her BLP would satisfy notability, but that is not what we are discussing here. Whether someone "failed to make any impact on the election whatsoever" is a matter of editor opinion. She did get votes in the election that is the subject of the page. One could argue (incorrectly) that only Deval Patrick had an impact, because he was re-elected. There is already another third party candidate (Cahill) who had relatively few votes. There is really no objective, encyclopedic reason to omit Stein. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that a lot of the oppose comments are based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT more than on policy or guidelines. A suggestion: editors may want to look at secondary source coverage of the candidates, and assess the extent to which coverage included all four candidates, including Stein, versus including Patrick, Baker, and Cahill, but not Stein. The extent to which sources treated it as a three-candidate versus a four-candidate election, whichever way that points, could be a useful measure. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose keeping her in the infobox. The infobox isn't supposed to house every candidate that makes the ballot. That isn't feasible for elections with many candidates. It's supposed to be a summary of the election by providing the top candidates and their vote totals. Stein wasn't a factor in this race. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose keeping her in the infobox. The 5% rule applied to all the election articles before 2010 when Namiba decided to challenge it. The reason why the rule is in place is summarize the article with the major candidates. The minor candidates are still in the article, just not the infobox. In the senate election in Louisiana, there were over 12 candidates (the infobox can only hold up to 6 candidates). Not to mention, most of those people had less than 1% of the final vote. In the 2008 presidential election, not only were McCain and Obama the only candidates above 5%, but they were also the only candidates who obtained at least 1% of the vote nationwide. Often, pollsters and debates don't include these minor candidates that have virtually no chance of winning the election. Cahill had significant media coverage, had political experience, and was in almost every single poll conducted. Not to mention, he consistently polled over 5%. Stein doesn't even come close.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion. As noted by Tryptofish, there is no encyclopedic method of removing ballot-listed candidates from an election. The "5% rule" of which Jerzeykydd refers to is a mythical one; a consensus formed in discussions on the talk pages of several articles, but not one formed at RfC or in any other widescale manner. Whether she had "virtually no chance of winning the election" or not, Stein and all other ballot-listed candidates are part of the story of the election (which we are trying to convey here) and need to be included in the most visible summary of the election, which is the infobox.--TM 00:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, she really wasn't part of the story of the election. I don't adhere to a strict 5% rule, but I look for relevance. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she had a significant amount of relevance. See this from NECN, this op-ed published by the Boston Globe during the campaign, this from the Berkshire Eagle, this profile from the South Coast Today, this Boston Herald article criticizing her fashion sense and the multiple debates which invited her.--TM 00:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support keeping her. Stein was part of debates, she raised over $60,000, she and her party has fielded candidates in previous elections, and she once polled (by a non-partisan firm) as high as 8%. Had there been dozens of candidates with minuscule support, then there would be a greater case for jettisoning her, but there is no reason to apply a universal fear of slippery-slope infoboxery. Most importantly, however, Stein's final vote tally is not dispositive to this question because a Wikipedia article is not just about results, it's a historical article discussing the history of the campaign and election from start to finish. She played a noticeable role in the story of the campaign. News organizations frequently included her in their discussions. Finally, there had already been a consensus developed before the election to keep her in this infobox, and there's nothing new about the results to change that consensus.—Markles 00:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Wikipedia article is not just about results, it's a historical article discussing the history of the campaign and election from start to finish." Ok Markles, but how about in Louisiana where there were over 12 candidates in the election? Namiba is wrong in that we can't look at it election by election because then we would have edit wars and intense discussions in every single election article. We need a standard precedent. The 5% rule prevents people like Bob Barr, Vinny Browne, and Jill Stein from being in the infobox when they had barely 1% of the vote, and sometimes not even 1%.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Support keeping her in the info box. She was in all major debates , which they themselves had requirements. Raised her own funding Polled at and above 5%, there was already a previous consensus to include her in the infobox. I do not see how the election results void that. Also this is not Louisiana, nor are we here to debate nor discuss it. Simply the matter of Jill Stein in the 2010 Massachusetts gub. Election--SirWence10 (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose keeping her in the infobox. She garnered such a tiny percentage of the vote that she was inconsequential to the final result. We don't list all the write in candidates and the tiny amounts they got and to include her is just unnecessary. we have to have a reasonable limit to which she can actually be construed as having an impact in the election and 32,000 votes out of 2.3 million just aint it. -Tracer9999 (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Markles has the right idea. We shouldn't interpret results based on arbitrary thresholds like "5%". We don't judge websites by how many hits they get, or books by how many copies they sell. Even if Cahill only wound up with 4%, he'd still be in the infobox because of how important he was to the narrative of the race. The question is whether Stein was considered a significant candidate by secondary sources. Yes, other elections have had dozens of candidates, but you didn't see a pattern of significant coverage for all of them, just a few. So let's focus on this election. Some sources treated this as a three-candidate race, but others treated it as a four-candidate race. There wasn't an overwhelming consensus either way, and it's impossible to find every source and tally them up and see which interpretation "wins". So, in my mind, as long as a significant number of sources treated her as a notable candidate, it's worth including her. —Designate (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose She is a minor candidate who had no impact on the election and just clutters the page. I love third parties and voted for one 4 days ago. But she has no place in that box when she had no impact on the election. What is with the sudden burst of having no-name candidates in infoboxes?--Metallurgist (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I forgot to mention this important policy in my earlier argument:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.

And before you say this does not apply here...

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints—also to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material, as well. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Clearly, this states we should give minority views (or, in this case, candidates) coverage in proportion to their prominence. This means that Jill Stein is not on the same level as the other candidates, proven by both popular support (ie. minority viewpoint). Toa Nidhiki05 00:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But surely putting Charlie Baker in the infobox is giving him equal prominence as Deval Patrick, when Patrick, as the winner, is deserving of more attention? In election infoboxes I don't think it's possible to "treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 01:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. The point is we must be objective in putting people in the infobox. The 5% rule is objective, but saying a candidate is major because of newspaper endorsements or participating in debates is not objective. Stein is not on the same level as the other candidates, who were clearly significant candidates in the election. Stein was not. If she was, she would have performed better on election day.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't attempting to grasp the essence of the whole argument, nor was I taking a side. I was merely pointing out what I see as a flaw in Toa Nodhiki05's argument. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 02:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read this again, Hysteria18:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.

Obviously, the rule states fringe minority views should not be covered as much as more prominent ones; I don't know how much more 'fringe' you can get than 1%. Toa Nidhiki05 17:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion seems to have winded down, and I feel a consensus for not including Stein has been reached:
  • Myself, Jerseykidd, Muboshgu, Tracer9999, and Metallurgist have argued that Stein is not qualified for addition, including lack of support (amounting to her being a fringe candidate), lack of impact on the election, and unnecessary cluttering of the page. They have also noted out that she does appear on the article aside from the template. Also, more importantly, the issue of possible NPOV and WP:DUE violations by her addition have been raised.
  • Typofish, TM, Markles, and Designate (discluding SirWence, who appears to be either a single-purpose account or sock), have argued her inclusion in debates and mentions in news articles amount to major status, despite a lack of popular support. Issues raised about WP:NPOV and DUE violations have gone unresponded, except for a comment from an uninvolved outsider, Hysteria18.

I feel a consensus of exclusion from template has been reached. I'm not going to close without consensus, however. Toa Nidhiki05 02:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to let an outside editor, preferably an admin, close the discussion. It is very inappropriate for a contributing user to do so.--TM 02:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen, particularly on the Talk:Libertarianism page, it seems like common practice. Toa Nidhiki05 02:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUE applies to viewpoints, not candidates. The viewpoint represented by the infobox isn't "who should be governor", it's "who was in the race". According to some reliable sources, it was essentially a two-candidate race. According to others, it was a three-candidate race. According to others, it was a four-candidate race. Was "four candidate-race" a minority viewpoint? —Designate (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have not reached a new consensus. The old consensus, in which Toa Nidhiki05 did not participate, was to keep all four. This is a good RFC, but alas it hasn't developed a new consensus. —Markles 03:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Designate- Obviously, you didn't bother to read it, so I'll bold the important parts for you:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints—also to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material, as well. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

@Markles - Then we need to give this more time; at the very least, there is no consensus here. Toa Nidhiki05 21:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She had no effect on the election and thus deserves no mention in the infobox. Look at every previous election and you wont see these 1% candidates. In NJ governor 09, Ken Kaplan and Gary Steele were not listed in the infobox. They had no effect on the election (Other than perhaps siphoning a few confused votes from Daggett). Similarly here, the margin is +6. Jill Stein had NO effect on the election. She belongs in the article in the minor candidates and results sections, but has no place crowding the infobox. --Metallurgist (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

[edit]

After hearing the arguments, I think it's time for a straw poll. Do you support or oppose keeping Stein in infobox? Please, no extra comments, simply say one or the other.

I am glad you can read my mind. I hope you can now too.--TM 16:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the straw poll has not been responded to in over a week, I'm going to say the results are 5 oppose addition, 1 support, and two oppose polling in general. Since discussion seems to have ceased, I am going to remove Stein from the infobox, unless new consensus can be developed. Toa Nidhiki05 22:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that incase you all are unaware, there is a discussion on wether Jill stein is notable enough and should be removed or kept in wikipedia. Wether you are for or against please add your opinion to the articles for deletion page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jill_Stein -Tracer9999 (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Massachusetts_gubernatorial_election&oldid=1196569963"